Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:14, 28 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

User:Sadi Carnot

Sub page at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF -

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".

Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.

This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Busytails, you provided a link to the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Furry Wikipedians. In it User:After Midnight says "Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated." However, you have stated that they said "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." and "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". Could you please provide links to where After Midnight said that he would ignore them? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bushytails was offering his own paraphrasing of what After Midnight was saying rather than providing direct quotes. However, that has been the effect - the consensus of the people who actually showed up at this particular UCfD was dismissed, due to prior deletions of different user categories. I was honestly surprised when I saw that closure, because it didn't seem to make sense. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How can what After Midnight said be turned into "ignore"? His statement is quite clear and in no way dismisses the other arguments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was only one argument to delete (and a weak one based entirely on the nominator's personal opinion), the only way the decision could have been "delete" is if the five keep arguments, summed together, were given less weight than a single weak delete argument. I believe this would fit the defintion of "ignore". Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

jc37, since when did being tidy become a reason to delete things that have shown themselves to be useful? Try to understand: You have deleted a whole lot of categories that nobody really cared about. This has been generally regarded as a good thing. You are now getting more people saying "keep" rather than "delete". This is the point at which to stop, and say "Mission accomplished", rather than start deleting things people have actually been using to build user communities on Misplaced Pages. The creation of a general rule for user identification categories to override such discussions is not required, nor desirable. These decisions should be made by individual consensus in UCfD, just like articles.

If you want a guide for nominations, consider "categories covering a topic smaller or larger than that which could reasonably be covered by a single WikiProject." This would exclude both the "silly small" categories such as "Wikipedians who are fans of Ozy and Millie" or "Wikipedians who like Amnesiac" (but not "Furry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are fans of Radiohead") as well as the silly large ones, like "Wikipedians who read books" or "Wikipedians who like food". Basically, if you can't ever imagine having an "Infobox X", it's probably too small, and if that infobox would be a whole page by itself, it's possibly too big. In between that, it's the right size to start gathering a community of editors. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer to this "cause" of "IWANTIT" is to remind you all that the place to contest the closure of User:After Midnight was DRV. And DRV endorsed the closure. That pretty much puts a terminus on all your arguements about him. (And personally, I think you owe him an apology.)

But, to continue this "crusade" is risking becoming disruptive.

If you consider a "crusade" for getting admins to follow consensus, it might make a bit more sense to you. I believe "crusading" for proper admin actions to be far more useful than, say, crusading to break up all informal collaborative groups on wikipedia. (please note again that you were the _only_ person to provide an argument on the ucfd as to why they should be deleted... "IDONTWANTIT"?) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: If you want to start a discussion about the relevance of idetification categories in general, please feel free to start a talk page discussion somewhere. The Village Pump is an excellent place, for example. - jc37 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. At Misplaced Pages talk:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by interest, well before the category in question was deleted. It was not significantly replied to, even though I pointed people to it in the discussion about LGBT Wikipedians. If I have to take it to the pump, I'll take it there. But I think you should ask yourself the same question about disruptive crusades. Nobody asked you to go around nominating these user categories for deletion. You thought it was a good idea, and you did it. And that's how wikis work, so I have no problem with that. But it's come to the point where what you are nominating them, and people are coming up and saying "hey, we were using that" - and actually telling you how, and have others come in without being asked and agree with that - and they're being deleted anyway. That's not good, not when there's no compelling reason for deletion but a sense of tidyness. GreenReaper 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is starting to border on being disruptive - DRV is the place to contest the closure of an XfD, and when DRV does not get you the result you want, that does not mean the appropriate "next step" is to seek out yet another forum of complaint in hopes of getting the result one wants. There is no process of endless appeals here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I discussed the DRV above - other than After Midnight's vote for proper colsure, there weren't any good arguments for why it should have been delete - the other "endorse" votes were all about content, and didn't mention the process of closure. Since the point of DRV is to discuss the process of the deletion, not to re-argue for/against the content, DRV failed at its purpose, so, as I was advised, I picked a better forum where the actual process of the deletion may be discussed. Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, before I answer your questions here, could you please answer these for me? After I deleted the category, and my bot removed it from your user page, you made this edit with an edit summary of "go fuck yourselves. you know who you are. people who do nothing buy try to destroy wikipedia do not deserve the right to live." In the edit, you state "This user only has a userbox because certain fuckwits decided that categories, even for the purpose of helping to find users for collaboration, should be replaced by userboxes. If you see one of these fuckwits, please shoot them for the benefit of the encyclopedia, as they seem to go out of their way to try to destroy it, and ridding the planet of ilk like them can only help our goal of encyclopedia creation.". I would like to know, am I one of the fuckwits that you would wish for someone to please kill? And whether this refers to me or not, why should you be allowed to continue to edit on this site, where death threats are not permitted? --After Midnight 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you claim that an admin directed you to bring this discussion here, can you please link to this recommendation, since I see nothing in your edit history regarding any such conversation. Also, did this admin not also mention to you that "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)."? --After Midnight 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I re-worded that a bit less harshly, deciding threats might not be the best way to get the point across that certain users do not benefit the environment they're in, and thus shouldn't be in it. It doesn't change my opinion, however, that admins who ignore consensus are a major problem for wikipedia, and should be dealt with appropriately, as should users taking other actions that damage the ability to create an encyclopedia or the community that creates it. Don't forget we're here to create an encyclopedia, after all. Doing things that hurt the encyclopedia is contrary to creating an encyclopedia, and users doing such actions should not be here. (A single rogue admin action is _far_ more damaging than random vandalism, something that routinely results in long-term removal from the site.) And as I was advised on IRC, there will be no link (and, no, I was not advised of that. I also figured that as an active admin, you'd notice soon enough! :) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you were less harsh because "threats might not be the best way to get the point across"? I would have hoped that you withdrew the threat because it was immoral, illegal and uncivil, but it appears you withdrew it only because you were getting reverted on your edit or because you think it didn't help your argument. Either way, your credibility here is shot and at this time, you don't deserve further discussion from me. --After Midnight 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try responding to arguments people have made. Attacking me won't change the issue. Bushytails 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try to apologize for suggesting that someone should kill me. --After Midnight 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the strength of the statement made, but not for the message I was trying to convey. That I would do shortly after I see an apology (and not to me personally; I'm just one user of many) from the various users involved for their efforts to damage our great encyclopedia and the community that creates it... However, as I said before, this is the place for a debate, not for attacks. If you don't plan on responding to the actual arguments, one must assume you don't have a case. Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I missed that. Is a permaban the correct response for a death threat? --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While village pump may be a better location to discuss the usefulness of user categories in general, this isn't about user categories; it's about admins ignoring apparant consensus when making closing decisions. Hardly appropriate for village pump... Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase : apparent consensus. Consensus is not vote counting and it is not uncommon to see cases closed where the consensus reached was not even a majority opinion. It is not only a right but a duty of administrators to interpret a debate based on the strengths of the arguments therein, not just the numbers. In any case, After Midnight is an administrator because at one point the community deemed him fluent enough in policy to decide these matters and trustworthy enough to close such discussions. That you do not agree with his closure is painfully evident, and thus the problem was brought up at DRV. The discussion at DRV reinforced the fact that his interpretation of the debate was correct. You still disagree. Tough. That an admin "ignored" your chosen interpretation of "consensus" is not a reason to file a greivance on AN/I. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the DRV didn't reinforce the fact at all - the _only_ person to say process was followed properly was After Midnight himself! Perhaps you should actually check the DRV is question? Contrary to what DRV is for, all the other endorse comments were about the content of the item, not the process that was followed. Multiple undelete comments saying process was not followed, however. Hence why it's here, where a proper discussion on the process of closing might be possible.

"Not a majority opinion" would be an understatement, and "strength of arguments" does not include "assigning zero strength to arguments I disagree with". All of the keep votes had relatively strong arguments, while the single delete vote had a relatively weak argument, so any application of unbiased strength-based weighting would still have ended in keep. Again, did you actually read it? Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the DRV in question, which is why I am here at all. I did read the UCFD. The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD and endorsed the result. Endlessly railing on against the administrator who closed the argument and making thinly veiled accusations of impropriety is not going to help your cause any. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read it again; "The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD" - actually, at least three people _did_ find something improper with the UCFD. Other than After Midnight's own response, _no one_ said anything positive about the process by which consensus was determined. The only endorse votes were "I don't like it"s about user categories, and made no comment on the closing process at all. Since some of the users pasted the same comment in every drv, I suspect most didn't even read the ucfd. Bushytails 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Look - sometimes you just lose an argument. You didn't like the deletion of the category and you did the proper thing in bringing it up on DRV. When you don't like the outcome of a DRV, however, it's not proper to come running to AN/I to try and get your way. In any case it should be clear that this filing is not going to result in a reversal of that decision, nor is it going to result in any actions against the admin. It should be pretty evident by this juncture that what you are doing here is chasing windmills; but if that is what makes you happy, be my guest. I don't want to go blue in the face, however, so I'm going to move on. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to elaborate in the core Misplaced Pages principles, "Consensus means that community input is solicited, then the admin does what he wants"? Seriously, having a call for discussion where half a dozen people look at whether a category is needed or not only to be ignored wastes more time than thirty vandalism edits. If the admin did no wrong then the DRV process is defective. 70.15.116.59 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it’s already been said, but another deletion discussion closer is being reviewed bellow for similar reasons. It defiantly is not an isolated incident. --S.dedalus 05:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Please take a look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Editor Eleemosynary continues to remove information just because he disagrees with it. There are cited United States Army memos, in PDF format, being cited. These are RS and perfectly valid. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issue. Please discuss on the talk page or pursue a content RFC or third opinion. (However, one might wish to take a lesson from the Killian documents fiasco and wait to see if these pdf's from the drudge report ever get authenticated. ) Thatcher131 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than a content issue. Eleemosynary has continued to lob personal attacks at User:Bluemarine (a.k.a. Matt Sanchez) long after that user stopped contributing to the article. These are homophobic attacks designed at discrediting the Bluemarine through Bluemarine's past experience in the gay porn industry. Eleemosynary has engaged in these personal attacks in edit summaries . I gave a polite warning to Eleemosynary regarding the homophobic violations of WP:NPA, but Eleemosynary called this "nonsense" and "trolling," and instead decided to use even harsher and more homophobic language. (A prior warning was given in the context of a debate, and this not as polite: .)

In the past few hours, Eleemosynary has twice called Sanchez "Dirty Sanchez," a homophobic slur, one made to associate Mr. Sanchez with homosexuality and certain sexual acts that some people find rather disgusting and/or laughable. Contrary to Eleemosynary's claims, it is not a nickname given to Sanchez in the porn industry, where he did not use his own name, according to the article at Matt Sanchez. It was instead given to him by those who wished to defame him. Eleemosynary feigns ignorance of what "Dirty Sanchez" means, but one look at his history reveals his true nature. I have been very patient with his homophobia, but how many times must he be warned and his attacks tolerated before action is taken? Calbaer 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify my final comment, no one's "taken action" in the past on this because it hasn't been reported, not because it's been reported and ignored. Actions have been taken against the user for other things, but not for this. Calbaer 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's more than a content dispute, it was brought up as a content dispute. Throwing the book at Eleem for the current personal attacks is perfectly fine by me, but it's a separate issue to the content dispute. Chris Cunningham 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He says he'll stop, so I guess I'll give him a sixth chance, but, if there are any more homophobic slurs in the future, I'll bring them up here myself. Calbaer 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. At no point did I use any "homophobic slur" to refer to anyone. The nickname referenced was one Sanchez used during his adult film days. Google the relevant terms for the history, if you wish. Calbaer and Steven Andrew Miller are extending a revert war on the Beauchamp page to this one. If it continues, we made need an RFC. --Eleemosynary 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious irregularities in the closer of deletion discussion

The issue I am herby requesting a review of was a proposed deletion of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and nearly all child categories contained in that parent category. The discussion can be found here. Several dozen user categories were nominated for deletion or rename (as subsections of the main deletion) by User: jc37 (an administrator).

A clear KEEP consensus was established on all categories, with the possible exceptions of Category:Realist Wikipedians, Category:Mystic Wikipedians, Category:Trystero Wikipedians, and Category:Surrealist Wikipedians, and Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians. However, on 24 October User:jc37 closed the deletion discussion him/her self with an outcome of Closed to be relisted. Since he was the one who originally nominated for deletion, and since he was a major participant in the discussion, I feel this shows a clear conflict of interest. In closing the discussion jc37 sites “extensive canvassing” and “personal attacks” as reason for this surprising outcome. When I asked for justification of these statements, jc37 refused. In spite of extinctive searching I find no evidence to back up these claims. Furthermore he has expressed the determination to immediately re-nominate for deletion. I believe this would simply be re-nomination in hopes of achieving a different consensus.

During the discussion a number of users also objected to the moving and merging of their comments by User: jc37 without there permission. There was also a widespread feeling that no clear reason was ever offered for the nomination despite repeated requests.

I strongly believe that this discussion should have been closed as KEEP or left for further comment because of the overwhelming positive consensus, the lack of a clear reason for nomination, the pattern of evasive action shown by some users, and because of the clear conflict of interests involved in the closer. --S.dedalus 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jc37 seems out to eliminate all signs of a wikipedia community by any means necessary; just about everything he's ever listed should be re-considered, imho. Bushytails 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that you're not happy with the DRV results of "Furry Wikipedians". - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I find this a valid application of IAR since the UCFD was a trainwreck. Speedy closing your own nominations, especially when there are conflicting votes, is generally a bad idea but in this case I actually think it improves the process rather than disrupt it so IAR applies. EconomicsGuy 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And my not so extensive searching did find good signs of mild canvassing by User:BD2412, i.e. notifying people who were in one of these categories of the discussion. While no "voting advice" was given, such posts are bound to bring in mostly those who have a noted interest in the category and will skew the discussion in favour of keeping. Over 100 editors were thus notified. Fram 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Though I was attempting to not "call on the carpet" another editor, since it seemed to me it would only further the disruption. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wish jc37 would have told me on my talk page when I asked however, as it would have saved BD2412 from being publicly “called on the carpet.” I see little evidence that the canvassing had a significant effect on the discussion however. --S.dedalus 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S. Dedalus. JC37 removed user comments from the discussion, too, which likewise does not seem to be the right behaviour for an admin to be taking. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I merged the duplicative sopy/pasted comments to the umbrella nomination. I've also decided to wait to nominate the umbrella portion of the nom for a few days so as to also reduce that confusion as well. (Since some editors seemed confused about it.) - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest if you disagree with this result take it to deletion review. JoshuaZ 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to review since they weren't deleted. The nominator relisted them to be dealt with on their own merits. This is a storm in a very small glass of water. EconomicsGuy 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV could just as well DRV it arguing that the relisting was unacceptable and that they should have been closed by another admin. JoshuaZ 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose a deletion review request. Though, as I mentioned on the user's talk page (The diff to the full discussion is here), I wonder at the concern about further discussion. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out then, I feel the discussion needs to focus on irregularities in how that discussion was closed. --S.dedalus 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S.dedalus. I was shocked to see that the discussion had been closed by the nominating editor when there was a clear keep consensus for the majority of the categories. The canvassing is only relevant idf there is evidence that the editors solicited by User:BD4212 actually had an influebnce on the discussion. I don't think there is any evidence of that when comparing the users canvassed to the users who actually commented during the discussion. — DIEGO 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV is that way. JoshuaZ 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ, there is an 'exceptional case' stipulation at DRV (#4 link here) which states that posting at ANI may be more appropriate. I think that is the case here and it would be overly cumbersome to redo this thread at DRV.. When I first noticed it, this closure struck me as inappropriate because it was made by the nominating admin . The discussion at the point of closure was running at least (from memory here) 14 to 3 opinions in favor of keeping the categories. That is clearly a consensus 'keep' with no official basis in policy supporting the delete !votes, which would be needed in order to override the overwhelming consensus. Overall, it gives the impression of wanting a 2nd bite at the apple. . . so to speak. The closure was inappropriate, and a 2nd admin should probably re-close as 'consensus keep' or in the alternative (though I favor this option less) re-open the discussion. R. Baley 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of "keep"s have been being closed as deletes lately, and things have been being listed repeatedly until they get deleted. Since this is a wider issue than any one category or closing, I agree here is a good place for it. Bushytails 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

14-3 certainly would be consensus, if consensus meant counting votes. Which it doesn't. --Kbdank71 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus also doesn't mean "whatever the admin wants". Bushytails 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is quite evident that consensus was established in favor of keep regardless of the number of votes (although keep did have a huge majority). The only reason for deletion offered was that the categories are “not useful.” Editors favoring keep pointed out extensive reasons why the categories ARE useful: fostering constructive collaboration, discussion, etc. A cursory examination should make this clear. --S.dedalus 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My cursory examination revealed the following two gems: "Why should we delete them? They are some way against encyclopedic content in wikipedia? If yes then let's delete all userboxes/categories then..." and "No grounds for deletion." How are those two non-reasons useful in any way? And if you think the only reason for deletion given was "not useful", maybe you should give it more than just a cursory examination.--Kbdank71 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Any deletion discussion, especially a heated one, is bound include some dumb comments. I trust you will now take the time to do more than a “cursory examination.” In my opinion this is consensus in favor of keep. Beyond that, the closer of this discussion by jc37 clearly violates WP:DGFA, specifically number three on this list. --S.dedalus 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Misplaced Pages since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a content dispute, then? Whig 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it is but what have you been doing there just a few days after the article ban? Would it be wiser to disengage for a while from the talk page? -- FayssalF - 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I was expressly welcomed to continue editing the talk page by the admin who imposed editing restrictions. Whig 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment here, but I can not at the moment because I'm at work. I ask that before any action be taken, I can comment. I'll be commenting in a few hours. Mercury 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a suggestion, the editors who are bringing this incident report are welcome to pursue RfAr, which several people in the RfC encouraged them to do. Whig 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I draw everyone's attention to this? He evidently made a user copy of the article he's banned from editing just to add a {{POV}} tag. Then decided he liked the {{Balance}} tag better. (Then Fyslee, quite rightly, nowiki'd all the tags so that it wouldn't be category-sorted.) Still, though... Adam Cuerden 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange indeed, especially the discussion page, where Whig describes his user-space homeopathy page by writing "This is the NPOV fork". (link). I hesitated earlier before describing Whig's attitude towards homeopathy as an "obsession", but that now looks like a pretty accurate description. Tim Vickers 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, from Oct 16 (when it was clarified that Whig would be participating in discussion but not editing the article) to Oct 25 (when I put in this comment: "Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over") the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy was generally amicable and productive.

Also, on Oct 25 Phoenix 15 posted this message: "I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good article. I'll promote it to GA status." Wanderer57 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have not really looked into to Homeopathy talk, but I would encourage a request for arbitration at this point. There is no point in tightening and tightening restrictions, I do believe this is more complicated and a community based restriction, may not be appropriately applied if it involves talk space. Send this to arbitration for review. Mercury 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe RfARb is the way to go, given the RfC findings and ongoing issues with talk-page abuse (disclaimer: User:Whig has moved on to Talk:Christine Maggiore where I've encountered him). On another note, it's inappropriate for a user to maintain a copy of a page he's been banned from editing in his userspace for the apparent purpose of creating a POV fork. I've deleted it. MastCell 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have been an editor on Christine Maggiore since 2005. Whig 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More community sanctions might work better than an arbitration. Wikidudeman 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have good cause to dispute my user conduct, why not file an RfAr? Whig 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Wikidudeman, if there is a dispute still, RFAR is the way to go... I will oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Mercury 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They take too long and are too much trouble. I see no need for an RFAr, A simple community block from editing the homeopathy talk page should suffice. It can run concurrent with your current 6 month ban from editing the article. Wikidudeman 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the common reasons for RfCs and other such actions is to reduce disruption. An RFAr is one of the most disruptive and time consuming procedures around, and thus would be very counterproductive to the purpose of reducing disruption. Other more effective and quick sanctions are available to any admin who has the courage to act immediately. A topic block of all homeopathic subjects - including talk pages - would help, just for starters. If the same long dragged out discussions without productivity continue, then other types of blocks could be considered. While civility issues mustn't be ignored, civil editors who disrupt are often the most disruptive because they are allowed to continue for so long. They have the same effect as 3RR violators (in spirit) who never revert four times, but edit war constantly. Action, not endless and disruptive DR, is what is needed so we can get on with actual editing. -- Fyslee / talk 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury in part. Talk page restrictions should be made much more hesitantly than namespace, and only with confidence that the user has nothing to add. I might support a community ban later, but we haven't had enough experience with this user under the existing block. Maybe revisit this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the discussion closely - although not been involved in editing the article - and I can state quite categorically that this whole discussion would not have occurred if the proponents had not been so closed to disagreeing sentiments. It seemed at times as if a cabal had been formed whereby alternative points - accompanied by reasoned argument - were discounted merely on the basis of "I do not believe it therefore it is not true, therefore we shall oppose this contributor". I found it disagreeable in the extreme and unworthy of Misplaced Pages. I would call for an experienced and previously uninvolved editor to review ALL the contributions made with a view to assessing the actions of the proponents of action against Whig. docboat 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with docboat's statement. Whig 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "closed to disagreeing sentiments"? Homeopathy is clearly false. Thus, it is reasonable to oppose those who say that it is true, with no reason other than that belief. There's no way to be open to disagreeing sentiments any more than one could be open to sentiments that water is made of cheese. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not clearly false to me. Whig 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the recent discussion that brought us here, that this is much ado about very little. As I mentioned above, from Oct 16 to Oct 25 the homeopathy discussion was generally amicable and productive. It then split over the merits of two papers by Alex Hankey, Ph.D. Isn't there some simple Wikimechanism to get a ruling on these papers, so life can continue? Wanderer57 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a simple mechanism, it's called consensus. The consensus on the talk page was that the Hankey papers were ridiculous and unusable, except to describe Hankey's opinion which itself is not notable. The problem is that Whig continues to agitate for his preferred changes well after consensus has gone against him. Skinwalker 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this pragmatically, since Whig does not seem to have convinced any other editor that it is appropriate to cite the Hankey papers in Homeopathy and since Whig is not editing the article, there is not really a current problem. Wanderer57 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring the content dispute here to ANI. I intend to continue to press that source forward for balance in the present article, however. Whig 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, the inclusion of links to Barrett without balance is an NPOV violation in my opinion. Whig 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I would continue to develop this source to see whether he is notable in his own right, etc. Whig 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit more to say, but not in ANI. Whig 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Press that source forward"? The only way to gain acceptance for the source is to develop a consensus. You've failed to convince any other editor of its appropriateness, regardless of their POV's. Your approach is not only failing to generate consensus, but is actively disruptive (see here or your current RfC). Continuing to "press the source forward" in the face of consensus, using this sort of approach, is textbook tendentious editing and, one would presume, the basis for the calls to ban you from the article talk page. MastCell 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of things I have not yet done. How I would press it would be an NPOV dispute. Whig 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that we could settle this matter without the agony of an arbcom proceeding, but it is becoming increasingly clear that will be impossible. The only alternative would be for everyone simply to ignore Whig's tendentious use of the Talk page. In practice, there will always be people who can't resist the temptation to respond. Raymond Arritt 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt puts forward a good alternative. There is already a section on the talk page for discussion of the Hankey papers. If anyone WANTS to continue to discuss those papers there, Misplaced Pages has lots of storage capacity. (Personally, I have formed a pretty definite opinion of the papers, and likely won't discuss them further.) Wanderer57 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

Without any check user, Alex Bakharev has accused a number of sockpuppets of being me, even though none have edited the pages I have contributed to. See: ]. I wish to make a formal complaint against this admin. I am sick of being victimised, threatened and falsely accused.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody's socking, who is a more complicated question. I'd be curious to see some evidence? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence, because no evidence exists as I have not been using abusive sockpuppets. It is a complete fabrication. Unless an admin carries out a check user against me and these other users within the next 24 hours and the allegations are retracted, I will seek to take this further.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying Ahwaz is inoccent (he's been editing Ahwaz-related articles) and i am not saying he's guilty (in some ocassions people create accounts specifically to ban others and pretend they are the other one). However, all this remain unconclusive. So i'd ask Alex or others to file a CU to sort this out because wasting time in accusations and responses is not for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. -- FayssalF - 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the articles in question, so there is no need to presume guilt. I did not know of these articles' existence until a notice regarding the AfDs appeared on my talk page - and I voted contrary to the sockpuppets I am accused of! It just looks like an excuse to ban me for things I have not done. I have put a request on Alex Bakharev's talk page to do a check user on me. He has since logged in and made some edits, but has refused to even respond. If he wants to ban me permanently, then he can follow proper procedures instead of this method.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I hope accusations stop or see a CU being performed. There's just no way to keep things as they are. -- FayssalF - 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin, Natalie_Erin, is insisting that Michael2314 is an abusive sockpuppet of me and reinserting the sockpuppet template, without any proof that this is the case - because there is no proof!--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and try to inform her about this thread. -- FayssalF - 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprisingly calm, after months of being confronted by false allegations that I am a Ba'athist by those who like to throw around ethnic stereotypes. No admin will step in when this happens. No admin ever answers my queries about Misplaced Pages matters and rules. But two admins have stepped in to accuse me of something I did not do. And I get no response, no check user verification, nothing. If this allegation is not struck off, it will be used against me in any disagreement, just like similar false allegations I have just let lie for the sake of my peace. I will take this all the way to AbrCom if necessary. I am fed up with this treatment. If an admin wants to ban me, then ban me with good reasons.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the CU guys otherwise this dispute won't end soon. -- FayssalF - 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see a checkuser on this. I still think it far more likely that this was a sockpuppet of Ottawaman trolling Strothra and myself. I don't understand why people think they were socks of Ahwaz and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks, Sarah 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah is 100% correct (as usual). Apologies from Natalie_Erin, and Alex Bakharev to Al-Ahwaz (whoever he is) should be swift,contrite and abject. In so far as those who chose to not jump in and support Al-Ahwaz, hopefully you have a mirror. As always,a few will learn from their mistakes and most will blame their mistakes on others. This project is built on a house of sand as all saw via the Essjay event. It is always harder to put in the foundation later. Can it be done? Yes! But it requites a lot of sweat,digging, and acceptance that it is,right now,without a foundation. What should the foundation be? Why not start with the USA's Bill of Rights (even if it's been marginalized in the USA). Things like "Innocent until PROVEN guilty, Free speech! Free press! Right of Assembly! Right of Association! Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure ! Separation of Church and State!" or, if you prefer, the Magna Carta(Habeas Corpus!). What's the next step? Resist the egotists and rule addicts in favour of the basic,soulful premises this project tried to be based upon; things like Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith (Even if it's a "smelly" sock) and true,unfettered collaboration. Marginalize the control freaks and those quick to criticize,ignore,dismiss or block; they are much more damaging than the socks and trolls; be more controlling of the admins., and less of those who are not.(Neutralizer/Ottawaman) 67.71.120.94 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know who this Ottawaman and have not edited any article he has edited. How can I be accused of being his sockpuppet, or vice versa? I don't even know what is going on here or how I got brought into this. But it is obvious that certain admins are willing to sit on their hands and do nothing in an effort to malign me for things I have not done.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahwaz, I'm sorry this happened to you. Ottawaman has nothing to do with you and I'm sure no one thinks you are he. He's just a Canadian guy who uses Bell Sympatico and has recently had access to some European IPs and has been trolling and harassing Strothra and myself for eighteen months or something. He is best handled with block and ignore. old SSP report I do not think that you are Ottwaman or Michael; I think that the admins who accused you are mistaken. I will tag the userpages correctly and if you have more problems you can tell me on my talk page and I'll try to help. Sarah 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--81.155.20.248 12:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Jtrainor is refusing to participate in discussion. Pushing his POV to article, deleting sources provided before. Necator 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll ask but why are you adding a source that says nothing like what you are using it for? The source is about what you say the S-400 is capable of doing yet you wiped out the language that the Russian had claimed its capabilities (which is both what the other sources indicate and what consensus on the talk page indicates). Also, User:Duckhunter6424 and others seem to reverted you as well. In fact, it looks like the moment the protection was lifted, you had to put the exact wording that you've wanted the page since September. All in this, this whole thing is a content dispute, so it is best to go to dispute resolution. Of course, if you want to keep the discussion here, I am more interesting in your editing now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus have not been reached. When I found additional non russian sources about this thing capability against stealth, both this users did not answer me on a talk page. And User:Duckhunter6424 is not reverting my changes anymore after that, but Jtrainor keep going silently. This dispute was about wording. And I am trying to say, that not only russian sources claimed this system capability. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" should be removed. Necator 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate also, if you read whole this discussion here and here. If you have enough time for that. Because this discussion is going pretty strange. Every time I do provide sources for any my claims in discussion, but haven't seen even one from my opponents. They just changing the topic or avoiding to participate in discussion when getting to much sources against their POV. Thanks! Necator 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Necator, why don't you falsely report me about it some more? I'll be pleased to escalate this right to an RfC if you want, because you consistently violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with these little tiffs of yours. Here's a hint: Reverting you is not a violation of any policy. Are you going to do this every time someone reverts you on any article? Jtrainor 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about no original research and verifiability policy at wikiquiette But you keep going. And, please, don't tell me about civility after what you have published on your page "Misplaced Pages is useless crap because anyone can write anything down." ... "Contentious issues are just clouded with polemics by assholes with an agenda to push." And if you want to blame me for something, it would be nice to provide some references, which will prove, that your blames are not just empty words. Necator 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And again you violate WP:CIVIL. What's on my userpage is not germane to this discussion. And, as a matter of fact, I havn't been warned for jack squat-- whereas you have been warned for 3RR in the past and the article in question has been protected at least once. Really, please stop trying to smear me, you're only digging yourself in deeper. Jtrainor 11:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

something abnormal

I had reported a user in WP:AIV, later i saw in userlog that he is an admin. Quoting self from there:

• JWSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit summaries look like he is removing spam, i think he is reverting articles to some 1 year old versions. And his entirely different versions have deleted templates, and article size drastic changes: Immediate attention please. Lara_bran 09:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This maybe even technical error, since admins have "revert" option. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would recommend (whenever you want to report someone at AIV) is to actually warn the person on their talk page first. In this case, why not ask him what's going on? It may simply be a slip of a button (I've done that before). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How about contacting JWSchmidt to ask him? It seems that he is trying to reverse changes brought about by Sadi Carnot, a known problem user who was pushing fringe theories. As such it's not unusual to reverse changes made many months ago. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey, me actually first time to report someone in WP:AIV. Now will go to usertalk, thanks. Lara_bran 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JW is reverting to versions before Sadi Carnot started editing. Many of these articles (Love, Evil, Sexual intercourse) are high-profile, widely edited articles, and reverting to very old versions is throwing out a lot of good work as well as Sadi's flummery. I have suggested a different approach may be needed. Neil ☎ 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Lara bran and anyone else who reverted those edits of mine. I was reviewing the edits of User:Wavesmikey, finding edits such as this one and then trying to look at the current article to see if the the external links to www.humanthermodynamics were still there. I must have mistakenly edited the old versions of the articles. I hope the last of my errors was at Conservation of energy, where I just reverted myself. I'll try to pay attention more to what I am doing. --JWSchmidt 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So you edited old versions, but many articles are heavily modified after that. I have searched for text www.humanthermodynamics in mainspace, but no matches as of now. If content is problem even that can be searched for specific phrases or words, reverting to old version is certainly not a solution. I thought that as vandalism since edits did not match edit summaries. As for human thermodynamics you can see yawning is to cool our brains. Nice day! Lara_bran 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to use Linksearch. It shows that there are still some links out there. Is there a list of sites that at to be eliminated? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me...?

Or are these names remarkably similar: Herbythyme (talk · contribs) and the indef blocked Kirbytime (talk · contribs) ...? Viridae 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Phonetically they're very similar, but I don't understand...are you suggesting something? Sarah 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest - it just struck me as odd. Viridae 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbythyme's edits are good, and the account is over a year old and has been active pretty consistently. Are you suggesting a user in good standing with almost a thousand edits, and no blocks, is a sock of a banned user just because the names rhyme? Seriously? Neil ☎ 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also if you look at the normal time of day of editing it doesn't match up. CitiCat 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously suggesting anything - the username caught my eye and when I looked at the contribs some of the first few were the additon of popups etc to the monobook.js. Seemed slightly strange and as I am no good with socks I posted here. Viridae 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Herby is an admin on Meta, Wikiquote, Commons and Wikibooks. He has always seemed like a good guy whenever I've had anything to do with him and I am certain he is working in good faith. He is also probably far too busy to be running socks. I think the username thing is just a coincidence. Sarah 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He also has Checkuser rights on the Wikibooks, Commons and Meta. Sarah 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sarah. Viridae 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to pile-on a bit. HerbyThyme is a well know Commons admin and editor in good standing on here. I sincerely doubt he's indulging in socking, somehow - Alison 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but the (unintentional?) pun in the "Resolved" box is so bad that I want to report it to ANI! <eleland/talkedits> 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely intentional -- Avi 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe

Just thought I'd bring this to administrator attention. Is User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe okay? The username, his contributions towards User:Y, especially this one. I have no idea if anything needs to be done, but just thought I'd ask some opinions. I'm going to inform Arbeit of this discussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know who this is a "work sock" of. If it's no-ones, then it should be blocked as being against our username policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under the impression it is actually Y's alternate account. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd block it for disrupting the arbcom, but that's me. ⇒SWATJester 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps it is Y's sock. Still... --Ali'i 18:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted revision of the userpage. I am Y's sock. I edit while Y is at work. Hence my name. Please don't block me for disrupting ArbCom. Don't take yourself so seriously. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I confirm. -- Y not? 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I did it, I said that I would support doing it. Your comment on the Arbcom was far from helpful. Seriously, why? ⇒SWATJester 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(pun removed)Sheffield Steel_stalk 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's in extremely poor taste. ⇒SWATJester 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My block of Miltopia

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia.--chaser - t 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User 164.106.37.3

User 164.106.37.3 has repeatedly made unconstructive POV edits to the article List of Blood+ characters and I've become tired of reverting them. The edits are always the same and some of the material we've priviously discussed on the article's talk page. I've already left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't seemed to notice it. Some one else has also left a message about POV edits he made on another article. Could an administrator please block his IP address? It doesn't have to be permanent - I just want him to take notice of what he's doing and come to the talk page. Thank you. --Eruhildo 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, but in the future see WP:AIV. -Jéské 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This is my first time needing to ask for such a thing and I had no idea where to do it. It took me forever just to find this page. Thanks again for your help. --Eruhildo 05:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism by User:KurdzenWeys

• "gay"
• "gay"
• "stfu"

-- Cat 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have a facination with Dumbledore's recently announced sexuality. It's childish, but not untrue. He'll get tired of it when he sees consensus does not favor the edits. Leebo /C 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a note that he stop simply messing around. If he continues making non-constructive edits, I'll give a short block to make it clear. There is no reason to deal with people who are just here to waste time. I'd just ignore his template discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyar with unacceptable behavior

Tyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been throwing personal attacks at DBZROCKS. He has even created pages which attack DBZROCKS (now deleted) (evidence and deletion). The user even tried to "fake" a sockpuppet by posting userlinks to the deleted page above (evidence, try clicking on the name, but, if you look in the toolbox, no link to the user contributions pops up) on DBZROCKS's talk page. I feel as though some action needs to be taken. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a little while; he was making some good edits. Next time though use WP:AIV for a faster reponse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to trade?

I did this last week, so here we go again - I need a copy of the infobox at this article in the German Misplaced Pages] so I can add it to all of the Augsburg city division articles I am writing. If a compatible infobox exists, I have not been able to find it. In exchange, I'd be happy to provide two hours of admin labor in an area of the infobox person's choice, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I don't have time to do it tonight, but I would be happy to do this work tomorrow afternoon. Drop me a note on my talk page when/if someone takes this up. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could it be {{Infobox German Location}}? If I'm right, your help at WP:PUI would be appreciated. east.718 at 01:27, 10/27/2007

Not quite, I wouldn't have any place to put the constituent wards... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor fresh from a week-long block immediately leaping back into edit wars

After this request to cool down an edit war at History of the Linux kernel, User:Mike92591 got himself blocked for incivility for a week. Well, the week's up, and the very first thing he did was jump back in. Rather than get back into the same edit war again, and considering that I've got little intention of spending any future free time getting abused by this editor, what's the best course of action? Chris Cunningham 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One course of action is to read and reflect on WP:POT. Seems to me you've violated 3RR today as well as a month ago. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove yourself from these disputes, rather than engage in forum shopping. Isarig 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case this is a good-faith attempt to nip this stupid fight in the bud, which is why I haven't yet made any changes to the History of the Linux kernel article. What I'm not going to to is be bullied off of Misplaced Pages by trolls and POV-warriors. Speaking of which. Ahem. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A good faith attempt would be to hash it out in the article's Talk page, seeking consensus. Another good faith attempt would be to ask for a third opinion. Yet another good faith attempt would be to open an RfC. If these don't work, you could try mediation. Surely a long time editor like you knows this, which is why it strikes me that this current report is more forum shopping for sanctions against an editor you have a content dispute with, than it is a good-faith attempt to nip an edit war in the bud. Isarig 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting in the firing line by editing the same talk pages as the user for the time being. I've never been through the third opinion process. My RFC experience is limited to a couple of comments. Had these helpful suggestions been provided in good faith I'd have been grateful. But no, they're provided to give me grief, yet again proving that your sanctioning was too lenient. Anyway, I'm not sure that it's designed for resolution of stupid personal politics (the issue isn't so much the content now as the manner in which the edits are proceeding), and I'd rather not have to go through the whole process of mediation / RfC if I can avoid it. Chris Cunningham 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So you come here declaring you have no intention of participating in any discussion on the talk page (which is, as you surely know, the first course of action to take when a content dispute arises), and don't want to try RfCs or mediation - what is it that you expect then? That the other party in the content dispute be sanctioned on your say-so? I've given you several options on how you may go about it, which you dismiss out of hand while acknowledging they are helpful, simply because you assume they were not made in good faith. Perhaps you should add WP:AGF to your reading list. Isarig 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute; it's a report of bad faith by an editor whose personal attacks on me have made me disinclined to engage him directly any further. AGF is not intended to address deliberate moves of provocation. That is also why there's no onus on me to assume good faith from this suggestion. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a content dispute. You have yourself described it as an edit war in your initial report, and anyone examining that page's history and it's Talk page can see that it is a dispute over the inclusion of material which you allege is 'pure FSF propaganda', and two other editors disagree with you. Disagreeing with you over content is not "bad faith". There is no excuse, of course, for the language Mike92591 used, and he was properly blocked for it, for a week. We must assume that he learned his lesson. If he hasn't, then surely he will quickly be blocked again. But to come here and ask for some preemptive sanction, in order to gain the upper hand in a clear content dipsute (in which you appear to be in the minority) is just as bad. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping if this is the only page he's come to? Jd2718 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It has nothing to do with the number of pages you come to, only to the selection of venue - in this case WP:ANI, vs. any of the other good faith ways to resolve content disputes. Isarig 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Isarig, way to assume bad faith. Chris Cunningham is reporting that a recently-blocked editor is behaving the same way as they were behaving which got them blocked, and all you can do is attack the person making, what to me, is a good faith request for review. Corvus cornix 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't behaving the same way at all. The editor was blocked for making uncivil comments. After his block expired, he has not made any uncivil comments, but returned to the article where he and another editor are having a content dispute with Chris Cunningham. If we are to assume good faith, the only way to proceed is to assume the editor learned his lesson from his week long block - and to properly engage him on the Talk page, or other DR procedures such as I've suggested to Chris above. Instead, we have Chris declaring that he will not participate in talk, does not want to try RfC or mediation, but wants some admin to "nip this in the bud" - which I interpret as a request that this editor be somehow sanctioned, for doing nothing other than disagreeing with Chris Cunningham - a serial edit warrior himself. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Serial edit warrior" says the guy under community sanction for edit warring with sockpuppets, Isarig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.81.198 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just who's sock-puppet are you, Mr. 2nd-edit-on-wp-is-a-WP/ANI-comment? Isarig 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to say this. The irony in your suggesting that the OP of this thread read WP:POT is rich. No dog in the fight, I just read AN/I sometimes ... and I really enjoy irony! K. Scott Bailey 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick block review

I've just blocked Dyslexicbudgie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)for 24 hours for this disgraceful racial attack in an RfA. I've just realised the conflict of interest that could be associated here with me nomming the candidate so could someone review it for me ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone for a longer block. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? My congratulations on your self-restraint. --Carnildo 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to extend it if there's consesus to do so here. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep the block at 24 hours. It is definitely a blockable offense, however it is also funny :D 70.250.215.30 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend extending it to indefinite until and unless he promises not to do anything like that again. Racism needs to be met with indefinite blocks, and only lifted when we are reasonably sure it will not reoccur. As to COI - don't worry about it. His edit was bad faith disruption, so there's no need to worry about the fact that you are the nominator. Picaroon (t) 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef per Picaroon. Garbage like this creates a hostile environment that is inimical to the goals of the project. Raymond Arritt 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"inimical"? wtf? 70.250.215.30 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real world. It means harmful or negative. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers guys, I've increased it to indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus you referred to on his talk page was a bit of a stretch wasn't it? The discussion had hardly got going much less a consensus reached. It looks to me that you were out to get this editor and were going to do it with minimal evidence and minimal support. Given that the comment was made during your nomination for Lradrama's adminship I think that you shouldn't have taken the action you did. You should have passed it over to an impartial and uninvolved admin. This looks a lot like payback to me! ---- WebHamster 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an offensive comment, but I hardly think an indefinite block is justified. The user has made an effort to contribute to the encyclopedia, but for one poorly-chosen comment/joke(maybe?), he is blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia. It seems we jump the gun on blocks against users who have made some inappropriate racial comments. However, I'm fine that Ryan agreed to unblock if the user vows that it will never happen again. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to exercise a lot of restraint towards that kind of behavior. I'd consider unblocking and a close eye being kept on the user if he shows some genuine remorse, but I say good block otherwise. A Train 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looked more like politically incorrect humour rather than overt racism to me, after all he is Australian!. Hardly the foundation for a ban, let alone an indefinite one. There's too many knee-jerk reactions to this sort of stuff on WP. Personally I think the ban was over the top and a gross over-reaction. And the fact that it was a vote in opposition to Ryan Postlethwaite's nomination also could make the over-reaction appear a little CoI too. Just my 2c. ---- WebHamster 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also Australian, and Jewish jokes are so uncommon here as to stand out like a sore thumb (irreverent or pushing-the-boundary jokes about Asians, Aboriginals, Arabs and certain groups of Southern Europeans is far more likely) Orderinchaos 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the Aussie bluntness I was referring more than the fact that humour towards ethnics is de rigeur in Oz. It wasn't that it was specifically aimed at Jews per se. ---- WebHamster 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would also only favor the 24 hour block. I'm not even sure a block is necessary, a stern warning might be enough. The user has only good edits prior. JoshuaZ 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Call me a conspiracy theorist, but an analysis of this user's edits hints that this may have been a sock account created solely to make that last edit. The user is free, of course, to request an unblock. See what he has to say for himself. On the non-conspiracy hand, it could be a case of misunderstood humor. He appears to be from Australia, so maybe something didn't translate. Wait and see approach seems best. - Crockspot 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy Theorist! :) Just wondering how you came to that conclusion. I see a bunch of football (soccer) edits and Austrailian related items. Nothing probative. He does seem to have a balanced set of edits (main, wp, talk, user, etc). Spryde 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• No interaction with other users. Only a month old account, hit the ground running, nose to the grindstone, good chunck of edit count in that time. Smells sockish to me. I could be wrong. - Crockspot 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• On further examination of edit history, I'm going to go further and suggest that this account was created to be a straw test case, to compare to treatment of MONGO. (more conspiracy theory). Create a bunch of articles, go a lot of work, then drop a single Jew bomb, and see what happens. If the user ever breaks silence, we'll know more. - Crockspot 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• The question then becomes, good sock, or bad sock? One crappy attempt at humor isn't enough for an indef, and a good contrib record suggests it's craptastic humor, not deeply felt bigotry. And if it's a sleeper sock, what a lame waste of it. Non-indef block, 24 or 48 hours, would be the strong end. We can always indef if he does it again. ThuranX 04:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per Occam's razor, it was a stupid attempt at humor, not some kind of strawsock experiment. 48 hrs, and an indef if they do it again, seems reasonable. --barneca (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the thought that this was an effort to be humorous escapes me completely.--MONGO 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then that would demonstrate a lack of interest or understanding of a particular form of humour, and not a reason to ban. ---- WebHamster 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Corvus cornix 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask something? Why is this an issue? Is this kind of "humor" acceptable? If someone makes a horrible and obviously racist comment... do we need them here? Yes, we should be open in regards to different points of view, but do we need to be open to hateful points of view? Neutral point of view and assume good faith don't mean we have to be idiots. AniMate 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are all sorts of humour, and all sorts of acceptability. As long as it's demonstrated to be humour (which admittedly this one wasn't) then I see no problem with it. It's no worse than most "An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman went into a pub..." sort of jokes. There are always going to be jokes and humour shown towards all ethnic groups, there always has been, there always will be. Personally I would prefer it to stay that way rather than political-correctness expanding to such an extent that no-one knows what the hell to say when or where. Humour is humour, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. It's always funny to someone, it's always unfunny to someone else. Who has the right to tell another person what they can laugh at and what they can't? ---- WebHamster 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes it's obvious. AniMate 06:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with re-instating the 24 hour block, and sternly cautioning the editor regarding possibly contentious language, with an indef block being the result of further infraction. I am both AGF'ing and being aware of Australian culture differences - in the UK I would be racist to call someone a Paki even if they were from Pakistan, while Aussies use the same simply as a shorthand; which isn't intrinsically racist - where a certain bluntness in speech is frequent. Per WP:CSB I think we need to be certain that the editor intended to shock or disparage. LessHeard vanU 12:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Australians aren't so different that the above wouldn't be racist here. Jews are normally invisible enough to be ignored in our society and as such don't come up for much attention. Those who do pay attention to them are usually of a Nazi bent, or LaRouche sympathisers. Note that we dealt with User:Premier and User:Hayden5650 quite adequately some time ago. Orderinchaos 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Llajwa (talk · contribs) compromised account

Llajwa (talk · contribs) just went on a vandalism spree that is highly unusual based upon their past edit history. I blocked the account indefinitely as a possible compromised account. -- Gogo Dodo 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good move, definitely looks like a compromised account. --Coredesat 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CheckUser shows that there was no IP change between the regular edits and the vandalism spree. It is possible that it is a public terminal that he accidentally didn't log out of., however, since he used this IP consistently for almost a month, and there is almost no other activity besides him on it, I doubt that. Absent a good explanation, the evidence points towards Llajwa doing this himself. Dmcdevit·t 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

..when first we inexpertly practice page moves.

Can an admin please take a look at this mess and (hopefully) fix it. I could not. Into The Fray /C 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done - fixed :) - Alison 04:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Bason0

Hello Administrators. These users were confirmed Bason0's sockpuppetry by checkuser. Please block them.

• Referloose (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Checkorder2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Abovelarge (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yearwaves3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Panelequal3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rockgoals3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Surehoped3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wantsg5edge (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stockbasis2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Boatangry (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Exactpush9 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Groudchtouch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--Nightshadow28 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done - all now blocked by FlyGuy and myself - Alison 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What Alison said. -- Flyguy649 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nightshadow28 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly revert war on Guenter Lewy

Two editor, User:129.71.73.248 and User:Travb, who apparently have a history of edit conflicts with each other are busily engaging in reversions over the wording of section titles. The anon wishes titles to be original (but neutral) characterizations of the research areas Lewy has engaged in; Travb wishes the titles to be verbatim titles of books written by Lewy.

I have not engaged in either side of this reversion, but have suggested on the article talk page that the editor talk about the topic rather than just revert back and forth. Neither editor has violated the letter of 3RR, since these reversions are spread over a number of days. But it's just silly that the last dozen edits consist exclusively of this silly disagreement that has little to do with the biography topic himself, nor with any real issue of scholarship or background context of Lewy's work.

Perhaps an admin might remind the two editors of the spirit of 3RR, or maybe weigh in on the article talk page about the virtues of discussion. LotLE×talk 03:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User High on a tree needs a special attention

An adminstrator needs to pay attention at what this guy High on a tree is up to. He deletes images way before the deletion-date the tag reads. Example 1. Deletion - ], the expected deletion date ]. Example 2. deletion- ], expected deltion date ]. At first I thought he was an administrator then he claimed that he is not and also claimed that he has not deleted any images. I hope we can do something about people like this. Thanks.--Harout72 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing an image from an article does not delete the image. The two examples you have presented of "deletion" appear to be good edits to me. I fail to see the need for admin action nor do I understand exactly what admin action you want someone to take. --ElKevbo 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Appear to be good edits to you? You obviously failed to see as well as understand that one has the right until the very last day of the expected deletion date to provide changes within the image explanation. Removing an image from an article without the image reaching its last day is vandalism. Why do I have the feeling that ElKevbo and High on a tree are the same person with different accounts.--Harout72 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

His removals of the images do not curtail anyone's right to modify the fair-use justification, as the image hasn't actually been deleted. This is not vandalism. Someguy1221 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, Harout72 should have left a message on High on a tree's talk page about this complaint. --Mathsci 10:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin to look at RfA voting pattern...

User:Politics rule voted in my RfA and 14 others in the span of 15 minutes. He claims here that he considered everything carefully and voted all at once, but my evidence (timestamps taken from his contribs), summarized here, does not support his claims. Obviously, my concern is that he voted negatively on my RfA without adequate consideration, but it's just as bad if he votes positively without consideration. He then added all his votes to a tally on his userpage, listing who we voted for and against, which I also find non-constructive. In any case, I find it hard to AGF on any of the votes, and I'd like an admin not involved in the RfAs to look into the matter and decide the propriety of his voting. MSJapan 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That xe announced that xe was back from break and commented on RfAs back-to-back like that doesn't show me anything's wrong. ...probably read up on the candidates, formed opinions, then announced xyr return, and saved the comments. WODUP  06:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern with that scenario is accounting for the editing of other pages in-between the return and the voting - if opinions were formed prior to the announcement at 2:53, why wait over 15 minutes minimum (3:10) to start voting? MSJapan 06:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - because sie went off to make coffee? Took a bathroom break? Either way, it still doesn't preclude the scenario that WODUP suggested. I think you're making a little too much of this, to be honest - Alison 06:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Politic rules opposed because he saw fit to do so, and although bureaucrats may ignore the oppose, it is valid no matter how non-constructive it may seem. Just some advice for the future, but please do not complain about a unreasonable opposer when you obviously have a pov about it. --D_arkF_alls 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I work in a police department, so sometimes I have to browse as an IP as I cannot get a secure logon, I tend to take quite a bit to review RFA candidates, usually when I do get to vote, I tend to spread it out with edits in between so my votes aren't claimed to be deficient. Maybe I should put a not on my userpage regarding that so no one ever makes this claim about me. BTW I was going to go vote on this RFA myself, but it was withdrawn. Seems resolved to me, not sure what kind of admin assistance could be needed. Dureo 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Taifarious1 Contributions

Is there a quick way to fix the "welcome" contributions of User:Taifarious1? I think the editor means well but the inappropriate modification of Template:Welcome! and subsequent use may confuse some newcomers. --NeilN 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point to an example of what it is you think needs fixing? --Bduke 09:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well since he ididn'r substitute them then when his edits to the template were reverted so were all the messages. This means that instead of sighning his messag the user sees four tildes instead. Not the end of the world really. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately there weren't tpp many so i just went through jis contributions and subst:'ed the messages myself Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation account/sockpuppets disrupting several articles

User:Andrev c is impersonating the admin User:Andrew c. At first I thought it was only on the Crisis pregnancy center article, but after checking the Andrev c's contribs, it appears that he has stalked User:Andrew c and reverted the majority of his recent edits.

Two other accounts, User:EALacey and User:EAGacey have engaged in an "edit war" following User:Andrev c's edits. I'm not sure if this is all the same person, or if EAGacey/Andrev c is actually impersonating EALacey as well as Andrew c. Could someone please block these accounts. I don't have time right now to investigate this issue much further, but I think a checkuser will be in order so any other sockpuppets and IPs can be blocked. Thanks. — DIEGO 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of further investigation, it is clear that this user is impersonating both User:Andrew c and User:EALacey, possibly becasue EALacey reverted a few of the edits he made (most which were themselves reversions of Andrew c's edits). The only edit this user made that wasn't associated with User:Andrew c was to the user page of User:Vice regent/hoius, who has not made an edit since 10/25. The only other edits to that user page were from an anon IP. This leads me to believe that the following users are all disruptive sockpuppets:

• Andrev c (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EAGacey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vice regent/hoius (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.217.38.32 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

— DIEGO 13:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:mathewignash -- again

mathewignash (talk · contribs) is again uploading Transformers-related images with dubious fair-use claims. His initial waves of Hasbro boxart images, used to illustrate the subject of various articles, were deleted because they are replaceable with images of the toys themselves (discussion here; dozens/100+? of others CSDed). However, he's since re-uploaded five (that I've seen) boxart images; in addition to Image:Devastator-hasbrotoy.jpg, four were also previously deleted (Image:Icebird-hasbrtoy.jpg was Image:Icebird-boxart.jpg, Image:Snapper-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Snapper-boxart.jpg, Image:Bumblebee-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Bumblebee-boxart.jpg, Image:Razorclaw-hasbrotoy.jpg was Image:Razorclaw-beastboxart.jpg). Their FUR states that they are there to illustrate Hasbro's "distinct style" . However, none of the articles contain any commentary on the images discussing that style -- it isn't even mentioned in the image captions. Additionally, I flat-out don't believe the FUR claim that these images come from transformers.com -- that Hasbro site is focused on movie toys, and five minutes of clicking around didn't get me anything close to boxart imagery (granted, it's not the incredibly well organized). These images, which to the best of my memory are identical to the previous uploads, almost certainly instead come from , to which mathewignash attributed many of his previous boxart images.

Mathewignash has not responded to two talk-page requests () to clarify why the images are there or whether he's aware that the fair-use claim is again dubious.

As a side note: after I added {{frn}} to a picture and {{deletable image-caption}} on the three articles that included the picture, Mathewignash added a FUR for one article, but removed the deletable tag from one of the others for which he hadn't written a FUR. Generally, this is an understandable error -- it takes some editors a while to realize that a FUR is needed for every instance a non-free image is used -- but, mathewignash has received so many blocks, talk-page messages, and boilerplate warnings that at this point he should know better and edit more carefully.

In general, I get the idea that this editor is more interested in hyper-illustrating Transformers articles than in abiding by Misplaced Pages's image-use policy -- someone more attuned to fair-use policy should take a look at some of these Transformers articles and ask whether all the toy pictures and comic illustrations follow policy and/or are necessary; I imagine many of these non-free images do not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In the meantime, these specific images seem the most recent in a long line of dubious image uploads, and his unwillingness to respond to talk-page messages is not a sign of good-faith editing. --EEMeltonIV 12:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the recreated box art photographs and left him a warning on his talk page. I think we need to keep an eye on him for a while. I think he is editing in good faith but I agree that failure to respond to talk page comments is very worrying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

MathewIgnsh has been up here a number of times as the subject of a section. He's been through plenty of warnings, and ontinues to upload bad images. I'd support a block to prevent him RE-re-uploading hte same stuff yet again. maybe 48 hours or a week? long enough for him to see it and go read policy? ThuranX 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He's already received a few blocks, although the most recent one (for one week) was lifted when he said he promised to abide by policy. --EEMeltonIV 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed one Image:Starscream-hasbro.jpg is a re-repost of Image:Starscream-boxart.jpg. --EEMeltonIV 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Mathewignash is only here to contribute his pictures of Transformers to the project. His talk page and archives show that he does not know how to work with non-free images on the project. I think its long time that he should be indefinitely blocked for compromising the integrity of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With Ryulong's consent, I have unblocked Mathewignash per his agreement to conditions layed out on his talk page (he uploads no images and does not touch the image namespace). If the conditions are violated, then of course anyone can reblock. – Steel 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious anons of Bason0

Hello administrators. I am sorry to ask administrator so often... A new registered user Jh5trealteeth has been blocked as new sockpuppet of Bason0, by LessHeard vanU. But 125.131.205.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 125.131.205.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing editing similar (or same) to Jh5trealteeth. These are obvious anons without doing IPCheck. Would you block it? (Or If I must file into other forum, please give me advice.) --Nightshadow28 13:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and blcoked both IP's for 31 hours. May be worth blocking them for longer but we'd need to check to see if they are static IPs Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This individual seems intent on disrupting several articles (some more than others). Several of these see few edits outside of this person (and editors undoing his changes). Would it be worthwhile to semi-protect some of these pages? —LactoseTI 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The socks are getting easier to see with each new ip; the POV is obvious (as are the targets). Unless there is an indication that WP:SSP is getting backlogged there is little point in sprotecting the range of articles and inconveniencing good ip editors, IMO. Any serious revert warring can be referred to AIV with references to earlier blocked sock contribs. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles renamed contrary to Misplaced Pages policy

I've noticed that, through re-direction, article Giorgio Orsini was renamed to Giorgio da Sebenico and article Andrea Meldolla to Andrea Schiavone. See and . Please, enforce use of the Misplaced Pages rules aplicable to renaming Misplaced Pages articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.238 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, and not a clear violation of policy- I googled both Giorgios, and got lots of hits for both versions of the name. You don't need an administrator, you need dispute resolution, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No it does not look so. As to the requesto to move Giorgio Orsini to Giorgio da Sebenico it failed - as can be seen here . I see that the person who voted for - unilateraly changed the article name. Due to the fact that you are apparently sidelining with the side who changed the name - I request another administrator to reconsider my request impartially.

Nope. FisherQueen gave an impartial opinion, which I checked by confirming that they had not edited either article in the last few months. Just because it doesn't agree with your view does not mean it is biased. Also, if there had already been a decision on naming the article(s) it should have been noted in the original request, then the administrator(s) who agree to check the situation would have a better basis to make their judgement. Do not blame the system if you are unable to apply it correctly (oh yeah, and sign your posts). LessHeard vanU 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable editing by DonaldDuck (talk · contribs)

This user repeatedly and unilaterally deletes a whole article: First deletion Second deletion Third deletion. He is doing this right now after two warnings . He recently nominated this article for deletion, but decision was "speedy keep": , but he continue deleting it unilaterally and himself. DonaldDuck seems to be a single-purpose account, with less than 500 edits; most of them are technical, others about two related articles. Does that incident deserve attention of administrators?Biophys 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned on talk page. He needs to propose a merge first if he wants to merge when consensus is against him (or find out consensus first); unilateral edits are not helpful. Content dispute otherwise, so I'm against a block yet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it will help.Biophys 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism on some pages is simply unacceptable

And I will see to it that the engineers around here that make unoppropriate edits will be suspended.Rich Is Cool 16:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) We need all the vandal fighters we can get. GlassCobra 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing from User:에멜무지로

Hi, User:에멜무지로 has been warned about soapboxing many times.

• Soapboxing on User page

He has even been blocked about it, fairly early on:

• Block
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Temporary block

When warned about it, he tried to sneak in soapboxing at his User subpages. Thank goodness they've been deleted now.

• Subpages where soapboxing occurred:
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox%C2%AD

He's been warned many times (at least four times, to my reckoning) and reverts have been marked as "rv soapboxing"

• Warnings
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Your user page
  • User talk:에멜무지로#Policy evasion

Yet he's at it again. Please do something so that he can be more constructive at Misplaced Pages. --Kjoonlee 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He(she) also tried to remove this thread from AN/I, which is a naughty thing to do. The preceding 24 and 72 hour blocks had no effect so now it's a week. Raymond Arritt 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But for the record, the 72 hour block was for spurious redirects, not soapboxing... --Kjoonlee 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this case is typical, but I don't feel like this user was fairly treated on the soapboxing issue. I can't believe that WP:NOT was intended as a rigid policy for the censorship of even a single sentence on a userpage. I understand you don't want a mess from the Korean Misplaced Pages translated and dumped here - but users deserve a little slack on their own userpages. If you'd have let him say his piece in a few sentences, you wouldn't have had to read through a dozen reverted edits about it here. 70.15.116.59 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he blew it when he unilaterally deleted the original posting of the present thread. Raymond Arritt 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cush

This user has apparently become upset about enforcement of Wikipolicies and has decided to take his self-made Tolkein map images and go home. Ordinarily I would restore them all, as they appear to be useful and PD release is irrevocable, but it occurs to me that they may be deletable as original research. I'd appreciate opinions from others on this issue. -- But|seriously|folks  17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• hi bsf, I'd say let it be. Other material will come around at some point. Eusebeus 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opinion one, you might want to dial down the scorn (at that, I wouldn't describe the issue he objected to as "enforcement of Wikipolicies"). Opinion two, the maps were derivative works of previously published images, and thus he might not really be able to release them into the PD to begin with. That's a common problem / misunderstanding with images relating to fictional works. If we ever sort out Wikimedia's stance on such 'fan art' (there has been inconclusive debate about it on Commons for years) to something which clearly allows such images under anything other than 'fair use' there are literally dozens of maps which have previously been deleted and could be re-instated. --CBD 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious: if the image is a copyright violation and Misplaced Pages refuses to delete it against the author's wishes, can that increase his potential liability for having posted it? 70.15.116.59 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Calton and TruthCrusader dispute

I've been watching my watchlist light up for the last little while, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly is going on here.

On the face of it, I see Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in some sort of edit war on Will Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether or not to include statements about the actor's sexual orientation. Calton keeps adding the information (including a reference to a printed source); TruthCrusader keeps removing the info (arguing that the sourcing is inadequate). I assume that they're both going to sit and sulk for a bit because they're getting close to a 3RR violation.

There are a couple of factors that seem to raise this beyond the usual BLP/content dispute. Looking at the history of Will Geer reveals a series of incivil edit summaries, particularly from Calton: "...hissy fit...lack of self control", "...Buckwheat", "...daft...". (Calton is fresh off a monthlong wikibreak that followed a 24-hour block for persistent incivility.) On TruthCrusader's part, I see the repeated removal of content that appears to be sourced, along with edit summaries that don't seem to accurately reflect that fact: "r/v. Not sourced, not verified...".

Adding fuel to the fire, Calton appears to be suggesting that TruthCrusader has been engaged in some sort of off-wiki harrassment of Calton. TruthCrusader made an edit to Talk:Will Geer here that links his username to a particular IP address; in this post to User talk:TruthCrusader, Calton insinuates that an individual using that IP address has made some sort of inflammatory blog posts. A further post from Calton repeats the statement, and adds that TruthCrusader has started to use proxies (and throws in a bit of abuse, as well).

I don't know what the history of TruthCrusader is, but it certainly appears that something funny is going on. I have asked Calton and TruthCrusader to explain themselves here, pronto. I have something of a history with Calton, so I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to take any administrative actions in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that it strikes me as weird to get so involved in something with which you have no involvement, what exactly do you want an admin to do and how is it your prerogative to demand that these editors explain themselves pronto here? Sorry, but that smacks of arrogance and busy-body meddling. Eusebeus 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(The unpolite answer) That's what sysops - new and old - do. They volunteer to look after the general well being of the encyclopedia by actin in an administrative function. Attempting to resolve editor conflicts is one of them, as is deflecting the slings and arrows of outrageous displays of being a dick. Further, a good admin likes to get the opinion of others before embarking upon an action where there might be consequences - therefore TenOfAllTrades is to be commended for both involving themselves in the matter and referring it to their colleagues. Is there any other matter that needs explaining to you? LessHeard vanU 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A spirited defense, certainly; but not very convincing. Sorry Less. Eusebeus 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I saw an edit war, serious user conduct issues, and the insinuation that one of our contributors was being harrassed off-wiki by another. The two editors don't seem capable of resolving the dispute on their own, and TruthCrusader has regularly sought admin intervention on his behalf. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project; it doesn't work if the atmosphere is poisoned by the sort of bile that's spilling over from this dispute onto articles and other editors. Those strike me as issues worthy of this board's attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comments and "busy-body meddling" -- a fairly accurate summary, I'd say -- might be appropriate if they were better informed. As far as the edit-warring -- and your rather juvenile summary thereof -- there's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned, something he's been doing off and on over the last couple of years. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting.

• As far as TruthCrusader's off-wiki harassment and his attempts to snow admins as part of his campaign, I've already privately e-mailed a more complete set of evidence to a few admins I trust (including one who's on ArbCom) documenting the off-wiki attacks and the clear evidence connecting TruthCrusader (blog software records IP addresses, and TruthCrusader was very helpful in connecting the dots). Bottom line: this is a horse you don't want to back. --Calton | Talk 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh,, and you've got your chronology backwards, though I don't suppose that's obvious: I discovered TruthCrusader's mucking about with Will Geer BECAUSE I was backtracking to figure out who left a message for me saying "fuck off you wikipedia nazi" -- and, as I said above, this edit lead me right there. And though I've really DO have better things to do -- like my job, which I'm behind on, and sleep, which is what I should be doing right now -- and therefore haven't been editing Misplaced Pages, I figured I ought to take the time to fix the mess that TruthCrusader left. And, as usual, I got drawn in trying to fix up messes where I saw them. But, if you think exacerbating messes, defending trolls, and encouraging harassment on- and off-Wiki is the way to build a better enecyclopedia, go for it, but don't expect a lot of support from a lot of people for that. --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This one's easy. The linkage between TruthCrusader and the obscene harassment Calton has received is clear; if I see one more report of it that even seems like TruthCrusader, I'll just block him myself and let the chips fall where they may. --jpgordon —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay; I wasn't aware that this had been discussed elsewhere. If there's serious off-wiki harrassment going on, I don't think anyone would object to a flat ban immediately. It doesn't make sense to me that our optimal response would be 'wait and see if he does something else obnoxious' while he tries to drag admins into blocking Calton, while Calton keeps leaving bitter messages and insulting edit summaries without any other recourse...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ok, so we have a content dispute and behavioral issues. Looking at the Will Geer article and talk page histories it seems like there is a long running pattern of people adding claims that Geer was gay or bi-sexual without references and these being challenged and removed (by TruthCrusader amongst others). Now the information has apparently been re-added, sourced to claims made by Harry Hay. I have no idea whether Mr. Hay (who is apparently also dead) should be considered reliable on this issue, but that likely ought to be the focus of both user's efforts. Rather than reverting each other with claims of 'bad sources!' and 'no, good sources!' they ought to be discussing the merits of the source. BTW, edit warring over content is edit warring... regardless of who turns out to be 'right'. To claim that 'only the other guy is really edit warring' is simply false.

As to the behavioral issues. Calton claims that TruthCrusader has engaged in egregious harassment and attacks off-wiki. Unfortunately, it is inherently difficult to prove such. Logs and mails can be alterred, open IPs can be accessed by other people, et cetera. However, in one sense it doesn't matter... because that would not be an excuse for the on-wiki attacks which Calton has engaged in. Even if Calton is absolutely right and truthful about what has gone on off-wiki. Even if it had all taken place ON wiki openly under TruthCrusader's account. Responding in kind, though not quite as viciously as the described off-wiki conduct, is still harmful and disruptive.

Evidence of the off-wiki harassment should be looked at to see if it can actually be proven (in which case an indef block would be very much in order), but regardless of that, both users need to stop edit warring and Calton needs to stop attacking and insulting. --CBD 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To Jpgordon: If the evidence is clear, why wait until you see another report of it? I suppose you are the among the people privy to Calton's evidence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that's how I work. Others might work in other ways. (And I try not to block people before I've had breakfast. Need nutrients in brain to make rational decision.) --jpgordon 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson comes up with his usual long and convoluted rationale excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls, with a side order of passive-aggression, a heaping helping of false equivalency (why yes, the things I've said about TruthCrusader are SO similiar to him accusing me of being a pedophile and saying that my father raped my mother -- and by the way, I redacted some equally awful crap from what I posted), and some actual falsehoods about the article that has wound up at the center of thngs, to boot (hint 1: "Harry Hay" is NOT the source of the claims).

Personally, I can't imagine why CBD thinks carrying water for trolls in any way aids the building of an encyclopedia, and yet he continues to do so. Is there something to this "Trolls are people too! Fight the power" schtick that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's precisely the kind of behavior I was saying you shouldn't be engaging in. Which seemed self-evident so... you are doing what, exactly, here? Trying to insult and provoke me? You need to calm down and stop attacking anyone and everyone who asks you to be remotely civil. --CBD 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never had any reason to doubt Calton's honesty. His civility needs work, but his integrity is above reproach. I would also trust Jpgordon's assessment of any privately-held evidence. Is there any conceivable reason not to drop the banhammer on TruthCrusader here?

As to the second (relatively minor) issue here, I hope that any (remaining) involved parties can have a good-faith discussion about type and quality of sourcing on Talk:Will Geer. If TruthCrusader is removed from the equation, there should be nothing that prevents a civil, rational talk page discussion about any remaining editorial concerns, right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that you are making false equivalences, CBD. You seem to be avoiding responding directly to this charge. El_C 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding? No... I simply assumed that since proof Calton's 'charges' were false is plainly visible on this very page there was no need to respond to them at all. If you think otherwise, let's look at these 'charges';

1. CBDunkerson is "excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls" - See my first post above (my only previous comment on this matter). See me saying that TruthCrusader, the presumable target of Calton's personal attack, had edit warred and that if the accusations of off-wiki harassment could be proven he should be indef blocked. In what way does this 'excuse bad behavior'?
2. "false equivalency" - I said that Calton engaged in edit warring too... he has. I said that Calton has engaged in incivility and personal attacks too... he has (and not just towards TruthCrusader). I said that these were less severe than the vicious comments attributed to TruthCrusader off-wiki... they were. So, where did I say anything 'false' or that they were 'equivalent' except in ways that... they were?
3. CBDunkerson has stated "actual falsehoods about the article ... 'Harry Hay' is NOT the source of the claims" - I can't claim to have studied the matter in extensive detail so perhaps I am somehow mistaken... but I truly have no idea how the quotation of Harry Hay saying, "Much of America wasn't ready to hear that Grandpa on The Waltons was bisexual" in this edit by Calton means that "Harry Hay is NOT the source of the claims". Harry Hay said it... but he is not the source? What person then, other than Harry Hay, IS the source of this claim?

Bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. Claiming that saying both users need to follow the standards is "excusing bad behavior" is an obvious falsity. The truth is that I did not excuse Calton's bad behavior. Which I will no doubt be thanked for... given the vehemence of insistence that bad behavior should NOT be excused. :] --CBD 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's enough strawmen to populate an Iowa county full of cornfields. That last paragraph, where you link together separate quotes to give the appearance my claiming something I didn't is a classic. But let's go through them.

• Point 1: let's start with your denigrating rhetoric, starting with "Calton claims", piled on with other, similar qualifiers ("difficult to prove", etc.), all with the rhetorical result -- intentional, I'm sure -- of casting doubting on what I say.
• Point 2: All those "facts"? Literally true, qualitatively false. Again, another attempt to rhetorically place my comments on par with the grotesque outbursts of TruthCrusader ("Granted, your organization is not as bad as NAMBLA..." "Yes, as President, he would be not as bad as Pol Pot...").
• Point 3: I included THREE references, not just one you quoted as if it were the only one. So I'd say yah, you didn't study the matter in much detail -- all three or four sentences worth -- to overlook the two other references. Again, literally true regarding your characterization of one of the references, qualitatively false to not mention the other two.

Ultimately, yeah, it's a question of your playing rhetorical games to minimize egregious conduct and make false equivalences. Personally, I'm thinking that all this contrarian behavior on your part is just a game for you, a chance to play a junior-league defense attorney on the internets. It certainly seems that your standards as to what is defensible directly correlates to the likelihood of the "defendant" being blocked or banned: your essentially unilateral defense of User:Pigsonthewing in his two ArbCom cases -- User:Pigsonthewing hisownself couldn't be bothered to respond -- is an obvious showcase, and funny how his incivility deserved a pass, hmm?

And just a thought: regular readers on this noticeboard should think back on CBDunkerson's various contributions to it. It might be worth considering how frequently he jumps to the defense of the badly behaved with his "Fight the power! Admins can't be trusted!" rhetoric. How seriously should he be taken? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea what is going on or how this has suddenly exploded. For the Will Geer article, I did not feel the information claiming his sexuality was verifiable enough to warrent such an inclusion in the article. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt this way. I cant see how it could be called an edit war, as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me, rather than caring about the article, which is why I was trying to prevent what I felt was not notable sources removed from the article. In the interests of fairness however, I will cease to work on the article as apparently Calton will not give me any peace over it. I still maintain the sources being given are not notable enough, but I will allow others to make that call now.

As for this so called Wiki-stalking. I admit my past on Wiki hasn't been stellar, as evident by my block logs. However, I have NO idea what Calton is on about. He hasn't shown me or anyone outside his circle of 'friends' any evidence at all and I honestly have NO idea who he has decided to throw this at me, of all people. I have remained civil in this matter, despite my temptation to unload on him, which is something I wish to point out he has not. I can't even think WHY he would think I would WANT to harass him, I had forgotten he had even existed until I logged in one day to find a rather nasty message on my talk page. There DOES seem to be something fishy going on, and I wish to point out that part of my problems in the past were caused by a multiple banned user named Chad Bryant, who would do what he could to get me banned or in trouble. He HAS impersonated me on the Internet many many times, and I am starting to wonder if this may be the case now. Just look at my past talk pages/incidents/block logs of myself and Chad Bryant to see. That MAY be what is happening here because I damn well know I would not waste my time with anything to do with Calton. TruthCrusader 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this investigation however, as I do not like lies and slanderous remarks being made about myself, even on Wiki which, by the way, I don't even visit much anymore due to real life.

as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me - Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 2...: I provided THREE reliable sources -- two from books, even -- and yet you reverted with the edit summary "...Not sourced, not verified...". So, who, exactly, seems to be reverting for its own sake? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted on Talk:Will Geer the results of a brief search for references regarding the alleged bisexuality of Geer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a 207.69.137.* user

Some user of what looks like to be an Earthlink controlled IP range (207.69.137.*) seems to be engaged in a campaign of subtle vandalism around Misplaced Pages. For example here, where chunks of the article have been repeatedly ripped out under the claim of not verifiable. Looking at the talk pages of the anonymous users involved 1, 2 and 3 show a pattern of vandalism disguised as concern for one policy or another leading to temporary blocks and such. Is there anything that can be done that is more permanent? Feel free to shout at me if this isnt the right place for this concern btw. --Martin Wisse 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With an ISP IP range like that, it's tough to tie all those edits and warnings to a single user. A lot of vandalism originates from ranges like that. Especially with dial-up ranges, as those change every login. That said, its probably best to treat these like any other vandalism events: Revert and warn the user, then list on AIV if it becomes epidemic in a short period of time (within a few minutes of the last warning). Arakunem 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:88.97.18.12

This user just came to my attention because he has been removing the LGBT tag from Eddie Izzard (an out Transvestite performer, so he falls under the T part of LGBT). He seems to think that Izzard isn't a transvestite, but just dressed in drag to be funny. A quick look over his edit history indicates a passive homophobia; he has changed 'partner' to 'girlfriend' (minor, but on many pages, such as Andy Kershaw and Jools Holland; he declares '"Partner" only means boyfriend in Britain/Antipodes', and I'd like a Brit to clarify this), and changed

'expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values'

to

'expressing the belief that homosexuality is immoral or harmful) is, to some, a human right;'

(removed the quotes about immoral, and that human right bit)

It's a very subtle sort of POV editing to a homophobic view, possibly not notable in one or two cases, but seems to be a persistent pattern in this user. If someone could look at his edits, and also keep an eye on Eddie Izzard (because I believe he will hit 3RR there with the tag removal), that would be appreciated. --Thespian 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK "partner" signifies "partner", there is no sexual difference. It is of course used for same sex errr, errr partners, but it isn't mutually exclusive! I referred to my 42 year old 'girlfriend' as being my partner as "girlfriend" seems a little 'teeny bopper' for our age group. So basically that IP editor is dishing out the BS in shovel size portions. ---- WebHamster 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit is more than a little POV. IrishGuy 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Irishguy hence out of place) - I don't think that's POV pushing - the measure she was opposing was in relation to civil partnerships, which (as the bill was drafted) were only to be permitted for gay couples, so "special treatment" is a legitimate phrase in the context — iridescent 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary made it clear that wasn't exactly what he meant. IrishGuy 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not arguing - aside from anything else, it's clear from the history that they do have an agenda to push, and the "homosexuals have always had equal rights" claim is just plain odd - just saying that that particular edit doesn't seem worth revert-warring over — iridescent 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I can handle the Eddie Izzard issue; I've been doing it for a year, and it dropped off after I added several cited quotes of his explaining that he does think of himself as fitting into transgender politics (indeed, if the IP editor had read them, one cites that Izzard believes it's important to him to be out because a guy in a dress is always presented in comedy as a buffoon). The IP seems to think that Izzard is doing the drag thing just for a laugh, the way Monty Python or Kids in the Hall do. But that I can deal with. I just more wanted to bring it to the attention of admins that in a very subtle way, this IP is adding POV to a whole bunch of articles, in a way that might not be connected under normal circumstances; I just always check the history of anyone whose edits I need to revert, just to check. Hadn't seen an edit history this pervasive and intentional before, though. --Thespian 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a pure content dispute; I could make a legitimate case that Izzard as a Transvestite doesn't necessarily qualify as Transgender (the T in LGBT) as there's nothing to indicate he self-identifies as part-female rather than a male with a particular clothing preference (any more than a fondness for carrots necessarily makes someone a furry as part-rabbit). The whole transgender definition thing is a can of worms I don't propose to get into any deeper than I am - I get enough flak keeping Transgender musicians from slipping over the edge. I'd suggest raising the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — iridescent 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, there is a quote on Talk:Eddie Izzard in which, if correct, he did describe himself as "transgender" in 2000 — iridescent 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

From my experience of Trannies (I know quite a few), the majority would take exception to being considered as "Transgender". The die-hard Tranny doesn't consider himself to be anything other than a male who likes women's clothes. It certainly isn't a statement of sexuality, it's a sexual fetish. All the Trannies I know are proud to be male and have no wish at all to be female. I'd suggest that they don't (at least the majority don't) match the requirement of the "T" in LGBT. ---- WebHamster 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject LGBT and a crossdresser (the term transvestite is generally seen as deperecated in much of the english speaking world), I'd just like to point out that there is some apparent confusion here between transvestic fetishism and cross-dressing. By definition, all cross-dressers are transgendered, but transvestic fetishists are not. The biggest problem with the term transgender is that its definition varies in different parts of the world. In some places, transgender is seen as a synonym for non-op transsexual. We can take this discussion across to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies if anyone feels that it is necessary, but a quick read of the relevant articles will show that Izzard does meet the normal definition of transgendered. --AliceJMarkham 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, unban User:Robert Lindsay

I've just read his lengthy post on his blog. (If you find the link offensive, please remove it.) I've read the reasoning for the permaban and an appeal against it as well. In my view he was banned for his opinions, but even bad opinions are not a wikicrime. That's why I ask for his unbanning. —V. Z. 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• We couldn't care less what his opinions are; we just have no reason to provide a platform for him to express them. --jpgordon 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Never heard of him before but on reading the sorry saga I agree with Jpgordon - there's a difference between "Misplaced Pages is not censored" and "Misplaced Pages welcomes trolls". Since this guy claims to hate us so much, why would he want to come back? — iridescent 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The project is better without such people. Let them have their fun at their blog, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should he be unbanned could I suggest that there be a brevity requirement that goes along with it? :) Anyway, who gives a crap if the Jews are in charge? So long as the info is available and editable I couldn't give a monkey's left teste if it's left-handed lesbian Moslem with AIDS and a limp that's in charge. ---- WebHamster 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a Yahoo! Group for them. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Depopulation

SchmuckyTheCat is emptying Category:Universities in mainland China. Kowlooner 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a category and list for both 'mainland China' and 'People's republic of China'? isn't that sort of redundant? Or am I missing some subtle difference? ThuranX 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Schmucky's blanking of the section. I don't know what's going on here, but it doesn't look very legit. ⇒SWATJester 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Instantnood can take a hike with his complaints. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that they are the same person. If you continue to mass revert again, I'm blocking you for disruption.⇒SWATJester 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I got a message from Kowlooner which said the two are different, but I'm not sure in what way, as he specifically said that "Yes there is. In PRC legislations, regulations, directives, etc., mainland China does not include Hong Kong and Macau." I didn't think that PRC included those two either. I'm not sure what Schmucky's trying to do with that, but I do note that instead of clarifying Kowlooner, he just erased the comments off my talk page, which I generally take as rude in two ways: One, although no one 'owns' their talk, I've repeatedly read here (AN/I) and elsewhere that messing with others' talk pages shouldn't be casually done, and two, because it interferes with user to user communications. Now, can we get a simple, one para clarification about why there is or is not a difference between Mainland and PRC? ThuranX 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, That makes it twice, at least, that Schmucky has deleted another editors' comments, once here at AN/I, which I've seen before treated ESPECIALLY poorly, and on my talk. Is there a checkuser to actually support the contention that Kowlooner is banned? Further, now that it's been brought up, let's not drop it at the moment a CU proves it. I'd still like an explanation. ThuranX 03:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 33 Political divisions of China 22 provinces, and some others. Instantnood wants their to be three (Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau).

This conversation is so old and stale it is ridiculous - and the perpetuation of this and INSTANTNOODS perpetual edit war over it is what got him banned. He returns with a sockpuppet every few weeks to carry this argument, just long enough for any CU data to expire. But check the RFCU archives to see that I can spot an Instantnood sock a mile away. I'm not waiting for weeks of some process to AGAIN remove the same revert warring abuse that went on for two years. SchmuckyTheCat

, , . I'm not sitting still while the latest incarnation of sockpuppet edits a few hundred articles that will need fixing later. I've had this exact conversation several times. SchmuckyTheCat

It's your duty to file a RFCU, or to report him here or at AIV. It's NOT your duty to make massive, disruptive reverts of every edit this guy makes, without so much as the slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet. It's even worse to do that in the midst of a massively POV category depopulation. Weren't you involved in an arbitration about all of this relatively recently as well? I've warned you once already on your talk page, and once here. If you continue to revert him, I'm blocking you for wikistalking and disruption. You should know better. The proper move here is to file an AN/I or AIV or RFCU report. Not to massively remove every edit this guy has ever done. ⇒SWATJester 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet?

1. Look at that article history, it's all Instantnood socks.
2. Oh, another one.
3. Oh, Kowlooner makes the same exact edit as Qaka? Who is Qaka, well, User:Qaka says it's an Instantnood sock.
4. How about this one?
5. BTW, who's wikistalking?

Should I go on? SchmuckyTheCat

Re ThuranX: The PRC has 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and four cities directly under the central government. One of the 23 provinces lies wholly within the ROC, which the PRC claims but have never ruled. Three other provinces claim territories in the ROC. In addition to the provinces, autonomous regions and direct cities, the PRC has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau. The 22 provinces, five autonomous regions and four direct cities are collectively called Mainland China. They constitute what PRC was before Hong Kong and Macau became part of the PRC. Kowlooner 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians, two blocks resulting

Three users, Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently got into an edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is nothing new, nothing new at all. I blocked the first and third users for 48 hours, and left Taharqa a warning because he made fewer reverts. Then I realized there are a half-dozen more users liable to continue the edit war, so I protected the article for a week. I'm unsure which of the two I blocked broke the 3RR, but it doesn't matter much to me, as they've both edit-warred (and been blocked for it) before, and should have known better. Comments on whether I was too harsh, too lenient welcome; I just did what seemed most likely to end the dispute (for the time being). Picaroon (t) 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off now. If any admin thinks these blocks were the wrong solution, no need to wait for me to respond, just gain consensus here and unblock. Picaroon (t) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy definitely broke 3RR, and looking at his block log, it would have been justified to block him for longer. Jeeny's violation isn't as clear, since he says he was trying to restore some grammar/spelling corrections, but this edit is more than just spelling and grammar, and the edit summary is indicative of edit warring. Looking at his block log, there's a lot there, but a lot of the blocks were overturned after they were imposed, so the 48 hour length seems fine. It looks like Taharqa had 3 reverts today (of different content each time); a warning was certainly appropriate, and from what I see of his/her conduct on the article (see esp. 23-24 October), I'm not sure I would have stopped at a warning.

Given the ongoing disputes at this article I wonder if it's a good idea to impose a 1RR parole on the article, or other editing restrictions. It's been protected from editing several times already. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heinz2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The checkuser who responded to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heinz2007 determined that "The Heinz2007 account has already been noted as a disruptive account that is behaving in a manner that merits a block" , and declined to perform a check to determine whether Heinz2007 has been using an abusive sockpuppet on that basis. Could an administrator please block Heinz2007? Thanks. John254 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

He's attacked me both on my talk page, and at Talk:DreamHost. J 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards