Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 20 February 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

SqueakBox and Personal Attacks

FInally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Misplaced Pages. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Misplaced Pages. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak mainly does NPOV pushing, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton /_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton /_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton /_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of keeping the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I applied arithmetic to the situation; Referring to that as mere opinion is like saying that evolution is just a theory. A 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping is no demonstration of consensus to delete; Therefore, the MfD was closed against apparent consensus. The deletion review was tied 7:7 when VigilancePrime stepped up and ended the drama by agreeing to the deletion per user request, provided that Squeak were to leave VP alone. A consensus in support of the MfD closer's point of view has never been demonstrated, and was, in fact, explicitly opposed. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen . Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Misplaced Pages. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Misplaced Pages. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee. Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a private procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant public complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. El_C 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
2. How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
3. I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), WP:STEAM and WP:PA become the license of the day.

If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one edit to my talk page, Squeak described me as a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying thanks. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a vicious cycle whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.

There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Misplaced Pages work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.

I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to play nicely if we're going to play in the same sandbox. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --SSBohio 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Misplaced Pages without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Misplaced Pages processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to any harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted SNAP in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice Catholic priests who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --SSBohio 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's interesting. I admit until now I had you pegged as a PPA, and I don't even edit in the area - had just watched contribs, the kinds of editors (including now-indefinitely-banned ones) and proposals you supported and opposed etc. :/ Certainly says something for assumptions that can be made (and also how important it is to be careful in a place like this what impressions one gives off). Orderinchaos 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, one of the big problems with discussions around this topic is that any perspective other than absolute deletionism is tarred as PPA. I find it disgusting that I even have to assert that I oppose the sexual abuse of children. For the record, I oppose murder, arson, and jaywalking, but I never need to assure anyone of that. I've faced repeated intemperate remarks from Squeak and others, and been forced to defend my commitment to child safety more than once.

I think that the pro-pedophile viewpoint is notable, and I see zero chance that someone would read an article that neutrally covers that view and come away thinking that child sexual abuse is a good idea. We've been shooting mosquitoes with an elephant gun in this topic area, largely initiated by Squeak and editors in league with him, and enabled by sympathetic admins and editors swayed by pejoratives. That all of these are well-intentioned is beside the point. Well-intentioned people have done some pretty unwise things throughout history. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues , hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of victim notification than canvassing. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) (see what I mean?)

I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) Fighting for Justice (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? —Whig (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it", he was asked by arbitrator Morven (talk · contribs) to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not an admin (though I'm open to being drafted). I think that Squeak was intending to encourage the desysopping of SGGH or Gonzo fan2007, but I'm not sure since it's 100% based on my recollections. Squeak has successfully advocated the banning of certain users based on their supposed status as pedophiles, pro-pedophile activists, or sockpuppets. At least one of these accusations has been erroneous, based on my investigation. I wonder how many other contributors have been driven away by the civility and abuse issues raised here. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my bad. It was SSGH indeed. The thing is: there's nothing wrong with identifying pedophile activists trying to impose themselves in relevant articles and there's nothing wrong with advocating a ban for them. Of course, if you work on PAW articles and you label everyone you're in disagreement with a pedophile activist, well, you're gonna be right quite often. You'll also be wrong quite often and really these accusations are extremely hurtful for the victims. That pattern of behaviour participates in the toxic paranoia on these talk pages and they scare away a lot of editors who would be willing to try and arbitrate disputes but (not so surprisingly) are quick to give up in the face of the "you're either with us or with them" attitude. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

This thread is being considered for deletion by those guilty of discriminatory anti-dramatism.

No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) Merkinsmum 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me plz. Will 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, can we put this on other users' pages as needed? :) MastCell  04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just awesome. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Agreed. To my subpage! Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, I was looking for the right place to advertise my userboxes. Now I know that it's Misplaced Pages:ANI 72.193.12.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me!

This user is tired of hearing about "lieking Mudkipz".

-Jéské 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you make one for the opposite point of view as well?  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean for people who AREN'T tired of lieking Mudkipz?? Didn't know there WAS such a point of view! >: Gladys J Cortez 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is sad, but I can see a range of T-shirts being made lol Merkinsmum 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This userbox should immediately be deleted as it is extremely offensive. I suffer from lovidus exemptulus, a rare syndrome denying one the emotion of love, and am therefore unable to love, like, or know the wikidrama. This is both offensive personally and generally, and is considered racist since I am not only of race, but of a disabled race. Failure to immediately delete this template will result not only in a TfD, MfD of the TfD, AN/I thread, MfD of the AN/I thread, RfC, MfD for the RfC, etc., and an MfD for the etc. Let us please not turn this into one drawn out wikidrama and just stop the nonsense now; please delete this dreadful userbox to avoid any further wikidrama. --12 Noon  20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rofl! I find that the alternate statement, 'ignore all dramas' is deeply offensive to me, because I have a recognised disability, a personality disorder that leads me to be dramatic and call endless attention to myself (I believe there to be an epidemic of it on wiki and ANI) as such, to ignore all dramas would be to ignore me and my deepest needs, and be discrimination on grounds of disability. This disability has also been found to be genetic and hereditary and yes, racial, I am shocked at the high levels of anti-dramaism I see on wiki, all other racism seems to be fought to some extent, but it's fashionable for people to say that the dramatic, should be ignored and even killed. Shocking. I may have to write to that friendly journalist at The Register. Merkinsmum 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text. The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text., . Her text was removed, and she reverted.. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again . When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years. When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her..

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time; Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE, where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK ). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. Merkinsmum 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent example from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is aptly described in User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. SlimVirgin 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the content dispute. What is at issue here is the behavior of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page. You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, attacked me for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete lack of good faith. That is behavior that requires correction. Crum375 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and defuse this.

'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)

You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.

Now, I go, because there really is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. Relata refero (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. Gimmetrow 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. Gimmetrow 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)

"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. Marskell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Misplaced Pages should be a fun process — I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.

Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.

That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. SlimVirgin 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.

Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute. Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred), it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up. It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to assume good faith in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on other policy talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old. Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to WP:LAYOUT arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at Keith Mann; expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not WP:LAME. The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations. That another policy change is proposed at WP:V because of content disputes arising in other Animal Liberation Front-related articles is also a concern. Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want. Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.

This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.

I've also changed the attack header to this thread. SlimVirgin 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the talk page where you started the discussion at WP:GTL about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at Keith Mann. Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned. Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions; you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours, the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, against my wishes and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue. I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history. Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply to the unfounded accusation of personal attacks on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) A look at Keith Mann leads me to assess it as being a bit on the hagiographic. That's typical of articles with advocacy wikiprojects standing over them, and unsurprising considering that of the sixteen cited works, six are autobiographical and three are from advocacy groups on his side. But that's neither here nor there. More relevant is that the "see also" references all appear in the big navbox, so either the latter is excessively comprehensive, or the "see also" section is redundant. Guideline or no guideline, something in the current layout of the article ought to give.

What really bugs me is that this is yet another instance of people changing a policy/guideline to gain traction in a dispute. I've been in another of these, with the same people no less, and in my opinion it is destructive of any kind of order within the project. Policies and guidelines should be stable, or else they are useless. WP:BOLD, applied to policies and guidelines, is an invitation to abuses; it makes the "solution" for any dispute over a "rule" spread the dispute to the rule itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

User:Mikkalai has been leaving rude remarks and accusing of be a sockpuppet at my talk page. This was after a Wikiquette alert was filed by User:Hux. I proceeded to become a mediator in the situation by leaving calm warnings at both of their talk pages. User:Cheeser1 suggested bringing the incident here. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not, nor will I, endorse either side of this dispute. I simply suggested that since SISKYWARN wanted administrator attention, and was in a dispute with an administrator, that he bring his complaints here. The WQA isn't the place to hash out issues that (at least in his opinion) require admin-on-admin intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay neutral initially, but when User:Mikkalai left the messages on my talk page, I stated that on the WQA page and left the user a kind warning. Also at that point, I asked for administrator intervention. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As Southern Illinois SKYWARN says, I was the one who opened up the original WQA. When I first saw that this ANI had been opened, I was going to post to say that I didn't think it was necessary at this point. However, having seen Mikkalai's reaction to that WQA (which I described here), I concede that this ANI probably is necessary after all. Hopefully we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. I really hope it doesn't escalate any further. :( -- Hux (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka knows what he's doing, and he's (wisely) decided to take a break until things cool down. I think you guys got what you wanted. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you're right at all. His response to this ANI and the original WQA is indicated by what he posted to his user and talk pages: "Taking a break until wikilawyers move onto other victims. Have fun with cangaroo courts." This is not the actions of a person who recognizes that he is in any way at fault. As such, there is every reason to believe that if this just silently blows over he will continue attacking people and abusing WP:OWN. -- Hux (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stay cool, but I find the above response outrageous. I was initially a mediator in this case. I left calm warnings on Mikka's talk page, and he responded by attacking me on my talk page. His comments are illustrated here. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and calls WQA "Cangaroo courts". Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to repeatedly add templated warnings to the Talk page of an admin (after he has acknowledged the templated warnings by removing them from his Talk page) is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring here. Southern Illinois SKYWARN left two separate warnings on Mikkalai's talk page and Mikkalai reverted them both (as he's entitled to do, although imo doing so while the dispute is ongoing tends to look pretty bad, as if the reverter is trying to hide something). But the more important issue is the incivility and the WP:OWN stuff. Perhaps you could comment on that? (Details at the WQA link above, if you need them.) - Hux (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I left two warnings on Mikkah's talk page (one of them for ownership, the other for personal attacks). I added my own words to the first warning in addition to the template. I believe that warnings should be left on talk pages unless they have been rectified in some way so other editors are aware of infractions. If anyone has a problem, please say so, but also back up your argument. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may believe that, but Misplaced Pages:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings disagrees. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I had never seen that essay. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to repeat that I was initially an outside mediator in this case. I knew that I should have never gotten involved with dispute resolution even though it usually does not turn out like this. Also note that this was my first mediation ever. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has had trouble with civility before. Given the number of long-term users who are having real trouble with civility, I'm beginning to think our current policy on this is completely broken. Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. --Iamunknown 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero: I found this comment of yours further down the current page quite eye-opening (emphasis mine):

if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits."

I don't tend to pay much attention to this or similar pages, so I'm not well aware of the history, but if what you imply is true - that long-term established users are basically being allowed to get away with being grossly uncivil because they're long-term, established users then that's a big problem. It goes dead against the whole point of Misplaced Pages as a fair, welcoming place for people to contribute, and is inevitably going to make large amounts of users lose all respect for the disciplinary processes that have developed here as a means to make the site a better place. That can't possibly be a good thing. -- Hux (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it might be a case of "Yeah, we know these people tend to mouth off and treat people badly, but they also do a lot of really great stuff on the wiki - if we alienate them by making them play by the rules, we'll lose their services." I'm not saying I condone this line of thinking, but if it happens to be the line of thinking, I can sorta understand it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment: I left a message on the WQA page as well, explaining that when a user removes warnings from his own talk page, it's taken as a sign that he has read and acknowledges the warnings (even if, in fact, he hasn't) - the warnings are acknowledged for purposes of admin action. However, with all due respect, I'm disappointed with the initial responses to this report. I found the initial response of "Mikkalai has (wisely) decided to take a break" to be overly trivial, and the further responses of "edit warring on Mikkalai's talk page" to be rather dismissive of the original complaint. It came across as justifying Mikkalai's actions by way of pointing out how Hux's/Skywarn's actions were less than perfect.

I don't believe it's right to condone an admin breaking established policies under any circumstances without consensus, and I further do not believe it's right to dismiss a user's complaints about an admin's actions via procedural technicalities. And, more personally, I agree with Skywarn's assessment that Mikkalai's "kangaroo court" comment about WQA indicates a disdain for WP's dispute resolution process and an unwillingness to acknowledge or change his behavior. I've reviewed some of Mikkalai's edit history and agree that his behavior has been out of line, especially for an admin. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, any comments from the admins who originally looked at this report? This is now the third time I've commented on a situation like this, with the intent of requesting discussion from other admins, and received no response (other than from other people who are basically already on the same side). I really would like to see an end to this seemingly common practice of sweeping stuff under the carpet - I realize you're busy with other incidents as well, but I'd sincerely like to start working toward a consensus on rectifying some pretty serious issues. My vested interest in this, of course, is to protect my own credibility as an admin of this fine project. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0/Payne2thamaxx

Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Payne2thamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This whole thing is one big mess. Tasc0 was a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor. My only two encounters with him ever were at recent AN3 reports. He was indefinitely blocked by Ronnotel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following this death threat against Ronnotel's family. A quick glance at this evening's history of User talk:Tasc0 will show you what blew up, but basically, Payne2thamaxx made a trolling comment , Tasc0 responded in kind , Ronnotel blocked Tasc0 for the personal attack , the unblock was declined, and Tasc0 left the aforementioned parting shot prompting the indefblock.

Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 .

It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At , 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax from some time before.

Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.

I have filed a checkuser request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Payne2thamaxx to confirm whether Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs) is related.

For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen here.

I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.

I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.

I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of Same As It Ever Was. B's proves this with the diffs.

Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. Tasc0 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Misplaced Pages so much. Tasc0 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)

Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:

• I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, User:B says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
• That said, if any editor - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at User:Ronnotel, that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
• You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically abusive sock-puppetry, since you're evading your block. That said, I do agree that if you haven't abused the e-mail function, that should be restored. I won't do so unless I hear from Ronnotel, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are now in - Alison 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think 166.109.97.107, 166.109.0.247, and 166.109.97.168 (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on User talk:Real Compton G) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you really owe an apology to User:Ronnotel. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but death / rape threats (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. Spellcast (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also email the unblock mailing list - email blocks only affect the on-wiki email feature. They do not prevent you from emailing addresses directly. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point; his talk page has been unprotected, though, so this shouldn't be an issue in this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User refuses to communicate, continues to introduce possible copyvio images and mos issues.

I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#Problem_User_follow-up. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. Marcopolis (talk · contribs) has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting , and yet in another article he removes it --Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, BorgQueen can speak Korean. --Appletrees (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio Image:Seoulsubway.jpg instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio Image:Submapvers.jpg. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--Crossmr (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#Problem_user.--Crossmr (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I add a message to him wich explain that the wiki syntax has to be prefered to HTML and that he have to speak with other user instead of always make the same modifications without explanation. I haven't got a lot of free time this week, and four days ago i present an article to FA election in the french wiki. So i think that was my last message with this kid. Yves-Laurent (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate the help. As you can imagine its quite frustrating dealing with someone who keeps doing stuff over and over that you can't communicate with.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He told me that he will use the wiki syntax for his next edit. A vous les studios Yves-Laurent (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style#Comment structurer un article ? give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Jayjg

I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them (User:Slrubinstein) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.

User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this discussion then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I asked for an apology, instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).

I started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the ANI but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.

Then this edit was made (diff) on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted (diff) the edit and was in turn reverted by User:Briangotts (diff) with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, User: Schlcoh who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is here and here.In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence (diff) to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.

Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note (diff) claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Misplaced Pages article History of the Jews in Turkey which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.

I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? El_C 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he demand an apology? Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct Request for Comment would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (here). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. Will 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. Relata refero (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Misplaced Pages is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Misplaced Pages against their flagrant and unambiguous abuse, because it is really really really important to them to get their POV on Misplaced Pages. Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Misplaced Pages not neutral on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much much better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way does not work with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is part of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?

So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.

Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after WP:TRUTH. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.

Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably user:Bonaparte, or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know User:WLRoss's work, but I do know Jay's, and there are reasons beyond troll vendettas that his name comes up so often on AN/I boards, dispute resolution fora, RfArbs, and so on, and why so many intelligent, erudite, good-faith editors simply despair of trying to collaborate meaningfully with him. He does not approach core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR (the apparent locus of the present dispute) as goods in themselves, as higher principles, as guides to editorial self-discipline – the way, say, an ideal Supreme Court judge would approach constitutional law. Rather he approaches them the way a lawyer approaches legal precedent, as a means to a frankly partisan end, as rhetorical tools useful for retaining content he agrees with and expunging content he disagrees with, and if need be, as sharp weapons to be used against rival editors. He would no more submit his own work to the principles he cites against the work of others than he would grab hold of a scimitar by the blade end instead of the handle. Take for example his two back-to-back interventions today, on Benny Morris and Israel Shahak, the latter being a vociferous critic of Israeli policies, the former an equally vociferous advocate of same. The policy issue in both cases is identical – WP:BLP, and how it specifically requires especially good sources for negative material about living persons. Look at the Benny Morris edit and its corresponding talk-page justification: Jay removes the following paragraph –

According to Ilan Pappé, Morris is biased in his use of sources (he uses mainly Israeli sources), and is contemptuous of Arabs and Arabic sources, which Morris, furthermore, cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. He also attributes Morris's work, critical and historical, to a wish to be popular in mainstream Zionist circles.

– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from Ilan Pappé, where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on Israel Shahak, where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:

According to Paul Bogdanor, Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."

– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay explains that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – "Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press" – which is sourced to CAMERA, WorldNetDaily, and some other junk.

Now, whatever one may think of Shahak, Pappé, and Morris, it should be clear that for Jay, WP:BLP represents a strategic weapon and not an editorial principle. Edits like this are the meat and potatoes of his work here, and quite naturally they infuriate less powerful – but more intellectually serious – Wikipedians and would-be collaborators.--G-Dett (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.

What in the world does WP:BLP have to do with Israel Shahak, who is dead? Nandesuka (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EI is doubtless a partisan source, somewhat like CAMERA, but it isn't an outright laughable source like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. It's run by Ali Abunimah, a relatively respected writer if not quite an academic heavy-hitter, and it's a sort of clearing-house for pro-Palestinian articles of all kinds, many from other sources. And in this case, remember, the source is Pappé himself, and his response to a potentially defamatory criticism.

Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an obscure blogger unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Instruction, Thuranx.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--G-Dett (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving." This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for an apology Relata refero. You are entitled to your opinion and I was using the quote as an example of what damage Jayjg's claim could have. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misuse the noticeboard in the future. It is reserved for actual, ongoing incidents, ones that are in need of administrative attention. Use dispute resolution. Thanks. El_C 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Misuse"? Why was this not put forward the first or second time when it could have saved wasting so many peoples time. Twice I have been told to wait and something would be done. I was never informed this was the wrong place for it.
This is not a case of someone calling another editor an idiot but of labelling an editor with what is probably one of the most offensive offences possible with no legitimate basis for such a claim. It has nothing to do with a content dispute as Jayjg took no part in it other than to use it as an opportunity to malign another editor. Working things out with Jayjg is out of the question as in my past dealing with him he lied, showed bias and displayed an inability to "work things out". Also, in three ANI's lodged he has declined to comment or defend himself.
I apologise for sounding a little annoyed but now that I’m being accused of misusing the forum it is hard to assume that this is not just another case of protecting Jayjg from the consequences of his actions. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use my real name?

Hi,

I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit Misplaced Pages. Jason (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. - Revolving Bugbear 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid Cross-namespace redirects which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not OK to use your real name to edit Misplaced Pages if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try info-en-q@wikimedia.org. It is also not forbidden to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the conflict of interest policy. Thatcher 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like Barry Bonds. I was only asking if you're allowed to edit Misplaced Pages if you have an article about yourself. Jason (talk, profile) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow Moscow Rules like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. Misplaced Pages:U#Real_names merely says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. I've always assumed the {{userpage otheruse}} on my userpage, making it clear that Tonywalton is not Tony Walton. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! Tonywalton  09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to this name in an XKCD comic, or if you've changed your name to GoldenPalace.com. --Elkman 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course ☺ Tonywalton  14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

there are so many cranks on wikipedia, I'd suggest you'd be off your rocker to use your real name - I had people contact my place of work and all sorts of shit. Use an alias and don't tempt fate. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta unblock request

See past discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior.

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) has e-mailed me (directly, not via Misplaced Pages e-mail) asking for additional assistance. From the past AN/I discussion (a little less than a month ago) it was discussed why Lilkunta was blocked, but little to no discussion regarding a trial unblock. Behavior was the main reason, not the font mess, but even with that I would like to ask that this situation be reviewed and a trail unblock be granted. Given that blocking, let alone indefinite blocking, is a last resort, I believe a trail unblock after almost nine months is a reasonable request. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't give them another try, but if the behavior starts up again it will have the same result. DarthGriz98 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So would anyone have any objections to a trial unblock? -- Ned Scott 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Outing of Misplaced Pages Editor User:Griot by Tawdry Tabloid Journalist

Comments on the Article

(this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on User talk:Griot#Looks like you've been set up) —Random832 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --jpgordon 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Original post

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

Submitted by: User:Griot

Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the SF Weekly called "Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" in which author Mary Spicuzza (Wikiname: Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.

Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Misplaced Pages about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.

The cyber-vendetta. Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a Misplaced Pages article about Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Misplaced Pages. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that her sister Jeanne was banned on two occasions from Misplaced Pages for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.

After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Misplaced Pages, another Spicuzza family member — she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 — began keeping a MySpace blog about me. In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) SF Weekly article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)

(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Misplaced Pages. In the Comments section to her sister’s SF Weekly article she wrote, “I do not participate on Misplaced Pages, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Misplaced Pages dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)

The hit is in. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Misplaced Pages under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the SF Weekly. I’m working on an article about Misplaced Pages and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Misplaced Pages editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. She wrote six more times to my Talk page asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”

The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.

False portrait of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages editors who manage to slog through “Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Misplaced Pages through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Misplaced Pages, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.

It gets even weirder. In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her Oct. 17 entry at the Matt Gonzalez Talk page is identical to her Oct. 17 entry on her MySpace blog (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to journalism ethics and standards?

Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up — my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a longer message by e-mail explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”

Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Misplaced Pages community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Misplaced Pages anymore. This place makes me tired.

Where to now? I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Misplaced Pages; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:

1. Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Misplaced Pages wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
2. How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
3. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Misplaced Pages, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
4. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Misplaced Pages for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?

Documents of interest to this matter:

• The article: "Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco"
• Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
• My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this): Griot's User Talk
• Tom Walsh and Will Harper: SF Weekly editors

Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed this checkuser request tonight - Alison 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. What's your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.

In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister... You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Misplaced Pages. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/XXX
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX

Betcha I know what they find. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --Calton | Talk 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.

Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. SlimVirgin 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Killed? Natalie (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite block of Griot David D. (Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his dozen or more sock puppets' contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But noooooooooo, he has to turn his user page into an extended onanistic rant, providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than take responsibility for what his own bad behavior brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up " (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, all of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Misplaced Pages-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of SF Weekly went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the Foundation will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper: SF Weekly or the Bay Guardian (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. MastCell  18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Black history daily

66.174.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Special:Linksearch/*.blackhistorydaily.com. Do we care? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, the BBC's linked, and also the NYT and the Globe and Mail. I don't think we need any more North American ones.

About a single user adding it to all those months, yes, assume its spamming. Relata refero (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also sympatico.ca, whihc I think is unnecessary - the others at least attempt to be global in scope; do we need "January 1 in Uzbekistan" style external links added for every country and every date? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• See also 66.174.79.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be some more IPs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Bradhemmings (talk · contribs). Suggest blacklisting the site. • Anakin 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hammerandclaw

I need some newbie admin advice on my first potential block for incivility rather than simple vandalism. Yesterday, User:Hammerandclaw was deleting portions of user talk pages at User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Carcharoth, in theory due to some issue with his broadband service. User:Nh.jg‎ warned him about this, and Hammerandclaw reacted poorly, being rather uncivil on User talk:Nh.jg, vandalizing User:Carcharoth, and claiming that User:Nh.jg has made now-deleted racist comments on someone's talk page. I've looked, admittedly not at every single edit, and have found nothing of the sort. I noticed this while watching recent changes, and left a message asking him to stop, and that further disruption would be met with a block. His reply to me wasn't very civil, but I don't care. He later emailed me, explaining the supposed technical difficulties, and I replied on his talk page. Meanwhile, Nh.jg had evidently had enough, and has retired. Hammerandclaw's response was this: . My questions:

• That final hahahahahaha seems over the top after his warning yesterday, and I consider it worth a 24 hr block. Yes? No?
• I'm unclear whether, due to being the subject of some of his incivility, I've somehow become "involved", and in a bad position to issue a block. I don't think so, but better safe than sorry.
• I'm unclear on whether, in addition, to somehow push for a retraction (or I suppose, verification) of his comments about Nh.jg before lifting the block, but that seems heavy-handed. Still, at this point he appears to have driven someone off the project.

Any and all advice appreciated. I will notify him of this thread. --barneca (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I refuse to accept this, User: Nh.jg made several racist comments on the user page of an IP user, and has shown poor conduct towards me in an e-mail he sent, hugely insulting. There is no way you can block me without blocking him, but then he's retired, too scared to face the consequences for his actions, because he knows he will be blocked. Honestly check his edits. It's a disgrace.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an admin, but I suggest based on what you say above, barneca, including a "hahaha.." posted about 4 hours ago on the page of a retired user, that a 24 hour block would be reasonable. On the other hand, without having read every word of your comments on the user's talk page, perhaps your previous warning had not been sufficiently strongly worded, and perhaps the user has stopped the incivilities after receiving notice of the existence of this AN/I thread, so unless you consider some of the subsequent remarks by the user to still be sufficiently out of line to warrant blocking, (some of them look rather angry; I'd have to study the context) perhaps it may also be reasonable not to block at this time but to keep an eye on the user and block if they do anything else out of line. I would suggest choosing a length of time for the block and letting the block expire after that length of time, or possibly earlier if the user shows remorse etc.; not blocking indefinitely until a specific behaviour is exhibited. I believe that's the usual procedure and that this is not an unusual case. Re when you start to count as being involved: difficult to say, but people should not be allowed to disqualify admins by swearing at them. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Remorse" doesn't matter - refraining from unconstructive behaviour does. And blocks are not punitive, they're to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages. If there were any evidence that Hammerandclaw's (apparently) completely spurious allegations had caused Nh.jg to retire then I would say an immediate block would be warranted, however there isn't. I'd agree that keeping a close eye on Hammerandclaw's interations with other editors would be good, with the possibility of mandatory mentoring if incivility of this nature continues. Tonywalton  14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I looked at NH.jg's edits and failed to see any evidence whatsoever of what you claim. Diffs, please. I can, however, see a good deal of evidence that you have but a passing familiarity with WP:CIV (diffs above, by Barneca) Tonywalton  14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Hammerandclaw: Incivilities against yourself are not an excuse for incivilities you commit. (I.e. "two wrongs don't make a right.") You might want to provide diff links here, showing the alleged incivilities by the other user; but that would probably be pointless anyway, since as I said they would not be an excuse for your behaviour, and I doubt anybody is going to block a retired user. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, I didn't swear at him did I? No, I didn't. Nh.jg's retirement is completely fake, he's just operating under sockpuppets, and will continue his racism in no time at all. Besides you can't do squat, you have no more powers that I do, so if yoou think I'm gonna keel to you...get real.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the additional clue that this "racist comment" was on an IP talk page, I've now gone to the trouble of reviewed every single one of hn.jg's contribs to IP talk pages, and all of them are simple standardized templates. This is a blatantly false allegation, and I can't imagine how it could be a good faith mistake. The civility is a concern, but I find nasty allegations of racism completely beyond acceptable behavior. 24 hours now seems quite short, especially considering the fact that the false allegations are continuing to be made. --barneca (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're gonna block me are you? I've had it with you Barneca, go get a job, and help out your racist buddy boy.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Completely unacceptable. Black Kite 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Black Kite, I was still hesitant to do it myself. I'm curious though, in your opinion, it would have been OK for me to have done the blocking, right? Otherwise, you just curse at all the admins and you're immune from blocking... --barneca (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think so. Obvious failure of NPA and CIV towards you isn't the same as blocking someone who you've been in conflict with over an article, especially when it's as blatant and public as that. Black Kite 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you showed remarkable patience and good judgment here. I would certainly have supported you blocking Hammerandclaw, and wa about to block him myself, but Black Kite got there first. Gwernol 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Off the record: You don't have to take that shit. On the record: You DON'T have to take that shit. Seriously, no one is going to overturn a block you give if someone attacks you personally. Once it degrades to what this guy did, you are completely free to block them yourself. You don't have to wait for another admin to notice. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Tonywalton down here so it doesn't get lost; yes, it appears Nh.jg left specifically because of this: . I've left a note on his talk page and hope he chooses to return, and in retrospect, wish I'd noticed the racism allegation sooner. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'd missed that one. Well handled, Barneca. Agreed 100% with Jayron32, by the way. Once H&C came up with the slaggngs off and "nyah nyah you can't touch me" here, of all places, where you are guaranteed to find admins, I was reaching for the block button myself but Black Kite beat me to it. 86.153.31.90 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Tonywalton  17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to everyone else: Thanks much for the advice. I thought I wasn't "in conflict", but doesn't hurt to check. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't think the "legal threat" was intended as such, the phrase used "report you for harassment" can mean reporting to (for example) this noticeboard, rather than to the police. —Random832 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hammerandclaw seems to me to be a new and unacculturated user. I don't think anything he has done is unreasonable, although it has tripped some wires here and I don't think that is unreasonable either. I ask for patience. He and I are engaged in a dialog and if I give up I'll let you know.

I would like those who have blocked him to consider their reasons. In particular, the claim that he has made any kind of legal threat seems to me quite inexplicable. --TS 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I would not consider it wheel-warring if TS lifted my block on this user, provided he is convinced it would be appropriate to do so. I think there should be a consensus for such an unblock, but again, if TS is convinced, that satisfies me, the current blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though as the original blocking admin, I will say that I believe the 48 hour ban should at least be served out. He certainly deserved that. Black Kite 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After fully disproving the racism allegation, and noting his response to, well, everyone, here and on his talk page, I was set to block for a week without considering the "legal threat" aspect, which I agree is probably a misread. I don't ask for, or want, any kind of apology, and I'm not trying to play some "look who's winning now" power game, but I'm just frankly opposed to an unblock until there is an apology to Nh.jg, whether or not he is under your tutelege. If that happens, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with, but would not oppose, an unblock after the original 48 hours is up. But really, shouldn't there be consequences to that kind of nteraction with other human beings? That "aw, come on, I'm sorry" thing he did after the second unblock request strikes me as nothing more than seeing if he can eek a little more fun out of us. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user has now apologised. Thoughts now? Woody (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess when I demand someone apologize, I can't complain that it doesn't sound real. It doesn't, but whatever. Unfortunately, Nh.jg isn't around to accept it, but I guess, whatever again. There probably was never a legal threat, the mysterious broadband problem has cleared up right on time, so I'm grudgingly OK with a reduction back to the original 48 hours, although I will make a final note for the record that his unacceptable behavior has continued right up until 10 minutes before the apology. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, unacceptable behavior by Hammerandclaw. If he's apologized, however perfunctorily, and an experienced Wikipedian (Tony Sidaway) is working with him, then I think letting the block run for 48 hours is the best approach. It should be abundantly clear that this editor has used up most of his allotted patience, and that a recurrence of these sort of issues will result in a longer or possibly indefinite block. MastCell  19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd still love to hear the details (details, not "my f**** broadband won't process it", whatever that's supposed to mean) of the apparent problem that obliges an editor to delete things. Hammerandclaw, if what you meant was "I screwed up and deleted something by mistake" then an admission is fine. Assuming good faith, if there's a real problem with an ISP, browser or (unlikely as it seems) broadband provider then it should be reported as a bug. I'd also add that your comments here will probably have led to your subsequent behaviour, if the block is reduced, being quite extensively watched. Tonywalton  20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory behaviour

User Cherso made these edits on Feb 17, 2008, in a timespan of 30 minutes. I find that these edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage. Inflammatory statement. Territorial expansionism.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
. "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? Comment on of the edit on the article Italia irredenta. Glorifying of irredentism ??? Non-Slav - what does this mean, that every cr*p is can be good unless it comes from Slavs?? Are we going to tolerate this?
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. With this one he obviously tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
Am I wrong or he has bad attitudes towards Slavs? Please, make conclusions for yourselves what kinds of attitudes are these. From my experiences with him, this looks like anti-Slav attitude.
As you see, he gradually shows that ("...breaks away from Slav control... I hope other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow", "beautiful day for non-Slav irredentism", "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories????????????").
These are heavily inflammatory edits and even worse. Something must be done. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're opposed to people abusing their Misplaced Pages user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Misplaced Pages, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Misplaced Pages. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Finlay, EconomicsGuy, Ricky81682.
It wasn't me who wrote those messages, but Cherso. He messed up, not me. He may be my opponent or not, but he did write that. Don't draw the attention away.
Don't equalize my opposing to joining of my country to a certain economic union, with the statement that Cherso wrote "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories" .
It's Cherso that wrote that things. Do you get it? Take a look better. These kind of messages aren't funny.
You weren't involved in the case before, please don't disrupt the flow of admin's procedure. Please, don't draw the attention away from the original problem. That's unconstructive. It's sad to see that none of you gave any criticism towards the Cherso's inflammatory messages.
In order to avoid crowding of this page, I'll talk with you on your talkpages.
Still, I'll remind you: how would you feel if you have seen the message like "finally, (your nation/country) have lost some territories". These kind of messages are not constructive, but disruptive and inflammatory.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No you are both in the wrong, you more so for attempting to get someone else banned fro doing something that you yourself were doing. Viridae 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacking

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? Peter jackson (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the right place to go. Nakon 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --jpgordon 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. east.718 at 17:46, February 19, 2008

This thread made me smile. Even knowing this I still occasionally do a "WTF" when cleaning out my watchlist and see some bizarre title. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What history page? The non-existent article hasn't got one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's ban Ln of x

Ln of x (talk · contribs) is a particularly abusive sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ln of x and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ln of x. The user has a long history of abuse stretching back more than six months. The user is continuing to set up sockpuppet accounts as recently as a few minutes ago, with Entershikarirules (talk · contribs) and Ilovepunk (talk · contribs). The vandalism is always similar to this, describing someone as cute and cuddly. I seriously doubt given the long history of abuse that any admin would unblock this user; as a result, they are defacto banned already. Let's make that official. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What benefit is there to "make that official" besides bureaucracy for its own sake? The edits are pure vandalism, it's not like anyone's going to suggest not reverting them. —Random832 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is virtually impossible to overturn, an indef block isn't. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can add the user to the list of banned users, and add a ban notice to the user page. --Yamla (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to oppose this in principle as there is absolutely no reason to hold an in-depth community ban discussion for a blatant vandal. WP:DENY, WP:RBI, etc. —Random832 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, any listing for this "user" belongs on WP:LTA, not WP:BANNED. —Random832 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why on earth bother? Ln of X is a blatant vandal, nobody will ever unblock them. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support ban I have encountered this vandal multiple times before, have blocked several of their socks, and have been trolled by them at least once. They have caused nothing but disruption to Yamla, to various other users, and numerous articles. I think a ban is appropriate here. Acalamari 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting a stop to this before we waste any more time on process for its own sake. —Random832 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation: A community ban is _defined_ as "no admin is willing to unblock" - the discussion/process stuff came later. By any reasonable definition, this "user" (if you can call him a user) is already banned. So, this whole exercise is pointless. We can revisit this if his status as being banned is ever disputed (but it's unlikely it will be). —Random832 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Irony and ArbCom enforcement

Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs) on a variety of editing restrictions per WP:ARBPIA. As you can see here, these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: this gem, aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? Moreschi 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. Justin_(u) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? Avruch 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti- bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell  18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then why are you commenting here? MastCell  01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your second sentence, which went beyond the scope of this particular incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a fine line, but saying something "not nice" isn't the same as being uncivil or what some might consider rude. It's an unfavorable opinion, and a mild one at that. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on Birth certificate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content issue. No admin action required. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article for Birth certificate previously had an image (Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG) of a Russian birth certificate. The image was deleted due to its improper licensing and subsequently removed from the birth certificate page, based on the fact that its fair use claims by the uploader David Shankbone, who has a history of adding inappropraite photos to Misplaced Pages, were invalid and that its use in Birth certificate was unnecessary and added very little valid information to the article's content. The uploader has reverted my removal of the image and added it back into the article. The uploader is adding this image for novelty purposes, as it allegedly depicts the birth certificate of a pornographic actor, although this is unverified, as is the claim that the document is a birth certificate at all. The image is not beneficial to the article at all, as there are very few Russian-readers who visit the Engligh-language article for Birth certificate, and the remaining viewers will not understand the document's content. Furthermore, because the article has no section on Russian birth certificates, the image has no place on the article as there is no text in the article referring to Russian birth certificates. This further invalidates the user's claim that the image's use in the article is fair use. Please review this issue and advise at your earliest convenience. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG doesn't need any kind of fair use justification. It is freely licensed under the GFDL. Have you tried using the talk page or contacting David Shankbone directly before bringing this here? --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your choice of a link to show his "history" of adding inappropriate photos is odd. If I remember correctly, his photos were largely supported in that discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The uploader was informed. The image was nominated for deletion, but all history of that issue has mysteriously erased itself from my contribution history. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the image was speedied - but only because an identical version of the same image was available from commons, and not because of any fault in licensing or origin. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the original reason for deletion, the main issue here is that the image does not currently contribute to the article at all. If David Shankbone has sufficient knowledge on Russian birth registration to add a section to the article, I welcome his addition. However, there are no sources to indicate that this image is actually that of a birth certificate. In my opinion, it looks more like a passport. Of course, I have no knowledge in this area, but this is simply my opinion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet era paperwork of this type and age actually would be closer to a passport in design, depending on when and where it was issued. Your request to this noticeboard was for advice on the matter, and I have no evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than what the uploader claims it to be. In this case, with regard to this image in and of itself, I don't see any issues. The inclusion of the image in a particular article is a content issue, but I note that free images (such as this one) are always preferred to non-free images. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this right - someone uploads a picture of a Russian birth certificate, and despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, you suggest that it might not even be a birth certificate? Wonderful. As for the photo itself, I'd say it adds to the article, especially as free photos of birth certificates are difficult to find. Black Kite 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rhythmnation2004 and Birth certificate issues

That's an interesting post by Rhythmnation. Not only did Rhythmnation lie about the reason for the removal of the photo, claiming it was a "deleted image", but also now questions whether the photo is a fake. Why is Rhythmnation here? Why are they not at the Talk page to discuss why a "Soviet birth certificate" does not belong on the Birth certificate article? What admin action, exactly, is an editor who removes sourced, cited content on an appropriate article by lying in an edit summary asking for? It seems pretty relevant for a global encyclopedia to mention in a sourced caption that the Soviets used to describe a Jewish person's nationality as "Jewish" and not "Soviet". But it's a content issue, not an admin issue. --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did they label non-Jewish people as "Soviet"? "nationality" may not be the right translation if not. —Random832 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, although it might be more relevant to wonder if they named people "Catholic" "Lutheran" "Greek Orthodox" etc. for the nationality. Considering the Soviet state was officially atheist, I would assume that other religions weren't considered "nationalities" but I'm sure a little research will answer. The citation I have makes mention of the history of "Jewish" being seen as a race (when it's not, it's a religion and ethnicity) as a way to single out Jews for discrimination. --David Shankbone 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually speculating that it might have been intended to refer to the ethnicity, and that the field in question would be filled in with other ethnicities. Regardless, it's not clear that a caption describing this issue belongs above the fold in an article about Birth certificates - Anti-semitism might be a more appropriate place —Random832 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that could be, but a lot of photos are used multiple times. my Scorsese photo is on a lot of articles I never placed it on. My issue is with a content question being raised on the admin board - it muddies the water too much between content and policy/guideline enforcement. It's hard to argue that my placement of a birth certificate on the Birth certificate article is superfluous, and how many people today are willing to have their birth certificates photographed and released GFDL? Not many... --David Shankbone 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhythmnation2004 has a long history of taking issues to noticeboard well before an issue needs to be brought there. He also has issues with ownership of articles, with this one in particular being one he feels attached to. Metros (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my own encounters with this individual suggest he's a) time-waster (in regards to his contributions to those sorts of discussions) and b) forum-shopper - check out his recent waste of bandwidth "efforts" around Harry Potter. Similar waste of times are littered through his history. I see nothing here that requires any admin intervention or any evidence that all efforts to use normal dispute channels have been exhausted. Oh and I've asked him to remove the misleading "wikibreak" notice on his userpage (for full disclosure on my part). --Fredrick day (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Nandesuka and Michael Lucas (porn star)

This admin and I had an issue in Talk:Pubic hair awhile back, and now appears to be trolling pages (ones he never edited before) removing my work., this one they restored vandalism, , . Then Nandesuka went on Michael Lucas (porn star) and again renamed the man a name that was never his. Lucas has made it clear on the Talk page that he was never given his father's name. There are sources that only refer to him as "Treivas". Then, to top it all off, I actually photographed his Soviet birth certificate, his Soviet passport, AND his US passport that ALL show his name is "Andrei Treivas". What more does this guy need to do to not have Misplaced Pages rename him simply because our "reliable" mainstream media wantonly assumed he was given his father's name when his mother never did so? The photos of these documents, at Lucas' request, are on his Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page - what more is this guy supposed to do? Force New York Magazine to write a new article with the correct name so Misplaced Pages will stop calling him a name he never had? I seriously doubt he is running away from his father's name--his father actually works for him at his porn company! Two issues: Please advise the admin User:Nandesuka that his trolling my work and his poor editing that seem to be focused on me (hey, at least that IP troll is congratulating him); and two, can we finally put to rest the stupid 'Bregman' business considering three different forms of identification are photographed and provided on the man's talk page, all showing his birth name was "Andrei Treivas"? --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. Black Kite 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems incontestable to me that WP:BLP mandates that Misplaced Pages can't be a primary source for biographies of subjects about which Misplaced Pages is writing. I personally am more than willing to believe that Michael Lucas's birth name is not Bregman, and I'm personally willing to believe that the documents you photographed are authentic. What I'm not willing to do is to substitute original research for a reliable source. Like it or not, New York Magazine published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find one reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of New York Magazine. Photos taken by Misplaced Pages editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. Nandesuka (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? WjBscribe 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? WjBscribe 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive. WP:OR would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Misplaced Pages is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Misplaced Pages and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Misplaced Pages since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --David Shankbone 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. SlimVirgin 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to WP:BLP, against the interests of Misplaced Pages readers, and has the potential to make Misplaced Pages look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. Black Kite 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to WP:OFFICE" or do you mean "A Misplaced Pages editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? WjBscribe 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? Black Kite 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. Nandesuka (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. SlimVirgin 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. Nandesuka (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop following me around. Are you open to recall? You still received edit warring messages (the same way you edit warred on Pubic hair), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior User:Nandesuka. --David Shankbone 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Being familiar with the Michael Lucas (porn star) article and issues, I suggest that if a reliable source has stated that his name is something other than Andrei Treivas (apparently Lucas' birth name) that we simply note it and correctly state that it was mistakenly reported by __ as "Bregman" although he never was given his father's name. Benjiboi 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --David Shankbone 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The birth certificate is a primary source, and we're hardly in a position to gauge the meaning and/or authenticity of a photograph of it. Who know what the rules are for the issuing of Russian documents? Jayjg 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Misplaced Pages to identify the other side is preposterous. --72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can rely upon reliable sources to deal with this and I have little doubt that someone will be able to interpret what the birth certificate says. Is it a false document of some sort? I'd bet we'd find out sooner than later if so. It can certainly be noted in the context as presented as such and I'm quite puzzled as to the tin hattish concept that Lucas is somehow engineering a pretty wonky plan to prove identity. Benjiboi 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Really really blatant POV pushing

We have some really obvious POV pushing on Palestinian people. I am giving a heads-up that I am highly considering ignoring all rules and breaking 3RR, seeing as a) the POV pushing is really obvious (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:75.72.88.121), b) this is being done by two obvious sockpuppets, c) the said editor has been blocked in the past. As I said, I am more worried about keeping Misplaced Pages pure, so if I get blocked, fine, then block away, but I'd rather ignore the rules and keep it correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush. Those articles are on probation, its up at WP:AE, dont go overboard. Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, he did it anyway. Relata refero (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I've never edited Palestinian/Israel-related, at least not significantly (that I remember). But I'll be straight with y'all, if we do anything other than call this POV-pushing spade by what it is, then I have no part in this encyclopedia. <removed by me>. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get information about the evil spartan for he/she is defaming palestinians and their homeland, by removing the information needed for the article. I did not defame or make any POV just the facts according to the references on the article itself. The map has nothing to do with the map of a state, it is a geographical map, and I did not alter the Israel map for example. However this person is altering freely the Palestinians article , because he says that a map of the middle east with out israel is offensive, (where did he got that info from) and how did he not figure out that removing the homeland map of the Palestinians is not offensive, and was he expecting that Palestinians should put the political map of Israel on their homeland map is not offencive to them. This is very insulting, especially that Palestinians outnumber jews of the world and the number of Isreali citizens!I demand immediate response to stop his vandalism and hiding behing unreachable name to be contacted!abubakr (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Adnanmuf (talk · contribs), and not The Evil Spartan, for blatant POV-pushing and edit warring. Sue me if that makes me an evil admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't at all, but as Guy says further up on this page, we should be worried about crusaders. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the previous revision. Obvious POV edits and a the MOS mess he was making. — Save_Us † 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle being used to incorrectly re-nominate article for deletion over previous closed discussion

I just noticed the following:

• (Creating deletion discussion page for List of sidekicks. (TW))

As you can see, this new AfD is written right over an older already closed AfD, i.e. instead of creating a new discussion as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (3rd nomination). I'm not sure if it should just be reverted back to the closed version and a note left to the nominator that he has to start a new page or how we handle these sorts of things. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would recommend reverting and leaving a detailed note with the nominator about how to nominate an article for the second time. Just remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this as every fiction has a sidekick, plus I feel that the list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed otherwise it will become cluttered. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that you nominated the article, it is that it is not properly done. We do not write new nominations over old nominations. You have to create a new page with (3rd nomination) in the title. You should create that page, move all the comments from DGG, Colonel Warden, etc. to the new page and then revert the current page back to the closed version. Again, the AfD was not properly formatted, which could just be a problem with Twinkle. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion-to-date (with reference to the source in the edit history) to a new 3rd-nomination page, reverted the 2nd nomination page to the prior discussion, and corrected the transclusion link on the current day's log. I think that puts things right for this to go forward. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bug in Twinkle. I've previously reported it, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#TW-B-0099_.28open.29. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Am I missing something here? This article was deleted by consensus after its second nomination. (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination)). The article List of sidekicksthen shows up again, by a spa, a few days ago without any of the history, meaning a copy paste from an off-wiki site most likely, (according to my magic admin screens, 553 deleted edits are not visible - doesn't that constitute a GFDL violation??) This should be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material after discussion at AfD (G4). Anyone object to a G4 deletion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea that would be a GFDL violation and shouldve been a db-repost. If this AfD somehow resolves as a keep, we'll need to do a history merge to resolve the GFDL issues. MBisanz 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given it was created with "List of sidekicks PDF Print E-mail" as part of the article, it is very likely a copy/paste from elsewhere. I'd agree with a G4 speedy. Even putting aside the GFDL violation, this should have gone to Deletion Review first. Resolute 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted, and the AfD has been closed. Natalie (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23, incivility

Pls take a look here, is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found out User:Taulant23 is already on civility parole... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hollis01, spamming and advertising

Not sure the right procedure here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hollis01 shows basically all spam/advertising. I've cleaned up the current mess as seems right to me. But note on his talk page that there is a history of recreating rapidly deleted articles, etc. DTRT.

Tb (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warn the user about creating inappropriate wikipedia pages and that if it continues he/she may be subject to a block at WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair

Latha P Nair (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have continued to place the link in many more articles. I have rolled back the edits and blocked indefinately until they are willing to discuss their edits.-gadfium 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Higher (Heidi Montag song)

Page has been hacked to add gross NSFW and racist imagery in that I cannot seem to edit out even after going manually into the history to revert (image tags do not show up in page edit mode). This needs an emergency deletion and restore to rectify. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't! {{YouTube}}, which is used on this and many other articles, had been vandalised, but has been fixed before I looked at this. I've fully protected the template as a result. Bencherlite 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick fix, I didn't know exactly what was causing the problem. I didn't think of one of the templates being the cause of it. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hint: if you can't find what's causing it, it's always a template. —Random832 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

After three years here, you can always learn something new in your editing travels :). I just never ran into something like this before so you could call my reaction sort of a 'panic report'. I knew it had to be in the wiki-coding, but I just couldn't place it in my view of the pagesource where it came from. Thanks for the advice and keeping me level! Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Adventures of Superman (TV series) and verifiability and rules violation

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

We have a peculiar case here of a red-link user who started on the 17th and seems to know his way around wikipedia very well. Of course, he could have edited under an IP address for a year. But his approach seems oddly familiar. Be that as it may, his edits, confined to TAOS and Gidget so far are based on the peculiar notion that a published book is not a verifiable source. Specifically, he's saying that he can delete any opinion given by author Gary Grossman on the grounds that "he's biased and is trying to sell books". According to this user's theory, no published book (or website, presumably) about a subject is a usable source. Taking that to the extreme, that would clobber most of wikipedia. In talking with an admin about this, he pointed out that a blanket accusation that an author is biased is a very serious charge and could get someone in big trouble. What's up with this? Baseball Bugs 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, I'm not arguing about specific POV complaints (like uncited claims by editors which find their way into articles), I'm arguing about his assertion that the author of a book can't be cited for his analysis and conclusions about the topic he's writing about. Baseball Bugs 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered the same user and share Baseball Bugs' concerns. User:Dorftrottel 22:51, February 19, 2008

The red-link user lifted the List of Adventures of Superman episodes directly from a wikipedi-banned website called tvrage. That's funny, considering he was lecturing me on copyright violation for quoting the series spoken intro. Something is fishy here. Baseball Bugs 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've noticed similar: Here he removed external links, saying "WikiP doesn't cite TV.com and IMDb as External links". But here, he added links to those same pages as references in another article. Also, most users don't know about the concept of undue weight on their third day of editing. User:Dorftrottel 00:20, February 20, 2008

Now that I've turned him in here, and notified him about it, he's hurriedly paraphrasing the descriptions. I advised him that I will be preparing a suspected sockpuppet report, on the grounds that he knows way too much about wikipedia for a guy who just started 2 days ago and immediately started in on revamping the Superman and Gidget articles. Baseball Bugs 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than reacting indignantly at being notified, he reacted with another comment that seems a newbie would be unlikely to make. Baseball Bugs 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And copping a flippant and un-newbie like attitude when I asked him to explain himself. Baseball Bugs 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued mockery of legitimate questions and issues raised suggests the user is engaging in an elaborate form of trolling. Baseball Bugs 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure quacks right. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, obvious case. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

White Cat

ANI regular User:White Cat is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), User:White Cat is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is here and here. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008
• What sort of admin action are you looking for? White Cat will not be blocked on ANI for actions on an ArbCom evidence page or workshop without a fight because this is a dangerous precedent. ArbCom can, will and has before considered all behaviour including behaviour during a case. Think the Badlydrawnjeff case. Just leave this to ArbCom because it causes more drama than good to do otherwise. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some form of oversighting might be needed, but so far no one has requested it. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • True but the arbitrators are more than well-equipped to deal with that themselves. Leave it to them. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond his sock allegation, he is accusing just about all the editors he disagrees with of meatpuppetry;

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

I suppose this is primarily the ArbCom's remit, but more eyes are welcome. There are only a few ArbCom members and they are busy. ANI regular? He's only edited an/i 880 times; a bit over 2% of his edits — this is his most edited page after his user and talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Fidel Castro

Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize Fidel Castro, as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught User:PlantDraft doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --Agüeybaná 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to WP:AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. Fidel Castro is a communist that has ruled Cuba for 5 decades with an iron fist. Misplaced Pages is just honoring Castro the same way it has an article on Hitler. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" Hitler and the Final Solution. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Misplaced Pages cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to a template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Misplaced Pages. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are an idiot, Rio de oro. Fire in a crowded theatre mean anything to you? Can we just block this obvious troll already? JuJube (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shock templates

Ruddigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting shock images into common templates (such as Template:Cleanup-rewrite, here.) Anyone willing to block without warning? This is a fairly serious form of disruption, and should not be tolerated at all, since the vandalism affected a huge number of pages. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind: . Silly rabbit (talk)

WP:AIV would probably be the fastest way to stop this next time. John Reaves 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo after independence

Could we agree to semi-protect all articles on Kosovo's cities for a couple of days (or a few hours, at least) ? Compare the edit histories of all cities (Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo) with that of Priština‎, which I semi-protected some three hours ago. There's little more than sterile nationalistic edit-warring. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll take advantage of this opportunity to mention the existence of a shared watchlist for Kosovo-related articles, WP:KOSWATCH. - Ev (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so, protection shouldnt be used pre-emptively. That said, if any specific articles need it then we should consider only on the basis of what is happening at that article, not what is happening in the world. Just my two cents. – Gonzo fan2007 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions

Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least one case he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.

Suspected sock closes to be reopened

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.

Good thing these where re-opened, as Archtransit's actions have just proven to be wrong. Tiptoety 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Other actions

I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.

Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?

FT2  00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Doing...Tiptoety 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium (which had a clear consensus), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. Tiptoety 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New concern, Congolese fufu (talk · contribs) supported the Boeing 747 FAC. I just realized s/he was involved somehow in all those blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion identified as a sock of Congolese fufu, Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs)'s edits bore a similarity to Fairchoice (talk · contribs). FT2 has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. WjBscribe 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also take a look at this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg, and then this edit made by Fairchoice (talk · contribs). After Jehochman (talk · contribs) blocked profg (talk · contribs), Archtransit blocked Jehochman. Tiptoety 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- I've been looking at Congolese fufu (talk · contribs · logs) for a while as a possible Dereks1x (talk · contribs · logs) sock. He has been found to use socks; it doesn't surprise me to learn that he was involved in these blocks done by Archtransit who appears to be a Dereks1x sock. Easy enough to connect the dots - also please note that a confirmed Dereks1x sock is named Peace2008 (talk · contribs · logs) and one of C.f.'s confirmed socks was named Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs · logs). Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together. Tvoz |talk 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need to start reviewing all of their contributions.....*sigh* Tiptoety 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me at a list or a category that summarizes all of these? I need to go through a lot of contribs and old FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the list of socks identified so far can be found at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Dereks1x and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Archtransit. Should the two groups be merged under the Dereks1x moniker since Dereks1x is the older of the accounts? --Bobblehead 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobblehead. What about the similarity between this and the recent posts to you and Wasted Time R? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit for the other possible socks. WjBscribe 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about Zzalzzal (talk · contribs) and this comment, SandyGeorgia? He certainly has the woe is me personality and tenacity that is common with Dereks1x when he get's caught breaking the rules. The most striking similarity is the unsupported accusation of Wasted Time R and I being in collusion together. The accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry against anyone that doesn't agree with him is something that Dereks1x socks frequently make. There is a lot of similarities between Fairchoice's unblock request and Zzalzzal's unblock request as an example. --Bobblehead 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably would be a good idea to consolidate all the socks into a single sock category, though, to allow for an easier time finding any characteristics which may have been displayed earlier in one or more of the accounts used. John Carter (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And the answer from Thatcher is that Zzalzzal is unrelated but peculiar. --Bobblehead 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Irony. Avruch 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Are we sure that the Dereks1x and Archtransit sock farms are related beyond the coincidental Peace2008/Wikipeace2008 connection? Is there any checkuser evidence? For example, the contribs histories of the socks don't look at ALL alike... Dereks1x's socks mostly edit American political articles (like Obama, Romney, Clinton, etc.) while Archtransit's socks mostly edits Aviation articles. And I am pretty sure Archtransit is British; he worked rather a lot on the Manchester article, for example. Now, aren't we giving ARchtransit a LOT of credit to be able to maintain two separate sock farms that each edit their own completely unrelated sets of articles, one of which appears to be familiar with only American topics, and the other British? I just don't see the connection... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • LIkewise, Congolese Fufu does not appear to be among the Archtransit camp. I don't see the connection looking at the contribs history again. Congolesefufu, in terms of geographic articles, edits mostly articles on northeastern US schools (Dartmouth, Seton Hall). Also, the contribs history is quite full, and seems to overlap the contribs history of Archtransit in such a way as to preclude one person using both accounts, unless he was literally swapping between the two for each edit, and keeping each account editing its own topics. Nope, still don't see that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at Profg, other than the fact that Fairchoice, a now confirmed Archtransit sock, commented on his checkuser case, appears to edit mostly junk science and snake-oil articles. For a geographic connection, he edited extensively on an obscure Georgia 10th district special election: , which doesn't seem to match Archtranit's farm at all. There's just no connection in the edit histories, and again, check how that on September 1, while profg was editing some articles, archtransit was busy spamming welcome notices to new members . Again, no connection seems to exist. We really need to check these carefully before labeling them as Archtransit socks. It is easy to go overboard, and find his socks hiding everywhere, but we need to take time and really investigate these. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dereks1x also has a history of editing aviation related articles. See confirmed sock TL500 (talk · contribs). The connection is also based on Thatcher's response to Jersyko noting a similarity between Archtransit and Dereks1x. You should also be aware that Dereks1x socks have previously indicated they live in/are from various non-US countries. --Bobblehead 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Its one thing to claim on a talk page that you are from/not from a certain country. However, when you look at editing patterns, it becomes harder to hide. Editors always "come home" and most, if not all, editors tend to edit articles in their geographic comfort zone. Its isn't about what the editors claimed; Archtransit's edits of the articles relating to Manchester show a familiarity of someone who knows the city well; likewise Profg familiarity with obscure American elections or Dereks1x's many socks that show close ties to American politics. The aviation connection is likely coincidental. Since there is no actual geographic connection among the aviation articles, and there are likely airplane fans or aviation engineers from many places, its hard to pin a real connection on that coincidence. Also, look at the contribs and editing times. The assumed sockmaster in each of these cases (Dereks1x, Archtransit, and Profg) were often editing at the same minute and in ways that seem to preclude that they are infact the same human at the keys. I've linked some evidence that precludes Archtransit and Profg being the same person, as far as the Dereks1x and Archtransit, while they don't directly overlap, consider that Archtransit edited almost exclusively in the time window of 17:00-23:00, while Dereks1x and all of his socks edit almost exclusively in the 01:00-05:00 window. Are you going to tell me that Dereks1x was blocked, and came back as Archtransit 3 months later, and was careful to edit 5 hours earlier consistantly so no one would notice, and keep it up that way for months? I mean, even if this guy is a total asshole, he still has a job and other things in his life, right? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I would say that Profg is unrelated. The different editing times of Archtransit and Congolese fufu can be most easily explained as one editing exclusively from work and one editing exclusively from home. (And in fact, there is evidence of parallel work and home sock farms here.) There are other compelling and technical reasons to consider them as confirmed sockpuppets of each other. It seems very likely that Dereks1x is ultimately behind it all, although it is not necessary to prove that to know that this user is a problem. Thatcher 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The mesage I left on Congolese Fufu's page was after a RFCU (You know, the one where Archtransit blocked Jehochman for doing a short block). I guess that if Archtransit appeared in the check, considering what happened, a checkuser would have put 1 and 1 together at that time. So my guess is that both know each other but are not the same. -- lucasbfr 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • • The time difference could be explained if a user's work shift, school schedule changed or if impacted by another when their schedule changed, assuming their timing has remain stable might be in error. Benjiboi 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is some question on the subject, I merely wanted to note that as someone familiar with Dereks1x and company, I am 100% certain that the Dereks1x sock farm and Archtransit are related. I'm not sure where Jayron32 got the "3 months later" mark. Archtransit began editing in earnest quite soon after User:VK35 was indefinitely blocked. · jersyko talk 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32 should also compare Archtransit (talk · contribs)'s edit times to VK35 (talk · contribs)'s edit times. VK35 edited between 15:00 and 01:00, which, aside from starting 2 hours earlier, conveniently overlaps Archtransit's editing times. Granted, that doesn't show anything more than a possible timezone relationship, but it does show that there was a change in Dereks1x's editing times from when he first started up to Archtransit's creation. As far as the "coming home", if Archtransit wanted to become an admin in order to "protect" his other sockpuppets, he would have been stupid to return to American politics. The editors in the American politics area have picked off 60 of his sockpuppets, there is no way he would have lasted more than a few days if he had edited in that area. --Bobblehead 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AH! The VK35 account does appear to be a bridge, both temporally and in editing style between the two sock farms. Of particular note, from my point of view, is the new user talk page welcome spam. Look at the July 8 contribs of VK35 and the September 1 contribs of Archtransit . Almost a dead match. Also, looking at the talk-page comments at User talk:VK35 it is clear that VK35 is also a Dereks1x sock. Wow. Has checkuser connected the two sockfarms yet? Do we atleast have a geographic connection (do Dereks1x and Archtransit and/or their sockfarms at least edit from the same country?). That would be the clincher on that one, and it would seem we have probable cause to at least check into that. Any checkusers out there want to look into it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

VK35 is currently too old to check. I have been informed by Dmcdevit who checked him that he edited from the same range as the current accounts. Thatcher 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something else I was thinking of. Since both Archtransit and VK35 spent some time "welcoming" new users on a few occasions early in their careers, is it worth looking into to see if these "new users" that they welcomed were in fact part of this sock farm, and not new users at all? Just an idea to keep an eye on. They may have been legitimate, but also they may have been a way to "mark" the sock accounts by the sockmaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review block

I blocked User:DILD0Z for an inappropriate user name. Please let me know if I was over zealous. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks straightforwards and correct to me. The use of l33tsp33k to try and avoid our username restrictions is a non-starter... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Looking at his few contributions, looks like a joker but is not prevented from contributing useful content under another username. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All is well here. Tiptoety 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the Sussexman checkuser case, I took a closer look at Giano's ArbCom election to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the SPAs which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that User:David Lauder has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.

Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per checkuser policy. This was the result;

 Confirmed - the following:

1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account User:La voz de su amo was actually used to troll on ETA-related articles, adding information about Sinn Féin. This account created an article that User:R. fiend eventually got into trouble over when he blocked User:Domer48. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.

The account, User:Sweetfirsttouch was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days after his indefinite block.

User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not controversial in the slightest, to me. If we're going to be even handed, block evasion is block evasion. It's obvious that VK snookered us all. I am blocking all three accounts per the ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All three accounts now blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, agreed, not controversial at all. How irritating to lose two editors, VK and David Lauder, in a few days; both were very good content editors when they weren't participating in such shenanigans. Black Kite 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Probably among a certain clique, despite their robust support for Lauder et al's block for essentially the same transgression. Personally, I see no other option now. Though I find it rather tragic. After all the problems, all the discussion and all the effort good editors put into rehabilitating Vk, only for it to be thrown away for such a pointless reason. Rockpocket 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel particularly hurt over this one. While I was defending his indef block against many of his supporters and under huge pressure (remember all that?), VK just waited the minimum time until his autoblock expired, then he was off again editing away and preparing his backup plan, while everyone agonised over his block. He took us all for a ride. Then he used another account to try to get Ógra Shinn Féin worked into the ETA articles by posing as a Spanish Nationalist. When he was done with that, he used his sock to votestack on ArbCom elections (not just Giano's, but many others) - basically doing what Lauder's socks were doing. Ugh! - Alison 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Looking back through that ArbCom, he was denying he had operated sock or meat puppets previously (despite the overwhelming evidence) at the very same time he was operating another sockpuppet. For sheer gall, it is pretty remarkable.

This was a good find, Ali, as I hadn't bothered looking for socks, stupidly thinking no-one would be foolish enough to do it again having been caught before. I guess he felt there was no way back from his indef block and thus had nothing to lose by creating a new account. Of course, that likely means that exactly the same thing will happen this time. Rockpocket 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but cannot be helped. While I was on Giano's side during the whole Troubles fiasco, there was no denying that VK was problematic, and there is now irrefutable evidence of this. I actually think this should show Lauder's supporters that Alison is, as she always was, a neutral party to this affair, but it's sad that both ringleaders of the antagonism on the Troubles articles - both good contributors - had to be indefinitely blocked in the end rather than them rehabilitating themselves. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's going to be the outcome here? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• and therein lays the problem. Having respect for the rules and regulations that govern edits here is a basic requirement for keeping your editing rights. Spartaz 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wonder if I might put forward a suggestion: (1) as of right now, no more sockpuppets for anyone involved in 'the Troubles' ArbCom. All existing sockpuppets to be declared by e-mail (so no public humiliation) to (?) Alison; duplicate accounts to be quietly extinguished by her. Vintagekits, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary (I'm not sure whether I should include him) all go away and read a book for two weeks. A line in the sand and general amnesty. (2) Thereafter, any participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom gives authority to (?) Alison to check their account and/ or any other suspicious account; Alison to have free rein to check any account listed as a participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom.

Only my suggestion; but it'd be nice to be able to move on from this malarkey. We save two useful contributors and stamp out the abuse going forward. Now shout me down! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In David's case, if we went through with this (and I am holding my opinion on that, for the moment) I think we would need a full apology for any and all legal threats that he made as well. SirFozzie (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

why why why do we want all this drama - just tell him to fuck off, ban the account and be done with it. I dread to think how many more thousands of manhours this user could waste. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you, Fredrick, just I don't want to be accused of trying to stomp on possible ways forward. I have trouble determining what to think in a situation where one side Assumes Bad Faith, and the other side takes advantage of Assuming Good Faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with handing out bans is that, because they are so easy to evade, they are not effective. In their own fields both of these individuals are valued contributors; both of them know that they're not supposed to do this and there is no reason to suppose that, if banned, they won't simply start all over again. So: suggestion - give Alison the list of IP addresses and let her police the participants of 'the Troubles' ArbCom. (Diverting slightly, I'm astonished that ArbCom didn't run a checkuser against all the participants at the time; had they done so, it would have apparently uncovered some of this abuse at that stage.) Personally, I've got no problem with her running a checkuser against me, formally or informally, because I know that I've never edited under a separate account. SirFozzie: thank you for replying. I'm not sure that rubbing DL's nose in it would be helpful. As I understand it, the dispute was of a private nature and didn't involve WP itself; best to let bygones be bygones? PS - I've added a new User box to my User page which you might like to copy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so because bans and blocks are easy to evade, let's not bother blocking or banning anyone ever again ok? I couldn't care less how many articles or how much content anyone has written, when any editor trangresses to the extent we've seen recently it's time to say no more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I write. If you want to block or ban these individuals now, fine. Will it be effective? Almost certainly not. However much we might disapprove, it might be more sensible to (try to) apply a remedy which will work rather than impose the strict letter of the law, which won't. Ultimately, all that you or I can do is make our points - the decision isn't in our hands. I also like to think my proposal is slightly more humane, which is a bit of a bonus as far as I'm concerned!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endose your appeal to unblock willyonwheels. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What remedy do you think will be effective with David Lauder? He was banned by ArbCom for legal threats - and evaded the ban and made more legal threats. He was banned by ArbCom from editing articles about a certain politican and his activities for a year - and he evaded the ban using sockpuppets. ArbCom require him to edit using only one account and when logged in - and he evaded that using multiple accounts and IPs. Please, what possible remedy do you actually think will work? He's ignored every single remedy that's ever been used against him hasn't he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both these editors will be back, in fact I'm sure they are busy editing from other sock accounts as we speak (Vk admits as much ). If they continue to edit in a policy compliant non-controversial manner there is every chance they will be able to return without anyone ever finding them. If they continue to edit in the manner in a problematic way then their accounts will be discovered and blocked immediately. Such is the game we play with many indef blocked users, I don't see why these two should be treated differently. Rockpocket 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Vintagekits!, 14500 edits, you did well, and they got you on a technicality. They couldn't scuttle you through ArbCom/Troubles, so they trawled and fished until they found the "damning evidence", I must add, evidence that occurred after ArbCom, and seemingly under pressure too. Thanks for all the edits you have done on Misplaced Pages, and especially on many of those boxing articles, which you have made much more interesting. 78.19.218.157 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages as an IM service

This page, User talk:Ajk5055, appears to be two people chatting to eachother by signing into the same account. I am not sure what should be done about this, or even if this is not allowed, so I posted the incident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should probably be blanked of their comments, and then protected if they ignore warnings. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments blanked. Let's see if they express any interest in editing properly. Tyrenius (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

aww, but now we have such valuable GFDL contributions such as "I mean all that was for dinner was salad and pork slabs, so salad it was...i mean i needed to eat something, ive been eating crazy carbs lately and probably getting fat so i needed some salad, but if i get sick again ill go to the doctor...ive been fine for a bit now, so im not too worried...so any big plans for tomorrow?"

and

"if they left you a phone number - call them back. Although it is 5:20PM here now. Call them in the morning. Walmart is fine to work for. Don't poo poo them. Call them tomorrow..

I'm not poo pooing them...I don't have the qualifications to work there--remember I got an email from them when we were at grandmas house? I didn't fill out the paperwork or anything b/c I'm not qualified for what they want...I have a phone number but I have things to do tomorrow,and I'll just have to find an internet cafe when I can...the 7 hour time difference works in my favor though"

They apparently had a lot of problems trying to use this for chat. Ironically this post talks about how they use cell text messaging, e-mail, AND Skype, but are using a Misplaced Pages talk page for communications... oh man, I gotta save this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the comments I can't help but feel bad for them. This appears to be the communication between parents and their daughter while she's on her way to or already on another continent. In the instances where the page was used there must have been a reason that was the only option, since email certainly would've been easier. I feel like saying "have a heart, IAR". But that's just me. They haven't edited anything other than their talk page, so I don't see the harm. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess we could leave a note on the talk page recommending a better site or something. Still, funny stuff :D -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Tyrennus warn (or better still, politely steer) them before blocking? Since the talk page history was deleted, I have no way of knowing, but it seems unlikely to me that these people would carry on their conversation if they knew an outsider was not only reading but actively disapproving from a position of authority on the site. This whole section seems a bit inappropriate to me. I don't see why we needed to draw any attention to them (and post excerpts here), let alone block, unless we know that gentle, quiet reminders have already failed. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that the only other account to edit that user talk page was SineBot. If necessary, I'll undelete the rest of the history, but I don't think we need all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No offense Ned but it really seems like a personal conversation that the participants aren't necessarily aware is available publicly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind removing your excerpts here. And I agree that an unblock and warning might be appropriate now. Perhaps we can assess their reasons for using that page the way they are, 'cause call me a softy but if it's their only option for communication I frankly think we should allow it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

My own entertainment aside, it doesn't really matter if they're blocked or unblocked since the only page the edited was the user talk page. Like I noted, they have tons of other ways to communicate, and in the discussions even exchanged e-mails and text messages. There's no reason for them to be using the talk page like that, but we should make sure a message explains to them what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a ANI report a while back where a similar incident was taking place. I can't remember which account it was, but they were also using the usertalk page as a IM. Maybe it's the same group of people, maybe not, iunno. nat.utoronto 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be the season for it. I've come across two pages in the last couple of days (User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke. In both cases I gave the relevant users the "it's not mySpace" warning - that worked for the latter, but I had to strengthen the warning a couple of times for the former. I have them watchlisted, but they've either gone and got Skype or have moved to another talk page... _GB 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Misplaced Pages posted on YouTube

Is there anything we can do about vandals vandalizing articles while recording it, and then posting the video on YouTube? After running a search, I was able to find a couple of said videos, such as here (and nice comment at the top), here, and here. Though, two claim to "test" Misplaced Pages's vandalism detection, so I'm not sure whether to assume good faith there or not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What could we do? We can revert the vandalism... and possibly block the accounts, if we think they're not here to contribute. Beyond that... --Haemo (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found that online as well. You know, it's just vandalism. People just decided to turn a camera on during the process. The most we can do is just fight as we normally do. Justin_(u) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(double ec)I'd say no there's nothing we can or should do. People can videotape themselves vandalizing anything, like graffitiing a street sign. It doesn't really show some kind of weakness on Misplaced Pages's part, it just shows that the author is an asshole. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no affiliation with youtube or any other public website for that matter and therefore there is nothing that could, or should be done. There are plenty of websites that disparage or criticize Misplaced Pages - take conservapedia for example. The best we can do is to function normally. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not an issue really. Vandalism is always around. Jmlk17 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring videos are boring. I'd be more worried if it was funny. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a video of yourself reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal, and post it on YouTube. MastCell  06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the first video is of this edit: AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I like this comment for the first video: "You are sad and pathetic. Instead of investing your time in making a constructive contribution to humanity, you prefer to destruct other people's work. And then make a video about it like it's something cool to brag about. I've seen a similar intellectual level... on a rock. You are nothing but a waste of Earth's natural resources." · AndonicO 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot battles!

What is going on here? One bot (User:Roboto de Ajvol) is going around removing all instances of lmo interwiki . But another bot (User:AlleborgoBot) is going around and re-adding it. . ??? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Domo oregato Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Damn you!!!! I've been on a roll tonight! You broke my roll! :) Justin_(u) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Imo Misplaced Pages closed or something? User:Zscout370 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin:On a roll? I don't get it Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No, It's kind of an in joke. Me and User:AndonicO have been going at it. I shot him a yo mama, he came back with percentages, "I know you are but what am I?"... it got multi-lingual. It seemed to have ended with me using Norwegian to roughly describe that it's over when I say it's over. That'll show him. Then I come here, see the heading "Bot Battles!", and what pops into my head? Oh wait, shot down! You, sir/madam/member of any number of the third genders, have broken my roll. Justin_(u) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, or a little more, I saw one of the anti-vandal-bots going at one of the archive bots, and back and forth. I wish I could find the diffs; it was hilarious. Didn't last long though. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified each bot owner of this section on their home wiki user talk pages. —Random832 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was standard pywikipedia interwiki bot. I will try to understand the problem. --ajvol (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had asked about the same thing, after I saw a slew of lmo.wikipedia links removed from articles on my watchlist. I talked to User:Snowolf, who is an admin over there, and he told me that they decided to remove about 100K bot-generated sub-stubs, many of which were in English or Catalan (as opposed to Lombard). Not sure why another bot is adding the links back, though. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I update my bot twice a day to the last svn version of pywikipedia bot and seems to work correctly. The article lmo:Algèria exists and there's no reason (imho) to remove its interwiki links. Seems to be an error generated by Roboto de Ajvol. :-/ So, I'm still running my bot. Please keep me updated with this discussion if I have to stop it or if the problem is mine. Thank you all. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and Characters:2- Temporary Injunction Violation

I'm reporting a violation of this injunction: , it clearly states that "no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character", however, this article has been redirected. This article was also under review by MedCom. It was made by an anonymous user, however, as it's in violation of the injunction, can the edit please be reverted? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just do it :) --Haemo (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Am I authorised to? I also checked their talk page and they have a history of malicious edits. Can a block possibly be enforced? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are able to revert action that you seem to constitute vandalism or harm the project. On the topic of a block, the user needs to be properly warned before a block can be issued. Tiptoety 04:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems to have been warned several times over the editing of these 24 articles, see their talk page. And they have been banned before, as well. Regarding this template , does it also extend to articles that have been tagged for merging, that are also subject to the injunction? There are some users who have declared they will persist with the merging, regardless of the injunction.

Am I allowed to 'warn' them? Make them aware that the articles are subject to an injunction. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, the warnings where from almost a year ago, along with the block. And yes, any user operating in good faith may warn a user for a malicious edit. Tiptoety 05:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted the edit, and I will warn them about the edit. No further action is necessary, thank you. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Grounded into a double play

User:Grounded_into_a_double_play has basically made no constructive edits since creating his account. One of his first edits was creating the page Space Shuttles which was quickly redirected. Since becoming active again on Febuary 15th nearly every edit has been reverted and pages he creates either redirected or deleted , , , . He started one AFD that was a speedy keep . Tonight he created a page simply to test the AFD process . He then created a page for content that already existed in another article Dai Shi which is already covered in Villains_in_Power_Rangers:_Jungle_Fury. He also has a habit of removing anything negative from his talk page, I understand this is not a vioaltion of rules but I think it's shows his attitude twoard other editors , . He now also appears to be stalking me . Even as I'm writing this he is still creating pages that already exist Master_Mao Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might qualify as WP:GAME and WP:TROLL. Second of all, it absolutely is against the rules to keep creating inappropriate pages. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps going . Ridernyc (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended Ridernyc with my actions. I wasn't trying to stalk him as he claimed. I was trying to give Dai Shi his own article. I opened up a discussion to see if there is consensus to delete. Grounded into a double play (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to directly comment, I've said what I have to say and will let your actions speak for themselves. I would however encourage you to stop editing until a conclusion is made here. You have an opportunity here to learn from the advice of others. it's up to you if you listen. Ridernyc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dai Shi be covered by the ArbCom injunction, because it is about a television character? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted about 500 times) I second Ridernyc's comments that this user is a disruptive editor indeed. I first caught note of him in his disruptive AfD, and gave him a warning (which he, of course, blanked). After that, I tried to undo his user page, which was a cross-space redirect to double play (it's my understanding that user pages can't redirect to article space). A couple of his edits do seem to be in good faith, but for the most part, this user seems to be quite disruptive. I don't think he would quite warrant a block yet, but should he keep it up, I'd endorse one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave him that final warning for a combination of vandalism and unconstructive edits. Since then he has been avoiding vandalism, but the editing pattern continues to be unconstructive. I tend to be sympathetic to articles about video characters, but he has been trying to write really impossible stubs about them. I think he knows better, and is trying to game us. I dont see how we can block without something more specific to block about, however. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that there are some questionable edits, for example — the Dai Shi article that is currently on AfD was created earlier by this editor, who twice removed the db tag him/herself. It would seem to be beneficial to the editor to take a break from editing and do some reading about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, as suggested. — ERcheck (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know the ArbCom injunction is currently in effect, I've been bold and closed the AFD early and redirected (that was what most were saying, other than the user who said "The ArbCom says keep for now"). My reasons are mentioned at the AFD, but to put it here, the show started on Monday. There is no way we can gauge whether or not articles are necessary, particularly when the content is the same. If I am to be lynched for merging an article on a television character, so be it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case it seems your actions are unrelated to notability, so I can't see arbcom getting mad about it. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In a related note, I have had to delete various other pages belonging to this new TV series because of copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In another related note, Grounded into a double play has been discovered to be a sockpuppet of long-time banned user EddieSegoura. Thank you Alison :3—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - sock of banned editor, User:EddieSegoura - Alison 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling something like this was going on, the 10 month break in editing hinted at this. Ridernyc (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My word, that's a name from the past. Eddie Segoura, the exicornt vandal. I thought he'd given up? Guy (Help!) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs an eye on

72.76.88.140, now moved on to 72.76.12.248‎, has a negative WP:BLP agenda. Tyrenius (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If unresponsive to your warnings/messages on the talk page, go to WP:AIV after final warning. Since the IP strings are so similar, you can take the liberty of expressing WP:SOCK concerns on the user/talk pages. If it keeps up, an admin could try a string a very short string IP block. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding probation violation

User has already been warned numerous times and knows. Lawrence § t/e 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked; 24 hours now, but it should go to at least 3 days the next time in my opinion. We don't need any more of this incivility in the atmosphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These reports should go to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement so they can all be addressed and archived in one place. As ever, more administrator eyes on that page would be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zackyusoff

Again and again, Zackyusoff (talk · contribs · logs) seems ignoring whatever my advice, warning, he seems did not change his editing style by BOLD the headings. Sometimes, make too much empty space between one heading to another.

This his editing:

So, i hope someone can deal with this situation. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already done your part - you've asked civily, and pointed the user in the direction of WP:MOS. If the user does continue, it's disruptive to wikipedia, and I would file a WP:AIV after a final warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom. Your conversations with him on his editing style look completely civil. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodona

User:Taulant23 who is already on civility parole gave a barnstar to User:Dodona. The first reason is "For your work dealing with shovinist Greek Propaganda". Is it acceptable? I've kindly asked Dodona to remove that wording from his user page but nothing yet. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd say some of the wording is in poor taste - and does not really reflect what that particular barnstar is supposed to signify. Asking for a rephrase would have been my suggestion. Although, I don't think one can actually officially object to another's receipt of a barnstar. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing doing here. Taulant's currently sitting out a block, and has announced his intention to quit. Dodona is a separate case. Looks like he's removed the barnstar, though. Moreschi 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we shut this mirror site down

This site

Well, for one thing, All of Misplaced Pages's text is licenced under GDFL which allows the copying, redistribution, and modification of all text found on wikipedia as stated in the preamble of the licence text

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

— GDLF, Misplaced Pages:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

nat.utoronto 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, the mirror requires a list of editors of that article, or possibly at the very least a link here so the history can be seen. The history in the pages on the mirror do not contain editor names, and I can't see any link back here. I easily could be mistaken here though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes the GFDL requires that the authors be attributed (which that site does not). Therefore they are violating the license and legal action can be taken. James086 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

James and Crustacean are correct. That site is illegal. See Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. It has to be properly attributed with the license or a link to the original source or else it is illegal. I wanted to bring this site to peoples' attention. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking from the RC on that site, no changes have been made since 2005, so someone will have to contact Illinois State University to shut down the site. nat.utoronto 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that we provide dumps for mirroring that don't contain full edit histories. Those need to be downloaded seperately and may not be in sync with the dump. To get around that they need to link back to us but that presents a new problem as shown here if the page has since been deleted and the edit history isn't visible anymore. That said, I've never quite understood why someone would put up a mirror of Misplaced Pages only to let it sit there without updated content. It defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia as a wiki. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, our dumps are far from correct, GFDL wise. We are asking for a stick to get beaten, here. 76xx, why don't you simply contact them to ask if they could remove (please) your userpage? Civility and good will can go a long way, on the Internet. -- lucasbfr 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the motivation is usually gaining money from the ads on the site.:) Merkinsmum 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see that this (ad-free) mirror is hosted by the Illinois State University :) -- lucasbfr 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the owner(s) of the site if I can. I don't know how yet. I'll look through Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. I want to bring this site to the attention of some more admins. Yes, show it to Jimbo Wales, why not. And I know so many users are not aware that their old user pages are duplicated there. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

John Payne (singer)

An anonymous editor keeps removing the birth date from this article: 11 times since 11 February. Examples: , , . I've tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail. Can anyone turn their attention to this? Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? Seems a short-term semi-protect could probably take care of this. --jonny-mt 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done so now—thanks for the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request: that qualifies as vandalism, so the editor should receive a warning. Skip straight to a level 3 warning, and report to AIV after the fourth. · AndonicO 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I warned already. · AndonicO 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, fellas. An anon IP removing an unreferenced date of birth from a BLP is emphatically not vandalism. Please familiarize yourselves with these two sections of WP:BLP before doing anything ill-advised. If an anon IP is removing an unsourced birthday, that birthday needs to stay removed until properly sourced, and perhaps even then. Mike R (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, there I go again editing articles about musicians... Got confused with the removing of birth name (forget stage names exist), and the adding of "LUNATICA" (forget that albums/songs sometimes have vandalism-like names, and sometimes are in CAPS). I'll strike out the warning and apologize... Thanks for noticing Mike. · AndonicO 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd read the section about anonymous content deletion, but I hadn't read the note on birthdays. Good to know--thanks for the sharp eye! --jonny-mt 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on that point. I'll look out for appropriate citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacker

The talk page for this is getting ugly and they are edit-warring over the talk page now, let alone the article. The edit history for the talk page contains, for example, a recent change comment of Please fuck off which is clearly uncivil.

The background seems to be that the meaning and usage of the word hacker is heavily disputed per Hacker naming controversy. We now have a morass of POV-forks, as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). There seems to be a fair amount of conflict-of-interest and systemic bias.

We have already had some admin action but more is needed. I responded to an RFC earlier but it did little good. I reckon that this entire cluster of disputed articles needs a good going over by editors with a genuine NPOV.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrative scrutiny would be welcome; the talk page has been unusable for several weeks (my reaction when I read Colonel Warden's description was "getting ugly?" :-). Note, however, that one of the parties has filed an arbitration case. Nandesuka (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banford again

Blocked user Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block and (mostly) vandalizing Durham (HM Prison). He needs to have a peck of IPs blocked and the articles he is interested in semi-protected. See User talk:Bamford. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a solid case for WP:SSP. The evidence is there in black and white (black & white diffs that is). That would be my suggestion. However, the semi-protection would only be appropriate if multiple IPs (one IP or two could just be blocked for repeated abuse) began vandalizing said pages fairly heavily. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the named account to indefinite for block evasion and disruption, and blocked the active IP for 31 hours. If he switches IP's and continues, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be temporarily semi-protected. MastCell  17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets hope this is the end. If not, a range block would be a viable option. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Ban Ray

Please could an administrator get the user BanRay to quit harrassing me. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, I think just because my vision for the article conflicts with his, and has even tried complaining to others about how my edits are "vandalism", even though they are just simple edits that I think improve the page! Obviously, I could understand him editing PARTS of the page if he disagrees, but reverting the whole thing is uncalled for imo. He has also implied that I am another user, Musiclover565 (see my discussion page) simply because me and him share similar visions for the article. I would really appreciate being able to edit in peace, without having to fear BanRay reverting them. Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning use of AWB

Is there someplace in particular which I can request a review of a user's actions in utilizing AWB? It's my understanding that AWB is not supposed to be used to make controversial edits, and it's possible that this user may be doing that, but it's not at all clear where to go to make that inquiry -- here or on the AWB discussion page, so I've posted on both. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring or making disputed edits using AWB is in violation of the terms for using it. However, you are going to have to provide some diffs and background information before the admins will be able to look into it. If the user is indeed acting inappropriately you are in the right place because the AWB talk page isn't really meant for this sort of thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuarum

Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am deeply saddened that I feel this is the only effective way of retrieving community discussion on Malleus Fatuarum, but this is necessary in my opinion, because of the behaviour conducted. Malleus has been contributing to en.wp for a long time now (over a year I think) and has become an integral part of discussion on the most prevalent project he is a part of, and some of you may also know him from talks on the requests for adminship mainpage. It is however, with this involvement, that I believe has arisen for the need to notice some of MF's most unreasonable behaviour. He has been categorically and somewhat deliberately been causing unrest by abusive and or irrelevant comments whose aim is to cause either disruption or intentional commenting for attention as shown here and here, which is unnerving and increasingly characteristic. This issue seems to have stemmed from this discussion on MF's talk page (which was ultimately a culmination of events, rather than just a comment left unregardingly on his talk page). I am unsure of how these relations actually began, but I believe, this is most probably the rationale (as Malleus Fatuarum knew from a long time ago on my user page that I was a teenager). I don't know what the discussion is going to grow into, and I was as I say reluctant to post this because of some occasions where MF and I have normal comments, that have even shown some admiration for my work. However, recent comments like shown here (unsure to whether or not I should have posted this now due to the response) and here, where he says he is against all administrators because of his failed RFA - this is becoming increasingly distasteful. Rudget. 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hope this isn't either another sock or a hideous mistake. WP:SSP or WP:RFCU appropriate? And has Malleus Fatuarum been informed? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A sock of who? Rudget. 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Our radar is a little oversensitive with the whole Dereks1x/Archtransit thing (see above), and people are quick to assume that every contentious or incivil or otherwise suspcious edit means that its another one of their socks. For the record, I have worked with Malleus for some time, and I would HIGHLY doubt he's part of that, or any other sockpuppetry mess (though given how weird the AT mess turned out, not as shocked as I used to be). However, given my interactions with him in the past, he's a good editor whose comments are rude and incivil at times, but in general he shows no actions that would raise any suspicions that he should be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. He's a good editor with a short fuse, and I have not seen any real problems from him beyond that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While were on the subject of suspected trolls, I'd like to point the finger of righteous accusation at User:Ronnotel. I've been watching his contributions for some time, and I believe his fatuousness and complete lack of lucidity can only be explained by trolling. Not only is he a raving nutter, but he follows me from page to page. Of chief concern is his bitter sarcasm that render his contributions entirely unreadable. I like to suggest crucification. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you punish him for his dog Latin? It should be 'Malleus Fatuus' ('the hammer of fools').--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Stupid Hammer"? That doesn't work. "Romanes eunt domus", that's what I say, although "Malleus Fatuarum", IIRC, means "the hammer of stupid women". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Women is Feminae, though (insert those nutty lines above the vowels as needed. I have a ninth grade education in Latin). And I believe -arum should be followed by a variant of sum, forming a form of vowel which I can't remember the name, but it should function as an adjective. Justin_(u) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had my own back and forths and related misunderstandings with MF that I think have worked out civilly and I've grown to appreciate his sense of humor humour. I know that he knows he has a certain level of impatience with bureaucracy, pedantry, and the ilk. And that British English has to go. (Has to gou?) And yes, he seems to have developed a certain distaste for adminship in general (although I know he's smart enough not to overcategorize all admins). Ageist? Perhaps. Perhaps not (for all we now, he's 14. Meh?). I hold Rudget in very high esteem and believe this is a good faith, (perhaps exasperated) post, and I also believe that Malleus is utterly invaluable to this project despite the gruffness, Probably just a bit misunderstood though. It's very difficult to read a post and interpret meaning. I don't know what you're hands are saying anymore than you know what mine are saying as we cannot see each other's faces, gestures, tone etc. It's hard to type with tone, even harder to interpret someone else's without injecting or own POV/head tone into what we think they might be saying. The main problem as I see it? Two very fine editors both work in the same WikiProject and have butted heads a few too many times over topics that are near and dear to them, and they have completely different communication styles. I'd hate to see either editor go, or go ballistic. So a simple suggestion would be live and let live. Life's too short. Find common ground. Insert cliche number 4 here. If you live nearby, perhaps even buy each other a cup o' tea? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Rudget is misinterpreting posts such as this? Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that Rudget is misinterpreting anything. That post was inappropriate at best, but meh? I'm quite clearly saying that they both have frazzled nerves in regards to each other and should both just walk away. I quite clearly said that I hold Rudget in high esteem and also that both editors are valuable to this project and need to find common ground. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Malleus was informed of this thread by Rudget, and acknowledged the notice. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sphantom

I'm surprised Sphantom (talk · contribs) wasn't blocked for template and page move vandalism back in December. I'd like some opinions on their recent contributions combined with their vandalism beginnings. (I'm still trying to make some connections, but I also believe this account's owner is related to the template vandalism that we've seen the last couple of days. I'm hoping to have enough time to put together a checkuser report this afternoon if needed.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I should probably think an block of some length, especially for this. Rudget. 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a racist as well, judging by the picture of Hitler and the bordering swastikas. This seems to connect with his recent comment on the talk page Rt. brought up. This would not only be an improper solution to a proposal, it would be racist, and unencyclopedic (the article is about the term, not the race). So, he's a definite POV pusher. Justin_(u) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with a block for disruption. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How long for? Indef? Justin_(u) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for one week. No problem with an indef though. Moving Jon Stewart to Jon Jewart, combined with the link from Rudget, are enough for me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've changed it to indef. Racism, pagemoves and obviously not here to contribute. Black Kite 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't expect that to go so smoothly. Thanks for the input/action. --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Raveau

Sbkbg (talk · contribs) has nominated Raveau, an article which I created, for deletion in retaliation for my having created an AfD on his non-notable (and COI) radio program. I have no problem with the nomination, since it's a real place and real places get kept at AfD, but he didn't do it properly. I'm not going to fix his nomination for him, but if somebody would either fix it or revert it, I'd appreciate it. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be listed at AFD, so the notice has been removed. Rudget. 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of leaving a comment on the user's talk page warning them not to engage in bad faith AFDs, as it's trolling. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Secure log in

Would someone please add a link to the secure login site to the mediawiki text displayed on the main log-in screen? It is a good option for extra security and should be listed there, I think. I don't know which page to edit. Thatcher 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 19:17, February 20, 2008

Note that last time a link to the secure login site was added to the interface, it was reverted; see MediaWiki talk:Loginsuccess for what happened. --ais523 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor Rastishka/Saintrotter is back using another IP

Have a look. , He's also reverting the templates on his old User:Saintrotter account. Someone should block the IP and protect the Saintrotter user page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Roache article help

Somebody alerted the football project about a vandal doing double redirects. The guy moved Lee Roache to Matthew Barrett (English Footballer) then to Matthew G Barrett. After discussion with the alert editor (User:Kevin McE), I tried to clean up. Matthew G. Barrett seems to have never existed (hoax name). Lee Roache is the correct footy player. I restored this article's text but due to my inexperience (as a new admin) with page moves/redirects/reversals, the article disconnected from the original history (Admins: see here). I'd like a more experienced admin to do it so it is properly cleaned-up/restored and I do not fumble it further. Any help appreciated. Alexf 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some eyes to Kosovo?

I am tired of composing lengthy arguments on Talk:Kosovo with no reaction on talk, but instead have redlink accounts undo edits within the minute, and this on an article that is actually on arbcom probation. Could some admins watch this {{current}} topic more closely please and clamp down on the revert warriors? dab (𒁳) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems as if no administrators are online, or they have just fell asleep. No response here, vandalizing the Kosovo page continues. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins are on line, and this has been dealt with. The article has been protected for a week. Reach consensus on the talk page, and respond to Dbachmann's concerns as outlined there. If the protection expires and the conflict continues, blocks will be handed out for edit warring. Good day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be unprotected like the last two times. 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My friendly non-admin word of advice would be to at least try WP:RFC and mediation - although I'm going to presume this has already been attempted. And the page is semi-protected I see. Are these NPOV reverts or a mixture of this and vandalism? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards