Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 20 March 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User Viridae violating WP:CANVASS

It would appear that Viridae is violating Misplaced Pages's policies on canvassing to influence the outcome of a deletion review. See the edits here and here. Bongout (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really canvassing, he's just notifying 2 people that will likely want to comment. John Reaves 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He solicited the opinion of someone he knew would be in agreement with him: "...because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others." Further action needs to be taken against Viridae for his highly inappropriate unilateral conduct because there was ongoing discussion, and he chose to dismiss all of it of his own accord. RTFA (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He's cherry-picking people he knows will likely want to comment in favour of his position, something that is made very clear by those edits. Bongout (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be entirely appropriate, but it certainly doesn't require sanctions. John Reaves 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a good interpretation of Canvas and Durova and Doc glasgow's views are indeed to be hoped for in such a DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 18 March 2008 (

This may be the case, but the guideline clearly states Always keep the message neutral and Viridae's message to Doc glasgow clearly violated this. It also states Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view and Durova has very well known views on BLPs. Bongout (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contacting two users isn't canvassing, and is perfectly appropriate. It's especially appropriate for an issue such as this, where there is certain to be a prolonged discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh pull the other one. Durova had already discussed the article in question and possible deletions of it. Doc is the most clued in person on the project BLP wise, even if I don't always agree with him and is likely to want to be involved in an issue such as this. Viridae 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)::I agree with Squeakbox, CBM and John Reaves. Carefully reading WP:CANVASS reveals that there are only very slim arguments that could be made for a violation by Viridae. The scale was definitely limited. Votestacking, per WP:CANVASS, involves mass talk messages - these were two individually worded messages (one was simply "Heads up, D"). One could make an argument that the first one was not neutral - although no effort was made to TELL Doc to vote one way or the other. Was he campaigning? Well, again, the policy paints a gray area on this one - you have to take scale into account. Here, it was only two people. Was this action completely appropriate? Possibly not. Are there any warranted sanctions (or really, any warranted actions at all)? Not in my opinion. Although that last addition by Viridae wasn't exactly mature. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc is often involved in deletion reviews and it appears that Durova was involved with this article previously. So, not canvassing. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is canvassing because the message was clearly not worded neutrally and it was an obvious attempt to sway consensus. Bongout (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one agrees with you, nothing is going to happen, so just drop it. John Reaves 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are well-respected people who agree with me, both in this section and in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

At the present, the only person in this section who has agreed with you is RTFA, a sockpuppet. If Viridae's talk page messages violated WP:CANVASS, the problem is with the canvassing document rather than with the actions. In particular, there is no reason that every talk page message has to be neutrally phrased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my contention that every talk page message need be worded neutrally. Also, while RTFA is a sockpuppet, as explained here, this they are a well-established user in good standing merely attempting to separate edits on subjects. This isn't a violation of policy, of trust, or of anything else.Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even every message that tells someone else you want them to support you in an AFD or DRV. Your responses here seem to alternate between wikilawyering over the wording of CANVASS and wikilawyering over the manner in which others respond to you. I think I'll take John's advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If WP:CANVASS were to prevent wise folks like Durova or DocG from commenting anywhere, I'd say there was a bit of a problem. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they be prevented from commenting. ;-) Bongout (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec. *2) ... okay... so what are you suggesting? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

That Viridae be prevented from consensus canvassing. Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would mean that you are opposed to Durova and DocG having been contacted, (as that is canvassing, according to you) correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it just me, or do several folks consider BLP to override all else? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because it does, IMO. It's our most important content policy, because it takes all the other content policies we have and distills them down for a single issue where it is vitally important that we not screw up: the lives and reputations of living people. FCYTravis (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When used correctly, it should. John Reaves 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that both Doc G and Durova's input generally substantially improves the quality of discussion in any BLP matter. FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which anyone would think who is generally in favor of deletion. The bottom line is that anyone paying attention to BLP-penumbra issues at all knows exactly how Doc would respond and know how Durova would likely respond as well. At best, this Viridae should have ealized that this looked bad. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. I move that Bongout be censured for violation of WP:AGF. Jtrainor (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's as blatantly absurd as Bongout's idea that this was canvassing. I suggest that this section's discussion be closed as it's just rehashing now. ···日本穣 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Censured? We can do that? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See, it would be a proof-by-counterexample sort of thing. We would show that Assuming Good Faith is important by failing ourselves to do it for him, and letting him know how it feels. Disputes can be kept alive for years that way, if you're dedicated enough. -GTBacchus 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And that, of course, would be a textbook example of disruption to make a point <GRIN> --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) You wouldn't believe how many people get WP:POINT wrong. Basically, if you're not grinning from ear to ear at the sheer creative audacity of it all, even while preparing to click the block button... it probably wasn't a WP:POINT violation. ;-)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but there already was a related discussion on Durova's talk page when Viridae left a message. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is kinda sorta why I left her a message. Ned You have a great skill in pointing out the obvious sometimes when other people have been entirely oblivious to it. Keep it up. Viridae 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Ned nails it. I was already considering nominating that article myself. Don Murphy falls within my standing offer for courtesy BLP nomination. Viridae followed up on the active discussion to mention he'd already taken action. I've got some concerns about his decisions today on a process level, but canvassing isn't one of those concerns. Durova 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the last AfD which I initiated. It's pretty clear that simply deleting the article is not considered acceptable by large numbers of people. Where is the on-wiki discussion prior to this deletion? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If he called to view the discussion 2 people he knew would have a similar desired outcome for it to him, he should have also asked a couple of people he knew to be on the other side of the debate, otherwise it does risk skewing it. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That has got to be the silliest suggestion I've heard in a long, long time. I suppose patrollers should go ask random vandals to place {{hangon}} tags on speediable articles to avoid "skewing the debate"? There is a vast gulf between canvassing and notifying two people of some debate, and even hinting at conflating the two is to be, at best, completely disingenuous. — Coren  20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor - I'll bet it's ingenuous. (No offense, Merkinsmum - I think you're mistaken, but that doesn't at all mean stupid.) Only Merkinsmum knows for sure.

We discourage canvassing because it encourages the ideas that we are voting, and that "getting out the vote" somehow makes sense as a "strategy". It's harmful when busloads of people show up to "register a vote" because it obscures what's really going on, and it encourages complaints from people who thought they won the "vote". Alerting a person with applicable knowledge doesn't turn it into a numbers game; it helps keep the focus right where it should be: on content and policy.

If you wish to argue that Viridae "violated" some policy (how legalistic!), you'll have to explain how it was harmful, what he did. Even then, the appropirate remedy would be to fix the problem, not to censure Viridae. Remember, this isn't court. Did Viridae hurt the project? If so, how? -GTBacchus 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about by deleting an article which had survived two AfDs by a substantial margin, reportedly at the request of a banned user at a troll site, without any on-wiki discussion? I mean, they really don't come a lot more rouge than me, and even I wouldn't have deleted this one, I took it to AfD. And I was one of the ones attacked by Murphy and his goons, including having him phone my wife at home. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, that sounds like something that ought to be looked at carefully, which is why there's a DRV discussion, right? I was responding to the complaint that he "canvassed" for the DRV. If leaving notes on those two talk pages hurt the project, then I can see a cause for concern, but if someone's simply hung up on the wording of WP:CANVASS versus the spirit, then I was trying to point out that they're different things. -GTBacchus 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the banned user is the subject of the article... Viridae 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a window for administrator action here, so on what basis does this conversation continue? It was two active editors, one an admin, notified about a discussion that one was already tangentially involved in. Time to move on. Avruch 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:John Reaves just inspired me to write this essay. Just FYI. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:14, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I move that Viridae be congratulated for anti-canvassing. Canvassing is attempting to get numbers on your side, regardless of the merit of arguments. Durova was contacted because Viridae felt she was "the person most likely to get (i.e. understand) the deletion reason" - in other words, based on of the arguments that she would bring to the DRV. Viridae made a request for quality, not quantity. Sheffield Steel_stalk 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are supported back-channels for article subjects to discuss their articles. They can email arbcom or OTRS - Murphy knows these back channels and has been in email contact with admins and Jimbo, his last email to Jimbo was a couple of days ago. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Naerii 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated. If Murphy wants to address article content he can do it via supported backchannels. He has direct email addresses for enough people, and his name is enough to ensure prompt attention given past issues. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how that is related to the previous conversation about Viridae's alleged canvessing. I feel like I missed something :( Never mind. -- Naerii 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is no harm, no foul. I disagree sharply on this issue from Viridae, but she did no more than many do on and off wiki. It's implausible that the two eds. wouldn't have seen this DRV, whether she notified them or not, and what she posted can't have actually affected the course of the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If I invite some people to a debate who have previously had the same view as me, I also invite one or two who had shown the other opinion in the past. This is a discussion which had come up before, so it would be known who would have which view. If you only invite those on one side of the fence, especially about a subject many people will watch, you do run the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASS. That's just an obvious risk as can be seen by this discussion being started. It's a matter of the perception of canvassing, regardless of whether it's intentional. I don't see what's so barking about that. But I don't know if it needed putting here, unless he has been notified on his talk page of your perception and has refused to correct it. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar

I am having trouble with an Administrator who goes by Dreadstar. I have continuously asked him for explanations and he has only been ambiguous and pushy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify (with diffs) what the problem is please? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you do diffs? He insist on adding citations which I would consider incorrect. Also, he is accusing me of making personal attacks and adding fact tags to try to promote a view or something, not really sure exactly what he means and he won't really respond directly to questions.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well do you consider this a civil statement? he only noted the policy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No that's not my point, really wasn't trying to be rude, just all the darth and stars and stuff, that's besides my point. Apologies...nothing wrong with being young though.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Diff for information on diffs. Also, sometimes you can inadvertently push a point of view by bombing particular sections of articles with tags because you disagree with them. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that may be the perceived outcome. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I really just don't see how my edits could be perceived as such. I usually just add the tag to statements that sound iffy or info I though needed clarification--UhOhFeeling (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Permit me to add my completely unsolicited 3rd party opinion, as it's late, I'm bored, and I happened to look into what UhOhFeeling is talking about. He's not drive-by tagging. He clearly was reading articles about pubs and drinking, and added {{fact}} tags in completely appropriate places.

He did his duty in questioning whether curry is a common US/Canadian pub food, because that's absolute nonsense. ("Rubbish?") I'm from the US and have traveled across it. A citation about a single restaurant in Brooklyn does not make curry a common pub food in North America.

I don't know who was being civil and who wasn't, but UhOhFeeling was not drive-by tagging.

WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

UhOhFeeling most certainly is drive-by tagging. Three different administrators have had issues with UhOhfeeling's behavior. Also, Dreadstar tried to be informative and was met with the an insulting remark about his age, see here. As for drive-by tagging, well, make your own judgments, but several other editors complained about Uhohfeeling’s seeming over-tagging of articles. It certainly appears to me that they were correct. One article, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is an example where UhOhFeeling added a very large number of fact tags: And on other articles as well: As a matter of fact, out of UhOhFeeling's 51 mainspace edits, 46 of them were fact tag-related (about 90%). Anyway, several have tried to help and explain things to him, but it doesn't seem to have done much good. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, you're not an innocent party either. A day after he created his account, you put on his talk page: "You're trolling and I doubt you're a brand new user." and later got upset when he responded to your accusations on your talk page. (Look - I've been editing for months and I'm still not sure what the proper protocol is for talk page back-and-forths.)

In your guys' trying to help, I've only seen accusations of drive-by tagging, telling him to stop adding {{fact}}, and threatening to ban him.

Keep in mind that different people contributes to Misplaced Pages in different ways, according to the volunteer time they choose to donate. Having information pointed out that needs references is useful, not something to be discouraged.

So I'd say do this:

• This all seems to be the fallout from edit wars. Let's cool down.
• UhOhFeeling - check out {{refimprovesect}} which is documented here: Template:Refimprovesect. It's usually better to just put one of those at the top of the section, rather than several {{fact}} tags within the section.
• Rlevse and Dreadstar: don't bite the newcomers. I didn't see anyone suggest {{refimprovesect}}.

But then again, I'm no admin. Just a 3rd party. And I should have been in bed hours ago.  :) WalterGR (talk | contributions) 10:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not so new. He used to be User:Nigazblood. He's been talked to many times, and by more than Dreadstar and I. Tag-bombing to the point he did is counterproductive. He's had his chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In my short time editing at[REDACTED] I have been thoroughly disappointed with the admin's quickness to judge, close-minded attitude, and lack of critical thinking. Let's look at the facts here, not how many admin's have been offended when I was following policy in the first place. I think the fact tags are useful rather than one large ambiguous tag at the top of the article they get to the point of what facts need citing. Some of the judgments cast on me as to my reasons for using fact tags are simply not true and as stated way to soon. Any advice would be appreciated, Thanks--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... You're right, Rlevse, he used to be another user. Perhaps I've been taken for a fool. Ah well. S'what I get for editing at 3:30 in the morning. Regardless, I've explained on his talk page what templates he should use. I'll try to keep an eye out for tag-bombing. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at my edits people...seriously...Walter you yourself approved them until this other nonsense which has nothing to do with anything.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair removal and block

History: I'm an occasional but positive contributor to Misplaced Pages, after some problems with fair use images and the difficulty in trying to resolve them I created a userbox User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin to state an opinion which was deleted. Consensus for this delete was dubious however I toned down the content of my opinion inline with the discussion to a new version User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin. The new version is a soft opinion which is no different from many other userbox-stated opinions on the fair-use topic.

Situation: Users User:Nyttend and User:Doc glasgow have deleted the new version of the userbox without consensus or discussion and further to that User:Doc glasgow has attacked me personally of being a troll. I'm sticking up for my right to express a non-offensive opinion but I'm certainly not a troll (I had to look up what one was). Apart for the actioning admins in this case other users/admins are supportive to me.

Please can the new version of my userbox be re-instated so we can all get back to improving Misplaced Pages? --Bleveret (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to delete that. However I see no reason to worry about it, either. How does this little irrelevant box relate in any way to your ability to improve Misplaced Pages? The only obstacle I see to your doing that, is that you're more concerned about your box than about editing, apparently. Heck, even the first version is something you ought to be allowed to say. Users are allowed to editorialize about Misplaced Pages in user space. Have you tried putting it on your user page instead of in a separate page? It might not get noticed that way. Friday (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. State it on your user page, rather than in a userbox. Should be fine then. For the record, I think language divisive to a collaborative editing environment should be avoided. I'm waiting for a response from another user about a similar (but opposite) situation. It's in my contribs if anyone is desperate to see what I'm talking about, but please wait until I get a reply before commenting here or there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there were three things done wrong here: 1)The repeated deletion of his userbox, which was different than the one involved in an MfD. 2)The unwarranted block. 3)The fact that User:Remember the dot posted the MfD for DR, and User:Nick immediately closed it. Enigma 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that User:Nick, the administrator who shut down the DRV request almost immediately, was the same one that deleted the userboxes in the first place. In any case, the new userbox is different enough from the original that the MfD discussion does not apply. If others still want to delete it then we can discuss it at MfD like civilized people. —Remember the dot 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another thing done wrong (sorry to pick on you Remember the dot); Remember the dot, having been the party bringing the DRV, should not have been the party to unblock Bleveret. He should have asked another, uninvolved administrator to review the situation and make an appropriate decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• And now Remember the dot restoring the userbox under contention, User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin. This is a form of wheel warring. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The root of the problem was the initial problematic actions taken. Whether RTD did it, or asked someone else to do it, they had to be rectified. As far as I'm concerned, Bleveret should've been unblocked immediately by whichever admin saw it first. Enigma 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in wheel warring. Again, if you want User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin deleted, then start a discussion at MfD. If there is consensus to delete then I have to abide by that decision. —Remember the dot 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• But you have been wheel warring. For the record, I don't think the userbox should have been deleted. The first one (the one subject to the MfD), yes. The second, no. I also don't think Bleveret should have been blocked. That was clearly out of line. But so was unblocking him by a directly involved administrator, and so was restoring the userbox by that same administrator. There's 1500+ other admins. SOMEbody would have undeleted it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can we just be happy that the misapplication of speedy deletion criteria and the blocking tool was quickly reversed, and that we are now in a position to discuss the issue like civilized people? —Remember the dot 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not looking for action against you. I am cautioning you that acting in the way you have has resulted in other administrators being forcibly de-adminned. Please use more caution in the future. When in doubt, seek action/advice from an uninvolved administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing much wrong with the second one, apart from the fact that looking at the actual code reveals an editor who doesn't understand the concept of Misplaced Pages. Black Kite 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the core problem: the apparent assertion that enforcement of Foundation policy on unfree content amounts to censorship (which it clearly doesn't, this is a logical disconnect in the deleted UBX), combined with the idea that the encyclopaedia is somehow "ruined" by adhering to its mission to be a free-content encyclopaedia. I'm sure that the user can think of a way of stating his opposition to automated mechanisms of enforcement of fair-use policy without appearing to repudiate a Foundation edict and one of Misplaced Pages's core goals, if he really tries. Do it in a way that is not inflammatory and divisive, perhaps. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This user thinks censorship and fair use bots are ruining Misplaced Pages

• The censorship issue is separate from the fair use issue. No one said that they are any more than tangentially related. Perhaps the userbox should be split in two, one for each issue, to make this more clear.
• The foundation edict was not handed down from on high. We have a right to disagree with it. Disagreement does not mean that we hate each other or that we can't collaborate together. It just means that we should discuss the issue more and carefully consider our opinions.
• The userbox, which I have dug up and posted for reference, is not nearly divisive or inflammatory enough to qualify for speedy deletion. At the very least, it should have been sent through MfD.

—Remember the dot 04:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Foundation oversees this project. In so far as editors here are concerned, an edict from them is from on high and carries the strongest voice of any here. It states at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." You certainly have a personal right to disagree with the policy. In so far as the project is concerned, you do not have a right to act in abrogation of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. And there's always the core mission to be a free content encyclopaedia. Even then, civil disagreement is fine, but personalising the dispute and repudiating core values are simply not on. Let's not forget that the original said "this user thinks Betacommandbot is destroying Misplaced Pages" - not very nice. Actually I think the obsessive insistence on unfree content and refusal to use proper fair use rationales is much more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course we have to abide by the foundation's decision. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it, and it doesn't mean that a userbox stating opposition mainly to bot enforcement of WP:NFCC#10c, a policy not mandated by the foundation, is "divisive and inflammatory". You have good arguments for deleting the first one that referred to BetacommanBot specifically, and I'm not asking you to allow that one, I'm just talking about the second one. —Remember the dot 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out here that such issues can be resolved if you talk to people nicely about this. I recently noticed the following two edits to a user page: and . See also Image:Say NO to Fair Use.svg. I was a bit riled by that aggressive campaigning against fair use (the Foundation has not, contrary to reports, outlawed all fair use). I mentioned my concerns on a few pages, and eventually went to the user concerned and asked them on their talk page if they would mind toning down the language. And they did. Problem solved. Would that all such situations were so easily resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was contacted, the language was toned down, and the revised box was speedily deleted anyway without discussion. —Remember the dot 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking nicely? On Misplaced Pages? Have you lost it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by Sethie

I don't understand as why this particular user is after me, kindly have a look at his contribution's, Since 11 March, he has used this account for single purpose which is to harass me, and has almost no contribution's on any article whatsoever, how can i prevent him from vandalizing my userpage or talk page ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking clue from what is stated below, is giving a person any name, violates[REDACTED] rules, as Sethie has done here, . I am not aware of this person, or name, hence i simply ignored such wage imagination of Sethie, but his continual vandalizing my userpage, and giving warnings after warning on my talk page, forced me to report the matter here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. He has a point about your userpage though. You could settle this matter immediately if you simple removed your accusations. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also he was not asking you to reveal your real name only a previous[REDACTED] username. See for why that account was banned. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult Free World/talk-to-me is using his user page for soapboxing and attacking various meditation groups. Please, please examine his contribs, he is not on Wiki to contribute meaningfully in any way, but to provocate and soapbox.

As background, please note this user was blocked for one week here for making personal attacks.

Upon return from his block, he continued the same vein of personal attacks, calling editors or admins cult-promoters and/or accusing them of being paid to post on Wiki (the following are just since his return from the block).

1. Here he provocates by suggesting I am a paid member of a group. (a lie)
2. Here he seeks an admin's help, and blatantly lies by saying "if you notice the time there was no edit from my side during that time frame" when he had numerous attack edits documented here, but they do not show now because the pages were deleted. This is an intentional ruse to mislead and manipulate an admin.
3. Also, please note on the dif above that again he tells lies about several editors, saying we "are paid members from respective cults."

A few editors have warned him on this, he has been given warnings on his user page, and he ignores all of these. It seems unlikely that his goal is to contribute meaningfully to Misplaced Pages. Renee (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we have Renee also here :), and hence this has once again looped back to user:jossi, I seriously doubt that Renee IS a paid member of that group, as user:jossi is of prem rawat . Given the fact, that Renee approach only user:jossi for deleting a cult related page, which was promptly deleted, by user:jossi even though he had declared that he would not get involved in cult related article, the way Renee has attacked me personally, and is continuously attempting to prevent an article from getting published in wikipedia, clearly indicates something fishy, I am really surprised at her continuous efforts to report about me, given then fact, I am all involved in responding to them, and hence unable to contribute effectively, her association with jossi is evident here also where she approached jossi immediately after filing a case against me at yet another forum, WP:IU , which was rightly rejected All this is only to prevent ONE article from getting published on wikipedia, which I became aware of after I noticed user:jossi deleting it, and subsequently i filed a COI notice .

Sum of all this information is,[REDACTED] is being manipulated by member's of certain group, which should not be allowed,[REDACTED] is there to give information and not hide it. Since my personal knowledge of the subject, which i suspect Renee has close connection is limited, hence my attempt was to translate the same topic from wikipedia's French twin, I noticed same subject present in french[REDACTED] as well, and i suggested to translate the same, and have an english article as well, this is all what concerns, these member's, Kindly note there is not a single comment from me on their page, which would indicate any sort of POV regarding any other user, same is more then clear in case of Renee and Sethie,it appears both of them belong to same group, called sahaja marga. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To add one more important aspect of this discussion, Renee's warnings were viewed as something approaching towards legal threat, and all this was about a topic, which doesn't even exist on wikipedia does this not violates clear cult definition of WP:NPA which states comment on contribution and not on contributer when the article itself doesn't even exist how can there be any contribution ? hence her comments are solely directed towards me, and not on what contribution I am making. She has even accused me of a puppet of user:4d-don here, I was astonished by this intense reaction by Renee, for i attempted to translate a[REDACTED] page from its french twin. Her proactive approach to this forum, and then again filing a case at yet another forum, again only for my proposing re-writing an article deleted by user:jossi as per[REDACTED] standard. My concern is about the direction article's are moving by heavy biasing of certain editors due to their direct involvement with the cults, which as a consequence leads to filtered or no information for internet community at large. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of this...

• User:Cult free world has repeatedly (see above) accused User:jossi of deleting Sahaj Marg, having a COI, and being a cultist (see Talk archive and the thread at COI/N). However, looking at the actual AfD it was only nominated by jossi - for what look like exemplary reasons - and closed by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. For added bizarreness, check out the lone DO NOT DELETE post, based on the argument that the article was promoting a cult.
• Jossi has undertaken not to edit cult articles (see User Talk:jossi for more). Whether nominating an article for deletion counts as a violation of that - much less an "abuse of admin tools" (COI/N again) - is a different question.
• After being notified that "Cult free world" might be considered a POV or offensive username, and being asked if he might consider changing it, CFW responded, "Would it be possible for you to focus on content and not the contributer?" (sigh) I don't think any progress is being made on this front - unless you count this signature: ] (]).

...no conclusions yet, and it's tiring to wade through the hyperbole. Anyone want to add anything? Sheffield Steel_stalk 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of, my objection was/is to this deletion , Kindly note, Renee approaches Jossi, on his talk page , as noted above also, it was Jossi only who nominated the previous article for deletion, and he himself deleted the next version, ignoring his own deceleration. If the article was a G4 candidate why no AfD tag ? and why no discussion whatsoever ? For what has jossi declared he will not get involved with cult related article's ? Jossi should have placed AfD as any other user would have done.

Why cannot an article be written ? explaining about all the issues, about the group, about its methods and about harms caused by the group. Why hide information ? and attack other user's if they are not in sync with their POV ? Is there any explanation to Renee's warnings after warnings notices after notices , when there is not a single comment from me on her talk page. And all this is about a subject, which doesn't even exist on[REDACTED] , this aggressive approach is the only thing, which makes me believe that this particular group has lot to hide, and on search, i did came across lot of material which substantiate this statement, some of them are WP:RS and some are not. As a building block, i have taken the subjects french twin as a base, and hope other users with more knowledge of this cult, will chip in, and help build a neutral article, which gives all relevant information, for anyone seeking information about the topic, this is what[REDACTED] is all about information isn't it ? This article was on[REDACTED] for 2 yrs , what happened suddenly that all the reliable sources such court dockets, newspaper reports, government agencies reports and cult watch groups, pear group reports became unavailable ? This group has lot to hide, and this is the sole reason as why its members are preventing an article about this subject on[REDACTED] , Kindly note, this is the french version, which i have placed for translation and build upon, even though it is only a sandbox version, a temp page, an AfD notice was placed by a user who is on[REDACTED] since 2004 . There must be some reason as why these members are so eager not to get an article about the subject !! I guess it is the court cases, and sexual abuse cases which are bothering the member's more then anything else. My personal experience with these member's is they start attacking the other user, give warning after warnings, even though there is no comment from that user, and then they approach this forum, and claim that the user is still working, even though they have given 5 warnings. People here may not be fully aware of the incidence and hence may get influenced by their long essay, not about any article but user's.

I can speak little bit of french, hence i will do my best in translating it, hope more user's can chip in. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have answered your own questions. There was no discussion, and no AfD notice, because the article was speedy-deleted under criterion G4 (Recreation of deleted material), which allows for deletion without debate of a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. If you believe you can demonstrate that no other admin would have deleted that article, then you must request a deletion review. Otherwise, this was not abuse of admin tools, just use of admin tools for a purpose you didn't agree with. Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to reveal the name of a pseudonymous editor

The conflict of interstest page asserts that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." And yet an editor named Boodlesthecat is attempting to do just that. See this diff. Putting aside my thoughts on his assumption, inductions, and logic -- which I strongly disagree with -- isn't his attempt to publicly guess and announce my my name a violation of policy? Thanks for you comments. Gni (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the recent history, it certainly appears that you are merely hunting through EVERYTHING that Boodles has done and everything he does in the hopes of finding some sort of "impropriety" that you can make "stick". Look, stop trying to seek revenge against him because you consider him some sort of enemy. This is stalking and is wrong. Instead, return to editing articles, though I would avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one, as your edits there have gotten you into some trouble in the recent past. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This charge is extremely unfair. I really don't think it's appropriate not to assume good faith in my edits, and it is anyway not relevant to the question of trying to out a pseudonymous editor. Nonetheless, I'll point out that I'm making an honest effort to try and improve this article in accord with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. I strongly disagree with Boodlesthecat's edits, just as he disagrees with mine. If anything, it seems that my changes are reflexively reverted by Boodlesthecat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was all ready to point out exactly why this doesn't violate policy, but what do you know, my addition didn't stick. I guess we have no choice but to ban Boodlesthecat. —Random832 20:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would learn to handl conflict of interest suspicions sensibly. Just email info-en@wikipedia.org and ask one of the nice volunteers to sort it all out. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think COI/N is not an appropriate process, where were you during the MFD? —Random832 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the OTRS volunteers supposed to do about it? Mr.Z-man 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The User talk page for every IP editor includes a WHOIS link at the bottom on which anyone can click. In this case, the WHOIS information is decisive regarding the organization from which access to Misplaced Pages occurred, though not about the particular individual who edited. Since Misplaced Pages continues to make that button available, there appears to be a consensus that it has value and should be kept. There is more information about this case at the COIN report. Personally, I would prefer that Boodlesthecat not speculate publicly in such detail about this editor's identity, but the tie connecting the IP edits (discussed more clearly at COIN) to the CAMERA organization is clear. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd point out is that there is no wish expressed to remove the personal information, only an attempt to declare that it is against policy of Misplaced Pages (though CoI, 3RR, Sockpuppeting, are as well). The specifically personal information which was posted should be removed if possible, but the history of the editors suggests this is just another round of a fight rather than a concern for safety.. The concern of the editors involved should go from who can I get in trouble for violating which policy to how can I improve the overall project.. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll gladly remove the name speculation as it seems that is proscribed. However, I did not bring this up as "another round of a fight;" there is a serious COI problem here. Gni is editing from the CAMERA offices (despite his denials of working for them and his responding to my asking about it with a personal attack). Refer to COI examples:

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

This is the salient issue here. Boodlesthecat 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree to this being the salient issue. And it should be clear to neutral observers, based on my edit history, that it is hardly my sole or primary purpose to promote a person, company, product, service or organization. Let's be clear -- I do feel that CAMERA material is germane to certain articles. I do have a strong interest in Middle East issues (as does Boodlesthecat). And neither of these facts suggest a sole or primary purpose to promote anything. Now that we've heard Boodlesthecat's point of view, I very much welcome anyone else to examine my editing history. I'm confident that, while they might find support for the two points I mention in this post, they will not find support for the insinuation that I have a sole or primary purpose to promote any person, company, etc. Gni (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This will assist in mking the determination of whether this editor, posting from CAMERA's offices, has a "sole or primary purpose to promote a person, company, product, service or organization.":

• Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.158.119.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.91.135.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Boodlesthecat 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Gni's privacy should not be unnecessarily invaded. But his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing. The evidence already presented at WP:COIN seems to show that he (Gni) edited Misplaced Pages from a computer in CAMERA's offices. If you feel like addressing this further, you are welcome to offer your views in the COIN thread. The evidence for promotional editing on the articles listed at COIN is so strong that we should be warning the COI-affected editors about possible blocks if they don't desist. Coyness about personal identity sounds incongruous when it comes from the advocate of a political action group that is extremely forceful in putting its own views forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I urge you to rethink this. I have used CAMERA material on a number occasions because I felt that this material was relevant to the article. This is hardly the same as promoting CAMERA. It is a fair source that many Wikipedians -- not only myself -- have used. It using material on multiple occasions is absolutely not the same as my diverse edits existing "for the sole or primary purpose of promoting."

I will also add that I strongly deny editing on behalf of CAMERA. If I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest. It in no way shows that I don't "place the interests of the encyclopedia first" (as per the COI page) and indeed, the history of my edits and thorough comments on various discussion pages -- even if Boodlesthecat is personally opposed to my edits -- show a consistent adherence to Misplaced Pages's NPOV guidelines, which seems to be the relevant and determinative factor.

Finally, Boodlesthecat seems to believe that he has the right to unilaterally ban my contributions (see this diff, even though this clearly violates the principle that "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." Should he not desist from reverting reasonable edits, which had been discussed and argued over long before this round of disputes (including by NYScholar, who initiated this change and whose edits and discussion make quite clear that he's no cheerleader for CAMERA), by claiming COI? Especially since this issue has yet to be resolved in various COI forums? Gni (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

HolyMuslimWarrior (talk · contribs)

The name of this user speaks for itself, and their userpage says, in particular: "I believe Zionism is a poisonous cancer to this world, and is the greatest obstacle to world peace. I do not like fake Muslims, who profess to be Muslim but do not reflect Islam in their behavior (hypocrites)." The contribution history reveals the following:

• creation of a talk page section titled "Damn Shia" and beginning with "The Shia are notorious for forging hadiths, making things up, passing along innovations and mixing in legends and outright lies and treating it like factual information..."
• creation of a talk page section titled "Do the Jews own Misplaced Pages too?"
• addition of a statement suggesting that the United States is controlled by the Jews: "Some have suggested that the shape of these stars resembles a Jewish Star of David, which would imply a conspiracy involving Jewish control of the American government."
• repeated removal of well-sourced factual material on spurious grounds

The timing of contributions suggests this account is probably a sleeper sock, but I leave it to more experienced people to suggest who might be the puppeteer. Beit Or 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock or not, I think the biggest issue is whether or not the account is potentially disruptive. The username itself is on the fringe on violating policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The username and the nature of the user's contributions are such that an indefinite block is warranted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the removal of sourced content like that warrants warnings and a report to WP:AIV anyway. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. -Jéské 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that as well. I asked the user to change the username way back but the user completely ignored me. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As do I. ···日本穣 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Too disruptive - the name, the incivility, the trolling, the drama. I endorse the block. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He's starting to make unblock requests; I declined his first one as trolling (for the record, my genetic mix is Irish/German/Cherokee). -Jéské 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever been an editor who uses the phrase "baseless lies" in a non-ironic manner worth keeping around? JuJube (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Baseless lies, check. "Jewish Misplaced Pages editors", check. Yup what we've got here is a conspiracy...a C-O-N...spiracy. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And second unblock request was more of the same - as well as a personal attack against Bearian thrown in for good measure. Maybe he should have followed his own holy book: "They (try to) deceive God and those who believe, yet deceive none but themselves, although they do not know./Sick are their hearts, and God adds to their malady." Talkpage fully-protected, second and final unblock request declined and reverted. And for the record, I'm atheist. I simply read holy books in my spare time. -Jéské 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Microprose and user EconomistBR

There has been a series of events at the MicroProse entry that leads me to believe user EconomistBR has recently operated on WP:Ownership, and has also now engaged in disruptive editing. He has now taken the History of Microprose entry and edited it to become his original version of the MicroProse entry, retitling it and and subsequently editing all appearances of MicroProse wikilinks in other Misplaced Pages entries to point to that entry. I have tried to engage with the user and explain things to work them out, as can be seen on the MicroProse talk page, and this was his response. I would like some form of administrator intervention in this matter, as his actions moved it beyond a simple content dispute. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong, Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion.

User Marty Goldberg has been accusing me of WP:Ownership, that's in incorrect I've accepted all edits made so far. Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once.

User Marty Goldberg is operating on WP:Ownership since he only accepts edits made by him or by User:Microprose itself. I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits.

MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies, he wants to pretend that they are the same company. MicroProse Software Inc ceased to exist in 2001. This company didn't simply change its name or change owners it ceased to exist completely.

The fact is that an entirely new company under the name MicroProse has appeared, so distinction is important, otherwise we're mixing their corporate histories.;⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All of that is completely untrue, the only thing I've edited of yours is a statement you added that did not follow NPOV and whose wording was done in direct spite of the conversation on the talk page. Everything I've stated is fact and easily verified by looking at your edit history vs. the history of the conversation on the talk page. Likewise, the properties transfered to a new company, that simple - it did indeed change owners. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Untrue??? Let's analize my claims then:

1. "Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion". Fact
2. "Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once". Fact
3. "I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits". Fact
4. "MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies". Fact
5. Marty Goldberg"wants to pretend that they are the same company". Plausible

My claims reflect the truth and are correct. Now your claim:

• "the properties transfered to a new company". Incorrect, absolutely incorrect, and you know it.

The Civilization franchise, the Railroad Tycoon franchise belong now to different companies. Hence they weren't transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC. Besides those 2 big intellectual right losses is not yet know which intellectual right properties, if any, were transfered to MicroProse System LLC together with the brand MicroProse. This fact of property right losses further reinforces the need for a distinction between MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again the name and the properties not sold off by Infogrames/Atari Interactive have transfered, the new company is the holder of these, that is indisputable and not at issue here. Arguing about what properties they were able to purchase is also not the issue and has little to do with the brand being transfered to this newer company. Other companies also have had multiple corporate holders as you've been pointed out, or ceased to exist for a time and come back and their entries here have not been held to your viewpoint on the need to differentiate by recreating completely separate entries rather than just identifying the difference in corporate name. Other editors simply have not shared these viewpoints. What the issue is, is your conduct, which you've continued to demonstrate here. Unlike your growing and ever changing list of attempted counter-accusations, I said they are one in the same line of companies owning the Microprose brand, which they are. You keep trying to say otherwise, making further accusations about me, that company, etc. and claiming "fact" because you say so. You've claimed I've been editing without any opinion or discussion....and I suppose I've been imagining the entire talk on the discussion page and here....or if I really wanted to edit without opinion or discussion I could have just taken the same route as you and completely reproduced my version in another article and subsequently change all links in other entries to point to that one as your edit history shows you have. Finally, once again, I've done nothing editing wise you're claiming I have and once again the edit history clearly shows this. Your "3 edits" were a) A fact tag you put on an alternative company name (that someone else put there) that you considered dubious, to which I rewrote the paragraph to remove the dubious name in question, and to further differentiate the corporate names as you requested on the talk page. b) A removal of a link from the external links section (which you were right to remove from that section per WP:EL) that someone else had put there, which I thought might have worked better context wise as a reference within the article and proceeded to use as a reference, c) A paragraph consisting of an arbitrary list of demands you wanted answered by Microprose on the talk page, which when they were not answered to your liking you decided to turn it in to a paragraph in the article, which violated NPOV and WP:OR. "MicroProse Systems LLC states that software development has begun, there is however no information available about which games are currently under development or about which platform those games are for or about the location of MicroProse's new development studio." All the same things you demanded responses for on the talk page, and as the edit history clearly shows, you ran to the main page in spite when you didn't like the answers you were getting. You could have also added "Have not announced a CEO, have not given their office location, have not stated what retailers are carrying their software,..." and a plethora of other arbitrary statements, which shows the actual nature of that paragraph. Rather than delete the paragraph completely, I compromised (as I have attempted to do throughout) and conveyed your concern with the much more neutral and less rambling "They have also stated software development has begun, however no further information is currently available." So where is the sinister context you're trying to paint these edits in to claim ownership on my behalf? Ownership on my part would be if I just reverted everything you did, or say...just recreated everything I wanted in this article in another article instead to try and circumvent any consent issues. Honestly, your attempts to try and throw this back on me are thinly veiled, and the attitude which prompted the filing of this incident report is shining through. There is no discussion with you, there's just running around in circles and getting more accusations thrown. This will be my last response on this page, as I'm not interested in being any more of a part of this ridiculous and disruptive volley that you've instigated here and on the microprose talk page. I can only hope for once you can resist the urge to continue your conduct and post yet more of the same content here. I believe the admins have everything they need to go on at this point, and any further back and forth would simply further obfuscate the issues. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You just want to have things your way when I showed some opposition to your views you retaliated by accusing me of WP:Ownership since that didn't work you are now accusing me of:

1. Being unable to carry a discussion.
2. Being "ridiculous and disruptive" on my comments that in fact call for some tranparency and distinction.

You want to bunddle together under the same article MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC just because they share the name "MicroProse". That would the same as pretending that the company simply changed its name. I can't agree to that. Those are 2 very different companies.

The intellectual property rights that have remained might have been been transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC, I say might because I haven't seen yet any documents detailing this transaction. So that is disputable and a really big issue.

List of intellectual property rights that belonged to MicroProse Software Inc but do not belong to MicroProse Systems LLC.

1. Civilization franchise
2. Railroad Tycoon franchise
3. Roller Coaster Tycoon franchise

• The MicroProse article should deal with the history of the brand itself, and never bunddle together the 2 different companies.
• MicroProse System LLC is a small hardware company that would never on its own have an article on Misplaced Pages, the only the single reason why MicroProse Systems LLC is being mentioned is because they share their first name with MicroProse Software, Inc
• MicroProse software, Inc is not back only the brand is back. Brand names never die.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is for requesting administrator attention for a problem, and this seems to be a content dispute. Please follow the dispute resolution policy and continue the discussion on your talk pages. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

User:24.127.22.57 started vandalizing Honus Wagner at 00:36. User:Boys beware was created at 00:38 and vandalized the same page at 00:41. User:David willham was created at 00:39 and joined in on the vandalism at 00:42. I blocked both accounts and the IP address (WP:DUCK, obvious sockpuppets). Things were moving so quickly that I may have messed something up and just wanted to check in here and ask if any other admins wanted to double-check my work. Useight (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks 100% right to me. Good catch. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Turns out I mistakenly blocked the IP indef when I was indef blocking the accounts, but I corrected that. Useight (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly

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

CreepyCrawly registered his account in November 2006 and made one edit. Since then, he claims he has edited anonymously. He logged in on March 15 in order to bypass semiprotection on the global warming article. He made a few edits disputing the notion that the global warming trend is agreed upon by the "overwhelming majority" of scientists, and was quickly drawn into a brief revert cycle and a talk page discussion. That same day, Raul654 blocked him indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet of the banned user and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Scibaby. Since then, he has made three unblock requests, all declined, and Raul654 has tried to rebuff arguments I've made in CreepyCrawly's defense. I have agreed to advocate for CreepyCrawly, and he has agreed to allow me to argue on his behalf. Since Raul654 did not unblock after I appealed to him, my next recourse is to this noticeboard.

Raul654 has reported that checkuser does not link CreepyCrawly to Scibaby's socks, but on the other hand, Scibaby has been using anonymous proxies. The upshot is that checkuser can't help us here. We're left with the duck test.

I've noticed differences in the writing style between CreepyCrawly and Scibaby: compare edit summaries to global warming and you will notice a difference in tone. CreepyCrawly seems familiar with some policies and guidelines, but that is understandable for someone who has been editing for more than a year, and he has written that he read talk page discussions and policy pages. The arbitration committee has ruled unequivocally that familiarity with policy as a newbie does not indicate that a new user is a sockpuppet of anybody. Remember what happened to User:!!, who was blocked for just 75 minutes? CreepyCrawly has been blocked for three days, and he's still waiting to be proven innocent.

I've assembled as much evidence as I can on my user subpage: User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly. Please read it, along with User talk:CreepyCrawly, and draw your own conclusions. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith means, at a bare minimum, that we assume users are innocent until proven guilty. I believe that CreepyCrawly is innocent. If I could, I would unblock him myself. But I can't. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing.

Let me note, in passing, that I commend Raul654 for responding so aggressively to Scibaby's numerous disruptive sockpuppets. Without him, anarchy would have engulfed Misplaced Pages's coverage of global warming long ago. Nevertheless, if Raul654 continues to believe that CreepyCrawly is a sockpuppet, than someone else needs to come forward, undo the block, and state unequivocally that CreepyCrawly is unrelated to Scibaby.

Someone please do me a favor and let Raul654 know about this discussion. I'll be going to sleep now, and I won't see how people respond until tomorrow. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't find the duck test persuasive here. Is the I.P. that CreepyCrawly is agreed to have used - 70.105.244.192 - an open proxy? If not, is it geographically related to Scibaby's non-open proxy I.P.s? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he is a sock of SciBaby, but I'm convinced that he is one of a group of POV-pushing sock or meat puppets. Compare Special:Contributions/CreepyCrawly, Special:Contributions/Spamsham, Special:Contributions/Grecian_Formula, Special:Contributions/Sword_and_Shield. I also have my doubts about his story - his IP address has been stable as far as checkuser can make out, but there are only two edits by the IP address. Where is that long list of non-logged-in edits that lead to him being so familiar with Misplaced Pages rules and jargon? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether CreepyCrawly used the same I.P. throughout. Do we not have any record of Scibaby's non-proxy I.P.s? Also, I certainly agree that the last three of those four are socks of one another, but I don't see the similarity between them and CreepyCrawly. Also, I agree that CreepyCrawly's attitude towards all of this doesn't look promising, but unless we're pretty sure of sockpuppetry, let's give him sufficient rope for a self-hanging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it's coincidence or what, but User:Creepy_Crawler may be of interest to this discussion. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a coincidence. I don't see any relationship at all. And there was User:Kreepy_krawly, a very strange case who also was apparently unrelated. (Is there a cartoon character or something that all these folks are named after?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No clue... just seemed possible. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do editors besides Mr. Schulz and me have opinions on whether or not this meets the duck test? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I applied the Obedium-test and it came back positive (you know, like the turing test...jk) What really does it is the excitement about getting his ip snooped. Lets not forget that checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence because of proxies, and to me, its a red flag big time. Now, creepy's familiarity with sock procedure could have come about during the claimed anon editing period, but it is very unlikely that it would have come if he was a casual editor as opposed to an editor who works on a set of articles constantly (thats how you get the drama.) At least in my experience, I did not become familiar with this sort of thing until I became more of a project worker (Nicaragua, GW.) Finally, how did he know that Raul ("your friend") was going to snoop the IP? In this thread he seems to know who the checkuser is even before anything went down. Raul did a good job on creepy's page on showing some evidence, on the mean time, I will see if I can match a diff 100% to a prior sock. Brusegadi (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do I believe Creepy Crawly's story? No. I've heard variations on the same so many times that it simply rings hollow. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you have addressed the fundamental question, which is, very simply:

Is CreepyCrawly the same person as Scibaby, or acting on his behalf?

I have gone to great lengths to prove that the answer is no. Scibaby was not creating sleeper accounts to use in the global warming debate until October 2007, whereas this account was created in November 2006. At that time, Scibaby had only about four accounts, and he was using them to edit nanotechnology and a few other articles unrelated to Talk:Civilian control of the military. Scibaby's modus operandi has been, since December 2007, to create numerous sockpuppets, age them past the four-day limit when needed, and attack the global warming articles. I've documented this trend in painstaking detail. He has not used any "sleepers" from 2006, and I have no reason to believe that CreepyCrawly is the first.

I've also noted that I believe CreepyCrawly's edits to global warming are fundamentally different in style and tone than those of Scibaby's socks, even if their content is similar. I have news for you folks: there's more than one person in the educated world who disagrees with the statement that global warming is agreed upon by an "overwhelming majority" of scientists. Sharing that POV doesn't make you an automatic sockpuppet of Scibaby, even if the last 40-odd user accounts who shared that POV happened to be sockpuppets of Scibaby. I will remind you again that Scibaby socks, in addition to being recently created sleeper accounts (0 to 2 weeks between account creation and first edit, not 60+ weeks), almost universally quit and do not appeal their blocks, certainly not as strenuously as CreepyCrawly has done. For all these reasons and more, I believe that CreepyCrawly is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or any other kind of puppet, of Scibaby. The indefinite block was made solely on the premise that CreepyCrawly was a "probable Scibaby sockpuppet." Since I have placed this premise in very severe doubt, I do not endorse the block, and I believe that any admin who reviews all the facts of this case is duty-bound to unblock in accordance with established policy.

Some of you are suggesting that CreepyCrawly must be a "meatpuppet." Let me make two points here. First, that's not the reason he was blocked, and it's an invalid rationale for maintaining the block. Second, let me tell you what a meatpuppet really is. A meatpuppet is some jerk who agrees with some other jerk who has the temerity to disagree with you. I don't wish to alarm you folks, but we've basically come to the point where no new editor is allowed to edit the global warming article with a minority viewpoint, even if that editor is acting in good faith. That reality is not Scibaby's fault. If this block stands, then that reality is our fault. There's still time to rectify the situation before we need to put up a big notice on top of global warming that warns new editors to go away, as was done to Bogdanov affair.

Let me close by quoting from Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, my local newspaper, and a staunch opponent of the current consensus on global warming:

Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith?

Source: "Hot tempers on Global Warming" by Jeff Jacoby. The Boston Globe, August 15, 2007. Full text

I rest my case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby/Obedium is smart and adaptable. He has changed tactics several times; there's no reason to believe that he would go forever without appealing a block. All of your other assertions are demonstrably false. Most especially, editors who dispute the present scientific consensus aren't driven off en masse -- we have several who edit the articles. (They don't always get their way, but then nobody does.) Your argument boils down to "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before." I find that most unconvincing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny that this Creepy made his account about 10 months before Scibaby was here at all, to our knowledge. Suggests strongly to me that they're unrelated. Yes we can discover new tactics from a sock puppetteer- but that's unlikely to happen retroactively. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Creepy's account was created November 19, 2006. Scibaby's first identified sockpuppet (Binkythewonderskull) was registered in March 2006, followed by MRN (March 2006), Adam Newton (April 2006). Slaphappie (July 2006), Obedium (July 2006), Scibaby (September 2006). Given that by that day, he already had 5 sockpuppet accounts, why should it be surprising that he registered a 6th? Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is lost by unblocking Creepy? This discussion has consumed about two days of heated discussion and as near as I can tell done nothing other than entrenching entrenched opinions even deeper. What horror and nightmare would come from unblocking him? What if he did immediately vandalize, or worse, offer an unpopular opinion? Wouldn't it be possible to block him again? Wouldn't it be faster simply to perform and experiment and observe the outcome rather than to argue from fixed positions about the desirability of performing the experiment? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, with justice served. I offer Shalom my sincerest thanks for championing my cause. CreepyCrawly (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is my posting?

I posted a thread here on this page on March 15 or so (I believe) entitled "Abuse by an Admin" (or some such). Where did that disappear to? Why did it disappear? And where is it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

It was posted on March 15, and it was titled "Abusive Administrator". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Your thread is archived here. There seemed to be a consensus that no admin abuse actually occured. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, an admin can manipulate policy as fits his personal agenda ... disregard the concept of consensus ... and that's not admin abuse - correct? Interesting. So, if that is not considered "abuse" by Misplaced Pages, ummmmm ... "standards" ... then what would constitute admin abuse? Dying to hear this one. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

How about blocking Joseph A. Spadaro for starting this thread? That's the best example I can think of. Sheffield Steel_stalk 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think an admin incorrectly closed an Afd, the proper venue for review is WP:DRV. Is it there? I don't see it. If you think an admin is abusing powers, the correct action is a request for comment. If the latter fails, the option for Arbitration arises. All these are set out. Whinging on outside of procedure, however strongly you feel, is not. You know your options. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu is exactly correct. However, welcome as you are to investigate the possibilities of opening an RfC or going to Arbitration, you should do so under no false pretenses. The issue you brought forth was not admin abuse. It was not abuse of any variety. At best, it was a good judgement call; at worst, it was a mistake made in good faith that happened to not be in line with your own opinion on the subject. That should be the end of it. --PeruvianLlama 05:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. #1. Why was I sent to this page? And, more importantly, #2 ... do you realize that this exact quote is at the top of this page: "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." Yes, I am border-line retarded (unlike you guys). So, what exactly do those quoted words mean? Help me understand, oh Great and Mighty ones. Thanks so much! You guys are great! Unreal ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Coming to this page was the right thing to do. You asked what could be done about the admin abuse, and were subsequently told that it was not in fact abuse of any sort. That was the discussion: you asked, and several people chimed in to answer. If you are looking for a more long-winded approach to the situation, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, however the consensus here is that the matter is "closed", so it probably doesn't make sense to have any further protracted discussion on the AN/I page. --PeruvianLlama 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikehunt11

Just noticed this user making vandalism edits such as this and this. Does his name imply that there have been 10 other "Mikehunts" before him? Is there a way to block the creation of new usernames MikehuntXX? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Added "mikehunt" to User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a User:Mikehunt, but that was a SPA that was only active in 2005. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there are no other mikehunt's before this one, numerically speaking. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot after "11" that need to be checked, "12" for example. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We should probably watch out for "Mike Hintz" as well. I will begin blocking the vandalism only SPAs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Several of these blocked per WP:UN, User:Mikehunt11 blocked as a sock of Mikehunt21 (talk · contribs). --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just finished blocking several vandalism-only "Mikehunts" as well as issuing UN blocks to some inactive accounts that may be sleepers, nothing better than a game of Whac-A-Mike in the morning. The only account that remains is "Mikehunt", wich I believe should be tagged as the puppeter of all these other "Mikes". - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The name is UUA blockable anyway. Now, I have an appointment with Mr Jass and Mrs Huggenkiss Will 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Sceptre, assume good faith. The former coach of Towson University's basketball team WAS Michael Hunt. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's up with the edit summary? - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror II. Philistine. скоморохъ 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That ES might just be the best thing I've seen on Misplaced Pages all year. Thanks, Sceptre. :) --PeruvianLlama 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And in other news, the parent's of Michigan's AG are cruel. Will 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

User:Meucci was idefinitely blocked, partly for making disruptive edits to Alexander Graham Bell. Now, a new user, User:Beppinu, is making the same edits, in almost exactly the same words: Beppinu, compare Meucci. Could be two people with the same idea, or it could be Meucci evading the block. Another question, is this related to the appearance of User:Mikehunt11 on the same article, making the kind of vandalistic edits that Meucci also made? Did Meucci decide to come back under two names, one to make defensible edits, and one to vandalize? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but considering the edits were made on 7 March, the matter is moot. Treat them as 2 separate users. I don't think that User:Mikehunt11 is related. -- lucasbfr 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

re Beppinu; Quack! but like Lucasbfr says, old news (despite the talkpage edit of today). If the account does start vandalising again take it to AIV for a fast response, or SSP if you feel they need to block an underlying ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Mikehunt11 should be blocked for a username violation. If you doubt this, please call your wife by his name, and see how fast you get slapped... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him hours ago. Do try to keep up, Major! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. AGB is not an article I usually watch, which is why the late report. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think I watched "Porkies" before somes of you was even born... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Porky's my good man, which I saw as a kid. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User creation log - another batch of sockpuppets created today

 Done Same as Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive386#User_creation_log_-_possible_mass_batch_of_socks_created again, between 08:38 and 09:46 today, some examples:

• User:Going over to Susan's house and User:I won't be alone tonight
• User:Thomas Seymour and User:1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley
• User:Personal space invasion and User:Little green men from Sunderland
• User:Badget of budger and User:Budger of badget and several others. Not sure who they are sockpuppets of, looks like they are related to earlier batches, for example the one that included User:One Thousand Sleepers, which have now been blocked. --Snigbrook 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • 167 accounts. Anybody have a block bot? Thatcher 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• To make it clear, these accounts were created by the same person in three or four concentrated batches, sometimes 2 or three per minute, from the same computer. I don't know if there is an underlying good hand account or one of the regular vandals, it is someone at a large university and it would be hard to figure that out without more info. I suppose we could leave them unblocked and see what happens to them, but I would not recommend it. Thatcher 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Wouldn't it be reasonable to throttle the rate at which new usernames can be made from a single IP address, as is done on freenode? Getting a new IP adress is sometimes easy, but it takes time to get a new one, and a user who goes through 1000 addresses a day might draw some attention from their ISP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Good idea Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Throttling_of_user_account_creation. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I am not exactly assuming good faith I know, but what concerns me is what could happen when they mature.— Ѕandahl 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• All blocked now by the ban-warrior John Reaves. Thatcher 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue brewing at Military Brat

Hey guys, Just wanted to alert some others that there is an issue brewing over on the Military brat talk pages. A user, Jarhed, wants to insert his opinions as fact into the article, I've undone his edits and told him that he needs sources not conjecture. At which point he has become hostile, for example, "Hey, Balloonboy, forgive me, but you are not the god of wikipedia, you do not get to revert just because you do not like something. If the community agrees with you, then I will submit. Until then, you are just a wikichump just like me. Take your revert and shove it." And while I don't mind being called a "brat" when it is done in reference to being a military brat, I don't think that was his intention when he referred to me as "Mr. Brat." I've given him a warning about civility and Original Research, but he has essentially declared that he is going to ignore policy and continue to insert unsupported opinions.Balloonman (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

latest post from USER:Jarhed includes little tidbits such as: May I suggest that you get a life and a girlfriend (or boyfriend, whichever way you swing, it is none of my business.) or If I had the gall of Balloonman, I would delete the entire entry. The entire entry, really, smells of bogus on the half-shell. or His phony indignation about my "civility" completely belies his intellectual obtuseness and rudeness about his multiple reverts without real explanation. or Everything I said there is flat flipping the truth. I've already warned him about his incivility and ignoring policy... but he has decided to make it personal. Other edits of his shows that he has trouble with the subject of civility.Balloonman (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media

Could someone uninvolved take a look at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles where there seems to be some edit warring and incivility going on.

• Abd (talk · contribs) added a notice top of the MfD pointing out that some of the editors had been involved in an ArbCom case about the subject
• It was then removed by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and added to the talk page
• re added by Abd
• Removed by Fredrick day (talk · contribs)
• Abd then added a note at the top about his opinion of the MfD
• Which was removed by Fredrick day as an "attempt to slur good faith editors" with a threat to be blocked, and then reinstated by himself ("let people see you for what you are")
• Abd then asks on the talk page for someone to warn Fredrick day for his "incivility" and is told by Fredrick to take it to ANI himself

For the sake of openness, I voted keep, but I have no opinion on the dispute going on here. -- Naerii 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Naerii. Actually, when I asked for help, I had not seen Fredrick day's reversion of his edit. While it could still be seen as uncivil, there is so much incivility around here that I'd be popping up on AN/I several times a day if I reported it all. I simply wanted the facts to be before the !voters and the closer. It is my view that the ArbComm decision on which the MfD was based has been misrepresented, rather badly. It was a carefully crafted decision, and it appears that what ArbComm did has been incorrectly interpreted by some who had been deeply involved in content disputes with PHG. I made no accusations that could remotely be interpreted as "slurs," to my knowledge. I stated sourced facts, and stated opinion as opinion, I have learned something from editing this beast. (I.e., the facts are obvious from the Arbitration and have been, in various places, quoted as well, but the significance of the facts, that it's important to be aware of them before reviewing the contributions in the MfD, is an opinion, not a fact. I'd stand on it, though.) To say that certain editors are, with respect to the MfD, "COI" is specific to that MfD and isn't in any way an accusation of impropriety. Quite simply, though, they are not neutral parties, reviewing the evidence of the ArbComm decision and then the file in question, without prior bias. Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, I did not claim that they should not comment, merely that the possible conflict should be disclosed. Clearly, PHG irritated a lot of editors, and nothing about my action here should be taken to condone or approve of that prior behavior. But ArbComm actually and explicitly encouraged PHG to continue to contribute, including contributing to the subject articles through Talk, and this was a relevant fact that was being glossed over; indeed, the contrary was implied in the nomination and first comments. That's prejudicial, and it was apparently accepted by many commentors as true.--Abd (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The only clarification I would make is that I said "you should be blocked" not that I made a threat to block - I'm not an admin, so have no powers in that direction. There is no dispute as far as I'm concerned, I've had my say and will not be editing either that MFD again or communicating with abd. If there is a dispute it's not with me because I'm done. Yes I removed content but then thought better of it and self-reverted. Yes, if an admin wants to block me, they are free to do so - but block should be preventive not punitive and I've already stipulated here that I will not communicate with Abi or further edit that MFD - so the preventation is taken care of on my side. So if there is any future edit warring or incivility on that article - I've left the building so to speak. --Fredrick day 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not bring this to AN/I and I have no plan to pursue a complaint against this editor. Had he not reverted his edit, I might have. Prudent.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue here is Abd edit warring and accusing people who revert him of having COIs etc. -- Naerii 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I don't see edit warring on my part in the diffs above. I see possible edit warring in the second removal of my prefatory material, but I accepted that, specifically desiring to avoid edit warring, and I then saw clear edit warring in the removal of the very careful note inserted to replace it. Which material is still there, in spite of many editors observing it. It was the removal of this very cautious material that was much more clearly edit warring, and it appears the editor realized that and self-reverted. As to "accusing people," Naerii has confused two things: I called the editors who were involved (or adverse) parties in the ArbComm case "COI." Those were not necessarily the same editors as those who reverted me. If anyone is still concerned about this, I'd urge reviewing the history carefully. I was quite careful, myself.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Abd didn't notify people that some of the voters had been in a recent Arb case with PHG, he stated that the editors were continuing a edit war - when it was pointed out that his statement was incorrect, he changed it to read that those editors had conflict of interest. He declined to move the piece himself, so I moved it to talk where he could discuss his conspiracy theories at leisure without disrupting the discussion. Shell 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I notified people about the ArbComm case involving major commentors and the nominator. Edit warring was only asserted, in Talk, not on the project page, about one editor only. The "COI" edit was long before that. No "conspiracy theory" was involved, no accusations of bad faith or impropriety. Essentially, the above shows that this user did not have the foggiest idea of what was happening, his memory is distorted and very much out of sequence. So new? It's not a crime, however much confusion it may cause.

For convenience, here is the original notice I placed:

It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate.

I then started to list parties to the Arbitration. Some "content disputes" are "edit wars," but not all, and I did not consider the "COI" parties to be edit warring. I don't think the statement above, my original controversial edit, matches what Shell_Kinney described above as a clarification. Again, so what? No action is being requested by me. However, I'm a bit concerned by what follows.--Abd (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support a timeout if his disruption resumes. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Second block threat today, it seems. The "disruption" was? (From context, I'd assume that JzG is referring to me.)

No idea, since you didn't sign. But if it's Abd, you have a strange definition of threat. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, I'll add a sig. Another user today said -- with regard to this incident -- "you should be blocked," or something like that, and you wrote "I'll support a timeout" which I interpreted as a reference to a block. But the question asked wasn't about me, exactly, it was about what you meant by "if his disruption resumes." What disruption? Any user may be blocked for disruption reasonably foreseen, but it is important to distinguish between disruption and disagreement. Hence, "what disruption" does seem an important question. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Highshines sock

User:BeautifulSummer is a clear User:Highshines sock. He edits the same articles with the same patterns, but most importantly, he works in coordination with commons:User:Highshines (see vs. , vs. , etc.). Ask me privately if you wish to know why I have posted here and not at SSP. Please block indef. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Handal

NatHandal (talk · contribs) has repeatedly done complete rewrites of Nathalie Handal, including blanking all the templates. She has been told numerous times to explain her actions, yet every day (or few days) she does the rewrite without explaining herself. She's received a 24 hour block for it yet she continues. She's brought up the issue (briefly) at but has made no reply or any indication that she has read it. If she has, she has shown no signs of following through, as today she tried the rewrite again. -WarthogDemon 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Has this been posted at WP:AN/COI? It probably should have been reported there a while ago. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do a lazy copy/paste there now. -WarthogDemon 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The user does not seem to be a vandal; but rather a well-meaning editor who is unfamiliar with[REDACTED] content policies and editing process. I think it would be a good idea to leave a (non-template) message on her user talk page explaining the use of article talk pages, as well as the need for following WP:V, WP:RS and potentially WP:COI. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken my own advice and left a note. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To be sure she is notified of every policy, I left a {{uw-coi}} notice, one that some people actually consider helpful, since it explains how to edit when you are the subject of an article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:163.248.162.73

Someone do something about this guy, keeps vandalising pages. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. In future, post such things to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, thanks. --Tango (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please delete

I recently PRODded Illa Ghee and posted a note to the talk page explaining my reasons. Since then (i.e. in a matter of hours) the article has been deleted, but the talk page remains. Would someone with more buttons than me kindly find out if it's been db-author'd, or speedied, and if necessary delete Talk:Illa Ghee? Just so there're no loose ends, thanks. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...and if there's a better place to put this in future, please say so. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, you can add {{db-g8}} to abandoned talk pages. Also, see Category:Speedy deletion templates for other templates. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have figured out speedy deletion for myself. Sheffield Steel_stalk 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Timneu22 disruptive behavior

Yesterday I bocked User Timneu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for maintaining a list of users who suck on his userpage after several people removed it and him re-adding it after being warned. After 4 denied unblock requests, he started blanking his page, which was reverted and then it was protected until his block wore off. Now I see that another user, ClintonKu (talk · contribs) has added a list of "his favorite Wikipedians" (with some new additions) on Timneu22's userpage for him, with the edit summary of "here you go, per your email. see you at work". Is there a policy about making edits for blocked users? Or more specifically, edits like these? Additionally, it looks like he has evaded the block using 69.255.121.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd like another pair of eyes to judge the appropriate remedy here. VegaDark (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that User talk:72.85.58.161 has requested unblock several times due to User:Timneu22's autoblock. I don't think it is okay to be editing on behalf of a blocked user, but wasn't sure where the policy lies. I know it is inappropriate to edit for banned users, but not sure in this case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

72.85.58.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is another IP he has been using. Tiptoety 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Oh edit conflicts, I guess Rjd0060 just said the same thing. Tiptoety 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22 has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not too easily offended, so to me personally it's not a problem to be included in such a list. OTOH, taking another look at Timneu22's recent contribs, he appears not to have adjusted his behviour since I encountered him, so I suppose the block is ok although the occasion is a comparably trivial matter. Dorftrottel (troll) 22:34, March 19, 2008

If it's true about him circumventing a block then that's bad news. Also, I don't think it's fair that editors should edit on behalf of people... it's basically tantamount (again) to circumventing a block. Scarian 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It borders, if anything on WP:MEAT, especially if the two editors know one another presonally. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't buy into this edit summary? Take a look at these tell-tale ALLCAPS edit summaries: , , . It's a sockpuppet, not a meatpuppet, and a lousy attempt to mislead the community. Dorftrottel (bait) 23:37, March 19, 2008

Wow! Dorftrottel accusing me of a sockpuppets. Thanks. Do you want Kurtis' email? Timneu22 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing issues there; review edit summaries going back at least a month and talk page deletions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let’s start at the beginning.

1. I had a list of "users who suck" on my user page. This list (two users) was posted on February 28. I didn’t think this was a problem.
2. On March 18 (that's three weeks later), I was accused of making a personal attack. I didn't make such an attack. I learned in my previous discussion on WP Policy that users should not edit other users' User Pages. So I reverted WODUP's edit, and to be friendly I kept the list but within HTML comments. I made no attacks on other users. Also, as I left the items HTML-commented, one can plainly see that there was no attack. No one would know about my page but me.
   • Rjd0060 reverted my edit. Again, knowing that other users shouldn't be editing MY USER PAGE, I reverted.
   • At this point, I was continually getting messages telling me that I was NOT CIVIL or that I was DISRUPTIVE. All these claims are absolutely ridiculous. I did not EVER attack a user, and I did not EVER vandalize a page.

Then you blocked me. This is uncalled for, and as Administrators you should all have your status revoked. In fact, I was blocked immediately after I said "I got the point, thanks." You blocked me after that? How dare you.

Now, the reason you accused me of being "uncivil" is apparently because my user page ...could be construed as attacking other editors..., as I learned later. I'm not sure who is "construing" my page as such when the list WAS HTML-COMMENTED. I honestly believe you just ganged up and wanted to block a user.

I have said this multiple times — look at my edits and you see that I do not vandalize and that I did not attack users.

Now let's move on to this discussion.

1. "I started blanking my page." No I didn't. I removed all the crap about me being blocked. You blocked me and denied my requests. OK. I blanked that info because what good does it do to keep it displayed? You are making way too much out of that. What do you think the first thing I'll do is after being unblocked? I'll clean up the talk page. So who cares if it is blanked now or in 24 hours?
2. ClintonKu modified my user page. So what? I would have made that edit after the block period was over.
3. I don't know 72.85.58.161, and I don't know 69.255.121.70. Do you think I have a wide variety of IPs that I just use?
   • I didn't "evade a block" because I have no need. I have better things to do with my time.
   • I don't have time for finding new IPs and I wouldn't know how to do it if I tried. (I know C# and Media Wiki code; I'm not a network guy.) I did not request unblocks. I use PCs at two locations: home and work. You are accusing me of having at least three locations.
   • By the way, I received some emails from people at work today wondering what happened that they couldn't edit WP. So because of your unnecessary block, you stopped other users from contributing. Great job. I hope you're happy.

Now let's get into Dorftrottel and SandyGeorgia.

1. They say "I haven't adjusted my behavior" and "long-standing issues." I ask all of you: DID YOU SEE ANY UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS BETWEEN Feb 28 and March 18? The answer is a resounding NO. Further, on/after March 18 all I did was revert other users' changes to MY OWN TALK PAGE. And I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for this. All of Misplaced Pages should be ashamed.
2. The issues with SandyGeorgia and Dorftrottel were simply about my attempts to revamp an archive template and the approach I took for doing it. I gave up and didn't whine or complain. Basically I had moved on. I still have. But hey, thanks for inviting people from my past who may want to bash me. Would you prefer that I get a list of users who respect my work? I don't like to cite every WP policy like you admins do, but I'm not going to stoop to WP:CANVASS as you have just done.

The only issue here is that I REVERTED MY OWN USER PAGE, and YOU BLOCKED ME for being DISRUPTIVE. Who and/or what did I disrupt?

I am a MediaWiki administrator of two other Wiki sites, and I would block each and everyone one of you Admins for a week for this behavior. Think about it: you accuse me of being uncivil because I had HTML-commented notes on my own page. No one would ever see those comments... you went looking for them and accused me of being uncivil, and that's the root of this. Finally, you blocked me after I said "I got the point, thanks."

So in the future, I would appreciate if WP Admins would keep an eye on behavior that is truly destructive/disruptive to Misplaced Pages, instead of constantly reverting my user page and then telling me I'm uncivil. No one once bothered to add something constructive on my talk page like, "You know, user page comments, even if they are HTML-commented, shouldn't contain lists of Wikipedians you don't like. If you add the list back on your user page, you could be blocked." And then appropriate warnings would have been nice, too. But all your comments and edits were much more harsh and less informative. Finally I said "I got the point", and AT THAT POINT you blocked me for being "disruptive."

Now... where did I disrupt ANYONE? If anything, you disrupted me (why are you on my user page), the people at my company (who couldn't use WP), and yourselves (for wasting time reverting HTML comments). Further, if I always had the text "my favorite wikipedians" vs. "wikipedians who suck", you never would have blocked me. You know why? Because it's a user page, and it's not disruptive to anyone. Instead of constant reverts on my user page, someone should have said "you need to remove that from your user page or you will be blocked." But you didn't; you just forcefully reverted on your own; I blindly reverted the changes to my user page because it was my understanding that people shouldn't be editing my page. You didn't give me a chance to be anything but defensive.

You went on the attack, and I paid for it. This is completely unfair.

I consider this and all other matters closed. I'll be nicer on my User Page. Please move on. And feel free to monitor my edits for the next year or so. Timneu22 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem appears to be the total logical disconnect between your first point - "I had a list of users who suck on my user page" and your second point "I made no attacks on other users". Surely it should be blatantly obvious that declaring that someone "sucks" is a personal attack? Black Kite 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic. If I have a piece of paper in my desk that says "I hate Bob Wilson", does that hurt anyone? Simmilarly, I said "they sucked" but didn't attack. Then I hid it in HTML (in my desk), and I was still accused. Finally, I got blocked after saying OK, "I get the point." That's just wrong. Timneu22 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, having a list of "users who suck" implies that an attribute is being assigned to the given list, much like a list of "users who are funny." Both apply a descriptive label to any member in the list. If I had a list of "users who are funny," it would follow that in some form or another, I am saying to those users, "I think you are funny." Similarly, having a list of "users who suck" is saying to those users, "I think you suck," which crosses into commenting on the contributor instead of the contributions. --slakr 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said they suck... that's not the issue here now... Timneu22 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly said that I blocked you right after you said "ok, I get the point". Can you show me where you made such an edit? I see you made a similar edit after you were blocked in regards to removing the unblock templates, but I see no such edit prior to my blocking of you. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATimneu22&diff=199214903&oldid=199214590 Timneu22 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You were already blocked at that point. You removed the requests, I reverted, and left a note within the edit summary saying you cannot remove them until you are unblocked (just like the templates say). Then you removed them again. Thus, to prevent you from continuing to do so, I protected the page. It is a routine event, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, that edit was made after you were blocked, and in regards to removal of the unblock template. In your long version of what happened above, you make it seem like I blocked you after you conceded that what you were doing was wrong, and were going to stop. This misrepresentation of the facts is patently false. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. I'm already done with this discussion, as my opening statement says. Why won't you just let it rest. I think there needs to be a major discussion about what a "personal attack" is (and about "disrupting"[REDACTED] when I only edited my own user page). I was constantly accused of making them, and I kept saying "this is ridiculous", but no one stopped to say having BLAH on your User Page is considered an attack. You'd rather Block First and Tell Later. I don't appreciate it. Anyway, I'm done with all of this. Let's move on, already. Timneu22 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling this discussion over, as long as you refrain from making those types of comments, and refrain from making any comments that could be considered uncivil, or a personal attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actaully, you were warned here, here, here, and here all prior to the edit resulting in your block. That should have been more than enough notice that what you were doing was not acceptable. VegaDark (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vega, I asked every time "where am I attacking?!" but no one said, hey, adding that to your user page IS an attack. To me, an attack is leaving a message on a user's talk page and yelling at them about something. OK. I'm done with this discussion. Timneu22 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the warnings and the userpage content that was being reverted, I would have hoped the content in question would have been obvious. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read his userpage, he has now created a list of his "favorite wikipedians" including all those who have warned or blocked him in the past, and those with which is has been warring. Can you say "WP:POINT"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Are you happy? WP:POINT and numerous other policies are incorrect or lacking in description. That list was on my user page. I'm not disrupting WP. If someone ran across that list in two months, they wouldn't accuse me of WP:POINT or any other such thing. Geeez. Get over yourself and your knowledge of WP policies. No one is impressed. Timneu22 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Paradocks17

Please block user Paradocks17 from editing. He has made another disruptive edit after he had been given a final warning at his talk page. Many warnings and no blocks does not work for him. ~RayLast 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use WP:AIV for blatant vandals who have vandalized after the last warning. I haven't seen a last warning after their recent final warning. --EoL talk 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please fix entry for "Deuteromycota" someone has inserted inappropriate references in the definition. Thanks!

Thanks for reporting this. It's been delt with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

George Lucas' Super Live Adventure

This is probably the wrong place to ask, but since I don't know the right place to ask I'll ask here anyway.

There once was a page named George Lucas' Super Live Adventure that is now gone. There is a redlink to it here.

A friend recalled the page and was wondering what happened to it. Obviously it was deleted (or maybe renamed) for some reason, but I can't find any indications of when or why it went away. Is there some way to determine what the fate of the page was and why it was deleted? Loren.wilton (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• There appears to have never been a page with that exact title, according to the deletion history. There may of course have been a very similarly titled one. That redlink has always been a redlink, as far as I can determine. Black Kite 23:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

DOn't know if the is the correct place to post, however, my watchlist has changed they way it displays. The time (last recent change) is no longer in line with the collapse triangle. Has someone changed the site js/css somewhere? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, mine looks just the same as ever. -- Naerii 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. The only thing that appears to have changed is the font of the b and m indicating bot edit and minor edit. Aecis 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was that supposed to change? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but the answer may come from the Village Pump. Aecis 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I went and asked the good people at #wikimedia-tech and they explained it to me, but I don't understand exactly. VoA said it'll be back though. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber's disruptive opposes on RfAs

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

This is boring. We have been here before and nothing is going to happen. Just ignore Kurt's comments and leave it to the 'crats to decide whether to count it. Noone has ever failed an RFA because of Kurt's vote. There is no admin action required here so we can all move on. Spartaz 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber (Kurt Weber) is posting disruptive opposes on RfAs, especially if a candidate's RfA is a self-nominated RfA or if a candidate had more than 3 RfAs. This is what he usually posts as an oppose vote:

I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger.

And today, he posted this oppose on an RfA today. I feel that Kurt's opposes are being disruptive and needs to stop so that candidates would have a peaceful time on their RfA. This has been an issue since last June. Users do have the right to nominate themself for adminship and/or have 5+ RfAs within a year, as long as they are ready. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason and his isn't the worst one I've seen someone oppose for. I don't see how it's disruptive. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of background reading for this. Hopefully someone will provide some links. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with his posts myself, but this has ben brought here countless times and everytime it's "he can do what he wants" and it'll just be the same result this time. Wizardman 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has the right to comment on all RfAs. He's only trying to help. Unlike you, he believes that self-noms and multiple attempts aren't a good thing. That's his opinion, and although I personally disagree, I'm fine with it. Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Have candidates ever had a peaceful time on their RfA's? Maybe back in the dim and distant past possibly, but these days RfA's are a Misplaced Pages's equivalent of bear-baiting. Polly (Parrot) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some RfA's are relatively peaceful. It seems like we get at least a couple of new admins every month who received zero oppose or neutral votes. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 3) This has been through forum after forum, and I don't think there's ever been consensus that what he's doing is unacceptable. I think most people believe that his reasons are silly (myself included, for the most part, although standing for adminship every two months does begin to look a little like power hunger after a while). I think most bureaucrats also think that the reasons are silly, and give them appropriate weight when closing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is there consensus that it is acceptable. The issues that prevent a resolution of all this are Kurt's reluctance to modify his behavior in light of criticism and a cadre of other editors who are willing to excuse the disruption Kurt causes in the name of a non-existent "right" to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the RFC filed on the subject . It's also come up several times since, a current section is on RFA talk at the moment I believe. RxS (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course anyone has the right to state their opinion, but I just find Kurt's oppose comment questionable. And of course, I have seen more disruptive oppose votes than Kurt's, such as the incident where a bot was trying to oppose all active RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course" the only rights on Misplaced Pages are the right to fork and the right to leave. It's somewhat surprising that behavior that results in numerous RFCs and discussion on ANI isn't treated as simple disruption, per the duck test. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. We've been through this: people have from time to time disrupted the encyclopedia because they didn't like Kurt's perfectly acceptable behavior and weren't happy with (or at times aware of) the community consensus about it. Those people should knock it off... But treating acceptable behavior as disruption just because some other people have disrupted the encyclopedia with their behavior...well...ok, so there were these two animals. One was quacking and flapping, making a racket and flinging feathers everywhere. The other was just standing there, picking up twigs with his trunk. A man came by, noticed the quacking and flapping and asked "are you a duck?" The quacker said "not me -- it's him. I'm afraid he's going to step on me, so that made me quack and flap around. That elephant is causing the quacking, he's the one really behind it, so he must be the duck." Meh. --TheOtherBob 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on the issue at hand (Kurt's opposes), noone is entitled to a peaceful RFA. We've had too many problems with admins in recent times (Archtransit, anyon?), so every potential admin needs to be scrutinized, as well as every current admin as far as I'm concerned. Aecis 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The only disruption I see is that candidates won't be able to finish with zero opposes. When I nominated, a guy also suddenly started putting opposes because he did not know the candidate (not only to me, but to all the nominations that were there at the time). The important thing is understanding what the opposes truly mean. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason... - Well, no, as even a moment's thought should have told you. And I'd say that accusing someone of being power-hungry on the rather specious grounds that someone actually wants a job is, in fact, a personal attack on an editor intended to poison the well. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Calton. I still remember this incident from last December. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And in the RFC, 27 people expressed the view that the diff you cite was not a personal attack (including at least one who supported blocking Kurt for his other opposes). So, you know, what's your point? --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And given that TPH didn't even nominate himself this time, Kurt is being even more bogus than usual. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Being that NPAs aren't allowed anywhere, I didn't consider it in my statement. My apologies for not being clearer. Since I didn't say it before, I will now, I don't agree with his opposes. I feel the more he makes these kinds of opposes, the less weight they should given. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose votes are personal attacks if you stretch the meaning of a personal attack far enough -- by opposing someone you necessarily attack their personal fitness for a job. But that batters WP:NPA beyond any reasonable definition, particularly in the context of an RFA. --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

True: but that generic statement has bugger-all to to do with the subject at hand, since we're talking about a SPECIFIC statement he made. Better strawmen, please. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The above general statement applies to this specific situation -- and you've not even made a half-hearted attempt at showing otherwise. (You do realize, don't you, that the difference between a general statement and a strawman is that a general statement is designed to apply to all situations of a given type, including the particular one at issue, whereas a strawman statement applies to a different situation and not to the one at issue?) In any event, I'll make the last connection for you: Kurt's opposes are "attacks" on the personal fitness of someone to do a job. Nonetheless, they're not personal attacks (unless we do the sort of gymnastics described above). --TheOtherBob 06:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is free to oppose all self-noms as he wishes. Equally, so, are the closing bureaucrats free to completely ignore Kurt’s comments. —Travis 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, another one of these threads. Kurt's opposes aren't, themselves, annoying. Routine, yes. Predictable, yes. Of questionable usefulness, perhaps. But what's annoying is the screeching brouhaha that occasionally follows. Are the words "I view all self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger" so upsetting to read as to necessitate this tired old bickering? I don't find it fair to take them as prompts to get into these disruptive "debates" (and I use the word very loosely), then turn around and tell Kurt to stop because he's being disruptive. Kurt is a human being (even if his RfA voting could probably be handled by a bot), and as a token of his humanity, I think he and his votes should be afforded respect. Yes, I'm well aware of his own RfA self-nom - I think it would still be wise to assume good faith, and be thankful that he's not using his viewpoint as the impeteus for a dishonest, ridiculous oppose like "Mainspace contribs this month / Misplaced Pages:Talk contribs last month + 2 (Portal: contribs last year) is less than 4.9". As far as the "feelings" issue is concerned, I think a potential admin - anyone, really, for that matter - should be prepared to confront a simply-put, few-words-minced rationale, and deal with it as a mature human being, rather than racing to pound "bracket-bracket WPcolonNPA bracket-bracket" into the edit box. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been posting identical, copy-pasted opposes on RfAs, and many users have been complaining about this issue for months already. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

...And, it would appear that there is no consensus for community action on the matter. Kurt is not a sockpuppet, nor a user evading a block, nor is he in any way directly questioning the morals, wisdom, or personal habits of the nominees, so all of the typical reasons for striking comments at RfA do not apply. I concur that RfA is stressful enough for the nominee without an oppose such as this, but we can't strike this oppose without striking others for similar grounds (No, I have no examples). It's a slippery slope - if one oppose can be objectionable because of the opinion of the editor, then others could as well. Not good. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When a user opposes someone at an RfA, isn't it good to give examples and diffs? He gives nothing to back up the statement except that it is his opinion that a user is power hungry because they nominated themselves for adminship. Seems like a point to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Examples and diffs themselves aren't what's good - what's good is to illustrate the point you're trying to make in your support/oppose ratonale. Examples and diffs are just the route to illustration. If the point being made is self-illustrative (in this case, by the nomination statement itself), then diffs are rather redundant. I guess if Kurt wanted to add a bit of pizazz, he could !pipe "self nomination" to a diff of the nomination. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GET OVER IT. It's been said time and time again that he can oppose if he wants to. Rather than whining about, STOP REPLYING TO HIM and STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. The only disruption is you people bitching everywhere. John Reaves 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Kurt's opposes are un-helpful he has a right to his opinion (how ever flawed it may be), but with the being said for the most part I do not feel that his opposes accurately reflect the candidate and give them no constructive feedback on how to improve. I think for the most part the crats look right over oppose of this type an weigh very lightly in the overall outcome of an RfA, so honestly does it really matter? Tiptoety 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Above there is a claim, repeated, that Kurt's comment is a personal attack on the candidate. That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. It is not personal. I'd urge reading it carefully, it's obvious that many have not: "I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger." Prima facie evidence means a piece of evidence that is considered controlling if there is no contrary evidence. Now, the fact is that there is long history behind the proposition that someone who seeks office is therefore disqualified (due, indeed, to power hunger, and I can trace this back over a thousand years). He didn't make this up, at least not for the first time. Further, there is a very troubling aspect to this. We have open "voting." Under those conditions, it's crucial that votes be free. Voting is not an excuse for vicious personal attack, but highly critical comment in RfAs is not considered personal attack. By standing for the bit, one is essentially inviting community comment. And a level of criticism is allowed, including assumptions of bad faith, that would be intolerable in other contexts. What would we think if I had filed, during or after my RfA, an RfC or AN/I report on "personal attacks" during it? As to making canned comments, at least one voter in my RfA simply pointed to his standards, N edits etc. Was that illegitimate? I think not. He had that right. Kurt's comment, as a "personal attack" is certainly mild, but it is not even personal, and it is explicitly stated that way. And if he applies it wrongly, we are also allowed to make mistakes in voting. To hold otherwise is to chill the process.--Abd (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. That's the most ridiculous piece of wikilawyering I've heard all week. Try typing "You are an utter moron: that's not an attack, that's merely my opinion" on a Talk page and see how far that bit of rationalization gets you. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Calling this wikilawyering because it's phrased confusingly to you is just totally missing the point. The point is that it's a factual statement regarding Kurt's opinion - and so it is. Your third sentence is entirely a non-sequitur -- yes, if someone was rude or crass in an oppose, it'd be bad. No one's doing that. But if someone did...it'd be bad. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, let's look at WP:IAR. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying. Certainly the periodic debates about them are unpleasant and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. And as I've pointed out in the past, it is disrespectful to the community to continue to express, over and over, sometimes falsely, always without willing to reconsider, something which obviously drives a sizeable portion of the community batshit insane. One does not get a pass to be disruptive (oh yes, K. Weber is disruptive, where else do these threads come from) just because the community is at a loss at how or if to proceed. Yes users are allowed to express their opinions on RfA but this is equivalent to holding your finger in front of a sore spot (RfA) and saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you,..." People are not going to stop being upset by this and since we all (b'crats, at least) acknowledge that the opinion is useless, someone should give him a stern "Knock it off." RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules to overrule a sizable majority of the community...well, I don't think that's what IAR is about. Sure, sometimes this stuff drives people to disruption...sad to say, but people who don't get their way have a tendency to rachet things up until they do. Here people aren't driven batshit insane -- they go batshit insane, and Kurt gets the blame. They should bloody well stop doing that. Kurt's opinions are wrong (in my view) but they're also honest, and I believe they're far from "useless" or "disrespectful." I believe he's not making them to piss anyone off, but rather as part of an honest attempt to convince people to fundamentally change the way they approach adminship -- and the fundamental change he seems to be aiming for (electing admins who treat adminship as a job rather than as a higher or more powerful class of editors)...well, I've got to say that I could agree with it. Silencing that to prevent others from taking offense would be regrettable, and I think by now it's clear that it'd be contrary to consensus. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying.". No. Please be careful when you claim to speak for "everyone". --Badger Drink (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another case of Misplaced Pages:Just drop it. (Although I say that not to criticize either side, but simply to point out an interesting essay applicable to such subjects.) SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before; I'll say it again: It is completely disingenuous to claim that I am responsible for the choice of others to overreact to my wholly legitimate actions. It's like blaming the Giants for New England fans rioting in anger after the Super Bowl. RyanGerbil, some of your claims are just flat-out wrong (notice I'm not calling them "lies"--I'm sure you're just honestly mistaken). For your claim that I have ever made an RfA oppose based on false claims, I challenge you to provide a diff; as for your assertion that I am totally unwilling to reconsider, well, I'm amazed at your mindreading ability. Reconsidering a position does not always result in changing one's mind, if one finds the new arguments presented insufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but there seems to be a recent proliferation of threads that amount to little more that "I don't like what this person is saying, so it's disruptive." So far, in these kinds of threads, no evidence is being presented of incivility, disruption of normal process, derailing of discussions or anything else remotely actionable. People have opinions. Other people may not like those opinions. However, that doesn't make those opinions a sanctionable offense. In all cases, if an opinion expressed is truly unreasonable or unjustified (not making comment on Kurt's contributions), we expect the sysops and 'crats to take that into consideration when closing discussions. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Vassyana (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, herein lies the very essence of disruption, as it's meant when applied to polls such as WP:RFA (as opposed to disruption in the mainspace, which is covered by WP:DE). You're disrupting the majority's efforts to confine the debate to the decisionmaking criteria they feel the outcome should be based on. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how wikis in general, or Misplaced Pages in particular, work. We are not constrained in our opinions to those the majority feels are the correct criteria. If our criteria are erroneous based on the general consensus of the community (which is not a simple majority-rules determination), it is expected that sysops and 'crats will use the discretion afforded to them by the community to discount such expressed opinions. At worst, the dissenting opinions may be distasteful, but there's certainly nothing disruptive about them. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This keeps coming up, and I don't believe I've voiced an opinion on it before, so here goes. I think it's foolish and goes against long-standing traditions to oppose for such a reason, but I don't see what the Big Deal is. Has an oppose of this nature ever caused a swarm of bees to descend? Has it ever decided an RfA one way or the other? Do they sway the bcrats? Are they weighted as heavily as other opposition might be, say for issues like prior blocks, abusive sockpuppetry, or lack of policy knowledge? Are people so easily upset by a perfectly tame but iffy statement really going to be stable as admins, when dealing with out-and-out trolls or openly malicious harassment? Are we so opposed to a free exchange of ideas that RfA comments should be limited to Approved Opinions Only? Are we going to ban a dedicated, four-year user from participating in RfA (in apparently good faith!) for the terrible crime of expressing the Wrong Sentiment a few times? We don't have a policy that forbids people from embarassing themselves. There's a reason we don't have an established procedure to ban opinions from RfA. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What Luna said. + me, R. Baley (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What Luna said. + me too. Non-issue not requiring admin attention. Let's move along. Pedro :  Chat  09:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's theology lesson

There is a group of churches known as the Churches of Christ. Among other things, some of their members believe that their church tradition has existed in an unbroken line since the first century, and so they are profoundly offended by discussion of their church within a historical context, or as something that has a beginning. Specifically, origins in the Presbyterian church. And so they come, and delete all reference of their church's history from the article. But I'm sort of involved, and have 3 reverts already, so I don't think I ought to revert and semiprotect the article if some uninvolved admin is available to review the sources I added to the discussion on the talk page, and, if they think the sources support that the church does have a historical beginning, take what action seems appropriate to them. Thank you very much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My nonadmin advice/observations after looking at the history page is 1.)It's disruptive. 2.)It's an edit war. Take a break and warn the anons about WP:3RR and ask them to discuss on the talk page. Then WP:RFC. If that fails, I would ask for semi-protection since the removal of sourced content can be construed as vandalism, although content disputes are not. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Until an administrator can decide appropriate action, I've warned the main anon involved, and added the page to my watchlist to monitor transgressions. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version. People have already been warned, so chat about it on the talkpage. From two seconds of looking at the talk, perhaps it just needs some disambiguation? Regardless, this is a technical response to a social problem, and won't work without someone on the social side. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only disambig that would assist the IP is an article like The holy truth about how we're right and you're wrong, or The biblically inerrant history of the Churches of Christ, according to the Churches of Christ. They are, upon review, actually arguing their theology as history. This never works out well, and I suspect this could rapidly become the new controversial article, not unlike the Israeli/Palestinian articles, the India/Pakistan, the Scientology, and so on. Facts vs. faith never works great. Unfortunately, no one's willing to let that happen. Like Wisdom, I'll drop it onto my watchlist, but that's only 6 more reverts against another 'true believer'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you advising making the page semiprotected forever? (Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just curious.) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could actually turn out to be necessary; if there's one thing these people have trouble doing, it's letting something go. Kind of ironic, what with them being taught to turn the other cheek and all... HalfShadow (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that all religions have trouble living BOTH sides of the golden rule, in fairness. But yeah, zealotry brings out the semi-protect in all non-zealots of that particular stripe, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If I read the log correctly, Kylu protected the page (and added a protection template), rather than semi-protected it. It seems to me that semi-protection should have been tried first. But I may have missed something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Littleteddy. While checking the IPs of some one-off vandal accounts, I discovered that these accounts were all either checkuser- Confirmed or  Likely to be run by Littleteddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So the question is what to do with Littleteddy? Warn, spank, or permanently show the door. Thatcher 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what he has to say. John Reaves 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see the connection here - my IP according to whatismyipaddress.com is 203.189.4.98. I use a shared computer to edit... maybe that is it? I have frequently neglected to log out in the past and I found that my account was twice used for vandalism. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, admiting to having your account compromised means we can no longer trust it anymore. Leaving it availible to edit would further compromise the security of Misplaced Pages. Why should we not indefinately block this account since it is clear that it cannot be secured from others who are using it for abuse? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to log out properly in future. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see that as solving the problem. Perhaps people have stolen your password while you were logged in. I still say that since the account is compromised, we need to block this to protect Misplaced Pages... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot more going on here than Littleteddy is admitting to.

If you have a look at the deleted page Talk:Courtenay Gass, you will see that Littleteddy suggested article Courtenay Gass was a hoax, then withdrew the allegation. Courtenay Gass was created and edited by accounts in that sock drawer. It beggars belief that Littleteddy would by sheer luck end up at the talk page of an article that was created by an account that uses the same computer as he. These accounts might not be straight out socks, but something is going on here, and Littleteddy knows what.

Furthermore, one of the articles created by members of that sock drawer, and subsequently prodded then withdrawn by Littleteddy, is the real life name of User:Auroranorth (I'm not going to out his real name here; admins may email me for details). Auroranorth was previously blocked for disruption, and responded by sockpuppeteering with accounts User:Seventy dot, User:BigMacintosh, User:Johnny Zoo 85, User:Social Studiously, User:KyleMorrison and User:Homestarrman. Auroranorth ended up blocked indefinitely, but begged for forgiveness and was unblocked and placed on probation. At the conclusion of his probation he resigned the account; some of us suspected that he was starting afresh with a new account.

Clearly there is some relationship between Littleteddy and Auroranorth. Littleteddy is collaborating with, and working on the same computer as, accounts that wrote a hoax article whose title is Auroranorth's real name. If Littleteddy continues feeding us the kind of crap he's feeding us above, I'd say we're left with no option but to assume that Littleteddy is Auroranorth, in which case he has long ago used up all his second chances and should be shown the door.

Hesperian 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As the direct relationship can be proved by a number of methods - it is quite disheartening to think such a user can continue such behaviour after already being in restricted mode in the earlier incarnation - due to some astonishing behaviour then. Perhaps the user needs a year away - and maybe in that time either some maturity or clearer thinking might develop, or perhaps there are other online communities that might cope with such behaviour - it clearly is not suitable for membership of this one SatuSuro 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In view of the reasoning provided by hesperian in the material below - I can see a possibly redeeming point from his (hesperians) reasoning and consequently would be reluctant to endorse either a defence or prosecution against the current incarnation. SatuSuro 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that arbcom, long ago, ruled that different accounts run by real different human beings, acting collaboratively to disrupt Misplaced Pages in such a way as to be indistinguisible from one person abusing multiple account could still be blocked as sockpuppets. The compelling problem is the use of multiple accounts to disrupt towards the same end; regardless of how many hands are inside of the socks, multiple accounts cannot be used to disrupt in a coordinated manner. As a second, and more pertinent note, this one clearly quacks.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't really quack. The links are there, but there's no overlap in editing interests, and no consistency of persona. Littleteddy certainly seems good faith. The other accounts are infantile vandals and hoaxers. Since I've made a case against him, here's a devil's advocate hypothetical in his favour (quoted to indicate that I'm not asserting this as fact):

"Littleteddy is a completely reformed Auroranorth who happened to google his real name one day, and found a Misplaced Pages article. His first thought was that some moronic schoolmates of his, who had already used his account to vandalise on a previous occasion, had created a hoax article on him. So he went and prodded it. He then checked out the contributors to the article, and prodded some more of their hoaxes. Then all of a sudden he was beset by doubts - perhaps the article under his name was a valid article on a historical figure who just happens to have the same name as he; after all, the article was fairly well written and had sources that checked out on Google Books. So he withdraws the prods pending access to the sources. Shortly afterwards, the moronic schoolmates get blocked and the hoaxes deleted, and Littleteddy carries on happily. And now all of a sudden he finds himself accused of sockpuppetry, simply because he edits through the same school IP as these morons."

Hesperian 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not unheard of for a sockmaster to generate a bunch of vandal socks for he himself to warn and block. Remember the whole Archtransit thing? It is actually quite a common pattern. Someone creates a bunch of vandalism-only accounts, which he "discovers" and warns via his main account. The compelling evidence here is the vandalism from one account followed by the warning from a different account, using the same IP... Heck, Archtransit even did it so well, he became an Admin because of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP address that Littleteddy has posted above, resolves to the company that holds the IT outsourcing contract for Auroranorth's school. At this point I am satisfied beyond all doubt that Littleteddy is Auroranorth. However, I am not yet satisfied that Littleteddy has done anything wrong. I am prepared to believe that the IP addresses used by these vandals are school addresses shared by Littleteddy, and that Littleteddy has therefore been caught in the crossfire. In Littleteddy's defence, the only association between his account and the vandal accounts, other than IP, is that he prodded some of their hoax articles, then subsequently withdrew the prods. Hesperian 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Not to belabor the point, but lets consider this from Mr. Occam's point of view. One option is that Littleteddy prods a bunch of articles, all of which, unknowing to him, were created by people who HAPPEN to be from his school, none of which he knew anything about. Or, as an alternate explanation, he created the articles with his "bad hand" accounts, and prodded them with his "good hand" account to make himself look better... Which makes more sense? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the truth than what makes sense.

Look, it was me who repeatedly blocked Auroranorth last time. It was me who tracked down his sockpuppets. It was me who had to clean up after him. He was a little turd, and he behaved like a little turd. He made Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me for a long period of time, and I couldn't stand him, and I would never have believed I'd be defending him here. But even when he was a turd he wasn't a vandal - he was an immature kid who did nothing but make huge messes that other people had to clean up for him. And before he abandoned that account he was well on the way to becoming an acceptable editor. And if Littleteddy is he, then it appears that that process has continued, because there is no evidence that the Littleteddy account has ever been used in bad faith. I don't think an apparently good faith user should be booted, just because it has been tied to an IP address used by vandals, which is known to resolve to a school. Hesperian 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we both agree there. Even IF I am right, and I make no claims to be, as long as Littleteddy has stopped the good hand/bad hand baloney, and intends only to be a productive editor from here on out, there is no need to block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for Littleteddy to be given the benefit of the doubt. Based on his contributions, and assuming good faith, a caught in the crossfire situation seems to be the most likely here. —Moondyne click! 05:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour of these other accounts is not consistent with LT's known identifying editing features which were consistent in both his previous account and his previous account's known socks. (It should be noted that although only two admins were made aware of his new identity, due to his wish as a young user who had matured somewhat to reinvent himself without his former mistakes, he also on my advice emailed arbcom-l with details of his new and old identities, as WP:SOCK takes evading scrutiny very seriously.) There is some doubt over a couple of them and some of the edits made, and whether there was any meatpuppetry going on, but the doubts are not sufficiently strong for me to wish to question his good faith. I had been keeping tabs on his progress and generally speaking have been happy with what I've seen. I would be very very disappointed indeed if any of this does turn out to be true. Orderinchaos 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesp, "Littleteddy" was one of half a dozen or so sockpuppets we identified in December as socks Auroranorth created in order to "start over" when his probation was finished. I just forwarded a copy of one of the last emails in the threads to refresh memories of admins involved in that discussion. Nothing was ever done about this or the other accounts that I'm aware of because Gnangarra and I were the only ones concerned about the situation. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I was fairly careful about which accounts I called "confirmed" and which I called "likely." Judge for yourselves whether the timing of these edits supports the "shared computer" explanation.

March 19

• Coyle and Cassidy High School . . 11:25 . . Littleteddy (space)
• (User creation log) . . 11:23 . . Darrylhair (New user account)
• Talk:Mzoli's . . 11:02 . . Littleteddy (references?)

Feb 27

• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:54 . . Littleteddy (???)
• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:53 . . Littleteddy (???)
• User talk:I'm On Speed . . 10:50 . . I'm On Speed ({{unblock-auto|1=124.169.45.168|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Goodbo". The reason given for Goodbo's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Redvers|4=8025)
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:48 . . Goodbo (redvers u homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (ok)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (homo)
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (false positive warning)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (Talk | contribs (homo)
• (User creation log) . . 10:45 . . Goodbo (New user account)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:44 . . I'm On Speed (fixed possible bias errors, linked 'election loss' to 2001 election, linked other things and clarified Jenny Macklin's current position)
• (User creation log) . . 10:41 . . I'm On Speed (Talk | contribs | block) (New user account)
• N User talk:Dhilu . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (welcome)
• User talk:Rahuljk2002 . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (warn)

Consider that someone from this computer, in the space of 15 minutes, made an edit as Littleteddy, created the account I'm On Speed (talk · contribs), created the account Goodbo (talk · contribs), got blocked as Goodbo, and then posted two autoblock unblock requests, from I'm On Speed and Littleteddy. I suppose Littleteddy could have gone to the bathroom for those 10 minutes and then gotten his seat back without realizing what had happened, but if so then that has happened many times.

Finally, a fresh check of his acknowledged IP today shows that in between making his replies here, someone from the same IP address was logged in as Fitzcj94da (talk · contribs). The technical evidence is reasonably good that these edits are coming from a single PC and not multiple PCs connected to a single router. I would be happy to have any other checkuser doublecheck my findings. Thatcher 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the difference between multiple computers sharing the same characteristics (if it's a computer lab that's plausible), and a single computer? I agree this smells bad though. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple computer labs, actually. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • comment I personally know Fitzcj94da. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can confirm that there are multiple computers connected to a single router. We've got three IP addresses, the one I already acknowledged (203.189.4.98), 203.189.4.97 and one more (I believe it was blocked by Butseriouslyfolks, as I have tried to edit anonymously a few times) 203.189.4.108. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW all of these IP addresses are shared with multiple computers - about 100 of them. Logging into one computer could assign either one of the three IPs which can change throughout the browsing session (for example, I tried to edit anonymously and was stopped by Spebi's block and tried again and was stopped by Butseriouslyfolks' block). Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been fooled by this guy before, and am loath to be fooled again. I've defended him here, but the timings are pretty compelling. They are consistent with someone logging out and back in as another user. They are consistent with a group of students mucking about together in the same computer lab. It is very hard to believe that they reflect two parties, unaware of each other, operating through the same IP. In light of the timings I am inclined to revert to my original statement that Littleteddy knows what is going on here, and he isn't telling. If he won't come clean aboout this, I think the only reasonable response is for us to treat him as a sockpuppetteer. As I said previously, he has already used up all his last chances under account Auroranorth, so if we're going to treat him as a sockpuppetteer, that means an indefinite block. Hesperian 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I can tell you that I know who is doing the vandalism (it's not me). Your assertions are correct but I am not the vandal and according to WP:SOCK I am not a sockpuppeteer. I just wanted to carry on 'peacefully' as you said in your statement above. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you the email addresses of the vandals? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you go to school with a group of Misplaced Pages vandals but you are completely innocent? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

March 11

• Courtenay Gass . . 06:43 . . Gasscg94wa (talk · contribs) (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 04:51 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (fixing)
• Courtenay Gass . . 04:47 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (referenced and completed)

March 12

• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 05:13 . . Littleteddy (test1 warning)
• Glass . . 05:11 . . Gasscg94wa (←Replaced page with 'Glass is what bottles are made of lol.')
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:22 . . Historyluvver (warning)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:21 . . Gasscg94wa (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 02:21 . . Historyluvver (homeys)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:20 . . Historyluvver (i love u courtenay from ian)
• Talk:Courtenay Gass . . 02:17 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (removed comments - i think i found that textbook so for now i will leave it)

It is obviously not a coincidence when one editor edits Courtenay Gass with the edit summary referenced and completed and two hours later someone on the same IP blanks the page. It is not a coincidence when Littleteddy and Historyluvver edit Courtenay Gass (i love u courtenay from ian), Historyluvver warns Gasscg4wa, Gasscg4wa vandalizes Glass, then Littleteddy issues a warning, and they all come from the same IP address. The question on the table is really, is Littleteddy being honest about his relationship to these accounts, and even if he his, do we continue to tolerate his shenanigans? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am being completely honest about this!!! Courtenay Gass (giving last name seeing as though it's already been splashed around this page) is a student at my school in the same year who happens to be in most of my classes. 'Ian' I assume is Ian (won't give last name) from my year, but he's got nothing to do with it. By the way, it's Gasscg94wa, not Gasscg4wa. This is his school computer username, GassCourtenayG(his middle name beginning with G)94 wa(wa -> code for the town in which he resides). What shenanigans, Thatcher? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that the IP addresses I gave have been blocked from anon editing because people who don't have accounts do one-off vandalism and get us all blocked from anon editing. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the diffs, deleted diffs and edits of the above users, and while I am still convinced that Littleteddy is a good faith editor, and has not sockpuppeted in the sense of creating bad hand accounts and vandalising with them, I'm really not sure what he's been getting up to with his mates in the school computer lab - it seems most of these are throwaway accounts by real people. The fact the edits are occurring between 5pm and 11pm in the same range of both LT and the throwaways concerns me. There does seem to be some mutual knowledge of what is going on between the accounts and LT at times. However at times they appear to be working at cross purposes, as if one's gone in and done something, the other's seen it, balked at it and reacted. I think we do owe him a chance to explain, but if it turns out he's been playing silly buggers on us, I will be most unimpressed given the effort I and others went to to assist in the rehabilitation of this user. Orderinchaos 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think its appropriate to block all of the accounts. Reason is that Thatcher after discussion was unable to separate Littleteddy from the other editors, seeking further clarification as to whether there was any separation due to school terms Thatcher concluded that the similarities are also outside of the school term. Additionally LT has a past history of sockpuppets see User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets, where he also used the it was someone else excuse. Gnangarra 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block per Gnangarra's reasoning above. The technical evidence outside of the school term warrants either a proper explanation of what exactly is has been going on or a block. I'm not convinced that *all* these accounts are Littleteddy's but I do believe a good number of them are his and it seems like a good hand-bad hand situation or perhaps showing off to his schoolmates. This user has been given chance after chance and I really don't understand why we continue to let him play us for fools. Some of us weren't all that comfortable with the circumstances in which Littleteddy started over and given this user's past history with abusive sockpuppetry, it is impossible to overlook the current evidence as some crazy mix-up. Littleteddy needs to come clean about exactly what has been going on and give us a proper explanation instead of playing us fools and taking advantage of very kind people. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves message on my User Talk page

Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I've had enough of this guy. He constantly wikistalks me, annoys the hell out of me, and is right now RVing my edits on a page when I have an In Use template there, and his ignorance has caused 2 edit conflicts already when I try to make some changes.

He's also RVing a Redirect of a page for a Pilot of a show that doesn't need it's own article (I posted a notice on the talk page that ti should be removed around January, nobody opposed it).

I apologize for the way I've been acting towards him, but he's just annoying the shit out of me.

Please do something. -Karaku (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When another editor reverts you, especially when performing a controversial action such as redirecting an entire page without any discussion, then discussion is the medium to undertake. Naturally, some fault lies with him for continuing the conflict, but you should have stopped immediately and started discussing. Also, simply adding the {{inuse}} template does not give you the right to arbitrarily declare that only you can edit a page - see WP:OWN. If you want to make changes, then make them and if they are reverted or disagreed with, then bring to discussion. However, to be frank, the ability of other editors to discuss with you appears to be limited, as personal attacks (, , , , ) are not tolerated, and User:The Rogue Penguin even invited you to discuss your changes in several of his edit summaries (, ). Although, again, he continued the conflict, the frequent incivility in your edit summaries and actions were a natural deterrence to any possible discussion. Please cease your edit warring and move to discussion, or blocks may be appropriate to resolve this situation. Sephiroth BCR 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this as these two reached the level of escalation, and left each of them a note. Relevant threads include:

• User talk:Karaku#Please calm down
• User talk:The Rogue Penguin#Karaku
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: )

Hope that's helpful to anybody else looking into this. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While one can argue that TheRoguePenguin has not handled the situation ideally, I think there is a real enforcement problem here. Karaku just recently returned from his fourth block for gross incivility and 3RR violations, and it took him all of twenty minutes of activity to rack up another warning for each violation from a previously-uninvolved editor (see incivility warning and 3RR warning).

Karaku seems to have made some positive contributions in the past (and as it turns out, I happen to agree with him that Garage Kids should probably be a redirect). But I mean, I kinda thought that if you returned from a block and immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the block, you didn't really get the courtesy of warnings that time around... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by anon Special:Contributions/202.81.69.133

I originally reported this to WP:AIV, but after reading WP:NLT I removed the report for this as it said to report it here.

] Thanks. NanohaA'sYuri 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page for him. John Reaves 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to be User:Extempor himself, editing while not logged in. SInce the action has been deleted, and the IP appears to have stopped, I'm not sure we need to do anything right now... Keep us posted if problems restart. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I cautioned him about making legal threats, but I agree that no further action appears to be called for at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck

I keep getting a spam filter message when trying to post a comment there. Another user tried and got the same message. I'm not adding any type of link. It's just regular words. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A link already present on the page was pointing at a site which has since been blacklisted, either here or on meta, for reasons I'm not currently aware of. Any edit containing such a link can't be saved, regardless of whether the link was added in the current edit or not. I've made a quick fix which should at least allow editing of the page, for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Humorously, me, John Reaves, and Luna Santin all went to check this out at the same time. Its apparently fixed... hehe... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:User235

May I suggest an admin protect this talk page since the blocked user is repeatedly asking to be unblocked and gets declined. The user is a sock of someone vandalizing my talk page and others. Admins have already explained everything on the talk page if you want to read it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid

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

I am reporting User:AgnosticPreachersKid for personal attacks, with this edit: He treats me like a vandal on his usertalk oage, when I have thoroughly explained my argument in the discussion, and tried as hard as I could think to be polite. I even asked a pendulum if that could be considered a personal attack, and it turned clockwise, meaning yes. I don't know if he's done enough to be blocked, but someone please warn him, as I am "not allowed" to post on his page anymore. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, the person he blocked deserved it. It was clearly a sockpuppet. The discussion was going no where. Let it go. There is no attack against you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I did not make a personal attack. I had already politely asked her to not post on my talk page again and she did it anyway to see my response. I removed it and now she says it's an attack? The block request she reported at AIV was denied and for good reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Do not edit an editor's Talk page who has asked you not to do so. It is considered, not "vandalism," necessarily, but "harassment," see WP:HUSH. Users also may generally revert or blank comments on their Talk page, without being restricted in the manner that they are restricted in, say, article space. Don't edit war with a user in their own Talk space, you could quickly get blocked! --Abd (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, this user has been blocked before for harassment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this and this now considered harassment or trolling or something like that? It's getting tiresome. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

She admits to "retaliating" and "attacking back" and tells me that it's good we're not face-to-face. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I JUST left a final, stern warning on his/her talk page: see . I would recommend that you, APK, take the high road and let it drop as well. If he/she continues to harass you after this, please let us know, and he/she will be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say it is time to drop this. Tiptoety 04:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should give the last word to the original complainant: "I'll bid you good day, and you may archive this discussion whenever it best pleases you." Sheffield Steel_stalk 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Derby (event)

Copyvio of http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets/is1590.htm. Article has been tagged CSD twice as db-copyvio. Creator keeps removing CSD tag. Claims to have "rewritten" it in their own words but not many words were actually changed. I'm not going to edit war or 3RR over a CSD tag so an admin should have a look. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack page?

. Is this page compliant with WP:ATP? Anyone? I deleted it, and it was quickly restored. What is the prevailing opinion on pages like this, especially in light of the fact that policy strictly and clearly forbids them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

second one? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first seems to be tongue-in-cheek. The second seems to have nothing really 'attacking' anyone, other than one-word descriptions of their actions. --PeruvianLlama 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. "Attack page" seems like an overly strong description. That said, I don't love the idea behind them, but that's more my opinion than some distillation of policy. Cheers, --Bfigura 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this considered an attack page? I guess I'm supposed to feel honored to be on the list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing series of edits from IP and user

Could someone please compare the edits from these two:

• 84.16.230.15 (talk · contribs)
• Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs)

Specifically this sequence of events:

1. IP 84.16.230.15 makes these edits out of the blue, apropos of nothing.
2. I block the IP as an obvious sock/harassment/troll
3. Wilhelminia Will makes this edit: to the talk page of the IP immediately after I block it. Um, is there something up here, or am I going paranoid? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a SSP report for a whole list of names and IPs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep us posted... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This user and I have no connections, other than that they seemed frustrated because they weren't acknowledged as having down syndrome, so I thought I'd show them some pity, to make them feel better. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewishfanofnsblackmetal (talk · contribs)

User appears to be a single-purpose account created to "correct npov" on Blood libel against Jews, which then went rogue and started reverting all edits it came across on Recent changes (see contribs). -- Kéiryn 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and all his edits reverted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined. -Jéské 06:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a real cleaver, Jeske! I always knew you were actually a knife used for cutting meat. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed to stop harassing vandalism

I semi-protected my talk page and user page to stop this, but could someone look into a potential rangeblock (short term perhaps) against 217.20.127.XXX to shut him up? Consider these two:

• 217.20.127.243 (talk · contribs)
• 217.20.127.223 (talk · contribs)

For the record, I have no idea who this is, but its likely someone whose username I blocked recently, and has decided to be a pain... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. This has spread outside the range. See 123.242.230.165 (talk · contribs). Eh. Just keep your eyes open to see where he goes next. I have protected my user page and talk page... But I am sure he will find somewhere else to strike. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of the 217.* ranges have the same WHOIS information as 84.16.230.15 (talk · contribs) (already mentioned a topic or two above this one). The 123.* range however does not. Certainly the same user however. --PeruvianLlama 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figgered out who this was a few minutes ago. Anyone who blocked or responded to the first IP should probably keep an eye out for problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a report. It's long and tedious to read, but it was the best I could do. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Wilhelmina Will AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh let me rest! This is anti-feminism, is what it is. You are merely making up impossible stories of sockpuppetry because I admit to being female, and you have qualms with women editing Misplaced Pages! And if that's not correct, then I give up. Administrators, do away with me as you will. But you'll be no better than the English when they burned Jeanne D'Arc for witchcraft, of which she was completely innocent! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free rest, little Wilhelmina. Long cozy rest. Note two threads "Attack page" and "Confusing series of edits from IP and user" above also suggest User:Wilhelmina Will needs rest. Go ahead! bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again

...has returned, in the form of SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs). As yet, he hasn't taken up any of OM's disruptive activities; do we let the sock continue (effectively granting an unblock), or block it has a block-evading sock? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's evading a block, he's evading a block. Seems straightforward: block. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're right, unfortunately, and I've blocked him. I'm hoping he'll make a compelling case for an unblock, but I guess that's up to him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) OM's block is totally illegitimate in the first place, as is continued enforcement of it; (B) You know this is the same individual how, exactly? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The case is complex. While it is likely that, on cautious review, the block would be lifted, he has not requested that, and he has also requested that I not "defend" him. Misplaced Pages is not going to be served by tilting at windmills, and Sarcasticidealist seems to be playing this quite straight. Unless the block is appealed and found not legitimate, acting to block socks is certainly allowed. We could decide to ignore the prior account, WP:IAR and all that, but ... I'm certainly not going to propose that. Believe it or not, I have no disruptive intent at all! As to how the sock was identified, it would not be rocket science, and I'm asking that the precious time of a checkuser not be wasted. If somehow it were to turn out that SpiritWorldWiki is not Mbstpo -- we should be so lucky to have another like him -- then the real user will presumably ask for unblock, and it can be reviewed at that time. If Mbstpo wants unblock, he'll ask for it. (You can tell from the edits that this is an experienced Wikipedian, this is not a noob, so blocks are relatively harmless.) On the other hand, if others decide to move for the unblock of Mbstpo, I would support that. I am not going to move in that direction myself. There is plenty else to do, simply to follow up on all the clues Mbstpo left behind. So this 63-year-old editor is following up on clues left by a 27-year-old writer, because I've found it to be -- always -- worthwhile. If this was music, he'd be Mozart. And, yes, we can't allow Mozart in the living room, the fart jokes, you know. Mozart, we might notice, was quite disruptive and was hated by quite a few people in his time. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer B:

• the account was created just after OM scrambled his password;
• the account is run by a rabid inclusionist;
• the account has devoted all of its time to OM's areas of interest: sweeping policy proposals with no chance of acceptance (not that there's anything wrong with that), Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure, and Ayn Rand;
• when I asked the account if it was OM, it declined to answer me and continued editing;
• Quack

If any admin thinks that my evidence for this block was anything short of overwhelming, she/he has my cheerful permission to unblock without further consulting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I followed the case a bit. This editor created a hoax article, among other things. Editors who would knowingly make the encyclopedia worse rather than better should not be welcome here. Hoaxes make the encyclopedia worse. So the solution seems obvious to me. (Not to mention that this previously banned editor had already been given lots of "one last chance"s.) Why would we want to keep an editor around who fabricates sources? Friday (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, at all. The trouble is that that hoax (and his ensuing increasing disbelievable denial) was the only apparent bad-faith action he'd taken his whole time here. In the meantime, he'd done some very good mainspace work. With the new account, he did the very good mainspace work without the hoaxing. I would very much love to see him admit responsibility for the hoaxing and repent, that he might get on with his useful mainspace work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted it (the hoax) to me, but he is essentially burned out by the toxic atmosphere regarding reform on Misplaced Pages. He really should take a break. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do something to lessen the amount of smoke emitted, it burns the eyes. I do see, not only what Misplaced Pages needs, but how to get there, and it will take time. He's young and impatient, and when he runs into the totally expectable obstacles, he gets frustrated and, yes, angry. Change must come to Misplaced Pages or it will die. But it must also come step by step, with each step enjoying consensus. It takes time to build that, usually. Neither he nor I have a crystal ball, we don't know how much time we have. But probably more than a year and less than perhaps five, I'd guess. I don't think people realize how rapidly a project like this could implode. Parts of it are largely invulnerable, but this site ... not necessarily. Depends. And the real question is, what parts of it will survive? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him (by email) not to evade the block. (I asked him before, and now again, after I saw the above mentioned edits.... sore thumb, it was.) He has also requested that I not "defend" him, so I am not taking any action to overturn the block. Obviously, if he is evading a block, new accounts no matter how "nice" can be blocked. When Mbstpo (as Absidy) was blocked, he did post under a series of accounts, similarly, none of it disruptive -- except that block evasion is disruptive in itself, because it creates a fuss.) Sigh. By the way, he apologized profusely to me for the hoax article. I told him that it was actually hilarious -- but don't do it again! My opinion: we need to lighten up, laugh more and block less, at least when it comes to actual contributors, which he was, for a long time. No blocks, and I didn't see any warnings, back to 2005, nothing until this year, 2008. Heavy contributions. Between the creation of the Mbstpo account on March 3, and the block on March , Mbstpo made about 1600 edits. What I will say, not in his defense but for Misplaced Pages, we might at some point look at what so seriously disturbed such an established Wikipedian that he committed wikisuicide, not once, but twice. It's easy to blow it off as "his problem," and that is partially true, but it is actually our problem, and it is happening all the time, simply in less spectacular ways. He started a project, in fact, to look at this, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Misplaced Pages Reform and, in particular, the subpage, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Misplaced Pages Reform/Attrition/Study. Maybe I should add his name.--Abd (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. His talk page isn't locked, and I would very much like to hear him explain why a generally good contributor decided to go and create a hoax (I disagree with you about the merits of hoaxes, though, especially those that editors fabricate sources to defend). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem in the mood to talk usefully about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what! Put a note on his talk page asking him why he did it. I do not want to encourage him to evade the block, and that account was spiked. If he wants, he could answer there with an IP edit from a library. Better, he could send an answer to me, because I can verify it's him with no difficulty. If I am requested to do so, I will pass it on, as long as I consider it not disruptive, this would be an exception to the rule against proxying for a blocked user-- but note, I won't make that exception unless an admin asks me to! In any case, I do know enough to answer, but .... better it come from him. Meanwhile, I mentioned above the project which was set up to study this very question. Mbstpo is certainly not the first! By the way, I don't think I argued the "merits" of hoaxes, but I would like to keep them in perspective. The only damage caused by this hoax was the fuss over it (and that is real damage, I'm not minimizing it). And, absolutely, creating hoax articles is a violation of policy. So the question is the response. What has happened is that alleged disruption in WP space -- which is the real issue for most complaining about Mbstpo -- gets mixed up with the joke in the marriage article (damage: a vandal patroller had to go, Click! normally no block would ensue) -- and the hoax article (complicated -- why did he lie -- after he was already blocked -- about the source book sitting in his lap?) get all mixed up. The WP "disruption" was quite defensible, but not the japes. Again, I could explain his lying on his Talk page without defending it -- and I roasted him pretty well by email over it -- but the energy would be better put into the generic project about Attrition. The issue is not Mbstpo or, for that matter, me, but the welfare of the community on which this project depends. We have a lot of work to do.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To hell with the rules. If he's not actually doing anything wrong, then just because the "rules" say you can block doesn't mean you should. I always thought the best interests of the encyclopedia were more important than bureaucratic masturbation. Furthermore, when I last checked OM claimed to have a source for the alleged "hoax" article he created, although there may have been further developments on that front since then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked, he can ask for an unblock under his original account. I still cannot understand why his enablers are still banging on about his hoax being real, since the fictional figure he tried to create an article about was "killed" in some mountains that don't exist. It was a hoax, he needs to own up. --Fredrick day 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, except that he's apparently scrambled the password to his original account, so any unblock request will have to be from his new one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Original" being used loosely here, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's an original, all right. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. I'm sorry about Weber's comments, but perhaps after he reads what I've been writing, he'll stop beating the dead horse. Hint: it was a hoax. Or, to put it another way, as the editor in question did, Mbstpo exists in a "parallel universe." I.e., Mbstpo is real. Real fiction. Lives in the world of his imagination. In my encyclopedia, the Mbstpo article would be tagged as Fiction or Myth, or, at first, as Unverified. With that, it's an excellent article! ("My encyclopedia" is the sum of all human knowledge. All. Human. Knowledge. It is a work in progress.) By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! But I won't, beyond this very diffuse hint. It would actually violate a number of basic principles if I did. As to Weber, I understand his frustration as well. It's a loss, that Mbstpo is no longer with us -- though he's reading much of what we write. The poor editor who dropped a moderately nasty, mild by comparison, note on my Talk page right after I found out ... poor guy! I was pissed! Kim Bruning, the soul of courtesy, wrote "Fool!" when Mbstpo wrote that he had scrambled his password. But ... it is actually all for the best. I'll try to convince Weber of that.... off to tilt at windmills for the rest of the afternoon. Gotta keep busy, use it or lose it, etc., etc.--Abd (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Any editor who would lift a single finger to defend a hoaxer is not worthy of consideration. Go write fiction somewhere else; here, we're an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! does it look like anyone here really cares what stupid game it's part of? Please stick to the point in future, how clever a hoaxer thinks he is being is frankly not something that should concern us. --Fredrick day 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad licenses

What's the right thing to do when a user has uploaded lots of images with no sources or bad licenses? I've been talking with User:Mrprada911...I found a script to tag the images with, but it leaves a talk page message for each and every image tagged, which seems kind of rude. Is there some other procedure to follow to make sure all the images get marked, other than manually typing in the templates? Nesodak (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is within policy; you notify him of every image that you have issues with. As for what to do with this user, the only way to prevent uploads is by blocking the account. User:Zscout370 07:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you warn the user personally about Misplaced Pages's copyright rules to prevent further image tags. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use a non-automated process and consolidate the messages so as to not fill up the talk page (one extreme example of what not to do ;o)). --Iamunknown 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When faced with this in the past, I've left one template for the editor, then underneath added "Additionally, the above message applies to:" and put a bulleted list of the image names (*]) underneath. That stops the death-by-template thing, but also makes clear the scale of the problem. It has to be done manually, but tabbed browsing and Notepad make it go quick. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 09:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ShieldDane (again)

This user managed to escape a perminant block after being involved in a lenghtly dispute which resulted in the ironic blocking of the person who started the debate, anyway, this user has continued to troll () and act in a very incivil manner towards me after I investigated and spoke to him about his actions (). Could an admin take a look at the situation? Thanks, Igniateff (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He said one word in that diff, where he's simply saying that the claims for which he was blocked when he'd only just arrived on wiki that he was a sockpuppet, were proven by checkuser to be entirely false. Have you discussed this most recent what-you-view-to be-trolling with him on his talk page before coming here and have you made sure he had viewed any comment placed there before coming here? Unless you communicate with him that you object to this one word, he cannot completely know. If you said so on his talk page, made sure he had read it because he replied, and then he did it again, at that point he would be worth contacting ANI again about, until then, he's not. And he has a point that those who accused him of being a sockpuppet were conclusively proven wrong. But he can't know that you are so aggrieved by one word to be able to make amends unless you contact him about this one word, in line with the dispute resolution process. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and he's not even writing directly to you there, he's merely on the checkuser page about him which was proven false. So how can you be sure he's "trolling" you when he's not even on your talk page or anything, he's on a page about him, which was proven false, and that's why he was unblocked as any block was due to that misapprehension that he was a sock, of which he was cleared. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the situation, and I am not certain you have any right to comment. This situation is being dealt with, you being in it is only going to make things harder. Igniateff (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Janneman

personal attack. abf /talk to me/ 11:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring a Commons dispute to enwiki in the first place? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Jimbo does not listen to his uder-page on commons mostly i told him here. abf /talk to me/ 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep commons issues on commons, nothing can be done here, sorry. Igniateff (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but he called some commons sysops 'dunce', and i do not accept that nothing is done only because its claimed as an 'commons issue'. He called us 'dunces' in en, i cant block in commons for it. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We cant do anything here if the incident happened on commons, use dispute resolution on commons please/. Igniateff (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review our blocking policy. We don't make punitive blocks and you being a commons admin makes no difference. You could have e-mailed Jimbo rather than bring your dispute here. If the admins here are to deal with every off-enwiki dispute that is brought here because you use Jimbo's talk page we wouldn't have time for our own problems. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible mistaken identity

See User talk:Shonali2000. If you are familiar with the editing patterns of the blocked user:Vr you may be able to help. I have no opinion either way, this is not quite the usual "my room-mate" claim. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented there, but I prefer letting someone with an OTRS access review the block. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kilts Across Canada

I'd like some independent admins to look into this. Calton marked the page for deletion as spam, and I denied that request from him twice, and he added it again a third time and it was deleted by another admin. I'm not all that concerned about actually restoring the page, but to me it looked like someone describing with addish tones a venture that was personal: the kind of thing we would normally allow on User pages. I'd like feedback on two things. (1) When should we consider user pages spam? People are allowed some leeway on their user pages, and it seems to me that, say, promoting themselves would be okay (within reason) while promoting a company or external venture would not be reasonable. And (2) is Calton's behavior reasonable here? Shouldn't one not re-add a speedy deletion tag when one's own request has been declined? Or at least, not twice? Mangojuice 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a role account, pure and simple, used for promotional purposes and blocked as such. That makes it a) not an individual's account, which violates policy; and b) spam, which violates policy. A simple glance at the edit history of WP:UAA should remove any doubt about both the correctness of tagging obvious spam, the practice of blocking role/spam accounts, and the scale of the problem.

It's fairly obvious, and given that someone disagreed with the logic above by deleting it, I'd say, yeah, adding back a tag correctly placed and removed in violation of applicable policy is perfectly okay. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that "shopping" (not exactly forum-shopping, but it's similar) is perfectly acceptable behavior? Keep trying until you can find someone willing to delete it? —Random832 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Perhaps you should deal with what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up. Works better that way. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton -- that is what you did in this instance, and you are saying that you think it's okay. When would you have stopped? If another admin also turned down the request? If two other admins? Never? Mangojuice 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. I have no beef with wikipedians using thier talk page as a blog or whatever. But when someone comes here without the intention of writing an encylopedia and only to promote themselves in someway I say delete delete delete, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Units and Years

This User:Lightmouse "Contributions" has taken it upon himself to remove brackets from years while adding metric units. I'm not sure what the policy is, but I don't think he should be doing this unilaterally. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was already blocked once for this activity and is continuing on with it today despite my warning to him on his talk page. Baseball Bugs 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's going through them rapidly in some kind of alpha sequence, so I'm guessing he's running a robot program of some kind. Baseball Bugs 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop for now. If he doesn't I'll block and revert. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's using AWB, which I suspect is unattended, but I don't know. I've reverted a handful of his entries on subjects I work with. The rest of them, you can have. :) Baseball Bugs 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's watching it, and has issued you and me both a defiant comment. Baseball Bugs 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe cxoncensus has changed I dunno. He's stopped the editing for now which is a good sign. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's actually been on this little crusade (and no other editing) since at least late February, and has changed thousands of them. What caught my attention was that he was changing items to plain years that previously had the "year in baseball" template. That is certainly not with consensus, as there was a discussion a few weeks back about that template, on the WP:Baseball talk page, and not about dropping it, only about changing it. Baseball Bugs 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some links to show us what you are talking about. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is the "contributions", in the first sentence I wrote in this section. Do "older 500" repeatedly and you'll see it goes on and on. I quit after it got to late February. Baseball Bugs 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean the Baseball Year template discussion, which is this: Baseball Bugs 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Early on in his crusade, he was also changing a bunch of templates. I don't know what that's about. I'm going to have to let the experts sort this out. Baseball Bugs 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with what he's doing? It looks to me like he's just bringing things in line with the MOS. Standalone years are not supposed to be linked. Only years that are part of dates should be linked, to enable the autoformatting. What's the point of linking a standalone year? -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:EGG: "Years should not be linked to articles, such as 2003 in music or 1985 in film, especially when part of a date." -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the spot where it actually says that. I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a link to the spot where it actually says that. It's very last sentence under the section "Intuitiveness", which is the section directly linked to by WP:EGG. TomTheHand (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the discussions that went on to introduce that change, it's not representative of consensus. Consensus included an exception to dates in infoboxes and other places where it was useful to have information in a restricted space. Of course, consensus may have changed as I don't watch the discussions religiously... GDallimore (Talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I'll mention that I've just amended WP:EGG per the consensus in the 90th archive in Misplaced Pages Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The text that was there had been introduced without discussion that I could see and has been questioned on the talk page. Whether my bold edit will be reverted or not is yet to be seen... GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's now had his AWB authority suspended, pending further discussion. Baseball Bugs 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of his edits. As far as I can see, the problem is lack of attention to which dates he's changing. I don't think any thought has been given to whether the year being linked to is relevant to the context - how can it be at the rate he's going? It's tricky to find exactly what the consensus is on some of these issues, too, but I've seen some edits which are not based on consensus that I can tell. Most of the edits he's made, though, look to be appropriate.

I suspect he's going for a slash and burn type approach: 99% of the linked dates shouldn't be, so I'll remove all of them and let individual editors re-introduce the ones that should be there. GDallimore (Talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is bound to upset people. I wish he's come here and talk about it too. It's always difficult clearling a matter up when someone is uncommunucative. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

His defiant attitude continues, in deleting his talk page comments and insisting that it be discussed where he wants it discussed, as well as lecturing us. Baseball Bugs 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not lecturing anyone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The patronizing comment "...you may not feel comfortable with what I say about it. There are plenty of other editors there that have extensive experience with this issue..." constitutes lecturing. However, I don't really care about this issue personally. I just see a user who has taken it upon himself to make massive changes without asking anyone first... particularly the folks working on WP:Baseball. If they don't care, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But he does ask first. Lightmouse is a regular visitor to the MOSNUM talk page. He gains consensus there in a polite and respectful manner, and then implements that consensus. I have never witnessed any incivility or intransigence from him. Please respect that. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe today is a first, then. And did he ask anyone on WP:Baseball? Or did he just assume everyone on that project had read something about it where he expected them to read it? Baseball Bugs 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's exactly right; if you have a problem with the MOS, the place to discuss it is at the MOS talk page, not at that of an individual editor. -- Zsero (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When an incident is posted, he needs to talk about it on the incident page. Refusal to cooperate takes a user down a path that will eventually lead to being banned. Baseball Bugs 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone measure the thickness of the exterior walls in the W. H. Stark House to see if they're exactly 254 millimeters? I think we need to send someone to Orange, Texas with a calipers to check that measurement to the millimeter. Ten inches, plus or minus one inch, implies a certain level of accuracy, whereas 254 millimeters, plus or minus one millimeter, implies a much finer level of accuracy. I just hope masons working in 1894 were precise enough to work to the millimeter. --Elkman 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with converting units. However the alternative is that a large fraction of people will not understand the measurement. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the solution to that one was simple. The thickness of the walls should be expressed in cm, not mm. Fixed. -- Zsero (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As for links inside of succession boxes, WP:SBSGUIDE#B. Years and dates specifies that these should not be wikified unless they are pointing to an article of direct topical interest. So, removing general links to years inside of succession boxes is correct. Removing a piped link link to, let's say, the 1985 all-star game in a succession box about the host of the 1985 all-star game would be incorrect. Also note that there should not be years in the before and after portion of the succession boxes, only the middle column (the part specified in the "years" parameter). Gwguffey (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on these particular edits, but I do have one on the editor Lightmouse. He uses a semi-automated procedure to speed up a number of improvements to WP, in my experience always following established guidelines. Like you and me he sometimes makes mistakes. When these are brought to his attention he responds quickly and effectively, modifying the software he uses where that is found to be necessary. He is not defiant and he is not on a crusade. Be civil to him and he will reciprocate. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Thunderbird2 in that regardless of the intricacies of the above argument/discussion, Lightmouse is a valued member of the Project and his contributions in providing metrics/imperial measures links have been very useful to developing WP:Aviation Project articles. Would it be perverse to say, Calm Down? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

I'll repeat that he's only "mostly" following established guidelines because 99% of the wikilinking of years on WP is innapropriate. There is no possibility that he's checking every year he's de-linked to see whether or not it is useful in context. As Theresa Knott has pointed out, this is bound to get people riled. Personally, I think there's no problem in his continuing what he's doing provided that his edit summaries provide a bit more detail - letting people know where to find the relevant guideline to explain his actions, for example, would be a huge step forward rather than just a terse "dates/units with AWB". GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to discern any true civility in the user Lightmouse. It's "his way or the highway". That kind of approach, which reminds me of User:Tecmobowl, can catch up eventually. But if the WP:Baseball folks are OK with this, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM

EBDCM (talk · contribs) has been continuing, in part, the edits of 64.25.184.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP blocked for 8RR on Chiropractic. When I placed a 3RR warning, as he clearly made 2 reverts after the IP was blocked, noting that if he's the IP, he's violated WP:SOCK, he responded with a legal threat. As this is also a content dispute on Chiropractic, I don't think I can block. Under the circumstances, I also filed an WP:RFCU. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reverted edit was first made by doctorisin and I concurred with it. Sockpuppet accusations are completely bogus and this is seems to part of a continuing smear campaign against me. The reverted material was properly referenced and was attributed to the WHO. I have asked Arthur Rubin to retract accusations of sockpuppetry which he has failed to do so. Also, Arthur is citing vandalism by the anon user which does not appear to be the case. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have waited upon the results of the CheckUser request, before considering bringing it here. Admins are unlikely to anticipate the result. A negative CU result would mean that your suggestions are unfounded, and a positive would likely be handled by the CU or upon their comments there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is more WP:BITE as an experienced user is trying to discredit my character. Also, I have not made any reverts after anon did, the history clearly shows DoctorIsIn made the revert and I agree with it. It seems to me that Arthur Rubin is trying to expedite a process against me and also displays a lack of good faith on his part. EBDCM (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DoctorIsIn is the IP. He did revert, but I agree that it's to the last stable version. EBDCM's reverts, on the other hand, reverts to material added by the IP. I think it might be considered WP:POINTy for me to add the Doctor to the RFCU, although I have no objection if EBDCM does.

Yes, you did revert User:Eubulides, in part, to material added by the IP which was not in the version reverted to be User:DoctorIsIn.

It's still a legal threat. It seems likely that if RFCU determines the allegation is unfounded, and if I then withdraw the accusation, he would withdraw the threat, but there are no guarantees. I obviously can't take action against what I see as a clear WP:LEGAL violation, nor can I revert EBDCM, as I used up 3 reverts reverting the IP, as have most editors who have expressed a pro-science opinion on Chiropractic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest DoctorIsIn was the IP. Stop misrepresenting my statement. Also, it should be noted that yourself, orangemarlin, quack guru (who is supposed to be under 1RR) redrocket and others cited my edits as vandalism when it was a direct quote from the WHO Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Chiropractic. I am completely pro-science and the references I provided were all scientific. I'm an evidence-based practitioner, Arthur Rubin and one of my goals is to improve the scientific and referencing standard at chiropractic. EBDCM (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was declined, with the reviewer citing privacy concerns and WP:DUCK. Further action here may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that further action is needed. We have a case that clearly seems to be misuse of some unknown IP to evade a block done by a user (User:EBDCM) who is intensively involved in edit warring, and who has (as User:EBDCM) just avoided an indef block. The blocked IP is located on practically the same street as another IP (I know it) that EBDCM has used, so the evidence is pretty strong. No matter how much one enlarges the images of the two IP location pictures, the closer on the same street they appear to be. Where should this information be posted? -- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Fyslee? I am not using any sock puppet accounts and it seems that unfortunately you have reverted back to your previous ways. EBDCM (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

← I've semi-protected the page for 3 weeks given edit-warring and the question of whether these IP's might be socks. That should solve the immediate problem of editors potentially logging out to continue edit-warring. I'm too burned out on this particular issue at present to dig deeper and start applying the DUCK test to those IP edits, so maybe we can declare an amnesty or another admin can try to match them up. MastCell  16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I still don't understand how Arthur Rubin and OrangeMarlin claimed that my original edits in question were vandalism when it should be fairly obvious that they were not. Anyways, sorry you had to get dragged into this debacle, MastCell. EBDCM (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little upset by that closure, as both Orangemarlin and I have used up 3RR in reverting the anon, but I suppose it will have to do. Perhaps propose a modification to WP:3RR that reversions of edits found to be in violation of WP:3RR no longer count as reversions for the purpose of 3RR? (Probably no good, as it's too easily WP:GAMEd.) In any case, a reasonable start of a resolution. And I wasn't claiming EBDCM's edits were vandalism, just that they are reversions, and are not reversions of vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a closure, necessarily - I think semi-protection is a good start, but I would welcome anyone with more stamina than I to look into the issue of whether there was actual sockpuppetry, 3RR breaches, or other offenses here. I'm not commenting on those issues, nor closing this thread, because I haven't looked into them. The semi-protection is designed as a general, no-fault measure, but that doesn't have to be the only outcome. MastCell  19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have misinterpreted your action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that EBDCM keeps accusing me of calling his edits vandalism, since I've never reverted his edits. But I did revert a bunch of edits from some anonymous IP, and did accuse him of 3RR vandalism. Strange coincidence. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is some background information. There are WP:COPYVIO concerns about the recent text EBDCM added to the Chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh, hello, it's in the talk history for all to see. I have not made any personal attacks OrangeMarlin, but perhaps you can explain to MastCell why you claimed in your edit that you were reverting vandalism. DoctorisIn also reverted the said edit as did I. EBDCM (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this back on track. EBDCM is throwing around straw men diversionary ideas about "vandalism" and "anti-science" accusations. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of using an IP to evade a block, and continued edit warring. It's about the same bad behavior that got you blocked, then indef blocked. You returned and violated the agreement that got you unblocked. That is an aggravating circumstance. -- Fyslee / talk 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> and EC. I hate getting involved with this stuff, but here you go EBDCM. Here is your false allegation that is both uncivil and a personal attack. This is my reply which clearly states that I have never reverted anything you've written, nor did I call anything that I reverted as "vandalism." I would ask that EBDCM (talk · contribs) be blocked for an extended period of time for personal attacks, threats against me| and legal threats here along with claiming that Fyslee sent an email to Arthur Rubin, which AR specifically denies happening here. Why do we tolerate this crap? OrangeMarlin 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, hello? Did no one think of checking the IP with WHOIS? Because it geolocates to Cochrane, Ontario...and EBDCM has an "I live in Canada" userbox on his userpage. Quack, surely? Reading what Fyslee has posted above, this has to be quack. Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IPUser:198.85.213.1

The User:198.85.213.1 kept adding in "original research" into articles, reverting them to what s/he had written. It looks like simple cases of 3RR at first, but by detailling into the edits, it is easy to found that the user majority of edits are like the ones s/he did in Strike Gundam, in which s/he kept adding a totally incorrect sentence into the article, claiming things that could not be found in any official sources, like stating the mecha Strike Freedom is made by scrap parts of the mecha Strike Gundam and Freedom Gundam which the official sources stated specifically that the unit is newly built. In Lacus Clyne, the user kept changing the article with a POV statement, without any will of trying to communicate to other users other than in the edit comment, eventhough s/he had been reverted by at least 3 other users. In which the Shuffle! article, it could be clearly seen that the user simply removed sourced material along with the source when the material does not suit his/her taste. That user basically add in self-created material and removes sourced ones. As to my knowledge, User:Silver Edge is a persom of few words and contribute to[REDACTED] with great responsibility, and this IP user actually made him concern enough to warn and ask for help in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gundam. MythSearcher 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communication with User:PelasgicMoon

User:PelasgicMoon for a few days now tries to push an entry about Illyrians as ancestors of Albanians, providing a source from Britannica here. I reverted his entry because it was irrelevant to the article and furthermore because a simple comparison between his entry and the source he is providing, allow us to assume that he is just trying to push his POV in Misplaced Pages. Because "A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians" is one thing and "the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian" is a completely different thing... He didn’t like that, so he requested for arbitration here where he got rejected and then here, where he got rejected as well. Today he added the same entry here. Will someone explain to this guy?? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, it's not a straightforward case of original research. User:PelasgicMoon does have several other sources (e.g. ) which do indeed say that the Illyrians are considered by some historians - or most, depending on the source - to be the ancestors of modern Albanians. This sounds like a good case for our dispute resolution process. Sheffield Steel_stalk 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Page miss match

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wellacre_Technology_&_Vocational_College and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wellacre_Technology_%26_Vocational_College

Display different information even thou it's the same page! Any Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.70.79 (talk • contribs)

I see the same page, personally. That's probably a cache update problem, and should be corrected now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Next time you may wish to go to the Technical pump for such issues :) -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Durieu 7.jpg

There are a few problems with me putting this issue here, I know, but I am not exactly sure where else. Here's the story. That is a commons image of a nude of a young girl by Jean Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. commons:User:Zirland deleted it as "child pornography" according to the response I got on the commons pump. The reason I bring this up on AN/I is because I am unsure how to deal with Commons admins being completely overzealous and deleting images that affect EN articles. gren グレン 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What article does it affect here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted back in June 2007. Doesn't Commons have an equivilant to deletion review? — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me stupid that an art photograph could be deleted as pornography. However in the meantime I have at least replaced the photo in our article with another nude. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

The deleting admin has restored the image at Gren's request. — Edokter • Talk • 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

URL blacklist

I heard, but have thus far not experienced, that adding certain external links to a page will cause you to not be able to save the page. If this is true, I'd like to have another URL added to the list: (DO NOT VISIT) -- has been used recently for vandalism, a "trap" site that shows a looped porn video, and makes your browser window nearly uncloseable. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hi - maybe you've got spyware, because I don't see anything wrong with it. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt that. What exactly do you see when you visit the site? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:16, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Some Cairns mayor's blog.

Thursday, 20 March 2008 Off for three days break

I am heading off for a three-day break - my first in 11 weeks - after the excitement of the last few days.

I had not anticipated how much of a slice of me the various media outlets would want and the phone has been running hot. I am proud to be a role model for women, particularly young women, so have been open to all media.

I've had phone calls from as far away as Rajasthan, Vienna and Singapore and numerous email, phone and text messages including one from a young friend who is leading a walking tour on the Overland track in Tasmania. News has travelled fast. Forgive me if I have not answered yet

and it goes on. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a report at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. if you have a virus scan program post the log (or the relevent part)--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) The page is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (or m:Spam blacklist for blacklisting on all Wikimedia projects). Hut 8.5 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no pornography on that site. I remember this happened once when I had spyware about 1 year ago - random ads were replaced by pornography. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay oops, thats my bad. No I don't have any spyware. I can tell the difference. I copied the link the vandal replaced rather than the one he replaced it with. Here's the bad link: . Still advise not visiting it though. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:21, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OK. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well since I'm not an admin, can someone add that URL please? () Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

To close it just hold 'enter' or 'return' for ages. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

... or ctrl-alt-delete. But that still doesn't address the issue of blacklisting this malicious site. Is anyone going to actually do that, or do I have to start throwing a hissy fit? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:31, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Added. Don't "live" link sites like that again, on this board!--Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay but you added the wrong one. cairns1st. blogspot.com was my mistake. The bad URL is infoslash.net. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:35, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're both added now. cairns1st. blogspot.com is okay though, can you remove it? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That video is really old - it's on homo.com which doesn't have the annoying features of infoslash. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

Global warming

Some jerk moved this to Global warming hoax. Could you undo it and ban the idiot? 71.174.111.245 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Already been moved back, and I believe an admin will be handling the block in a moment's time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We're keeping a eye on him. Thanks. Hersfold 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He got blocked for vandalism / edit warring on another article. I reviewed the unblock request, but he reverted my decline of the unblock. Somebody else deal with this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With a history like that, one week was lenient - he should count himself lucky. Block reviewed, unblock firmly declined. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... 5 blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, plus several current episodes of vandalism... phony warnings ()... abusing the unblock templates... I hate to be the grumpy old guy in this esteemed gathering, but I'm going to extend this to 1 month - there's a lengthy pattern of problematic editing here, and the next block should almost certainly be indefinite. MastCell  19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet on autism articles again

Reference for context:

Wrong Planet is a bulletin board/forum about Asperger syndrome.

AlexPlank (talk · contribs), aka Perl (talk · contribs) is the owner/founder (actively involved in editing that article in the past; recently, it has been edited mostly by IPs—if problems with COI persist, a CheckUser could be warranted).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph and threads on Wrong Planet advocating against Wiki's Asperger syndrome article (these are just a few, there are others):

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=883579

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=43197

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt49566.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx50638-15-0.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt53562.html