Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• Talk
• Sockpuppet investigations
• Backlog

Look at this history. 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has had problems with edit warring and 3RR in the past, is now disrupting Democratic Leadership Council by engaging in an edit war with Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Additionally, 8bitJake is on probation, per this ArbComm remedy. Per that, I'm proposing 8bitJake be banned from Democratic Leadership Council, for a lengthy edit war, along with any warnings and/or blocks both users receive for this.

For the record, I need to note that I was involved in a previous content dispute with 8bitJake, which was resolved with an RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed that we had resolved the issue before you started this discussion. We had ended the edit war, and it was fine. So I think that we should put it back to how it was before you started this discussion, with this version. however, you can see, I was trying to reasonably resolve this from the start with logical discourse. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Nwwaew's version and protected. Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. FCYTravis (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. --8bitJake (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Misplaced Pages or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because you were in a very severe edit war with another person. Reversion is standard in those cases. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

well jake, at this version it seemed our little war calmed down. I say we take it back to this version at that part and leave it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake, please WP:AGF. Anyone can edit any article, unless they are restricted by ArbComm or the community. And if I was an admin, I would have recused all use of the tools in anything involving you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew (mistitled)

Long story of accusations by 8bitJake collapsed for readability

Resolved – nonsense Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) is Wikistalking me and has following me arround editing articles that he was not previously invoved with and making allegations against me. This harassment pure and simple He was not asked to get involved in these article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Misplaced Pages or create a new account to get away from his harassment. If you look at his contributions to Democratic Leadership Council he came there with the only reason to harass me. He should be blocked and banned from articles I work on. --8bitJake (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Please provide diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) This was right before he stalked me there and removed all the work I did on the article. He had NEVER edited the article there before. He likes to think of himself as an admin.. despite him not being one. --8bitJake (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not seeing any disruption based on that one link. Is there more? Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Um, say what? I like to think of myself as an admin? What the hell? And how did I harass you on Democratic Leadership Council? The only actions I did on there were to revert to a pre-edit war condition (that you were involved in, I might note). And how do I have to be asked to be involved in an article to do something? If that was the situation, NOBODY could edit Misplaced Pages, PERIOD. We'd all be waiting for someone to ask us to edit an article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC) There is no lasting conflict between me and any other editors of that article. There was a disagreement between me and Tallicfan20 but we worked it out and reached a consensus. You just jumped in after stalking me and attempted to throw around authority that you never had. --8bitJake (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) But WHERE did I "throw around my non-existant authority"? You claim I'm doing this, but you won't show me where I am doing this!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) He followed me to the article based on my contributions list (he has taken to task to follow me around and butt in and make constant allegations and threats) and reverted my work and then demanded it be locked. That is a pretty big disruption. --8bitJake (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Diffs, please? I would like to see evidence of what I'm being accused of. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Before he followed me there After he reverted my contributions and demanded it be locked If you look at his contributions or the edit history of Democratic Leadership Council you will notice that he has NEVER edited the article before and only came there to harass me. He also nominated himself for adminship but it failed. So he has been running around assuming authority that he simply does not have. This needs to be addressed and he should be disciplined accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs) Okay, where did I demand the article be locked? I reverted the article, and requested you and the other party of the edit war step back, until this ANI discussion (the current one I started above) was done. And how does a failed self-nomination factor into this? Just because I failed two self-noms for adminship does not mean I have authority. The only authority I can even claim to have is the same any non-administrator editor on Misplaced Pages has. Namely, nothing that the community won't support- I can't just go around and ban anyone for any reason, no matter how good the reason is. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I don’t feel comfortable talking with this editor and instead of replying to him I am going to be reporting all future harassment from him directly here.--8bitJake (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Um... so if I ask you a question, for instance, you're going to report me for asking it, instead of replying? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Even after I’ve made it crystal clear that I consider him to be harassing me he keeps leaving messages on my talk page. What’s next? Is he going to start to call my house? This guy is creepy. --8bitJake (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The heck? You know what... screw this. If you're going to persistantly bring up charges against me, and not back them up, then to hell with this. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I see nothing that would cause me to raise an eyebrow at any contributions that Nwwaew has made in the last day. You, however, 8bitJake, are not assuming good faith, and are once again verging on breaking WP:POINT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) And I have warned 8bitJake to this end with a Level 3 on AGF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake

Given that 8bitJake is already on probation, I propose that we broaden the topic ban to include the American political system. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity he deleted huge chunks of other people's comments (including mine) and has been peppering several sections with his whining about Nwwaew - same thing I believe you already reverted. Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a flawed decision from years ago since it included false accusations. --8bitJake (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the ANI started Nwwaew has continued to make disparaging insults directed at me --8bitJake (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

‎8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week for Disruptive editing: 3RR not AGF, persistent vilification of editors that have a disagreement, etc. Can we please discuss broadening the ban? I think this is important as the editor clearly isn't taking responsibilty for previous mistakes and decisions. The editor has now been blocked 6 times for very similar behaviour. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will a topic ban help, since he's been blocked six times for the same type of misbehavior? At this point, I think we should be asking if we still want him here. If we do, then I think he should placed on 1RR, since he's been blocked several times for violating 3RR, and had other content disputes that he wasn't blocked for. Additionally, due to the situation that's happened, perhaps a ban on attacking editors, to be enforced by blocking would be appropriate? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I am one of the subjects of this dispute, and may be biased here)

I don't know about bias, but there is already a ban on attacking editors - called WP:NPA. Whatever the discussion regarding topic ban or long/indef block, any violation of NPA should be reported to AIV. If there are a number of reports made over a short period the question of discussing a long block may be taken away from this place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if a guy like Jake should be using Wiki, as when I was editing the DLC page, he reverted it because it was a "longstanding" part of the page, even tho I was removing a line that was misleading. The annoying thing is how he kept reverting it, despite that I made a case on the talk pages using sources and stats against having the disputed line of the article in there.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have a problem on articles related to politics. He also has a problem with 3RR. If we come up with a solution, it should involve both of those issues. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he does need a long time ban. I mean he clearly doesn't get it, on how one has to not inject opinion into an article like he does. He'll remember it too if he gets a 2 month ban or something like that. I mean, is it possible for him to get banned on JUST political articles? Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's under probation from a previous Arbitration case, and under that ruling, he can be banned from any articles he disrupts. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to post my opinion here, and so I will. (first bit is copy pasted from what I wrote on his talk page)

recently, your editing has been a case of putting opinion ahead of fact and against the spirit of Misplaced Pages's 'anyone can edit' policy. you need to go by sources not opinion, you know that. The block is right. Use your week off to calm down and look at things in a different light. Its only a website after all, not as if you will be getting harmed by things you dont like.

and I know its a petty thing to point out, but he was the only one who disagreed with my resolution on Wageslave's ban. out of the 8 or so people involved in the problem he saw himself being punished even though my reso had nothing to do with sanctions against him. i sometimes wonder if he reads edits fully before making his own. which is disruptive

plus, theres this little part of me that wonders if he gets controversial at times to pump up his visitor numbers to his personal website. which he should use for opinions, not here. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake has some decent expertise in video game topics, and i think it would be a mistake to keep him out of those areas. It seems to be apparent that he cannot edit political articles in any sort of reasonable manner, though. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus to extend the ban to political articles. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy this has been resolved. However something on his RfA page says about if he's banned 6 times the ban will be extended to a year. While I don't want him banned I feel it needs explaining as to why this has not been carried through, especially as it needs to be decided if that threat is still active. If its inactive it needs removing as someone will end up pushing for it to happen. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 said that violating the ban would get an indefinite block, so I think he's taken care of that issue as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't carry the 1-year block through because I didn't know about it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

I am reporting another incident and rather than engage and defend myself I am reporting this incident. I think nipping things in the bud are the way to go with this user.

]

ChrisJNelson has diplayed a didain for the rules and no matter what kind of wrist-slap he displays the same type of behavior over and over and over. I am asking that the system work to curb his displays of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ]

User_talk:72.0.36.36#Chrisjnelson_Arbitration Please read. Durova 08:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need three links to the same page in the same report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More important for someone with the tools to examine how arrogant and blatant the incivility is. This is somebody with a block log so long it requires scrolling to read and who was very nearly sitebanned at arbitration for edit warring and incivility. Basically the only reason he received a second chance was because of an unusual development during arbitration that turned up a banned editor and a sneaky vandal who were simultaneously trolling him: it wasn't known how he'd behave absent those unusual stresses. Well those unusual factors are gone now and he's taunting regular people, and rather proud of mostly getting away with it. He openly regards 24-48 hour blocks as an acceptable price to pay for dumping on other people. Suggest a this-isn't-Usenet reminder in the form of a longer timeout. Durova 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the user apparently also has valuable facts to contribute, which I assume is the reason wikipedia is still messing with him and hasn't issued a permanent block. Baseball Bugs 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, the editor not currently editing and the history/good contributions mentioned above, I have issued a Level4im vandal (there wasn't anything more apt) warning, and comment that repeated violations of WP:CIVIL in the manner of interactions with some editors will result in an indef block, on the editors talkpage. I know, it is yet another final warning but I shall watch the page and request anyone who notes any such future similar behaviour to let me know - and I shall issue the block. As far as I am concerned, this is the very last and final chance for this editor to change some of their undesirable habits on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a civility warning be more appropriate? I don't see how a vandalism warning makes sense in this context. Chrisjnelson is not a vandal. Enigma 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I think he deserved everything I said. :-D ►Chris Nelson 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins please note. Durova 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, is a return trip to ArbCom an option? Because of the absurd volume of productive edits (30,000+), I think a community ban would be difficult to effect and a de facto no-admin-will-unblock ban is unlikely as well. (Hell, I'd eventually unblock him myself if he asked after a reasonable time). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a middle ground between 48 hours and reopening the arbitration case. If it were my call I'd give him a two week timeout. Durova 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I might even go a bit longer. But, in all honesty, LessHeard vanU's vandalism warning and threat to indefblock seemed like a bit much. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I benched him for 1 week in the past, 2 looks reasonable here. That leaves room to increase the duration in the future if needed. I'd rather keep him on board than jettison, but remain categorically opposed to the notion that X many productive edits generate a license to be rude. Durova 03:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody has 30,000 many edits shouldn't mean that the user's incivility is looked in a different light compared to somebody with 500 edits; hell, I'd probably make 50,000 contributions if I knew that I could be incredibly rude and get away with it. The user's past block log should be, though. I'll be honest, I picked an awful day to end my three week-long hiatus. I end up returning on the day of what's beginning to be a monthly occurence, it seems.

I think this comment here should be the last straw. These two were 'separated' for some time until Chris climbed back into the ring with that comment. Not only was that comment unnecessary, in my opinion, but I fail to see how that comment could've in any way helped Chris' "incivility issues".

We've pretty much tried every method we have at Misplaced Pages to try to resolve this monthly conflicts, but to no avail. I don't think anybody can deny that Chris has been involved in numerous conflicts in the past X months, and personally I can't believe that something hasn't been done to end these conflicts once and for all, whether that's a punishment or not. We've gone through ANI, Arbitration (including Arbitration enforcement), Mediation, and Request for Comment, and while there have been some minor actions taken, nothing has been resolved.

If this is still going on today, which it is based on this, then I see no reason why a lengthy block shouldn't be handed down. There was no contact between 72.0.36.36 and Chris for a fair amount of time, but Chris just came in and made this unnecessary remark, which is what provoked this ANI post. Just looking at it, I don't see anything civil about that sentence, from "irrelevant piece of crap" to "Keep up the good work".

If my math is right, I count a total of 11 blocks (taking into account the times where he has blocked and later unblocked for whatever reason). The longest block he has ever received was one week, which he received a total of three times. Of those three week-long blocks, only once has the block actually lasted that long; he was unblocked early the other two times. If you look at Chris' block log, you can see that it really isn't that pretty to look at. I know that I'm not an admin, but based on Chris' past civility issues, a two-week block seems very reasonable to me. The fact that he's already received three week-long blocks and that hasn't resolved any of the issues signals to me that harsher action is necessary. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do thing he's turning the Long article into a piece of shit. He has packed it full of irrelevant bullshit and quotes, tons of stuff that won't matter in a month, a year or ten years. So much of what he's added, while true and sourced, is just fluff. It makes the article way too long in relation to the the career he's had thus far, and that makes it what I consider a piece of shit. So I told him so.►Chris Nelson 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's suggesting you shouldn't say what you think. You just need to find a polite way of saying so. If you can't, you are harming Misplaced Pages's editing atmosphere, which is supposed to be civil and collegial. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue in a nutshell:

• Chrisjnelson: "Your contributions are shit!"
• The community: "Calling someone's contributions 'shit' is unacceptable. Try to have phrase your comments in a more constructive manner."
• Chrisjnelson: "But it is shit! <various constructive comments> See? Total shit! Shit shit shit shit shit!"
• Chrisjnelson: (aside to other editor) "Dude, I just called you a shit and the admins aren't going to do anything about it."

If there was ever a case of someone not getting the point, this is it. Endorse 2-week block, with the understanding that it will be longer next time if this user doesn't shape up. He has explicitly stated that the message the community has communicated so far is that he can behave in an incivil manner with impunity. We don't have to guess at this; he said so. It's time for the community to communicate a different message, don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we've got disappointing little Stern-like gems: If you had any idea the action I'm getting this summer, you'd know how little I'd care about a block. I had to do a double-take on that one - and verify that his userpage says he's an adult. Endorse 2-week block. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey what the hell. Endorse 2-week block.►Chris Nelson 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved incident

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": , , .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me? Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Misplaced Pages pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Misplaced Pages if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Misplaced Pages. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Misplaced Pages if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here . MBisanz 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Misplaced Pages, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09:

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Details

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions:

This is the ridiculous nature of Misplaced Pages: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unable to resolve

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Misplaced Pages policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguing and a few very upset people. I can sympathize with the anger, really, some of it looks justified, but there's one thing I think is missing from this conversation: direction. What are the specific goals of users in this thread? What, being as specific as possible, can be done to move this situation forward? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I was blocked for edit warring, after I had stopped, after only one warning, and this warning by MBisanz for tagging an article. At this point, MBisanz's best excuse seems to be that he was multi-tasking human beings and a bot, and couldn't have been bothered to get correct my 48 hour first block after a single warning when I had stopped the behavior warned for. I'd like to know why administrators and others came to my talk page to attack and harass me because I had the nerve to disagree with content with established editors--and, established editors is a big thing and very important to this crew, because this is how and why Kelly got blocked, again, for editing against established editor Ryulong. Gwen Gale, who was involved in this Shrew's fiddle mess, was also involved in the Kelly mess, right now, asserting the privilege of established editors. I would like to know why "anybodies" aren't forewarned that as long as they are not established editors no courtesies will be applied to them? I would like to know why 1 warning is sufficient for a nobody and too much for an established editor. I would like MBisanz to read exactly the time-line, acknowledge what he did wrong, and annotate my block log to that effect. I would like Ryulong to stop trying to flame me. I would like everyone to stop telling me to calm down when in no way was I treated according to Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines.

I would really like to know why bots are more important than human editors on Misplaced Pages, because, the first incident I had on Misplaced Pages was being threatened with a block for reverting a bot, after getting warned by the bot's owner, then getting a level two warning for asking the bot's owner what the heck he was doing? To have MBisanz tell me he blocked me because he was busy with a bot is the ultimate insult and ending to this whole nasty after, especiall after my first hostile encounter on Misplaced Pages being with a bot owner, who reverts people simply because they are new editors (to hell with "anybody can edit"), who doesn't give a shit what he does to humans editing Misplaced Pages. The first time I got "warned" on Misplaced Pages was when I started copy and context editing a poorly written article to make it a good little start of an article, all because somebody programmed a bot to attack new accounts, and now, it seems, that MBisanz is in the same school: bots deserve attention, human editors can be victimized by careless actions, though. '

I'd like to know what the policy is: are editors commonly blocked for 48 hours for doing something they've stopped after one warning? I'd like MBisanz to know the policy, too. I'd like Ryulong to not use his administrative powers to stop someone from doing something he did to another person.

I'd like an honest, straightforward answer to all of these issues. I got told I'd be foolish to edit Misplaced Pages's plant pathogen articles because I would get hounded by the established editors because I'd show too much expertise and Misplaced Pages didn't want experts but community members. I'd like to show people who told me this that they were wrong, there is a place for expertise on Misplaced Pages to counter the really shitty articles about plant pathogens you have. That's what I'd really like. But I don't see this happening as long as I'm going to be blocked for tagging bad articles, tagging bad sources (and, no Gwen Gale's "if it says it in a couple of so-so places, it must be okay" referencing isn't going to cut it), and for discussing articles on their talk pages, and as long as administrators like Ryolong are allowed to, and supported in, harassing editors simply because they're not established editors--and as long as he disagrees with them, a gang bang on the non-established editor will occur.

I'd like official notification on my block log that I will be allowed to edit without being punitively blocked for having a content dispute with an established editor. Because your established plant pathogen editors don't write well and don't know their stuff: your articles are only suitable for red-inked laugh lines on bulletin boards.

Ultimately I'd like to edit the articles without having to protect myself from this hit squad--you should afford the same courtesy to others who come to edit subject, and who try to work within Misplaced Pages's policies (stopping the edit war when told to, and it wasn't really an edit war, just a couple of reverts, and discussing the article on the talk page). Because what now stands is: get warned, stop doing something, and get blocked for it, then get harassed by the editor whose content you disputed since he's an administrator and is allowed to harass other editors, but will be protected when others do the same to him.--Blechnic (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attepted to apologize to you. But each time you take offense to what I say. You can go about and edit articles as you have been for the past month. No one is going to ban you. I'm never going to even see you again, unless someone else mentions me and you come to make some sort of statement that lead to this extended thread, again. MBisanz may never contact you again. Hersfold may never contact you again. I would have thought that the month without incident would have shown that. I'm fine if you just go and write something about a mosaic virus attacking raflesia, or whatever it is you usually write about (I have no botanical teaching, so I don't know anything about what you really study). There is no hit squad after you. The blocks on you and Bidgee were both questionable. My protection of my talk page was wrong, and that is why I let Kylu remove it. Again, your block came about because of disruptive (although good faith) activities at an article that hadn't been edited since your block because the issues with it had been resolved. There are currently four new references, including those that support other references' statements.

For the tl;dr version; you're not going to be banned, no one is immune to rules, established editors don't get preferential treatment, administrators don't get preferential treatment, policies are not perfect, sourcing is not perfect. Is there something I did not cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that just about covers it on your part. I suggest Gwen Gale ought to be told the last part so she stops telling editors not to template the regulars, and the essay on not templating the regulars ought to be AfDed, and I don't buy it for one minute. However, I accept your apology. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars says "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template." That doesn't mean "Don't give them any message that would have required a template."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars Which is an essay and not a policy nor a guildline. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And, please do look at what I came here to do. It's hard to believe that my edit history said to MBisanz: block this bitch and block her hard and fast to get back to those very important bots. I'm betting if I read the administrator guidelines for blocks nothing justifying MBisanz's blocking me after I'd stop and blocking me for 48 hours would be found. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final note: and then, I'd like to just edit plant pathogen articles without hearing from or about any of you ever again. But, as long as I have the nasty assortment of blocks attached to my account that's not going to happen, so ultimately I won't be satisfied, because my interest is tropical agricultural pests, not being gang banged. So, just an explanation of what the policies are that should have been followed and an annotation on the first block. Then leave me alone. --Blechnic (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. A block log is not a scarlet letter. Only one person is preventing you from writing about tropical plant pathogens and that is yourself (currently). I'm sure Misplaced Pages's coverage of such a topic would benefit from your research and studies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever quit while you're ahead? Let's pretend you didn't post this. I still have a threat of being permenently banned for tagging articles hanging over me. --Blechnic (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have any threat of being banned for any reason whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a threat of being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages hanging over me. A final warning to that effect: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning. Are you saying this is officially retracted? It's a lie? It's invalid? It's not policy? It was merely a threat? What? --Blechnic (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That refers to this whole section. The assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment where others do not see it, and the continued requests for others to look into them. If that behavior continues, then maybe you would be blocked. However, that statement does not concern placing {{fact}} or {{disputed}} or other content templates that would improve articles, unless the behavior is seen as disrupting the project. I cannot speak for Hersfold, but I believe that is what was meant. That is also what Abd refers to in his message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it refers to the whole section of me trying to get you to stop harassing me? So, in other words, if someone harasses you, you can use your administrative tools to stop it, but if you harass me, and I ask you to stop, or take any other action, I will get banned from Misplaced Pages for doing so, because when I asked you to stop what got you mad at Kelly, I was assuming bad faith, but when Kelly did it to you, she was committing an actionable offense? In other words, I could be banned because I failed to bow down under your harassment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And the only reason I had ANY interaction with Hersford to begin with is for tagging a badly written article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You would be blocked due to the language you used, as explained below by Carcharoth. As Abd says, it is the tone you use and assumptions you make of others' statements that led to all of the blocks you have in your block log. Yes, my protection of my talk page was wrong (I stated that, and it is covered in the subpage). Being vitriolic and acerbic does not help anyone, and that would be the only source of a block based on editing outside of the article space. You are not going to be banned for tagging articles. You are not going to be blocked for tagging articles. All that's gonna happen is that someone will see the tags and fix the article. That is what has happened with shrew's fiddle, after everyhing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not the one threatening the ban, so you can't say. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hersfold isn't here to clarify, so I'm just trying to determine what he meant. And, as Hoary says, blocked ≠ banned and indefinitely ≠ permanently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic seems multiply confused. "Indefinitely" isn't the same as "permanently", "blocked" isn't the same as "banned", and neither Ryulong nor anybody else (other than Hersfold) need take responsibility for what Hersfold wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no confusion whatsoever about who is responsible for Hersfold's threat to block me infefinitely, and, no, I only speak English, and I'm not familiar enough with policies to be able to hit anyone over the head with them, so I have to go with what was said to me, and what that means in English. So, this means, what, "indefinitely" means? Are you going to block me for this now? For getting something wrong? It also appears I stopped the behavior Hersfold threatened me with indefinite blocking for, so, right up MBisanz's policy guidelines, I should be "indefinitely blocked." Don't worry, I'll go look them up so I better understand what I was hit over the head with. I'm betting single-admin "indefinite blocking" is just a way to get around the need for community input in a ban, though. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means "no defined length." "Permanent" is a defined length. However, it can't be coded to "permanently" block someone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by the e-mails you (Blechnic) forwarded to me, I suspect Hersfold was talking about what you said in the e-mail. ie. If you carried on with that, he would indefinitely block you. In fact, he didn't block you indefinitely when you sent him the second e-mail, where you are, shall we say, a lot angrier. But regardless of that, I think it is safe to say that Hersfold too would not block you (indefinitely or otherwise) for tagging articles or disputing their accuracy. It is more the language and personal attacks. Tone the language down and drop the personal attacks (even if you think others are a hundred times worse), and you will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So, this was, what, a lie? Administrators lie and threaten users? That's the policy? Tone what down? My response to being punitively blocked for a content dispute? My response to being blocked after I stopped edit warring as I was warned to? Tone what down, continuing to respond to the escalating attacks against me by Ryulong, MBisanz, and Hersfold ater I got blocked after I stopped edit warring? Maybe if I had continued edit warring, yes, maybe that was the correct action.

So, what, this was an empty threat? And that's standard for administrators on Misplaced Pages, empty threats to upset users who are being harassed after being wrongly blocked?

If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning.

Exactly how can a user get blocked for following a warning, then get told that another warning is just a lie? --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And, please, stop forgetting that I got blocked after I stopped edit warring, so exactly how am I supposed to take this? Now, I'm actually supposed to obey the warning? But when I obeyed the warning the first time, it got me blocked~ 0000:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you keep this up..." This being the tone in the e-mail and in your messages to me saying that I was harassing you, as well as the constant assumptions of bad faith, "...you will be indefinitely blocked." Indefinite blocks are not bans and both can be overturned. "This is your final warning." in regards to your tone and your assumptions of bad faith. This as well as your comments on the talk page likely resulted in your first block. Hersfold's block resulted from your comments on your talk page during the block (in which you accused me of harassing you) and in your e-mail to Hersfold. I haven't seen the e-mail. All I know is that your tone in every situation I've seen is that your tone really turns me away. They come off as being (as I've stated before) unnecessarily vitriolic and acerbic, and that you take many things way too personally. If this is fixed, then I don't see you being blocked, banned, driven away with your tail between your legs, etc. any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MBisanz says he was too concerned with dealing with bots to really be clear why he blocked me, but if that's what you think got me blocked, putting a credibility tag on a blog, when Misplaced Pages guidelines for sources says blogs generally shouldn't be used, it seems I was improperly blocked for a content dispute. --Blechnic (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been one month. He can't remember the exact details and he's only going off of his contributions at the time. And "generally shouldn't be used" means that people look it over and determine whether or not it should be used. That occurred, as Gwen Gale, Bidgee, and myself saw the "blog" posting as a useful reference in regards to the subject matter. Sure, more people looking at it would be good. There has to be a noticeboard to cover that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy: "Anyone can create a website or ... then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. .... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

He was a computer scientist writing about his trip with his wife and kids to a museum of torture--it's not his field (there's a Microsoft joke in here somewhere). I was blocked and threatened with a block for following Misplaced Pages guidelines on verifiable sources--Blechnic (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I quoted this in the content dispute: "Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." from the policy. --Blechnic (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, would it really be worth it to lie about what one saw in a museum?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not why you don't use just any source, you don't use the source because the blog is not a place where you've researched and verified, or even where you attempt accurate scholarship. There are so many reasons for using verifiable, and reliable resources that Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines about this. The place to argue against those in not an aside to another discussion, but on those policy pages. You, Gwen Gale, and Bidgee didn't opt for this. What you opted for was getting me blocked so that I couldn't quote policy or argue against non-reliable sources, especially Gwen Gale and her creationists-delight: 1 plus 3 sorta sources = 1 reliable source. I suggest you promote the idea that it would not be valuable to lie in a blog about what one saw in a museum as a reason for including blogs, even blogs by professors on edu sites, as verifiable sources and just see how far it gets you. --Blechnic (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some blocking guidelines I'm finding

"Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." So, according to Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, MBisanz was not supposed to block me one I had adjuted my behaviour. This is policy, and Hoary wants me to know policy, so I'll be looking at it. And, I'm guessing that what policy is, is that MBisanz's behavior was way out of line. --Blechnic (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.

If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe"

So,Hoary, here it is, if no one will lift the block, it's effectively a ban. Exactly what Hersfold was gearing for. And, since my unblock request was 100% ignored, I know damn well what was going down. --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop 'ing"
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion , spent some time fixing that tag and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV.". Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice accusation, if I don't accept what was done to me, I'm out for blood? Can you apologize without a personal attack? If not, don't bother.

And, actually, the issue of established editor keeps arising. That's why Gwen Gale thought that Kelly shouldn't be tagging you, and she posted that here and elsewhere: you're an established editor. You threw that in my face also, during the content dispute: you're an administrator, so you know more. As long as people keep acting in such a tacky and useless manner towards me, I'm not satisfied. I was blocked for a content dispute after a single warning, blocked for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring. Now MBisanz's friends are on his talk page threatening me.

How much longer do you intent to antagonize me? --21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears your didn't read that far down on my user page, the only criteria for being a filer of a recall request is "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions." the other points of edits and blocks apply to people who agree with the filer. And before we go calling User:Abd a friend of mine, about 4 months ago I supported a ban on a friend of his and just last week turned down a request of his via email, so I doubt he counts me a friend (although I have no hard feelings towards him). MBisanz 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your enemies are threatening me on your talk page? Thanks for leaving the threat up to make sure I got it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is an "unwarranted content template"

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I take it this means that no one knows what was unwarranted by my templates, so unwarranted that it obviously deserved a single warning then my being blocked? Note also MBisanz keeps getting it confused: I was warned for tags, but blocked for edit warring? Which is it? --Blechnic (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip - you're kind of making yourself look bad / unreasonable here by railing incessantly against your treatment over a month ago. I agree with you that this was handled badly, but I think all involved have gone much further than we normally see here in trying to reach a resolution on it (denials and false accusations, sadly, are usually more the norm here - I'm surprised at the good faith I've seen in this thread). It's been admitted by the people involved that various people involved did not act ideally. It's been stated multiple times that there will be no follow-on from this, that you are not topic banned or likely to be banned or anything else. I suggest dropping it at this point, moving on with just editing and improving the encyclopaedia, and if something else happens then we can deal with it here. At this point I'm not seeing anything more that can be done. Orderinchaos 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But Ryulong doesn't look bad now that he's decided to taunt me and harangue me after I accepted his apology (my bad, seems I should have seen that one coming, but I didn't), and stalk me.

--Blechnic (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that his stalking you. He could have came across the image in the Featured picture delist nominations category. You may wish to see WP:Wikistalking. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course not, just like he wasn't harassing me when I was blocked. His interests do run to Golgi bodies and biology, though, as I can see from his contributions list, and he often edits in FP delisted--oh, my bad, not to both. But thanks for stepping in and bludgeoning me over the head with policy that I'm supposed to read and know, but Ryulong can ignore. Guaranteed, no one will be asking him to back off. --Blechnic (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just posted it incase you didn't know about the policy. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I believe that. I'll ignore your first comment. --Blechnic (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel Pepys and fixing broken refs in sandboxes

User:Samuel Pepys is currently cleaning up a category which lists broken refs (Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting). Unfortunately, this category lists many people's sandboxes, which Samuel "fixes" as well. Samuel has been told by several people to stop this behavior because it is messing with their work, but Samuel ignores this advice, claiming that userspace belongs to wikipedia and not individual users. If admins consider his behavior right, I'll immediately drop this issue, but I really do not want to cleanup after cleanup-ers because my work-in-progress temporarily shows up in a hidden cleanup cat. Not to mention that his edits spam edit histories and watchlists (see e.g. this). – sgeureka 09:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have complied with individual users wishes not to edit their particular user space, which according to WP:USER is a community page and not user owned. These pages were listed in a cleanup category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting --Samuel Pepys (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it is polite for people whose userspace pages appear in such categories to do the edits needed to remove the pages from those categories. If the user is inactive, just fix the pages. If they are around, leave them a message. If it is very minor, fix anyway, rather than annoy them with a message. Unless you think they will be more annoyed by the fixing! Either way, no-one should get too upset about this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

... or developers can change <ref> so that the cleanup cat only gets added when the article is in mainspace. I don't know whom to approach though. – sgeureka 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Carcharoth, your position does make some sense, but I suggest having a short look at Samuel Pepys' conversations with those who complained. (They are here, not where you'd expect them.) There are often valid reasons why the pages are the way they are, so they don't need any "fixing". (If anything, the automatic category should be fixed so it ignores user pages.) And I must say that several things about this user ring alarm bells with me. I suggest not to delete the subpage to which he redirected his talk page, should he request it, to preserve at least some transparency about this "new" user's first clashes with the community. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something inflammatory or other rule violation in a user's "sandbox" or their talk page or user page, other editors shouldn't be messing with them. That sort of work should be confined to actual articles. Baseball Bugs 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that many editors are leaving their ref tags in error so that they can find what they cited as they go, opening references to check things, or to use as crib notes for working on a mainspace article. I see no valid reason for Samuel Pepys' actions in the name of depopulating the category. he should instead continue to focus on the mainsapce, which clearly has a large number of candidates for fixing. ThuranX (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, you need to stop editing works in progress found in userspace. Focus your efforts on problems in mainspace, there are plenty. Many, many users have asked you to stop and provided you with more than sufficient rationales. Whether userspace belongs to them or to the community is really irrelevant - its set aside for their use, they are using it and you should leave them to it. Not to mention - who cares about broken refs in userspace? Avruch * 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He's factually correct in that all pages belong to the community, which is why rules against personal attacks and such can be enforced there. He's also in gross violation of wiki-etiquette, and should cease and desist, immediately. I could see a place for his work though, as someone might actually like some help with formatting. Maybe he could make himself available for voluntary help in fixing formatting. That's something *I* could use sometimes. Baseball Bugs 12:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As many others say on the talkpage, I strongly suspect this is an unauthorised bot; I can't imagine any human editor making this edit for example. – iridescent 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per his contrib list, it looks like he's not stopping nor responding. block time? ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a brief (few minutes) block until he comes here to discuss this, since aside from the post at the top he appears to be ignoring this. – iridescent 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He redirected his talk page to User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk, meaning he doesn't see new messages. I'm not sure why or what the details are, since both pages have recent history. --NE2 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly if he's using AWB, which (intentionally) freezes whenever you get the yellow bar? – iridescent 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He was "infinitely" (if not longer) blocked at 20:46 UTC. So far, not a Pepys from him in protest. Baseball Bugs 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that his talk page redirect be reverted, as it clearly is a dodge of the numerous notifications about his actions. ThuranX (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a likely sockpuppet of Lemmey (talk · contribs) / Mitrebox (talk · contribs) / 68.209.2.187 (talk · contribs) / 207.235.64.30 (talk · contribs) / 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs) (started editing right after Lemmey got blocked and is running a fork of their bot). I'm going hunt down a checkuser just to be safe though... east.718 at 22:26, June 15, 2008

User:Lolla lola creating multiple contentious and unverifiable articles

User:Lolla lola has created a string of articles about a supposed "Chiacig crime family". Googling shows no evidence that any such family exists: without evidence, these pages are a massive WP:BLP violation. They have ignored all the messages on their talk pages, and removed AfD tags, so I've blocked them for 24 hours to stop the articles being created. I'm proposing to speedy-delete the lot of them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think someone beat you to it. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cough All dem articles had a little accident. I left the user a note drawing their attention to BLP, V and RS. Spartaz 10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Lolla lola appears to be a sock of User:Jon-sw, who has been blocked previously. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Concur - shall we indef them both?? Spartaz 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also see User:Rico-rico1982. And there may be others... -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Such as User:Erik-2006. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks like we need a checkuser to block the underlying ip. They clearly haven't learned. I'm about to stop out for an hour but I can protect all the pages from recreation and file the check-user when I get back if no-one does it in the meantime. Shall we indef the whole lot of them?? Spartaz 11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also User:Lisa-1982 and User:213.100.20.76 -- The Anome (talk)

Indef'ed Lolla lola. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • And also see previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#3RR and removing AfD tags -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new branch called "wikifiction", where users could indulge in creative writing about nonexistent rock bands, public figures, sporting events, crime families, etc. Then turn the bots loose too fix there spelin and grammer - assuming that doesn't hog all the servers' memories. Baseball Bugs 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now salted most of the article titles. Could someone please follow up on the checkuser request? -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a CU request on all the users and the IP. Kevin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also added the following other socks of the same vandal to the CU request: Gary-xxxx (talk · contribs), Yallo-yallo (talk · contribs), George-hans (talk · contribs) -- The Anome (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism threat

Hi all. I hesitated to post this, because it's probably a steaming pile of BS- but on the off chance that there might be some plausibility to it, I figured I'd bring this edit by 124.188.250.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to people's attention. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it could be someone after attention since the IP is from an Australian ISP. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure terrorists would post their intentions on wikipedia. At least this is a little more creative than the "I'm gonna kill u dude" stuff that appears from time to time. Baseball Bugs 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it to the authorities. They may have even read our 'secret' documents that went missing on the train(s).... Rudget (logs) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll doubt the Aussie police would have seen the 'secret' documents. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, how often do the Aussie police request the 'secret documents'? How come I haven't seen them ;). I do think it would be wise to go ahead and report this, just FYI. Dusti 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Best to report it to how though? Australian Federal Police (Since it's an Aussie IP) or UK police? Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a bomb would hurt the city much, due to the tons of padding. Baseball Bugs 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubber or Foam? Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was popular in 1056. Although, come to think of it, it didn't deter the Normans, did it? Baseball Bugs 13:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Metropolitan Police. Rudget (logs) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec>I would say that it should be reported to the UK authorities, since that's where the threat's directed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. I would have gone with the AFP above. I think that they are equal to our FBI? Dusti 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yep the AFP is the equal to the FBI in the US. Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And now that Rudget's reported it to the appropriate UK authorities (the London Metropolitan Police), presumably giving them a permalink to the diff, I'd say it's time for WP:RBI to come into play and someone to mark this as Resolved. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to report it, maybe report it to both, and let them work it out. Baseball Bugs 13:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should go to the AFP as well. Dusti 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AFP don't treat bomb threats lightly! Just ask those who have said the word 'bomb' on Aircraft in Australia (and no I'm not that stupid to say it!)! Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like the poor guy who walked onto a plane, recognized a friend and yelled, "Hi, Jack!" He's currently awaiting trial. Baseball Bugs 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the AFP be contacted by the Met if there was anything further needed doing? Rudget (logs) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather be safe and report to both. Dusti 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Don't make assumptions. If I make a 911 call, and someone else has already done so, they might tell me that, but they don't complain about getting the call. Better safe than sorry. Baseball Bugs 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 000 in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

so, who is going to make the call/send the e-mail? Dusti 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email. We don't need to do anything else, nor should we. Now it's time to deny recognition and get back to doing something constructive. Daniel (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone contact Interpol since this possibly a International Teroristic ThreatRio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The AFP can if they want. Let it go, everyone. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets

User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 are sockpuppets for evidence: see their contributions. Now DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 is on harassment against User:Luigi 28.--Ciolone (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to file a suspected sock puppets report, as that's the best venue for this kind of thing (and it will probably get a faster, more appropriate response). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Let me see if I have this right... You, whose account is a few days old, believe that DIRECKTOR - who has been on WP for 18 months - and AlasdairGreen27 (a 9 month old account) are sockpuppets harassing Luigi 28, an account of a week or so's experience? I didn't notice the same mix of articles on AlasdairGreen27's contrib history as I did on DIREKTOR's, Luigi's and yours, but a few comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage. Without probing too far, it seems to me that DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27 seem to be agreeing with something that Luigi (and you?) don't. Now, are you able to provide diffs that indicate sockpuppetry rather than two experienced Wikipedians agreeing with each other? Any comments regarding both you and Luigi's recent arrival on Misplaced Pages and concentration on very similar subjects may also alleviate any concerns that some suspicious minds might have regarding socking by yourselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Luigi 28 has been claiming "harassment" because DIREKTOR believes he is User:PIO. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428#Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody fancy taking a look at the contributions of Ciolone? I just undid a few - one a grammatical revert - regarding introducing "comparative sports" in articles which upon review were quite different. Does this appear to others good faith mistakes or subtle vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My invite to this party must've got lost in the post. For the benefit of 'Ciolone', I can advise him/her that DIREKTOR and I do not even live in the same country. For the benefit of Misplaced Pages, I can very confidently assert that Ciolone originates from the same hosiery factory as User:Agazio and User:Jxy, among others. Could a CU be done to resolve this urgently? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ciolone: please, don't use my name for your private issues.

For User:LessHeard vanU: my week is more than one month. Please, read better. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 harassed me, because they think I'm another one (User:PIO), and reverted many, many times my edits, without any kind of explanation. This is harassment.

For User:HandThatFeeds: the same.

For User:AlasdairGreen27: good luck.

For User:DIREKTOR: nemojte transformirati naše rasprave u borbi između Talijana i Hrvata--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Luigi 28: Speak in English or you will be blocked soon enough. It's quite clear that you are not attempting a civil discussion with DIREKTOR. Civility mean being civil, not being civil in a language than everyone here understands. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ricky81682: User:DIREKTOR is Croat and I wrote in Croatian. However, my words in English are: Do not transform our discussions in a struggle between Italians and Croats.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: I hope that words are considered sufficiently civilians.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. A thread where someone claims is being harassed and then non-English language used has a pattern of being uncivil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL --DIREKTOR 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That being said, this has GOT to be the most ridiculous report in months. Imagine: a sock and his sock reporting sockpuppetry. All concerned Admins, be advised: this is a (lousy) attempt at counter-reporting. See , this intentionally cluttered report is still awaiting Admin attention. I don't know for certain about User:Ciolone, but User:Luigi 28 is yet another sock of banned User:PIO. --DIREKTOR 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is harassment! I'm a suspected sock (and I'm not a sock!). User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits only thinking I was this User:Pio!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you may well be right, Direktor... it would definitely not be the first time it's occurred on this board. Orderinchaos 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zenanarh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
No.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by--Ciolone (talk) 13

32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Ciolone has helpfully brought himself into the limelight (I personally hadn't noticed him before he started this thread), I have opened Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (4th), and notified him of it on his talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ciolone is blocked indefinitely as a likely sock or meatpuppet of PIO. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information

I request full oversight and courtesy blanking. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed how this is resolved. The discussion seemed to be continuing. Has the editor in question been restored to previous status? I'm fine with redacting what needs redacting, but I'm not seeing why the entire thing has been blanked. I may have missed a nuance here but I read this as Filll requesting that the relevant things in the subject pages be deleted and or oversighted, not that this thread be removed.... does everyone else except me see this as "resolved"??? If so then never mind. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The thread already contained queries from third parties about a potential courtesy blanking. Honoring Filll's wishes in this regard promptly looked like the most sensible action. I'd do this for anybody. Regarding the side discussions that spawned, please restart (if necessary) in a separate thread. Durova 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We might as well take it to the Moulton subpage, Lar. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

Can someone remove the line "They are all actually giant robots made by aliens in preparation to take over the world" from the geology section of Mount Rushmore. I would, but I can't edit the page. 5:15 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming someone has provided a good reference to the effect that the Mt Rushmore statues are not, in fact, giant robots posed for global domination? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these particular cases, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the pattern here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and built a new building in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits over the past two weeks, almost two dozen edits, every single one of which has removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on a false claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, falsely claiming "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the WP:OWNership rights improperly arrogated over these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as an excuse to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively editing. In the span of two weeks, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Misplaced Pages policy nor has he added content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided is appropriate. Administrative intervention to address these issues is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a whole lot of really strange, but clearly bad-faith, editing. That's definite edit warring, though to what end, I'm not sure. Might just be an 'I'm right you're not' situation. A block should be issued, as it's clear that he will continue such editing and reversion. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well, but I will note most of them were reverting extraneous and unnecessary quotes from citations. Edit-warring over such quotes is something Alansohn is currently engaged in an Arbitration over. Neıl 龱 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a broken record - see Alansohn's last AN/I complaint, which led to no action. Repeating the same complain a week later is one thing, but if you post this yet again without noting that there is an open ArbCom case on this very subject which is close to its conclusion, and which bears remedies and findings which are relevant, then it's going to be hard to view this as anything other than shopping around for a block. MastCell  22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I might even have agreed with the snide broken record remark if it weren't for the fact that the same user has returned a week later with an additional series of reverts to the same articles, with the best and brightest excuse being that his version is "better", and done so after the evidence-gathering phase of the Arbcom case has been completed. Arbcom has baffingly chosen to ignore the footnoted quotes issue in its entirety and has decided to ignore the ample evidence of previous abusive editing by User:RedSpruce, despite the numerous examples of edit warring and incivility by RedSpruce. All that is needed is one admin who can look at this problem and come up with a solution to stopping sourced material being arbitrarily removed without coming up with rationalizations to enable the abuse -- "I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well" is an entirely unjustifiable excuse to justify deletion of dozens of edits -- and we might have a solution here. Can anyone here actually deal with this problem? Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Being blunt - Alan, you will find few, if any, editors who believe your habit of lumping extensive quotes into references is appropriate. Nobody is denying they are sourced. You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Redspruce's reversions were only because you had reinserted the unnecessary quotes. Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not, but no more or no less inappropriate than yours was. I have witnessed this from you firsthand before. Neıl 龱 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• To be absolutely blunt Neil, I think that there is a rather clear difference between editors adding sourced material to articles and editors who have decided that they will remove sourced material from articles, a distinction that few editors are unable to appreciate. I and other editors have expanded the three articles in question and added sources for statements that had none. In turn, User:RedSpruce has simply taken it upon himself to remove weeks of work. You have simply got to do better than the utterly irresponsible "Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not...". I have offered over a dozen examples of abusive edit warring by User:RedSpruce, and I challenge you to point to a single edit that I (or any other editor) has made to these articles in this period that would remotely meet even your definition of edit warring. User:RedSpruce can be stopped or he can be enabled. Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through a few articles and made several reverts. First of all, these quotes provide some essential details and therefore improve the articles. Second, this is an WP:NPA problem. People made good faith work by sourcing the articles with appropriate quotes. The justification of deletions by RedSpruce sounds unconvincing. Simply going through the articles and deleting a good faith work by others is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one hope that Alansohn keeps making these metronomic ANIs. Perhaps they will eventually lead to some admin or admins actually becoming involved and taking a good look at this issue, or even at some subset of it, looking at just the G. David Schine article, for example. The ArbCom has looked into it, but they are clearly going to decide that the issue isn't within their purview. It seems the only remedy they're certain to apply is a restriction on Alansohn for his "uncivil , personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith." That will be a start, but the major issues will be left untouched. Alansohn and his partner-in-edit-warring User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) are relentless in their defense of bad edits that they can't justify on any grounds, and boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions. RedSpruce (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an extremely rare point of agreement, I too would hope that this process would lead to appropriate admin intervention to address RedSpruce's persistent edit warring. Coming from someone whose entire edit history over the past several weeks consists of removing content and sources added to improve articles he believes he WP:OWNs, User:RedSpruce's shrill statement that I and other editors who have improved these articles are "boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions" only adds to the mounting evidence of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. If RedSpruce's comments here and multiple unjustified and arbitrary reversions are intended to be examples of good faith editing, we have a real big problem here. Neil, are you still OK with RedSpruce's actions? Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← Again, this argument (footnoted quotes) is the subject of an ArbCom case which is ready to close (there are actually enough votes to close it now). The proposed decision includes findings that Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith", and is to be subject to an editing restriction providing for blocks in the event of "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". In that context, taking this content dispute to AN/I repeatedly in an effort to have RedSpruce sanctioned, when ArbCom declined to act on these claims, is forum-shopping. Not mentioning the ongoing ArbCom case dealing with these exact issues is poor form, and sets a trap into which an unwary admin might venture. Reposting essentially the same complaint a week after failing to get the desired response is poor form. The quotes issue is a content dispute. Stop forum-shopping to get RedSpruce blocked and consider the usual means of resolving a content dispute. MastCell  17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure why "quotes in citations" is always being used as the argument. I don't think anyone is actually looking at the edits. RedSpruce was blocked once already for "edit warring" at G. David Schine for removing referenced info, and overriding consensus, not for deleting quotes. He is removing info during an active RFD, and using the summary "better". At this point his deletions have been reversed by three people. Lets look at the articles: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Elizabeth Bentley changes:
  • He removed her employer: "Academy of the Sacred Heart, Grand Coteau (1953)" from the infobox and the associated reference.
  • He removed the reference to this sentence: "Her parents were described as straight-laced old family Episcopalian New Englanders." Leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the New York Times review of a biography of her: "Galagher, Dorothy. "The Witness: Review of RED SPY QUEEN - A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley. By Kathryn S. Olmsted.", The New York Times, November 3, 2002.
• G. David Schine changes:
  • He removed the names of the children from the infobox: "children = Frederick Berndt Schine (1964-1996)
    Mark Schine (twin of Berndt)
    Vidette Schine Perry
    Kevin Schine
    Axel Schine
    Lance Schine "
  • He removes his role in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from the lede: "in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." overriding consensus on talk page, during an active RFC.
  • He removed authorlinks from citations: "|authorlink=Richard Rovere" and reverses the wikification of publishers.
  • He removed the intermediate person: "through newspaper columnist George Sokolsky" in how Schine met Cohn and the associated reference from Time magazine.
  • He removed the citation for "At one point, Cohn was reported to have threatened to "wreck the Army" if his demands were not met." leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the marriage date "On October 22, 1957," from the text of the article. And the year from the infobox.
  • He removed "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69 " "sic" from the incorrect age used by the New York Times.

Vandal account

Shawn flory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user isn't active now, but has nearly a dozen edits, all vandalism. Revelian (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'll report to AIV. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that usually work? AIV stated the user had to be active now, and the history says an admin removed the user from the list for that reason. Hence, I figured this might be the appropriate place to mention it. Is 11 (or 10 if you discount the first one) obvious vandal edits by a non-IP sufficient to be considered a vandal account? Revelian (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin was wrong to remove the name from the page. Named vandals should be blocked, regardless of when they're reported. IPs are are a different matter, since we can't guarantee they're always the same person. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Hut 8.5 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and thank you. Revelian (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (3rd)

Could an admin please look at this and make a few blocks? There seems to be a sockpuppeteer on the loose making all kinds of trouble on Kilmarnock. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO talkpage ugliness

Will an administrator check out the activities of all the new users at Talk:Unidentified flying object? There is a strong sense of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. going on. New accounts are springing up making discussions nearly impossible. We could do some checkusers or perhaps protect the page from new accounts? In any case, an experienced administrator is needed to sort things out. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Following up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/SUVx. Jehochman 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A fairly obvious swarm of sock/meatpuppets created to influence a specific debate, and clearly not new users by the contribs. The checkuser revealed that they had all used open proxies at some point, and that one account was a likely technical match for Davkal (talk · contribs), a prolific sockpuppeteer who focuses on the paranormal. I've blocked all of the accounts as sock/meatpuppets, likely of Davkal. MastCell  16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosprings user page and piracy

User:Cosprings keeps linking to blatant sources of copyvio on his user page despite being warned. The last time he was advised by an administrator here, he removed a slew of bit torrent links. I just deleted two of the music piracy blogs from his user page, but even his own personal blog ("Silentsprings, the official blog of Sybylys") is nothing but links to torrents containing complete discographies of musical artists. Someone stop this guy from flaunting his user page as a one-stop illegal download hub. Also, his personal music he's linking there is admittedly in violation of copyrights via sampling. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using Misplaced Pages as somewhat a webhost, and the history of his userpage is full of torrent links. I'll crosspost this to WP:AN/I which is probably a better venue. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPP#Cosprings user page and piracy x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was one of those who advised him to ditch the torrents in the first place, but in light of this latest info I believe more aggressive action may be appropriate. I'm tempted to MfD it, but I figure waiting for comments here first is better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the torrent links and the link to his torrenty blog. If he readds any links, I suggest a short block. Neıl 龱 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems he disagrees. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Neıl 龱 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

combination socks/recreation of deleted material/NPOV

Not sure whether this is the best pl;ace to report this, but it seems to be a combination of several different pages' problems. Over the past few days I've had to speedily delete the same template (with minor variations of name) several times, and remove it from a couple of dozen articles. Worryingly, two of the users who created the article are User:Lila2020 and User:Lila2021, about as clear a case of sockpuppeteering as you are likely to get. Talk page entries of one of these users - and one or two edit summaries and page edits from them - seem to indicate POV-pushing as well (the user is clearly strongly pro-Turkish North Cyprus, or - more specifically - anti-Greek Cyprus). Banning one or both of these user names may well simplyb see the creation of UserLila2020+n. It may be a mere coincidence, but there seem to be a lot of usernames of the form Lila+number, almost all of which have been created but are as yet unused. I could be imagining things, but this could be connected. What to do? Grutness...wha? 01:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you that the 1st two are almost definitely sockpoppets but i dont think that everyone on wikipedia with the word 'Lila' in their name is part of some massive anti-Grek conspiracy. Smith Jones (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting they were - there are certainly a lot of fine users with lila as part of their username. I am a little concerned that one or two of the others may be Lila2020/1 though. And even if they;'re not, there's definitely the possibility that if Lila2020 and lila2021 are blocked, well simply need to block a brand new Lila2022 next week. I'm just getting fed up with removing multiple-times-deleted templates from articles, is all. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is that most of the LilaNNNN ones were created over a year ago. If there are other LilaNNNN accounts created in the month of June 2008, I would recommend an RFCU to nip this in the bud as you recommend. But I didn't find any. (Lila101 (talk · contribs) was created in April of this year, that's the most recent I could find...}} --Jaysweet (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

74.4.179.205

Already blocked once this week for 3RR; seems to be angling for another block based on his harassment of 97.113.55.174 and rather uncivil vandalism (which is occurring, somewhat randomly, on my talk page). Cheers! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a further two weeks. Neıl 龱 08:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of edits by Xasha and Alex Bakharev

I have encountered major problems with Xasha constantly reverting my edits on Battle of Cahul. I call him a "Tighinaphobe" because he will do whatever he can to suppress the one of the alternative names (Tighina) of the town Bendery. Why? Presumably because Romanians use the name and Russians don't. I can't see any other reason. This just starts tensions online - not something Moldovans need. I am happy to use both names in articles (just as Moldovans and English speakers use both names), however he currently continues to edit out reference to the name Tighina on the Battle of Cahul page, despite the fact that all the other towns in the paragraph have "now called..." after their names.

He has also added me to requests for checkuser suspecting that I might be the same as "Bonaparte"; however I suspect that Xasha might actually be materialising the whole Bonaparte thing in order to stir up ethnic tensions. However Alex Bakharev keeps reverting my addition to check Xasha - the only reason I see is that they are both Russian, and I am obviously a "troll" as I don't have the privilege to have any Russian background! Rapido (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason your edits at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte have been reverted is because 1) you removed yourself from the list, which is out of process, and 2) because you added Xasha to the list, who is the reporter of the sockpuppet case, which is sort of ridiculous. If you really believe Xasha has created this entire Bonaparte thing himself (!!!), there are other channels you can use to report suspected sockpuppetry -- adding his name to a random ongoing RFCU case is not really productive. (I am not going to direct you to the channels for reporting this as per WP:BEANS -- I would strongly discourage you from pursuing this path)

Regarding the content dispute at Battle of Cahul, I am going to wait for the RFCU to come back and exonerate you of sockpuppetry before I spend any time looking at this. Please be patient. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance

Hi. Posted something on Thursday on the above which does not seem to be showing at the moment. It was a question entitled "Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem" (I believe). Would someone kindly point me in the direction of where it may be so I can check for responses. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Right here. Algebraist 09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think I got lost somewhere as I found it again just by clicking on it in my watchlist. Must just be one of those days. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User Paige p3

Paige p3 (talk · contribs) Clever vandal has Arvil Lavigne picture hidden on their talk page and has sneakily transcluded it into Template:Collapsible option plastering a huge image over any page using this template. I undid the edit. Can someone delete their talk page and block the user for blatant vandalism. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked, as yet another Avril Lavigne template vandal. Horologium (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log

Could people keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log? The following tagging and reversions have occurred so far: , , and . Discussion is taking place at the moment (see here), but it is not clear how this will turn out. Carcharoth (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category ]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".

There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).

mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.

In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.

The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.

What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy.

There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.

I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.

If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Misplaced Pages policy (except occasional loss of temper).

Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Misplaced Pages as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.

As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.

If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice

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

What's the best thing to do if a user keeps ignoring comments left on their talkpage. For instance, I'm trying to contact a user, but they are repeatedly ignoring my comments; yet responding to others. Is there anything I could attempt to do to get them to response. In my view, it's quite insulting to be ignored by others users, even if they are busy. Everyone deserves the same treatment, whether it's a two line reply or a two paragraph reply. Anyway, I'm struggling on knowing what to do as they don't reply. D.M.N. (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's restricting your ability to contribute, I'd say the best thing to do is ignore them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends immensely on context. In this case, it's kinda tough... D.M.N. had an FAC get turned down, and is contacting the closer of the FAC for more information about what needs to be improved. The closer does indeed appear to be ignoring him -- comments on the 10th, the 13th, and the 16th have gone unanswered. The closer is under no compulsion to answer, but it is a little disappointing. Maybe he doesn't remember, and he keeps thinking he is going to go back and check but keeps forgetting? I dunno. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A correction: Tony did not close this FAC (or indeed, any other one, which are all closed by Raul654 or his designated representative, SandyGeorgia). He was simply one more reviewer. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to comment regarding the specific context of this case... is there a reason there are no diffs here? It's likely because it's not an incident, and I imagine D.M.N is explicitly not trying to stir up any drama, while at the same time trying to deal with a problem. Considering we are probably a mile away from needing some sort of admin action, shouldn't this specific case be discussed somewhere like WT:FAC, where the specific issue of etiquette regarding FA rejections would be more appropriate? Any real discussion here would need diffs and mentions of user names... which would lead to that user being summoned and likely drama, although that shouldn't be happening yet as there isn't really an incident. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can provide the diffs: . D.M.N. has been courteous throughout, so I really doubt he's trying to hide anything. You're absolutely right though that this isn't an incident... Agree it's probably best to take it up at WT:FAC.

FWIW, I've been in exactly the same situation, even though I don't quite recall the details: I had a legitimate question for a long-standing high-contrib editor, and couldn't get them to respond to my note on their talk page. Maybe they didn't like the way I looked ;D Anyway, best thing to do is move on with your life and find another venue to have your concern addressed -- hence Gwynand's advice to bring it up at WT:FAC. I think that's good advice. Best of luck!! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that DMN was trying to hide any conduct. Actually was trying to say that he was trying to ask a question here in the least drama-inducing way, by not using names or diffs and making the situation more general. It's just, as I pointed out, hard to get appropriate input on a theoretical situation. If DMN agrees, we could probably mark this resolved and he could go start a thread on WT:FAC or a similar FA talk page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The person in question, Tony1 stated the article needed a copy-edit. I was hoping to get further feedback after the FAC finished by asking him. His status on his talkpage states that his real-life workload is on "2" (low), so I thought now would be the best time to ask him. And yes, I'll start up a thread at WT:FAC. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not going to take it to FAC. It's a problem with Tony I'm having as he's not commenting back, and as a result it's difficult communication. I'm thinking about taking it to WP:WQA instead. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. It's not an incident, yet at the same time it doesn't have much to do specifically with FAs, so WT:FAC wouldn't be great. It does seem to be an etiquette issue, considering you've stated you've made multiple requests to him for discussion, WQA is probably the best place. Although, I think I would first go to his page and start a thread specifically about him not responding to you and alert him that it has concerned you to the point that you want to take it to WQA. If no response after that, then go for it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done (diff located here for clarity). I've provided a link to this discussion if he wishes to comment. D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• If I were a paid employee, sure, you could gripe this this. But I'm not, and I pick and choose my activities at WP, not you, DMN. Your shrill complaints make me less inclined to lift a finger. Please don't treat me like a servant. TONY (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not treating you like a servant. I'm not complaining either, I don't know where you've got that from. All my comments have been ignored, it doesn't take much to reply in my opinion. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am boldly closing this discussion since it is not an incident, and the only purpose served in continuing this conversation on ANI would be to multiply the drama. If more needs to be said, we can discuss it either on the relevant user talk pages, or at WP:WQA. I believe both editors are acting with the best of intentions, and there is no need to turn this into a high-profile flame war. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comet (programming) attracting reverters after being ranted about in reddit.com

Someone posted a rant on reddit.com about the ongoing rewrite of Comet (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and this has attracted some vandalism as well as some tentatives to shortcut the ongoing rewrite discussion by reestablishing the old version.

For context, see

• WP:COI#Jacob Rus (User:Jacobolus) promoting his website and his friends at Comet (programming),
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#Advertisement
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#Destroy_and_rebuild
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#What_Just_Happened_Here.3F
• Talk:Comet_(programming)

Since the reverts were from Anons at first, I've asked for a semi-protection, which was declined. Anyway, not only anons are landing in the article, but long-inactive accounts as well.

Some admin overview may be good. I am repeadly re-reverting the article to the work-in-progress version, but I may be the wrongdoer on this case. Help needed. --Damiens.rf 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a Request for Comment to try to get more eyes on the article. Right now consensus is not really possible, since we have a supermajority holding a particular opinion, but that opinion that is questionable due to canvassing, conflict of interest, and a lack of experience with Misplaced Pages policies.

I am not nearly qualified to comment myself, unfortunately... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. I'll let the SME's figure out the content issues. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the issue here is not vandalism but edit-warring, I feel that full protection might be a better temporary remedy. I will apply it if there are no objections. Canderson7 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur; IP editing here isn't really the issue - Tan | 39 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between edit warring and vandalism. The reversions by the Redditers to the article's longer version are the first, but not the second. Damiens.rf, you should also be aware that you have long since passed the customary three revert limit. I think you should limit yourself to talk page discussion for the time-being. I agree with Jaysweet that an RFC would be a good way to proceed. Canderson7 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, it seems that full protection will be necessary. And maybe a rfc as well... --Damiens.rf 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement that these edits don't constitute vandalism, rather a conflict over inclusion of content versus exclusion. I'd note that while I was writing this, there have been several more reverts. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Non-admin Comment - in reviewing the discussion the consensus reached to essentially restart the article was largely based on the comments of Damiens.rf and Restepc, and largely opposed by jacobolus. Despite the appearance of this article on an external website, I think the discussion needs to be-reopened, and that the current consensus be re-evaluated. Disclosure: I am a regular editor, but became aware of this through Reddit. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course Jacob opposed the rewrite, since he single handled wrote the version that raised the WP:COI concerns. Besides him, only his co-workers from cometdaily.com came up to defend the old version (that was a huge advertisement for comet and cometdaily.com. See the first link above). --Damiens.rf 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of this “restart” however was to leave the article completely devoid of useful content for 2 weeks, with no visible rewriting occurring. I would very much appreciate renewed discussion by editors with fresh eyes. The original article has much room for improvement (most of all in increasing the number of sources), but the stubbified version is clearly unacceptable, so hopefully with new and wider attention, progress can be made by working on the page rather than blanking it. —jacobolus (t) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's much more complicated than I originally thought. (Canderson7‎ and) I've fully-protected the page for 1 week. Take to RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?

An IP marked as belonging to the Oregon Public Education Network User talk:198.237.119.80 has been the source of a lot of vandalism recently. Could an admin look into it please? Jasper33 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and ScienceApologist

After a long discussion (and much drama), I am closing a thread about Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). The result is a restriction on both editors that is intended to force them to disengage from their long-running dispute, by specifically sanctioning certain problematic actions. It would be sincerely appreciated if a few uninvolved administrators could provide a cluecheck for the resolution, and indeed it's almost certainly needed. See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated attempt to reveal personal information

Could an administrator please remove the thread , and protect the page of this blocked editor? He has been warned about this repeatedly but still persists.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? isn't this the matter above that just got blanked out at your request? Is the matter resolved or not? I'm confused at what is going on here. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This complaint is unclear to those of us who are not familiar with it's context. Please give more background (including diffs). Also, if you are looking for oversight you need to follow the directions at the top of this page and not post here. --Selket 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the user pages, subpages and user talk page of this blocked and banned user. I've protected the user and user talk pages to prevent recreation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you review all the discussion that went beforehand before you did so? However at this time, given that this user reposted some things that (tangentially) revealed information about an editor who does not want that information revealed, after he was expressly counseled in no uncertain terms not to do that, regardless of whether he thought it was warranted or not, without first seeking advice about it, I think this user just does not get it. It's not an honest mistake any more, it's stubbornness. The matter needs addressing in a different manner than he was using. Support the reblank/reprotect. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry it came to this. This user seems to want to flout the rules of Misplaced Pages over and over. They might be stupid and unproductive rules in many cases, and they might need to be changed, but the answer is not to break them over and over and over. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can see, it was one edit Moulton made, linking to a rename log. He didn't exactly use the name again, and he even seems to have provided the link in some unicode babble, but if you followed the link he provided, you could still see the name in the logs. This does directly contravene what Lar told him not to do, though ironically, Lar did something similar himself earlier. The difference is that Lar hadn't been told explicitly not to do this, and Moulton had. When you are near a cliff edge, you don't skip along looking up at the sky. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Though on closer examination, it seems Filll had more problems with a different section on Moulto's talk page (called "Outing others") where Moulton republished the descriptions of e-mail conversations that had been at User talk:Moulton/Answers, but replaced John Doe with J...D... ie. he refactored it all. One thing I would say about all this, is that people who use their real name off-wiki when talking or e-mailing others about Misplaced Pages articles and Misplaced Pages editing, are asking for trouble. You just can't trust everyone to keep things confidential. If you don't want your name to be known on Misplaced Pages, don't use it off-wiki in such a way that it gets connected to, or can be connected to, your on-wiki activities. Keep things separated as far as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If this is true, that Filll used his real name in e-mail communications, then he self-disclosed. Moulton is under no obligation to keep self-disclosures a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a big difference: Filll has never used his real name onsite. I checked this out under similar circumstances long ago: the Foundation privacy policy still applies. Durova 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The discussions on User_talk:Moulton are relevant to an ongoing RfC ("Intelligent design"), and some of the evidence at the RfC is now redlinked. Shouldn't the page be oversighted instead? Gnixon (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no need to delete all 759 edits. Some of the discussion there is relevant to things being discussed elsewhere. We don't simply delete all of a talk page because the user is indefinitely blocked or because a recent edit is problematic. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Undelete those pages at once Toddst1. There are important conversations going on and you have no grounds to do this. I think it is Filll who does not get it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, please calm down. We have five separate actions by Moulton which violate the policy on harassment. Just an hour after Lar gave him very comprehensive advice regarding the issue, Moulton was back at it again. Saying "it is Filll who does not get it" really makes me wonder. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, there had been personal info in this user's subpages discussed recently here, which is why I went ahead and deleted this indefinitely blocked user's files.

From the look of what Lar wrote it would appear that he is talking about Moulton and not Filll. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to reverse anything I've done, but this is a pretty complex issue and I'm not sure restoring all those files are the right answer. We've got to balance protecting privacy, a highly disruptive editor and the ongoing needs of the discussion. Can someone clue me in to which files should be restored? Is it just the talk or is it the archives as well? Then we can look to see if there is personal info there.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I've restored most of the previous edits. If reversion is required, then please do so. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively if another admin has more context than me here, please go ahead and restore the appropriate files. No ego at stake here for me (at least in this case 8-). Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The privacy issue takes priority. Resolving that in a way that intrudes minimally on other matters is fine, as long as the privacy is adequately addressed. Durova 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)