Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 30 June 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

User Karabinier

• The report I put in copyright violations page: Article Estonia - User Karabinier (talk · contribs) is found to repeatedly reinsert large sections 100% copied from non-free sources, some of copyright violations summarized in this warning. He has been given warnings at least 5-10 times, including warnings in the article talk page and user talk page that repeated reinserting is considered vandalism. The last warning was given in this post after which he immediately reinserted violations. He has made non-violating contributions so I suggest not to give a permanent ban, but some temporary ban recommended by Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems (17 United States Code 512) policy might do good.
• I also point out that he is hardly participating in the talk page and repeatedly goes deleting content. Again, he has received multiple warnings.
• Could someone take appropriate action with temporary ban or inform how to proceed with him?

Turkuun (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier's talk page is full of warnings about blatant copyright violations and the few sections I checked in Military of Estonia support the concern that too many of his contributions arecopy&paste and non-free images. Another his article, Military of Estonia is a compilation of copy&paste from this page. Could someone remove those violations? Is there some automatic tool to check for copy&paste? Turkuun (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this fairly closely. It seems the copyright issues only concerns a few paragraphs, however facts and figures published by Estonian government websites is public domain under Estonian copyright law. In any case the correct response would be to re-write the paragraph in your own words, rather than deletion. However Turkuun has been massively restructuring the article, removing subsection titles, moving paragraphs around mixing it up. I tried to restore some logical structure but he again merged and mixed many of the sections . Others are not convinced that Turkuun's edits are moving the article in a positive direction and his attitude seems to be excessively combative and confrontational. The end result is that the Estonia article is being excessively churned. The best response here is to fully protect the article for a week so that some concensus on article structure can be arrived at on the talk page before any major changes. Martintg (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the copyright violating section (the source says it's license is free for non-commercial use only, so one can't copypaste text from there) and restored deleted paragraphs you deleted. Estonian copyright law states that court decisions and administrative documents (and transcripts) are public domain, which probably means that websites are not under public license. The burden of proof is on the one who copypasted them into the article. Karabinier reverted his copyrights violations quite many times before I had to become confrontational enough to find some administrator.Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems Turkuun has also been massively restructuring the Finland article as well Talk:Finland#Article_hijacked_by_non-NPOV_problem_user_.22Turkuun.22, upsetting quite a few people in the process. Given that Turkuun has joined Misplaced Pages in April 2008 with only 500 edits to date, it seems remarkable that he was so quick to know how to use the various boards here and exploit a relatively minor copyvio issue in a way that preserved his version of the article. Could he be a sock puppet of some banned user, someone like User:Petri Krohn for example? Martintg (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright problem does not disappear anywhere by accusing other users. I have always asked contributors for consensus process, and as you can read in the Estonia talk page, Karabinier has hardly responded there, except for accusing me for being "inaccurate". I have considerately provided well-references numbers, such as the fact that oil shale makes only 1% of Estonian GDP, and neither you or Karabinier has contested these in any other way than deleting them. Oh, and please look at articles Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, and Lithuania if you seek to make a personal attack. Otherwise I propose energies are directed on making Estonia better. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the next time this user uploads something that violates copyright laws he should be blocked. On June 27th he received a , which states that if he makes another disruptive edit he'll be blocked. Also, in the past he has been warned many times about not uploading images with copyrights. He is clearly well aware that it is against wikipedias rules to upload copyrighted images. Also, he should probably be blocked for a fairly long period of time. He has been blocked in the past, so he's a repeat violator of wikipedias policies, and some of his edits break laws, so what he is doing is serious.--SJP (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no more copyright issues in the out pointed articles provided by Turkuun:

• like this 100% ripoff from riikogu.ee (riikogu.ee content might be public domain, but no such claim is found): The Riigikogu elects and appoints several high officials of the state, including the President of the Republic. In addition to that, the Riigikogu appoints, on the proposal of the President of Estonia, the Chairman of the National Court, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, the Auditor General, the Legal Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces. A member of the Riigikogu has the right to demand explanations from the Government of the Republic and its members. This enables the members of the parliament to observe the activities of the executive power and the abovementioned high officials of the state.
• like this 100% ripoff from mil.ee: The national defence policy aims to guarantee the preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the state, the integrity of its land area, territorial waters and airspace and its constitutional order. Its main goals remain the development and maintenance of a credible capability to defend the nation's vital interests and development of the Defence Forces in a way that ensures their interoperability with the armed forces of NATO and European Union member states and their capability to participate in the full range of Alliance missions.
• like this 100% ripoff from ria.ee: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. Currently the leading organization in the Estonian cyber defence is the CERT (the Computer Emergency Response Team of Estonia), established in 2006, as an organisation responsible for the management of security incidents in .ee computer networks. Its task is to assist Estonian internet users in the implementation of preventive measures in order to reduce possible damage from security incidents and to help them in responding to security threats. The unit deals with security incidents that occur in Estonian networks, are started there, or have been notified of by citizens or institutions either in Estonia or abroad.

Karabinier (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, it would be a shame to lose so much good material. Do you have a proof that they are public domain? Where can we find it? Also, Military of Estonia and Maavägi are your copypaste from mil.ee websites so this affects on those articles as well.Turkuun (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction to what Martintg claimed above: content of Estonian government websites is not automatically in the public domain according to Estonian copyright law. Similar to many other European states, Estonia exempts only :

1. legislation and administrative documents (acts, decrees, regulations, statutes, instructions, directives) and official translations thereof;
2. court decisions and official translations thereof;
3. official symbols of the state and insignia of organisations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.);

A government website is not an "administrative document". This applies both to text copypasted from such site, and to images. They must be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian Copyright Act exempts also

1. news of the day; and
2. facts and data;

so it is not so clear cut. Government websites publish press releases as well as facts and data. Martintg (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority of the text has been already removed. At the moment I am afraid there is some Copyright paranoia going on. There is one section - transportation which needs still a little clean up from the issued text. This i will do in few hours. Karabinier (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remind that there are copyright violations also in Military of Estonia, Maavägi (both copypaste from mil.ee), and perhaps other articles.Turkuun (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is www.mil.ee a literary or artistic work, or a publication of government facts and data? The issue becomes one of plagiarism, not copyright, the solution is to rewrite it in ones own words or properly attribute it, not deletion.

For example, the alleged copyright infringement cited by Turkuun: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. This qualifies as "news of the day" and as a "fact" under Estonian copyright law. Martintg (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse using socks to circumvent todays 48h block URGENT

• User:Ronpillao is one of the many socks of User:Generalmesse, who was blocked today for insults, 3RR violation and socket puppetry. User:Ronpillao was 6 months dormant, comes back to life today and continues the exact same nationalist propaganda crusade of User:Generalmesse. examples: Generalmesse edit and a Ronpillao edit. He even uses the same edit summaries: example Ronpillao example Generalmesse. I suggest: Block Ronpillao, extend block of User:Generalmesse (who is actually one of the many socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove and semiprotect First Battle of El Alamein, thanks, --noclador (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ENDORSE Editor is now destructively editing articles including GADA 601 and Goose Green, some of the few examples of British and Argentine editors working constructively on Falklands War topics, as well as articles related to the North African campaigns. Justin talk 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked Ronpillao 24 hours for 3RR at First Battle of El Alamein. Editors who have knowledge of this case are urged to add more data at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. If a strong behavioral case for sockpuppetry can be made there it could justify longer blocks for some of the listed accounts. Not all of those accounts are currently active, and I don't see any bad edits at Goose Green. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where are the admins??? No one intervenes while User:Generalmesse now uses User:Saintsarecomingthrough () to go on were User:Ronpillao ()left off before he was blocked for 3RR. It is time to: Block all the socks! extend block of User:Generalmesse (who is actually one of the many socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove and semiprotect First Battle of El Alamein. This is urgent as this destructive behaviour goes on for a week now! --noclador (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 72 hours, and suggest a semi-protect when that expires. I have indef blocked Saintsarecomingthrough, and upped Generalmesse's block to 1 month. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Kudos to the admin who has protected the page, I was just preparing a report for a page protection request. The rapid response is appreciated. Justin talk 09:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For any admin watching this, list of suspected sock puppets is here Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd, I've just added user:Topmalohouse that has been used to canvass none-involved editors over night. I suspect this editor will have many more in reserve. Justin talk 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy boy, another suspected sockpuppet user:Historyneverrepeats Justin talk 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an edit summary, User:Saintsarecomingthrough announced his intention to recruit meatpuppets from the comandosupremo forum. I looked at the forums at http://comandosupremo.com but did find any recruiting post. Also, that web site appears fairly serious, so he might not have had any success.
  • I indef'd partly on the publicly announced intent to recruit, rather than any success in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• As to whether User:Historyneverrepeats could be a sock, he appears to a be a bona-fide long-time contributor and I didn't see him making any abusive edits. It also seems that User:Topmalohouse is a regular editor who works on Italian military history. In this comment he identifies himself as David Aldea. An author by that name has published a book about the Falklands War. How we managed to get an edit war involving both El Alamein and the Falklands is still a mystery. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Except that on User talk:DagosNavy#==porfavor DagosNavy ayudanos--nosotros de sangre italiana-- en la pagina de la Primera Batalla de Alamein those two editors are urging User:DagosNavy to help him out on First battle of El Alamein. Which was pointed out in the evidence at WP:SSP. And for the record I've worked with User:DagosNavy on a couple of Falklands related articles and I do not think for one second that he is in anyway a meatpuppet of User:Generalmesse, just an innocent caught in the crossfire. I've also already explained that User:Generalmesse makes the link because he posted that he had a mission to clear the image of the Argentines as "poor fighters". Also, could someone have a look at the comment posted in the conclusion and tell me what they think User:Steel means? The first time I read it, it did not come across well and I'm still not sure if it means that no action is going to be taken. Justin talk 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• To User:EdJohnston: re. User:Historyneverrepeats "a bona-fide long-time contributor" 14 edits in a year??? and in his last edit he says that he was: "usando el nombre "generalmesse"" - using the name "generalmesse" to edit the articles: Siege of Tobruk and Operation Husky. re. User:Topmalohouse "a regular editor" with just 6 (!!!) edits??? in his last 2 edits (a whooping 33% of his total!) he complains that he can not add his imagination (or disillusion) of a never happened "gran victoria terrestre italiana" (great Italian victory) and that I'm not letting him add his stuff - well his stuff is fabricated exaggerations and/or blatant lies that were broadcast by Radio Rome or Radio Berlin during WWII and he wants to add them because those two are very neutral and reputable sources (for him)... Sorry, User:EdJohnston but you did a less than stellar work checking up on this two "users". --noclador (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that Historyneverrepeats and Topmalohouse are socks; more details at User talk:EdJohnston#re. User:Generalmesse. I suggest that any further discussion should continue at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention to organized disruptive gangs

I was editing the CPI(M) and I observed that there were a number of people who would just blank or delete my well referenced and relevant sections on frivelous reasons. I would just undo the delete but then another user would come and delete it. Within a short time and after three reverts I would become liable to breaking the three revert rule or I just had to wait for another day to restore the ruthless delete. It was frustating because I was a single person fighting against a group. Initially I thought it was edit war and a number of people were just protective of an ideology. I looked into the history of the page which goes over three years, I was shocked and horrified to see what has been happening here. It is not just edit war but a well planned an organized ploy. Many users before me had their well written and relevant sections deleted and in frustation they either stopped contributing or got banned for violating the three revert rules.

This has not just been happening on the CPI(M) site but also on most of the other articles on Indian political parties and groups. As a result if you see most of the articles on Indian political parties look onesided and have lost the NPOV therefore compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages articles.

I am therefore requesting you to investigate and see for your self the disruptive pattern. And since many contributers have been banned I suspect some adminstrators are also involved.

I will not be surprised if i also get banned for raising this issue. So far despite many request for investigation I have been asked to take the matter to Dispute Resolution which cannot provide resolution to the problem I face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FYI - Concerning Sindhian's edits to CPI (M) please see, Sindhian's edits and 'Accusations and Controversies' chapter. This is a continious discussion on Sindhian's recent edits and their problamatic nature. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysweet has volunteered to look over the edit history of the article, starting in a couple of days time. In the meantime I am getting tired of seeing Sindhian bringing up this matter on yet another forum. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sindhian, I have briefly looked at the edits in question, and while some of the information is sourced and relevant, the general tone is inappropriate and I have serious questions about some of the sources. Also, I am beginning to agree with Soman (talk · contribs) and others that a separate "allegations" section may not be appropriate for a political party.

At this point, you will either have to:

1. Educate yourself further on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, in order to understand why your additions will need to be rephrased/reorganized/scaled back;
2. Find another unbiased editor who is willing to assist your; or
3. Wait until Monday.

Further forum-shopping will reflect very poorly on you and your proposed changes. I trust you'll refrain from that in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was having a feeling that Jaysweet is the leader of this diruptive gang but was not sure so far but now it seems obvious. Another thing I want to get investigated is how many editors who have contributed on CPI(M) website were banned and what was the role of Jaysweet in thatSindhian (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how to blow your chances of credibility in 53 words of moronic paranoia... I am now officially Not Bothered in helping this pillock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the wiki pages of other political parties of US, Europe and realized that contraversies are generally not mentioned. It seems to be a non-written Wiki rule and as a result I will withdraw my section on CPI(M) completly. Based on this reality I also realize that I have gone overboard in my suspicion about Jaysweet. My sincere apologies. I would like to withdraw that comment. unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk Sindhian (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Jaysweet is sufficiently robust enough to continue to assist as he had previously indicated, and especially in lieu of the withdrawal of the comment. I am now officially again bothered enough to assist if required. I also apologise for and withdraw the pillock comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Calling other editors "leaders of a disruptive gang" is far from appropriate and does not facilitate constructive editing. This subject has been reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as well. I would ask for his editing history to be reviewed - but I believe that his comments above accusing Jaysweet of leading a disruptive gang is enough information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect-philic user

User:Mac has been creating a bunch redirects that seem to be unnecessary. (Clean Car Challenge and Strategic Energy Technologies seem not worthy of redirects to U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids and Energy policy of the European Union respectively.) Can someone with the tools and knowledge see which redirects need to be deleted and do so? I have also warned the user about not creating links in pages that go to themselves... Brusegadi (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and PHEV redirect to the same page. Do they give fundamental value to the article. Yes and no. No because it is a redirect to a page with no adittional information. And yes because when I write PHEV I go to he right page to see the information I was looking for. In any case, the Clean Car Challenge can become a major and article in the future when more measures are proposed out of the campaign. On the other hand, more information about the European Union Strategic Energy Technology Plan : http://www.eubusiness.com/Energy/strategic-energy.02, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/EU-Strategic-Energy-Plan-071122 (this is a criticism), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/com_2007/com_2007_0723_en.pdf (this is included in the GHG emission control and elimination and energy policies in the European Union) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The clean car challenge was a major announcement by John McCain about specifically plug in hybrid cars, and Strategic Energy Technologies seems to come up whenever European matters are discussed on C-SPAN (yes, i really do watch it, im a nerd). The redirects seem to make sense (at least the 2 you linked). -M 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both of the redirects mentioned seem to have context within the pages they lead to. This might be more appropriate for WP:RFD. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already warned Mac about this as well: and . Mac creates redirects to articles using POV terms he/she seems to endorse, and then insert links to those redirects in various articles. Half the time, the link redirects to the very page the link is on. Mac's answer the first time was that "Rome was not built in a day." NJGW (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the redirects are now full and independent pages that used the {{Rhere}} template. Other articles begun as stubs. Do you think stubs would disappear from Misplaced Pages ?. This is an encyclopedia killing error.--Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they seemed unrelated. I feel ignorant now ): Ill try to watch C-span! My apologies. Brusegadi (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why ?. It was only an affair read a little more the article  ;-) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems Mac is not going to comment until he/she comes back (hasn't edited since 6/27, so maybe tomorrow). In the meanwhile, any suggestions on how to handle future redirect issues? In the past Mac has ignored the issue (there's a thread from Feb. '08 on Mac's talk page that is about redirect problems as well). NJGW (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a suggestion really established by Misplaced Pages: {{Rhere}} is an old and well established template that one can use to improve the encyclopedia. --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Article hijacked by non-NPOV problem user Turkuun again

I have noticed that the eser Turkuun (talk · contribs) is trying to repeat the user case of Finland where numerous fellow editors found mistakes and violations in his edits - regarding the economy and politics. A quote from the case: The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Having presented the not so old case I am afraid that this is happening in Estonia article as well. He has been given warnings including warnings in the article talk page and user talk page that repeated reinserting is considered vandalism. The last warning was given in this post after which he immediately reinserted his version which has not gained any approval by the majority as the edits have a massive impact against the hole article. As he has made violating contributions before - see the Finland case - and now again, I would suggest to give him a ban in certain articles in order to avoid such problems in the future. It seems to me that this user is not willing to cooperate and with other editors and refuses to contribute in the article without having to rewrite and restructure the hole article. I have been almost 3,000 various edits in contributing to various article with one aim only and only - to improve them. I have never added any text onto the Estonia article which could be regarded as vandalism or anti-Estonian. Karabinier (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs? The above is not a diff, but a version. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, the previous version has the structure:

• • Economy
• Resources
• Infrastructure
• Industry and environment
• Trade and investment

• • Society
• Education
• Science and infotechnology

Turkuun version has only:

• • Economy
• Overview of economic sectors
• Trade
• Infrastructure

The user Turkuun has removed lots of data - entire chapters and sections - which are important to the article - as society and economy are far too complexed and can not be said in just few statistical sentences as he has done so far. Also he has not introduced his position in the terms of the society chapter deletion what so ever.

The texts provided in the sections do now create an overview about the countries economy. For example: Turkuuns:

• Overview of economic sectors

The 20 most valuable companies based on 2007 profit estimates by GILD are: Hansapank, Eesti Energia, SEB Eesti Ühispank, Eesti Telekom, Tallink Grupp, Olympic Entertainment Group, Tallinna Sadam, Tele2 Eesti, Sampo Pank, Tallinna Kaubamaja, Merko Grupp, BLRT Grupp, Elisa, Tallinna Vesi, Transgroup Invest, Eesti Raudtee, Kunda Nordic Tsement, Viru Keemia Grupp, Falck Baltics, and Pro Kapital Grupp. In terms of 2003 sales, the 20 largest companies included Kesko Food, Stora Enso Timbe, EMT, Elion Ettevõtted, Eesti Põlevkivi, Silberauto, Toyota Baltic, Eesti Statoil, Rakvere Lihakombinaat, Lukoil Eesti, Kreenholmi Valduse, and Eesti Gaas. Estonian Institute of Economic Research publishes top company awards in various categories, where Estonian small and medium size companies take many top positions. How is this related with the economy introduction - this is just a rip off from 2003 not 2007 Baltic Business news webpage Also there are data which has fact errors or is inaccurate as this is just a list of different companies of which some do not exist under the old name - for example SEB Eesti Ühispank - which was transferred to SEB. Also Hansapank name is to be changed in 2008.

• Estonia is ranked 21th of 121 countries in the Capital Access Index 2005 by Milken Institute, outperforming Austria and Italy among others. These figures are already old - 2005. Estonia was placed into 10th position lately - Postimees article about an american economy journal Forbes: Estonia was placed to 10th position in the terms of good economical climate

Karabinier (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great that you point out that the SEB Eesti Uhispank is old name, but remember, the article correctly only states that these were among the top 20 in 2003 and claims nothing about today. If you think introducing important companies is not essential at all, be bold and remove the list, but remember that Misplaced Pages provides references not original research. It remains somewhat unclear, however, what is that you are exactly saying here? Could you concisely summarize your point?Turkuun (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of a logic introduction of the economy you just added endless line of company names which tells relatively few words for a reader who is about to read about a country he or she has never heard of. Your idea of starting a nation article economy section with a endless line of different companies is confusing and not good at all. This article is not a sandbox where to test every great idea one may have.

Would you care to comment the Finland article case where you have also achieved quite "good" reputation with radical edits and statements? Karabinier (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance, top companies show that there are plenty of companies related to Estonia's petrochemical transit trade. But then again, I or anyone else does not seem to be against removing it! If you find econometrics or economic rankings "radical", improve the article! It would be considerate if you sometimes replied to questions about what is your point? If some number is two years old and you find an updated source, I doubt any editor is against updating it?

You copypasted a half article from non-free sources, and you seem to be offended that it was found and reported by me. That's why I recommend that you put your efforts on contributing free text&images from the beginning. You have done wonderful work on Estonia article and I'm sure all editors hope to see you continue with correctly licensed material. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I also found numerous non-free article rip-offs from your version - taken from the webpages of which you seemed to have placed as the only grale of the economy section updating. Karabinier (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:72.75.24.245 and 3RR

This user has 4 time deleted/reverted statement confirmed with internet link in article Magnum Crimen:

• 28 June 16:44
• 28 June 18:43
• 28 June 22:46
• 28 June 22:58

It is possible to notice that user AlasdairGreen27 has rewriten article trying to find compromise but User:72.75.24.245 is again and again deleting link http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral240.html. All in all in less of 7 hourse he is edit warring in this article against 5 different editors which is in my thinking close to record.--Rjecina (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment needs to go on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. A warning about edit warning should been given first. --neon white talk 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: I've placed a 3RR warning on the user talk page at 00:33, 29 June 2008. I suggest that if the user reverts again after that warning, you report it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as Neon white suggested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • In my thinking warning has not been needed because he has been warned many times by other editors before about unconstructive edits POV editing vandalism and other stuff . My mistake --Rjecina (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • All above consists only false accusations - I was removing baseless and false disqualifications of this book by the people who never read this book. Also It is visible that the above does not create 3RR case due to the fact that there was a productive edit in meantime - I've added valid reference - the book title, author, publisher and stub tag. Moreover all above is an orchestrated harassment.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dem1970: Legal Threat

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (on Dem1970 Talk)

The article at issue is Steve Windom.

My most recent edit to the article is Steve Windom(version).

Dem1970 has made a threat of legal action ("If you continue to defame people online, the proper authorities will be notified.") at my Talk page, User Talk: Audemus Defendere.

Dem1970, who has never made an edit other than to the subject article (and my Talk), has made several edits to the page over the last 72 hours, removing material I had added. These culminated in a mass deletion of material at Steve Windom (version).

If you will review the talk page on the article, you can see where I have tried to get Dem1970 to work with me on accurate, balanced NPOV language, without success. I have placed a WP:3R warning on Dem1970's talk page. This is an NLT complaint, not an effort to get an Admin into an edit war (which I am trying to avoid), but the background may be useful.

And FTR, about Dem1970’s invocation of “privacy.” The subject of the article is a former Lt. Governor, who ran for Governor. As the cited news stories indicate, the controversy was the subject of dozens of newspaper and TV reports. “Privacy” is hardly an issue. I also wrestled with the language of my last edit to get NPOV, and was careful not to inhale without a cite to a major Alabama daily newspaper.

Dem1970 also made similar comments, describing my additions as defamatory, after creating my user page, which I had not previously desired to have created, see WP:UP#OWN. The page was deleted at my request by Admin Athaenara at 03:44, 29 June 2008.

Thanks guys, and sorry to have to bother you! Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it may be the article's subject; this is a delicate situation, and should be handled with care. At the moment, I've invited Dem1970 to join us in discussion on the article's talk page, and will shortly be cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. Will try to keep an eye on things, from here. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope he joins us there; my luck on that has been spotty. And I, too, am wondering if it's the subject. If not, he/she has a copyright issue with the photo from the subject's website. (see Talk). Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Luna, all evidence points to Dem1970 being a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the article nonetheless does have some problems. In particularly the video capture there is probably inappropriate . DGG (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Misplaced Pages and my account is not single purpose. I am not a programmer and am learning the rules still! I did not mean to create a page for Audemus; I was trying to leave a comment on his talk page and put it in the wrong place. I was also not making a legal threat and have clarified that sentence...proper authority = Misplaced Pages Admin. I am a Democrat who is offended by Audemus' original edits (i.e., hacket jobs) on a number of Republican candidates. Many of those have also been fixed by others before I needed to jump in. I have written more on the specific talk page at issue but hope Audemus' overemphasis of certain events and clear bias against the subjects ends here. Best,Dem1970 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to report, Dem1970 is on the Talk page of the subject article. Now that he's there (how sexist of me to presume "he"), I have tried to set out the outstanding issues as I see them, for those with an adequate supply of coffee. Everyone jump in and let's see what happens. We do have some additional editors jumping in rather than talking, including one with a bare IP address and no other contribs.

Ottava, I hope you were wrong. Let's see.

And DGG, the topic may be hard to understate. If you read the pertinent part of my Talk, you'll see the "jug" deal may have cost the subject the 2002 Governor's race. And it's not like the desk wasn't blocking the view in the pic. :-) Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

IP making legal threat?

Is this a legal threat? If so, I think a short-term block will need to be imposed per WP:LEGAL. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a legal threat. The last line confirms it isn't as a joke or anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. MaxSem 09:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I get scared when people threaten to sue me in a sentence that includes the words "CHANGEING" and "INFORMOTION"... someone remind me to not let him anywhere near copyediting, please... Alex Muller 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a joke. Why would Vicent Kennedy McMahon Jr., aka Vince McMahon, care about a Misplaced Pages page? Just block the IP over vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brechin High School

User Jansennricardo has recently created the page Brechin High School. He started the page with school teachers included. This was removed by myself as WP:WPSCH suggests that this should not be included. Since then he's continuely re-inserted such lists despite them continuely being removed by myself and another user. Both myself and the other user have tried to contact Jansennricardo through his Talk Page here, the article talk page here and indeed with inline comments on the page source all to no avail. He has been editing with multiple small edits so it's probably best to look at the page's history to see the pattern. I accept there will be differences in opinion about what should be included but his refusal to talk to other editors about it means I feel something needs to be done. At the moment he's not guilty of breaking the three revert rule as recently they've not been in 24 hours. He has been guilty of breaking the three revert rule in the past but as there had been no warning I did not report them for it (warning has now been given). Ideally I'd be after a user block or page protection (without the teacher information) as an administrator feels is most appropiate. Brought this here as not sure where else to take it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this, he appears to be a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a final request to collaborate, otherwise I'm tempted to instate a short block just to attract his attention. MaxSem 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he's at it again. List of teachers is back. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International Talk Page

What a mess, I am getting fed up trying to be constructive.

See 'The Rotarian Affair' at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bradipus

and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rotary_International/Archive_3#Protected

for some history.

See Talk:Rotary_International and it's history for the mess that has been made in the last 14 hours!

I hope you can see a way to fix it..... thanks. Ariconte (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this on WP:AN last night; at present, the talk page is semiprotected to save the editors being attacked the stress of dealing with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent harassment, false accusations and incivility even after multiple warning received

Rjecina is constantly engaged into incivility, false accusations, and harassment against me for more than two months. He continually reverts all my edits calling me a sockpuppet of some banned user. He requested the checkuser against me - which rejected Rjecina's accusations - see .

Furthermore, administrator Mangojuice responded to Rjecina's accusations here saying

Furthermore, WP:AGF dictates that, given the checkuser results, we assume this is not the same user. Being from the same city is not misbehavior.

About this man harassing behavior - warned another administrator, Barneca here

But I have no special knowledge about what's going on in those articles; all I see, frankly, is you and Rjecina reverting anyone who disagrees with you as a "sockpuppet of JAComment". I'm just not going to take you word for it, especially after only three edits that don't look bad to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here ,

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies (). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Rjecina keeps reverting my changes under accusation as if I were a banned user. See , , , , , ,

Rjecina was warned by other user - see Rjecina talk page

Please, take proper administrative actions against Rjecina and his blatant violations of the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this from the top of this page where it was posted to the bottom for greater attention. Please be aware that this thread is related to the above Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:72.75.24.245_and_3RR. I have also notified Rjecina about this thread. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Long comment by barneca

Since I've been mentioned by IP 72.75... as someone defending him, I'll chime in here. I'm not very active right now, and in a few days I'll be out of the country for 2.5 weeks and completely unavailable, so I apologize in advance for the disorganized brain dump here. If needed, please ask me for clarification soon, so I can reply before I leave.

• Above, IP 72.75... is taking my comments out of context. I said that to User:Mendaliv in response to his request that I block User:Brzica milos etc as a sock of the at-the-time blocked User:J. A. Comment and the IP. Please see my entire response here: . I declined to block mainly because I was not convinced Brzica milos etc was the same person as J. A. Comment and the IP; since the IP has tacitly acknowledged above that it is the same person, I think this helps prove Mendaliv's point.
• I originally blocked IP 72.75... as a sock of J.A. Comment, used to avoid a block. When User:Mangojuice unblocked J.A. Comment, I then unblocked the IP, as there was no longer a justification for blocking. However I remain convinced (based on editing pattern, reading between the lines of the Checkuser, and actually their comments above) that the same person is behind J. A. Comment, the IP (and many more in the same range), and (now) Brzica milos etc as well.
• There is an accusation that this person is also User:Velebit. I believe this is likely, but haven't seen enough info to be positive, and don't have the time to research it myself. Please, someone familiar with this, supply the links to the multiple WP:SSP and WP:RFCU pages that apply here, which I should do but just can't right now.
• There have been a couple of checkusers done on Velebit and J. A. Comment and the IP range. The IP editor has taken the results as a vidication; however, I'm pretty sure the actual result is "nothing can be proved", not "the IP is vindicated". I apologize, hopefully someone can supply links to the checkuser page in question, I need to wrap this up and go.
• Until there is a decision somewhere that the user behind these accounts is also Velebit, I think the reversion of all their edits by Rjecina and Mendaliv based solely on the assumption that they are a banned editor should stop. For now, argue the merits of the edits, not the presumed identity of the editor.
• Summary: I strongly urge User:Rjecina, User:Mendaliv, and (I think, from seeing a comment somewhere that I can't find now) User:DIREKTOR to get all their ducks in a row, and prepare a fresh WP:SSP report, with all of their evidence and diffs organized, and settle this once and for all. Personally, I believe them, but at this stage all they're doing is reverting people as "sockpuppet of banned user", with no proof, and I don't think the case is obvious enough to keep doing that. Due to conflicting admin actions on this, an unclear CU report, and the fact that this is another one of those nationalist-POV wars that is so convoluted and so damaging, I strongly feel that this needs a fresh review, with all cards laid out on the table, and a definitive discussion and resolution.

--barneca (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I live in a democratic and free country, which I am a citizen (USA), which credo is that anyone is innocent until proven guilty! The comment above is just denial that very basic human right. I am persistently marked as a guilty party with no proof - a way used to excuse the reverts of anything what is not to User:Rjecina and Co liking. I already told it to barneca that I'd like to be judged only by the quality of my contributions to Misplaced Pages. What he proposed above - is a sort of witch hunt. No one (User:Rjecina especially) can be absolved this way as barneca proposed. That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here ,

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies (). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • As to the WP:DUCK I hope that barneca is familiar with the fact that WP:DUCK is not a part of the official Misplaced Pages policy:

• • This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but in order to prove you are guilty, evidence is given. That is what Barneca is doing. He is also clarifying his statements and explaining his actions. Bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" is completely illogical and has utterly no bearing on these proceedings.

   Evidence is not given nor it exists - doubts and accusations are not evidence. J.A.Comment is absolved of any guilt but - here are claims that I am this user puppet! So - the 'evidence' is already rejected and that fact must be respected fully. Repeating accusations that are rejected consists a clear case of abusive behavior.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Yes WP:DUCK is an essay, but stating that also has utterly no bearing on these proceedings. What Barneca is saying there is that since your editing patterns are so similar to the other guy's, there is little reason to believe that you are not the same person. WP:DUCK basically says that if something quacks, there is no logical reason not to believe it is a duck.

   Which 'patterns' you do see - may ask you? Are you User:Rjecina alter ego? I see the same pattern of behavior followed by both of you. Also, bear in mind that some 'patterns' are already rejected as a proof of guilt - see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy_adds 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

72.75.24.245, could you please stop interleaving your comments with other people's comments? It makes the whole thread difficult to follow, and in the previous case it broke the formatting of J.delanoy's comment and I had to go in and reformat it. Please leave new comments at the bottom. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not originally going to get involved with this, I was only pointing out that two of your arguments do not pertain particularly well to this situation. However, I took the liberty of following the link you gave me, and what I saw is very interesting.

I would like you to answer this question, please: Why did you, on this page, (where you are trying to prove that you are not related to J. A. Comment) use almost the exact words and style that J. A. Comment did in his unblock request? J.delanoy_adds

Also, 72.75, above you say "He requested the checkuser against me" (emphasis mine), and link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment. So, which of the editors in that RFCU are you admitting to being? Never mind, rhetorical question. There is really no doubt you are J. A. Comment; that whole issue is a red herring. The question is, are you also Velebit and all of his numerous sock puppets? I don't know the answer to that (and again encourage others with more experience with Velebit to present their case clearly and completely), but the more I see these types of games being played by J. A. Comment, the more credence I give to the accusation. --barneca (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @72.74: Maybe piling on is not worth it here, but while I'm at it, can you please explain this? J.delanoy_adds 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Against me means that I used 71.252.xxx.xxx addresses earlier when editing. These addresses are listed in that checkuser request. When I say 'patterns' I've meant patters of false identification, of lies, of slander. Seeing J.A.Comment absolved I see myself absolved due to the fact that we in the same case (among others) falsely accused. Clear enough???--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the IP has just gone ahead and blanked some of the above comments. I've reverted on the spot. D.M.N. (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me these are my comments - I simply re-arranged them.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been proposition that I start new case against this user and so... You are all invited to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the end is this is new user and not puppet it will be interesting to hear explanation how 72.75.24.245 knows Future perfect words from 22 April. For me this answer will be very interesting ??--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blocks

Has anyone tried to upload an image lately? No matter how well you know what you're doing, you have to go to one form, then another, and then fill out this other thing, then hop on one leg, and then spin three times. It's amazing. It is now easier to block a long time and productive user than to upload an image. For example, user:Peter Damian is blocked... indefinitely for "harassment of another user." Is blocking someone also harassment? I've been harassed by loads of users. Should I have been blocking them?

You see, friends, we are supposed to follow procedures when we block. Those procedures include, but are not limited to,

1. Warning the user, if a clueless or nasty one;

Else:

1. Negotiating with the user,
2. Seeking peace with the user,
3. Calling on an outside review of the situation,
4. Posting about the matter on AN/I (here),
5. Moving from shortest possible block to longer by regular intervals.

Ryan has blocked straight out indefinitely without a word here, without a word on the user's talk page, and without a justification offered. I am reporting it here. Since no one knows why he did the block (forever?!), it's hard for me to unblock, but I have to wonder if perhaps we might ought to take the block button away from everyone until people learn to follow process. Geogre (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Background for this issue is partly found at User_talk:FT2. Ryan's comments there imply that Peter Damian has had more than enough warnings (including a previous block) for this same problem. Avruch 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw! You can't "have been plenty warned." That's called a grudge, and we don't block for grudges. I have no opinion of Peter Damian. In fact, I'm not really a fan. However, we don't say, "You irritated me before, and now you've done it again, and so I will ban you from Misplaced Pages." You do get the point, don't you? Blocks have procedures, and it shouldn't be easier to block someone than upload a picture, and it damn sure shouldn't be easier to block a long time contributor. Finally, though, there is a vast difference between escalating blocks at regular intervals and banning someone via the indefinite block. Death penalty for being annoying? Death penalty for not getting along with someone? Really? Not in my book, and not in Misplaced Pages practice. Geogre (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - death penalty? Can do we that now on Misplaced Pages? My point was just that there was history here, and apparently a long term or indefinite block prior to this one (in contrast to your implication that Peter was never warned). Whether the history warrants the indefinite block I don't have any idea - Ryan seems to think so, and he is apparently aware of a history of which you were not apprised. Did you ask Ryan about that history before you reported this issue to AN/I? Avruch 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See related block of User:Hinnibilis and discussion here. Avruch 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the indefinite block. If he harassed another user he should be block for 7 days or maybe a bit longer. But an indefinite block is rather extreme. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a hit-and-run block. No warning, no communication, no explanation, no block notice, no attempt to gauge for the community input and no attempt even to ask for a review after a block. --Irpen 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Warning. Block notice. Look first, protest second. Avruch 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are looking at different pages. I see no notice. --Irpen 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you... didn't take my advice. Avruch 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second everyone - it seems you're ready to shoot this block down without knowing the full facts. Peter has been blocked previously on a different account for a harassment campaign against FT2 off wiki. See the block log of his previous account. Now he resurrected a new account to evade the block and ended up getting blocked again by Thatcher - after discussion, Thatcher decided to unblock. Now, Peter has continued this off-wiki harassment campaign, turning to soapboxing his ideas about FT2 on WR. It's been going on for a while - check his posts there with just about every single one being about FT2. Today he decided to bring the harassment back on-wiki, claiming FT2 made a CU block to "support the efforts of paedophiles" - the gravity of the harassment is large, coupled with the fact that he has a previous account blocked for exactly the same thing. And to Irpen - I did notify him of the block on his alternate account here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block/ban - Thanks for clearing it up, Ryan. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Ryan, I was waiting for your comment. No unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, it does look like there's a problem with harassment, though the warnings being placed on FT2's talk page instead of that of the editor involved makes it a bit iffy. If there's enough concern about the block that results in an overturning of it, might I suggest that Peter Damian be placed under an editing restriction to stay away from FT2? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, stating what the effect of an action will be is different to stating what the intent of an action was. Peter was stating the former, not that latter. His comments on WR are irrelevant; I don't like them but they are not actionable onwiki. Naerii 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, they really are actionable here, given the level of harassment Peter has been pushing on that site - off wiki harassment is extremely serious, especially when you've already been indef blocked before for it on another account. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Naerii, for what it is worth, please see Misplaced Pages:Harass#Off-wiki_harassment -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bah, some of our policies are so full of shit.. are we going to start blocking people for what they've said on IRC now? Or in any other forum for that matter? Criticising people (whether the criticism is justified or not) off Misplaced Pages should be completely irrelevant to whether you get blocked or not on Misplaced Pages - it is rather ridiculous to suggest that we can control what people say on other areas of the internet. Naerii 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't aware of what Peter's real beef is will FT2, and the problems that got him blocked first time round so I'll elaborate here. Since December, Peter has been promoting his ideas that FT2 has been having sex with animals (zoophilia) simply because of his editing habits. His original block was because he was going to take his case to animal welfare authorities. Instead of doing this, he's turned his attention to making these baseless accusations on WR - that's serious harassment and when you look at the scope of all his posts, they just about always revolve around FT2 somewhat. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea that you can dodge the prohibition on harrassing other uses simply by doing it outside Misplaced Pages is similarly full of shit; the negative impact of harrassment, the driving of users off the 'pedia, the discouragement from cordial discussion...these exist regardless of where the harrassment takes place. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• While the policy does allow blocking solely for off-wiki harrasment, in this case I beleive it was used to take into consideration the presence or absence (in this case) of AGF and the severity of the harrassment, which appears to be rather old and span multiple ID's. YMMV. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking after say 24 hours and an edit restriction to keep away from FT2, indef blocking is not going to be helpful to anybody, let alone dealing with any issues re editing of pedophilia/pederastry articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this too. PD really needs to leave FT2 alone, regardless of the merit or lack thereof. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For all this interested, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#User:Dbuckner here is the discussion on the original account block. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is support for leniency on this block, based on the fact that the user in question makes constructive edits outside this area, I'd propose a 6 month block and two community restrictions: restriction to a single account, and a permanent ban on edits directed towards or about FT2. Avruch 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure 6 months is exactly "lenient" is it? The community restrictions make a lot of sense though. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its lenient compared to a permanent ban. An indefinite block has already been applied to one account, so a 24 hour block seems unlikely to make much of an impact. If he returns after 6 months (without having used a sockpuppet in the mean time, or continued with his pattern of harassment elsewhere) then it would amply demonstrate his serious commitment to appropriate behavior. Avruch 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By ban on edits directed on FT2, I would also hope that if he wished to have his editing rights back, he would be banned from discussing him off site. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be an absolute freedom of speech. Harrassment on the internet is only a problem for oversensitive people. Words don't hurt, that's one of the first things you learn in kindergarten. So, I really don't see why someone would be banned for something like this. The only reason why you would ban/block someone if he/she is continuing to cause damage to wikipedia after repeated warnings (e.g. in case of POV edits, edit warring, vandalism). Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is no freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages - site owners are not obliged to publish everything someone wants to say. Editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not right, and those who destroy our collaborative environment by harassing our contributors should expect to lose that right immediately. Such attacks have no place on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether they hurt their target or not. We are an encyclopedia, not discussion club. MaxSem 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read about cyberstalking, its a serious problem. Words certainly can hurt. Have you forgotton where Misplaced Pages's content comes from? If we allow a toxic atmosphere, we lose established contributors and scare away new ones, that's far worse than vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Block - Due to the increasing disruptive nature and loutish behavior of these anti-pedophile activists, including running off very respectable editors who have never edited in a controversial area (except perhaps removing incorrect child abuse categories from classic works of literature), it is my opinion that they are a net negative to the project. They think Misplaced Pages is a battleground to fight sexual predators when, in fact, it is not. We don't need their kind of help, quite frankly. They should be shown the door and allowed to come back only after a 6 month to one year block and only if they are serious. They should be topic banned from all sexuality related topics. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, pretty much per User:MaxSem; we don't need a poisonous atmosphere here and we still more do not need vendettas being pursued off-wiki. I might say differently if this had been the first such occasion. But it isn't, and lessons have apparently not been learned. Good editing elsewhere does not atone, in my view, for gross breaches of collegiality. Enough of these troublemakers, we've lost too many constructive editors at their hands in recent months already, and I think it's time attitudes were hardened. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support at least a short block. Misplaced Pages is for informing, not cybervigilantism. Geogre's analogy with image uploading is obviously false, since only admins can block, but any registered user can upload (and also because blocks do not involve legal issues). Dcoetzee 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support 24h to 1 week block with community restrictions on discussing FT2 both ON and OFF site. Do not support permaban per discussion above. Obviously, I agree with MaxSem that Offwiki attacks are punishable offwiki, still there user seems to have misunderstanding about this part of the policy and was not sufficiently warned before Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not warned sufficiently? He's been blocked indef for exactly the same thing on a previous account - I can't think of much more of a previous warning.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, a shot across the bows is one thing; being holed below the waterline is entirely different. --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was he blocked for the offsite attacks before? I have not found references to this in his block log or talk pages. Indeed a few minutes spent by the blocker on linking the current block with the previous warnings and blocks of other accounts would save a dozen of busy people quite a time Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, blocked for off wiki harassment of FT2, as seen (and documented above) in his block log on his previous account. Last time, he accused FT2 of having sex with animals, now he's accusing him of supporting pedophilia, both here and on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Support indefblock per additional information provided by Ryan. Labeled the account accordingly. Still wonder what have prevented the blocker from putting the information there on the first place. Would support unblocking if the user promises to behave Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the block on the previous account of Damian was lifted by a secret decision of Arbcom (see User_talk:Thatcher#Damian). The user could see this decision as a vindication of his behavior. Restored my original support for a medium-length block. IMHO Arbcom should not make secret decisions but this is beyond the point Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second, this doesn't look like a secret arbcom decision - it just looks like he's talked to a couple of members about it. I don't for the life of me understand with why the block log says "after discussion with arbcom" - it's certainly clear that it wasn't after collective discussion and a vote to check the consensus - I doubt anyone else other than Flo and FT2 even knew about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to find a different kind of solution to such problems. Note that this is only a serious problem because some people have not immunized themselves against personal attacks. If we simply ignore such attacks then most attackers will stop, the few who continue will simply waste their time. But if you start to cry if some nutcase insults you, then that nutcase has succeeded. Also, you invite more attacks. So, I propose the following measure:

Instead of banning an editor who engages in personal attacks/harassments, we should punish that editor by putting a notice on his talk page and user page with the statement: "this editor frequently behaves in an uncivil way". More specific details about the nature of the personal attacks can be given, of course. So, when someone is insulted and sees that notice, he knows what kind of person he is dealing with. If the editor in question wants to get rid of this notice, he'll have to prove that he can edit without insulting people. If he can behave himself for, say, a few months, then that notice can be removed.

This is exactly how we can deal with creatures who are unable to behave in a for humans normal way. Cats, dogs, many wild animals can be handeled by humans. This is not a problem because we know a priori what type of behavior we can expect. It is only a problem if we don't know this, i.e. if we are dealing with a person who behaves like an animal. So, by tagging the person to let everyone know that the person in question is not normal, the problem can be solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone to WR to see if Ryan's description of the situation there is correct, but assuming it is: I support an indef block for repeated harrassment of FT2, ignoring the very big "final warning" of an indef block on his previous account, and contining the attacks on and off-wiki. See some meta page somewhere called "Protect each other" (can't find it right now, I'm sure someone can supply the link); I don't get why this is even a question, and why some are blaming the target of the harrassment for not having thick enough skin. If for some reason this block doesn't stick, then I grudgingly support a 1 week block, followed by a complete moratorium on commenting on FT2 anywhere, on- or off-wiki, forever. And if for some reason that doesn't stick either, then I give up; we'll have gone completely down the rabbit hole and thru the looking glass then. So-called "anti-pedophile" editing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing you to do anything else you want to everywhere else on-wiki. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support eminently sensible block. Being indef-blocked on a previous account for a similar pattern of harrassment is more than sufficient warning. Why on earth have we been getting lynch mobs going after our good admins this weekend? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that someone above linked to Hinnibilis's user and talk pages ... I thought, however, I should add a note that Hinnibilis has added a "Statement on block" and repudiated some statements made on this page. Additionally, they alluded to conversations with the Arbitration Committee ... perhaps a couple of Arbitration members could comment? --Iamunknown 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Enough, is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• No bans by any administrator without 1) community consensus (that's community) or 2) RfAr that concludes with one. Secondly, no blocks for off-wiki discussion. I completely agree that Peter Damian's statements were odious, and, as I said above, I'm absolutely no fan, but once we crack the door to "off-wiki" being justification for on-wiki actions, then we will get not only a person at WR, but a person's blog, a person's comments at Slashdot, and who knows what else. This is not new. When Kelly Martin's blog had some really vicious stuff, I argued that it couldn't be considered, pro- or con-, at arbitration. If we are going to say that IRC can't be handled on-wiki, then we damn sure can't say that someone's comments at another website are. If we say that comments elsewhere are fair game, then all comments elsewhere are. Therefore: support regular increment of a block, and, most of all, gaining consensus for it. No vigilantes, please. If it's just a single admin throwing the block button, then another single admin could do the unblock: let's get social consent, and then we have force. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino

Tocino (talk · contribs)

He often calls Prime Minister Thaci of Kosovo "the snake" despite earlier warnings. I think he should be blocked.84.134.113.43 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the article for Hashim Thaci I note that "The Snake" is the Anglicization of his nom de guerre, as mentioned in the article, and is thus not innately pejorative. I only saw a reference to this name in one talkpage in the most recent contrib history anyway, so I don't think this is a matter that requires admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just In Case (Anye Elite song)

User:Chocolatecbj (article author) and User:Aleader are repeatedly removing the AfD nomination header from this article. Although undoing vandalism I'm loathe to fix this again as I'm at 3RR. Can someone else take over? Thx. Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnaca seems to have resolved it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was LossHeard vonU who solved it, but if he's open to sharing credit, I'll take it. --barneca (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page squabble

A little gentle intervention by an uninvolved admin might be in order on Talk:Intelligent design, where there appears to be a bit of a talk page edit war. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'd appreciate that. I was just coming here to file a report myself... I'm trying to make what I think is a perfectly valid point on the talk page - one that's getting some support from other editors - and I find that my discussions keep getting getting marked as archived without further comment. now I wouldn't mind the conversation getting archived if it was actually finished, but archiving it in the middle of a discussion is really just bad manners

and yes, I do understand that the editors there are tired of debating things; but no, that's not an excuse to simply archive a discussion out of existence. I'd like it if they would actually address my points rather than removing them. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with an attack page

I consider some of the comment here as attacks on my character - if an editor has a specific problems with my a) edits or my conduct, I invite them to file a RFUC or to come here and provide diffs. The elements I have problems with, are as follows:

• What if a cabal developed a strategy to distract the closure of abusive renominations by tendentious debate in AN/I, and other devices. They might use a "returned editor" to spearhead an effort, to be the fall guy if needed. Complete fantasy and I resent the accusation. If he has evidence this Cabal exists (which it doesn't), I suggests he presents it or he pulls those comments.

• And, indeed, withdrew the AfD, supposedly. However, he continued to argue tendentiously for Delete, so, in the end, it becomes difficult not to see this as a tactical move, to head off action against him. I was asked if I'd redraw the nom so I did, others objected, so the AFD continues to run. There was no tactical move on my part and if he has anything but inference to present I suggest he produces it.

• Thus the concern that he might be a returning blocked editor, which can be very difficult to prove, is nevertheless quite reasonable on the face of it. Abd is constantly repeating this accusation up and down the board with no proof at all. I was asked about having a previous account and I answered as soon as asked, so I'm really not impressed with him repeating this slander all over the place.

He can present factual accounts of difference and that AFD however he likes, but he should not be allowed to use it to make his slurs and unsourced accusations on other editors. If he has issues with my conduct or behaviour that he has both AN/I and/or RFCU open to him. If he wants to take a pop at me (and he clearly does), he needs to do it via the right channels. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The page is not an accusation, it is, as it states, a speculation, a worry. And most of the material on the page is pure evidence, the history of an AN/I report, and then a section about what it might all mean. In that, I do comment on some odd things I've noticed in examining the history of this event. I'll stand with the comments above, but, note, I did not make them in a public place and the only reason that Allemandtando would have seen them is that he would be following my contributions. Ah, yes, and I dropped a note on the Talk page for User:Majorly to ask for his comment. That's it. Quite obviously, from what I wrote, there is no proof of any of the things that Allemandtando claims are attacks. If I were recommending action, I'd need proof. If I were accusing, I'd need proof. The second item, though, is a plain description of his behavior in the AfD involved. What I'm describing are causes for concern and watchfulness, not causes for action, at least not without further investigation.

The third item is particularly interesting. He is a returning editor, blatantly so; he did not state it, though, until he was challenged, and he was defiant about that, as I think I note on that page. He is highly contentious and has been warned for incivility. He was the subject of two AN/I reports in two days: I had nothing to do with starting those. Many editors expressed suspicion that he might be this or that blocked editor. It is an obvious suspicion. For me to say that is not an attack. For me to say, "He is a blocked editor," would be. If I wanted to "pop" him, he'd be dead. But I don't, and I won't unless things become much plainer to me than they are. I did not compile that user page to get him. If I were compiling a page to RfC or AN/I him, it would be totally different. He's relevant to what I'm doing on that page because we had this huge flap of an AfD rapid renom because he (1) edit warred with an administrator over closure of it, and (2) successfully, with the cooperation of others, diverted the AN/I report over edit warring into a discussion of a content issue, the notability of an article. Which is not an AN/I issue. Somebody let me know if I need to look further here, if I keep AN/I on my Watchlist, I can't see anything else. That is part of the problem, indeed. So perhaps I'll thank Allemandtando for bringing the attention of that beginning of an essay to everyone's attention. It's not really about him. Watch it if you want to see where it goes.--Abd (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend on this kind of thing is a minute you're not spending on finding evidence that the article in question has any business being in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point it might dawn on Baseball Bugs and a few others that I care more about Misplaced Pages than about saving a marginally notable article. I've already spent many hours, maybe too many, working on recovering difficult-to-track down sources from the Wayback Machine, and similar activities involved with that article, such as trying to figure out what the bloody hell it is about. (It's actually interesting, eventually. Takes some work to get over the hump). But the work isn't done, yet, at least not for sure. As to wasting time, I didn't bring this report here. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and notable are not the same thing. I've seen easily verifiable national news stories shot down in a New York minute due to lack of "notability". In contrast, you've had lots of time to try to demonstrate the worthiness of this article, and if you can't find any verifiable info about this obscure computer language, then maybe there isn't any; which indicates that the original AFD was skated through in the hope no one would notice. Well, someone did, and he's to be commended for not allowing the spammers to get away with it. This is an encyclopedia (as you keep saying) and the value and appropriateness of the content is more important than anything else. Also, you didn't bring the report here, you were building it elsewhere, and that same alert user brought it here. Baseball Bugs 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much useless argument there is here. I mention that mKR is "interesting," with no claim that it was therefore "notable." Just a comment, it was. And, once again, we are arguing a content issue here. Stop it. Sorry I mentioned "interesting."

This is an AN/I report, allegedly I'm building something nefarious in my user space. So why did BB jump in? There was a point where Killerofcruft started editing what was obviously intended to be an RfC or AN/I report on me, and I saw it. Did I bring it here? No, haven't mentioned it here before now, and this is not a complaint about that file, he had a perfect right to work on it. Instead, I found a friend of his and suggested that he help his friend to stop, because it was going to be practically wiki-suicidal. He did ask, and it stopped, and Killerofcruft behaved himself, at least around me, for a couple of days (And changed his name to Allemantando.) What's in my user space wasn't about him, it was about the breakdown of AN/I, and he's simply a character in that drama, not the center of it. It isn't being written to be an AN/I report or an RfC. It isn't like that at all. However, it is possible that there will be some kind of process come out of it. Not here, though, unless Allemandtando or others insist on bringing it here. AN/I is for emergencies, actually. Not for community discussion, preferably, other than issues of specific editor conduct that might require administrative action. Baseball Bugs, as to conduct, is the proximate cause for the derailment of the ANI report that is documented on my user page.

Take a look. Al_tally files an AN/I report on edit warring by Killerofcruft (now Allemandtando), and Baseball Bugs asks him to respond about the notability of an article, an actually irrelevant question, derailing the process, and then tendentiously argues about it. Disruptive, I'd call it. (But it was only disruptive because the community took the bait, or, an alternate interpretation, nobody with admin buttons was paying attention at that time. The real problem is an increase in scale causing AN/I to become seriously dysfunctional.) So, indeed, it may be time for some further process. Not here, though. Probably ArbComm, because it involves not just one or two administrators and overall policy issues. It's not really about misbehavior, but about some serious and deeply divisive disagreements over what's important, and that's why it might be necessary to go to ArbComm. But I'm trying to figure out some way to handle this short of that. There may be a way. ArbComm is not fun. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is far from irrelevant - it's a requirement for any entry in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, notability is a content issue, and AN/I is not for content issues. It's for behavioral issues. What isn't clear about that? This page isn't a "entry in wikipedia." It's a process page and it is focused on the behavior of editors, specifically where response might require admin tools. This is not a place to discuss content issues, period. That an article isn't notable, supposedly, is utterly no excuse to edit war over an AfD closure. None. Being "right" isn't an excuse for violating policy about edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussion and attempts to find agreement is edit warring. Once was bad enough. Twice was inexcusable. This was not a new editor, a clueless newbie. He knows. And he simply defied the policy and the closing admin and got away with it, largely because you helped him to, by continually turning the matter into a notability question, which it wasn't. Al_tally didn't close the AfD because he considered the article notable (though he may have thought that), he closed it because it was an abusive renomination. And he deserved support from AN/I, not irrelevant questions and arguments. And you are just digging your hole deeper, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I've "edit warred" on anything in connection with this article. And show me where notability and verifiability are somehow irrelevant to an article. Baseball Bugs 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't edit war. You supported someone who did. N and V are crucial for articles, never said they were irrelevant to it. They are irrelevant to edit warring. Used to amaze me, been writing on-line since the 1980s. This is written communication. One would think it would be clear. But quite a few people can only see what they think. --Abd (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record I too have concerns about Allemandtando's behaviour with regard to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), which I have noted on that AfD page. I believe Allemandtando initiated an invalid AfD and then edit warred to prevent it being early closed. And I too have concerns about his refusal to be open about the identity of his previous account(s), claiming the "right to vanish" when he has obviously not vanished. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Posting of my personal information

In an earlier thread, I commented about the anon-IP / throwaway single-purpose account based image blanking at Keshub Chunder Sen. Now, it appears that Ronosen (talk · contribs) and/or his numerous IPs (some open proxies, some single purpose sock accounts such as Worklikeadog (talk · contribs) are digging up my personal information and posting in the talk page. For example, here they dig up my personal flickr account (of my family photos) as part of their rant. I request immediate action against this violation of my privacy. (The sockmaster actually deserves a block anyway for his 3RR violation via the sock/proxy/ips (195.178.107.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (open proxy), 69.197.132.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , Worklikeadog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ronosen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

Please handle this immediately. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions with the link to flickr from the generally accessible history. I will contact WP:RFO for you; they may or may not delete it, but now, no one other than sysops have access to that link. -- Avi (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also warned user:Ronosen. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also requested a RCU for user:Ronosen, et al., here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen. ~ priyanath talk 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that oversight has been completed. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

User:Hiram111 has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, including here, in which he lied in the edit summary that he added the same thing in another section, and here. This isn't edit warring. The user is involved in a series of bad faith edits, for example here, where he removed two large paragraphs (one of which is extensively referenced), calling it "absurd unreferenced info" in the edit summary, and doing the same thing here. I warned him the first time here. He deleted the warning shortly after. I warned him again for the final time here, to which he replied with his own warning. The nature of his edit to Walid Jumblatt alone is enough to get him blocked. Please disregard the fact that I am anonymous so as to take my complaint seriously. Thank you. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UT== Reply to anonymous user 63.216.113.124 ==

The anonymous user 63.216.113.124 had insisted to place in the introduction of the Druze(which is a religious group) this section :

The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, an eccentric who prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating, is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God. He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation.

And other poorly referenced out of context info in the History section aimed to defame the Druze religious community.

When he was alarmed by several users on the Talk page that inserting the “banning the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating” in the introduction is inadequate and that he added unreferenced information like “He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation”, and that it was out of context like here and here his reply was by calling us liars and that he owns the right to delete (like deleting and ridiculing cited facts like that the Shihab family was noblehere) and to add whatever information he wants(like that in the history section) after his edits where reverted he started engaging into editing wars and placing vandalism warnings on my talk page and that of Emilyzilch without realistic reasons while abusing Misplaced Pages’s anti-vandal policy to intimidate other users and to bully his way around.

About the Bad faith edits I guess its clear who was vandalizing the Druze page and who was abusing wikipedia’s mechanism in banning editors of his type.

About Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri page it’s clear that I was removing biased information completely contradicting with wikipedia’s NPOV policy and that of living people’s biographies.

I believe by seeing the users contributions it will be clear who is abusing wikipedia's policies and who is disrupting the job of building a better encyclopedia Hiram111 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) C)

I don't understand why you insist to keep on lying. Five books, including one by Mordechai Nisan and another by John Esposito, is not "poorly referenced" nor out of context. Then you say that I added "unreferenced" (in bold) information about him being killed by his servants and the Druze believing he went into hiding while you intentionally disregard that it is written in some of the sources. You lie again and point out, in bold, that the Shihab family being "one of the noblest families in Lebanon" is "cited" when it is clearly not. As for Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri, I don't think people are stupid enough to interpret removing large heavily sourced paragraphs as enforcing the NPOV policy. I don't have time for this. This user should be dealt with for his disruptive edits, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no administrator has given this issue any attention. Someone who has done this kind of edits despite warnings shouldn't be allowed to edit and should have been blocked long ago. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Can an administrator let this user know that rollbacking good faith edits, such as here and here, are not permitted? I'd talk to him/her, but I think someone with higher authority would be taken more seriously. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's his own user page. --B (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't permit him to use rollback. He shoudl explain why he's reverting A Link to the Past's edits, because they are in good faith and are not obvious vandalism. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think this guy is clearly abusing rollback. A LOT of stuff deserves an explanation. If he's reverting beacuse it's a copyvio , then say so. Tiffany (Child's Play) is arguably a main character in addition to being a villain, but even if it wasn't, that's still a content dispute . Changing a nickname/adding a middle name isn't really clear vandalism, it's not complete gibberish. He's also rollbacking OrphanBot's edits and then claimed that the image was GFDL when the user made no such proclimation. This rollback on Girls with guns is clearly a content dispute, as is this edit. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the image since it's been more than a week, so only administrators can see the Dunross.svg image eidt. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about those reverts of OrphanBot at all - Rollback is for obvious vandalism only, and bots don't vandalize unless they're malfunctioning, which OB certainly wasn't then. Several of the others are arguably vandalism, but since they are arguable, some other method should be used - good-faith Twinkle revert or the undo button to leave a reason, for example. I don't see any evidence that the user is using it to edit war, however, so I'd suggest allowing the user to retain it provided they explain their recent actions and promise to use it more responsibly in the future. Rollback really isn't that important a tool, and it hasn't been severely abused here. Kintetsubuffalo has been notified of this discussion and been requested to comment. (diff) Hersfold non-admin 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by Revan ltrl

This user has repeatedly made uncivil comments on Talk:System of a Down (diffs: 1, 2, 3, and 4.) I have warned Revan Itrl several times, both on the talk page and on his talk page, to no avail. I'm getting nowhere with him, and felt it would be inappropriate to take further action myself, given that I have been the target of his incivility. Thanks for any assistance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Thekohser?

Subjected to harassment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statements on the userpage are consistent with Thekohser's editing history, and his statement on the ArbCom RFC page that Jimbo violated conflict-of-interest norms by appointing Essjay to ArbCom is a classic meme of Thekohser. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Druze

I don't understand how you people allow such edits to go unpunished. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can allege citation and then post only that material which suits you from those sources. Your citations are suspect - I have examined them and they are biased, out of date (cf. taqiyya), and usually do not say what you claim they say! Not only that, but you refuse to discuss this issue on the talk page and you left a 1-warning ban threat on my talk page without signing or discussion. em zilch (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it clear on the talk page when I added direct quotations from the book. If you think they are biased, then it is your problem. Amusingly, the same sources are used throughout the article. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes, and I'd like to remind you that administrators don't "punish"--we prevent. If you would like some outside help, may I suggest either the NPOV noticeboard or getting a third opinion? In the meantime, I'm marking this resolved, as there doesn't seem to be a need for immediate administrative action (and since the page is already protected. --jonny-mt 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA)

At Talk:Barack Obama (where I am attempting to mediate resolution of a disputed paragraph that was previously the target of an edit war), WorkerBee74 has repeatedly made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against multiple editors. Examples include , , , , , , , , , , and . That's just going back through 25 June; let me know if you need me to go back further.

User was warned for his behavior multiple times, including , , , , , , wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WorkerBee74&diff=222186840&oldid=222076968

It's also worth noting that user is "predicting" problems when two blocked users return from their blocks. This user was suspected of being a sock of one of those users (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth) and the result turned up inconclusive. There is also an open report against this user for IP-socking (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) which as of this writing is still open but with what I consider to be WP:SNOW-worthy evidence.

I request that an administrator review Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and determine if any action is needed. I know that one administrator with Checkuser access, User:Lar, has looked into this. He hinted that if we suspect an existing user is sockpuppeting, we should look at behavior to make the links. It may be worthwhile for whatever administrator reviews this to see if he suspects anything. I further request that an administrator review the above WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations, in light of the massive number of attempts to guide the user's actions in the right direction, and to take whatever action is considered appropriate. While I am loathe to file this report as I do not wish to create the appearance of censoring a minority viewpoint, it is User:WorkerBee74's method of engagement, not his views, that threaten a finding of consensus. --Clubjuggle /C 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, also see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 (which references Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). Those in turn link to earlier incidents and other sockpuppet reports. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 is being censored for his viewpoint, which will be a minority until more editors who are interested in a balanced NPOV article (as opposed to a Barack Obama hagiography) participate in the process. He has called them "Obama campaign volunteers" and certainly their obstinate refusal to consider including anything resembling criticism in the biography, no matter how prevalent and widely published in reliable, notable sources, makes that a possibility. Every trick in the book is being used in a campaign to rationalize this whitewash. I'm sure it is very frustrating for WorkerBee. It is clearly very frustrating for User:Noroton, User:Utahredrock and User:Justmeherenow, a trio of exprienced, non-SPA editors who have been beating their heads against the wall trying to introduce NPOV into the article.

I took a 30-day voluntary topic ban from the article; one of the reasons was the obstinate refusal of the obvious Obama fanboys to consider making it anything approaching NPOV. I am a workaholic, but people like that make me need a break. Review the page Talk:Barack Obama and its recent archives, consider the circumstances and the extremely mild nature of the expressions of frustration which are being reported as personal attacks, and consider also that the same accuser has made false accusations against me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

see his complaints on my talkpage. He ran me off all the Obama articles with his tenditious editing. i would support a tpoic ban for the reporting user as there has been enough gaming the system by him to censure disagreement .Die4Dixie (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I've had a Checkuser run on me twice so far and the reports were "unrelated" both times. There is a very real problem with that article. Don't let its Featured Article status fool you. Just within the last four months, some very real and well-grounded criticism has arisen against Obama throughout the mainstream news media. WP:WEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN are more than satisfied by, and WP:NPOV demands, inclusion of this criticism. But it is being systematically excluded by a small, determined group of editors. User:WorkerBee74 is clearly frustrated. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the content dispute. After an ongoing level of background incivility (the last part of which is reported in the diffs above), WorkerBee74 made a dig involving another editor's wife, and when called on it said "get over it" and taunted that people would be laughing at the target of the insult if he complained. In normal circumstances this would be what it is. However, all editors on the Barack Obama article are on notice from the earlier AN/I reports and administrative intervention (linked here) that further incivility will not be tolerated. WB74 was one singled out for warning, and almost topic banned, so he surely knows better.

I also suggest examining Kossack4Truth's behavior. He too was warned and nearly topic banned. The self-imposed break is laudable, but a bizarre groundless report filed here a few days ago to accuse an editor on the page of lying, and renewal above of the "Obama fanboys" and "campaign volunteers" taunts that were in part the subject of the proposed topic ban, show that he may not be ready to edit constructively. There are, alas, some serious unresolved concerns about sock puppets too. Wikidemo (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account" in the above users comment under the section he started below on me would seem to be a veiled allusion to my having more than one account. That, coupled with the compulsive behavior to report every editor with whom he disagrees as a sock puppet or uncivil has become for me , an all too troubling pattern. I took a break , kossack took one. I think it might be time for you to take one too, Demo. Please believe that this comes from a sincere place. The complaints are becoming less based in the real activity, and are beginning to affect good faith editors abilities to contribute with out the constant misguided policy complaintsDie4Dixie (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above claims by User:Wikidemo and User:Clubjuggle are a tempest in a teapot compared to the constant obstruction, distortion and (yes) misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages policy, and general POV-pushing by the pro-Obama editors who have taken up residence on that page. User:Scjessey, after being "warned and nearly topic banned," promised to take a two-week voluntary topic ban which lasted only four days. The difference between Scjessey and me is that I keep my word. I am currently in the 16th day of my 30-day voluntary topic ban.

Please review the diffs provided by Clubjuggle. Scjessey and other pro-Obama editors have repeatedly (yes) misrepresented the facts and Misplaced Pages policy, WorkerBee74 has repeatedly called them on it, and for that he's being singled out for revenge. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent: Repeated disclosure of personal information

Ronosen (talk · contribs) has already been blocked for using open proxies for sockpuppetry, and also for disclosing my personal information. Now, in his talk page, he is again revealing links to my personal pages off wiki. As a quick measure, I have reverted the info, but it needs to be oversighted immediately. He is apparently stalking me and exposing my personal information on a repeated basis. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, would someone oversight the edits and also permanently block User:Ronosen from editing his talk page. He already knew it was a blockable offense and yet did it again. ~ priyanath talk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I request another admin to handle the disruptive user's talk page immediately. He is repeatedly posting personal info there (he's permablocked for this very reason, but using his unblock request in the user talk page to reveal my info). I would have protected the page already, but I don't want to use my admin rights here, so please, an uninvolved admin needs to protect the page after removing the personal info asap. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions with link deleted. Oversight contacted. Will warn that return of link will result in talk page protection. -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Belay the last point, MastCell has already protected the page. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears redux

There are still 50 articles that need either stubbified, deleted, or completely rewritten. All the articles not crossed out on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears are about 95% likely to contain copyvio or at least severe plagiarism. We need help - it takes at least three minutes per article to do the minimum (stubbifying), if we're expected to rewrite them completely, to avoid the copyvio, then that's at least 15-30 minutes.

There's also the problem that a sizable percentage of the information in them is wrong - CarolSpears did not copypaste very carefully, so, a description of a leaf might be a description of the stem misplaced, or a description of a plant's habitat in one country might be treated as its habitat in general - notably in the (now deleted and redone from scratch) Agrostis gigantea, the description treated it as if the situation in America - where it is not a native plant, but an invasive one - was the typical situation of that plant. She's also treated Isreal as the world, the Alps as a different mountain range, and a description of one species as if it applied to another. (This is from memory, there's been a lot of articles to go through.

I cannot do this alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning them into stubs instead of full rewrites. Full rewrites can be done later. Right now, we should just focus on getting rid of the copyright violations while still maintaining an article (however stripped down the article may be). If you wish, you can assign me a group of them and I'll work on them this week. I don't mind helping. Enigma 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal

Special:Contributions/Bigntall18 - I get the feeling most RC patrollers aren't checking edits with edit summaries. Block please. —Giggy 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fast enough for you ^_^?¤~Persian Poet Gal 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3 minutes? No way! :-) —Giggy 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the latest offer is tempting... Enigma 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now! You aren't corrupt enough to accept bribe money? And its such a crummy offer...only fifty bucks! Why not slip a Benjamin or two? Whoops - did I say that out loud?¤~Persian Poet Gal 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey it is a pretty good offer :D --Namsos (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian

Seems to have massive problems with edit warring ]. Has a habit of reverting people's edits and accusing them of vandalism with Twinkle in content disputes ]. Loves to spray templates all over people's pages ] ], and is incivil ]. Can someone please deal with her? Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, it was not a content dispute. The article was validly tagged for multiple issues, and removed by a new user who created an account to undo some project clean up on the article, including putting back removed excessive WP:NONFREE images (violating policy). This was FIRST reverted by another editor. Said editor then accused me of bias in my tagging for no apparent reason nor evidence. I'm a project member and on our clean up task force. Tagging our articles for issues is WHAT we do as part of our work. This person then began removing the tags with no edit summary and without addressing the issues. JTrainor popped in nearly a day later for no apparent reason, apparently as an annoyed member of the Gundam project, and removed the tags under the claim that they were an abuse of Twinkle (which is also false, since tagging is done by Friendly) . He also falsely claimed it was 3RR (more than 24 hours had passed and that new editor had stopped, it was now JTrainor starting an edit war for no valid reason). Within minutes of his first revert, he proceeded to go behind some of my edits to leave accusations of "bad faith noms" on some of my AfDs.. He seems to have some personal beef with me, and I have no idea over what, as I can't think of anytime I have crossed hairs with him. Either way, I don't appreciate the false accusations in the AfDs, nor this ANI (which, BTW, he did not leave the appropriate notice on). His own edits are no more "civil" than mine, if that one message is supposed to be horribly incivil, as he called a an appropriate template on a new user "frivilous" when I was following the proper assention of warnings. Maybe an admin can go back and figure out what JTrainor's real beef is, but meanwhile, to repeat his own words, can someone "please deal with him". -- ] (] · ]) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian please don't mark good faith edits as vandalism. Leaving template messages for established users is considered rude, so I would advise you didn't do it. With that said, WP:DTTR is an essay, nothing more. Jtrainor if you have a problem with a user please follow the Dispute resolution process, ANI is not the place for this. BJ 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't marked as vandalism until he repeated it after being reverted. -- ] (] · ]) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't fall under vandalism. It is only considered vandalism when the user is making a bad faith attempt to harm the project. Using rollback or twinkle in other circumstances is bad form. BJ 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, though I do think tag removal without valid reason is harmful, as the tags help the project know the article needs attention. I do understand you point though. -- ] (] · ]) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With the way you responded at User_talk:Jtrainor#June_2008, the initial impression would be that you're basing this ANI on that, and that alone, Jtrainor. Personally writing a message instead of a template for a "regular" is only a courteous act in my mind. It's usually shrugged off, as there are editors out there that do alot of edits and don't take time to think things more deeply or just don't want to waste time on personally writing messages. Those editors are probably either newbies, or working way overtime. Which means a wikibreak is a good idea. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the editors who don't always stop to take time to check contribs to see if an editor is a "regular" or not. And experienced editors who have never read WP:DTTR and do not find template messages insulting so don't see why other editors would. -- ] (] · ]) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131 block review

Ok, block review for User:96.238.40.131. Per my last ANI notice, this IP address has been messing with Sportsbook.com and my user page. A few days ago, I warn him again about messing with the page. While it's been a few days (and an anonymous user), the IP address then responded uncivilly to say the least and with more crap on my user page. I blocked him a week but after this much time with the same user, does anyone object to a much longer (I'd say 6 months) block if he returns and acts the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the same user. I'd say 2 or 3 months, but same thing, really. Longer than the standard one week to two week escalator, for sure. Combative and disruptive editor. Enigma 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets a little more complicated. This is a sensitive IP address belonging to the US Department of Defence! Long-term blocks must be avoided, so please keep it to one week for now. It can be reviewed next week if it starts again. Papa November (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a bug in the block page as every IP address is being flagged as belonging to the department of defence. Ignore my last post! Papa November (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a tremendious editor with a block and a stunning history of warnings and incivility. Was warned of an escalating series of blocks for any further personal attacks (see ), returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account to accuse me of "douchebaggery", lying, and harassment - after making two bogus retaliatory complaints over my username for having cautioned the editor over incivility. I'm already at 3RR so could I please get someone's help in removing these nasty comments? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

THe comments carefully attack the behavior of this user who is acting like a wikistalker on my talk page.Douchebaggery, while not friendly, has been determined not to meet the threshold of incivil. I will get page diffential on it, and return. i wish this user would just go on and find some other ox to goreDie4Dixie (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page this user claims to have made this edit. Therein the problem "lies". Claiming to have removed a report when you did not, well I'll accept a push poll on what it is.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Again the personal attacks about lying, wikistalking, and douchebaggery. I guess it comes with the territory of being on troll patrol. This editor has been nothing but trouble since their account creation. Yuck. Wikidemo (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor continues to accuse me of lying even after report filed. Wikidemo (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC

"Removal of text

Policy shortcut: WP:RPA

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate." Ever since this editor has made this report he continues to attack me personally. I recommend that he disengage, and leave me alone. Or at the very least dust off his wiki law books and figure out what constitutes a valid civil or personal attack complaintDie4Dixie (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:Wikidemo on my talk page

Wikidemo continues to remove my comments from my talkpage. He has a peculiar individual definition for civility and attacks. iWANT HIM TO DISENGAGE, AND GO AWAY AND LEAVE MY TALK PAGE:Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(consolidating this preemptive report here - I warned the user to stop making personal attacks or I would file a report. - Wikidemo (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Can you both calm down and leave each other alone?

There's no need to revert a user removing a message from their own talk page — it indicates that the user has read it, and there's no value in keeping it there as a public humiliation. We also shouldn't be continually reminding people about blocks they had several months ago. Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

With that said, I can see a lot of rudeness on the other side, too. Surely you can make your point without calling comments 'douchebaggery', and so on.

Please try to resolve your disputes through discussion, not with reversions and threats of reporting, because, since this behaviour goes two ways, if there were to be any blocks made, I would make the same blocks to both users. However, I think that you two can resolve this dispute without resorting to 'policy', and threats. We do have guidelines on dispute resolution, and I suggest that you both consider using those instead of this page, which is not a part of the process. — Werdna talk 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen. I vote he remove my page from his watched list and just go away :)I promise to stay off his page--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due repect (to Werdna), you seem to be jumping to conclusions. Your comment indicates you have not reviewed the situation carefully. There is no "both ways" and there is no "dispute" to resolve. There is a misbehaving tendentious editor who and has been threatened with an escalating series of blocks and is engaging in the same problem behavior again, and there is me, an editor trying to keep the peace on the project. AN/I is the right place to report a user who should be blocked. Equating trolling, with being the victim of trolling, is not useful, nor is threatening a long-term productive editor like me with a block. Can you seriously allow the ridiculous accusations against me of lying, wikistalking, and "douchebaggery" to remain on the talk page? Wikidemo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

your personal attacks only serve to further discredit your misunderstanding of wiki policy. Please review the policies, and leave me and my talk page. Your continued presence on my talkpage and shrill accusations do nothing to further peaceful editing here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to carry on a dialog with this editor. Yet there is no legitimate reason why I should avoid dealing with their disruptive editing when I encounter it just because they're being vicious and personal about it. Yet again the editor accuses me of lying, with some new invectives thrown in - something about dog vomit, persecution complex, and bad faith. Editing the encyclopedia, and even dealing with troublemakers, should not mean having to put up with this kind of abuse. The editor has been blocked and warned of escalating blocks for doing it again. I hope someone will actually enforce the behavior policies instead of letting this editor continue the disruption. Wikidemo (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

disengage, have a cuppa, leave me alone. your continued badgering to provoke me into a truly bannable offense is tiresome.Two admins have suggested thatt you do this. This forum shopping for someone who will reinforce your perceptions of me as a "bad"or "problem" editor while vindicating you as a peacemaker after your continued junking up of my talkpage and refactoring my comments on my own pages is over the top. Please, you are the only one attacking here.just stop.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see two users disagreeing. That's a dispute. Have you considered requesting a third opinion? — Werdna talk 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you and enigmaman are right. your third and his fourth one seem judicious and wise. Hopefully this is now resolved and he has ceased lurking around my talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

would tend to show that I might need a third opinion about his behavior and my own. I'm happy to let him own the obama articles, which he appears to be happy to do as well, so no conflict there.I suppose I could open up my own report with all kinds of fancy links to his personal attacks, but frankly it would take to much time and it's really not worth it.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that third opinions are to offer nonadministrative perspective over content disputes, not for immediate, blockable conduct problems. There's no active content dispute and no underlying disagreement - it's only over whether the editor should be repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and lying, name calling, etc., over dealing with their problem behavior. Setting aside the editor's attempt to cloud the issue by trying to portray me as the problem, that would seem to be an administrative matter. I have no grudge or beef here. Only, if they continue the tendentiousness and disruption they need to take a break from the project. If you look at this editor's edit and talk page history, all of this is very obvious - it hardly warrants any hand wringing. Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating word, tendentiousness. If we have no content disagreement, how can you attack me as tendentious? I have been very careful to attack your misguided behavior, while you have stooped to name calling. Because you shriek for bans and blocks and dichotomize the editors into good and bad( you angelic, of course) doesnt mean the behavior of which you complain is what you say it is. Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to uncivil , nor is it a personal attack.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated, unrepentant accusations of lying, "douchebaggery", bad faith, and wikistalking, and multiple retaliatory administrative reports - hence, WP:TEND and WP:NPA. If this editor thinks it's okay per WP:NPA to call another editor a douchebag and a liar, could someone please correct them because they show no sign of ameliorating this - they repeated and amplified the attacks a few times after filing the complaint. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I never called you a douchebag, nor have i called you a liar. I only attacked the deviant behavior, not you as a person or an editor. You seem to have some difficulty appreciating the not so subtle difference. I welcome you to read the policies in question and not twist my innocuous comments into something that they were not. Please stop trying to game the system. You seem to have racked up an impressive record of reporting almost every editor who disagrees with you. That is an abuse of the system. I hope the errant behavior will be dealt with , and not you as a person nor as an editor.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are provided above for these repeated, ongoing insults. Your new ad hominem notwithstanding I have indeed dealt with a number of trolls, sock puppets, and COI editors here, and asked for the patient help of our hardworking administrators. My track record is pretty good - you will find that many are blocked or banned now. Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User Mark Barnes

In an attempt to help the community, I recently added some factual information, with references, on the Crop Circle page. The next day, I noticed Mark had reverted all my information and blocked me from posting again. I am really confused on how my information netted a blocking. As i started reading the discussion, I noticed how abusive this Mark guy is at not allowing any information except the skeptical approach on this page. I can understand if more than him believe that the infomation i added added nothing to the page, though i believe it added ALOT to the singular viewpoint currently on it, but how did it deserve me a blocking. I believe this user likes swinging his stick around a bit too much, narrowminded approach to public information aside. If it isnt too much trouble, i would like someone to take a look at my changes before they were reverted and some of the messages on the discussion. I would just let all this drop if I didnt think this kind of an attitude can be really harmful to a public domain wiki such as this. Thank you so much in advanced.Rich1051414 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not blocked, so far as I can see. Mark reverted one of your edits, is all I can see. Try Crop circle to resolve the content issues. I don;t see any admin action required here. Kevin (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious message on block page

Has anyone else noticed a misplaced message when attempting to block IP addresses? It states "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately."

It appears at the top of every IP block page I've looked at in the last few minutes, for example, this fictional user. Any ideas where it's coming from? Papa November (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this. I only see the little block on the side of "sensitive IP addresses".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently seeing it for IP adresses. It's not the normal sidebox. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be due to this change to MediaWiki:Sysop.js. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change - it looks like that was causing the problems. Everyone needs to purge their cache and hopefully all will be sorted for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that solved the issue. Perhaps someone needs a good troutslapping! Spellcast (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and learned a lesson about testing in a live environment. Thanks especially to Ryan for the quick revert and Boulevardier for the notification; trouts are welcome on my talkpage. :) east.718 at 10:49, June 30, 2008

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards