Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 28 August 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Misplaced Pages:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just " people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. _D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Misplaced Pages, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a 💕 or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

• I said a couple days ago that Future's behavior might need looking into, given an IfD was in progress at Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg and that he was involved in a discussion on this part of the NFCC rules, it does seem rather inappropriate for him to have deleted the image, tagging it for speedy deletion would've been one thing if he disagreed on an I7 basis, but he really ought not to have deleted it outright. MBisanz 10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isn't up for a vote

The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Misplaced Pages editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, as a number of people have pointed out. Black Kite 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. _D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. Baseball Bugs 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree four of me would be unbearable. I would be forever getting into edit conflicts with myself over which of me would get to press the delete button first. Please don't quarter me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Action to be taken on Consensus violations

We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. _D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:NFCC#2 specifically addresses this issue. It's policy, all right. Kelly 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said, WP:NFCC does not mention press agencies. If you think it does, then please quote that mention. Ty 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
• Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• !vote ˉˉ╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)

Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

• Support (not sure this is a poll, but I agree with those saying "support") - the issues with this admin as discussed here and on AN (which Bzuk mentions) did not specifically follow on from one another, but they do appear to be different examples of some of the same issues. You can read my concerns in more detail in this section at AN. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Support, I have also expressed my concerns in some detail at this section at AN. Justin talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting discussion here regarding this. --John (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm coming here from that interesting discussion. I don't think the "involved" clause is what we are looking for here. If FPS is deleting images under CSD that don't meet those criteria, then that is a problem. If he is doing so as an application of the WP:SNOW clause, that also may be an error but it is less grievous. This is a much thornier problem than we seem to be treating it as. As I see it, very few actions can be justified post hoc as proper on the basis of some contingent outcome. By this I mean that if FPS deleted an image that "shouldn't have been deleted", then there was an error on his part. However, if it turns out that his deletion was "legitimate" (read: endorsed by DRV's, which almost all have been), then there was no error. That is a problem, because we can't base our valuation on his actions as "correct" on the basis of their outcome. But we also don't have much of a leg to stand on if his actions weren't wrong. In other words, if those images didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept as FU images, then all the talking in the world won't change things. As was said above, NFCC/COPY aren't up for a vote. We have those policies in place because the foundation tells us to. So how do we deal with this? DRV's support the outcome, which (presumably) means the deletion was proper. But it is inappropriate to justify curtailing of discussion based on eventual outcome. My suggestion is that the community admonish FPS to not be a jerk about things but that we hold off on what is looking to be a snowy endorsement of a community reprimand for violating WP:CONSENSUS. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, NFCC is always up for a vote. The foundation requires that each project establish it's own criteria for fair use, but it doesn't dictate the content of those policies. Please stop spreading the meme that somehow parts NFCC are not up for debate. As with all things on this project, consensus changes, especially when it comes to portions that are being misapplied. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The exact wording may be up for debate, but the spirit isn't. No valid wording (no matter how many support!'s you can count) would allow the use of those images Fut.Perfs deleted. This is the eternal skirmish of an unpopular policy. People like images, you know, and they get angry when we say "you shouldn't have been copying images from Associated Press". People don't read the upload page warnings. And there's this common misconception that for every image you'll find on google, there's an hypothetical non-free-content-rationale that would allow it to be used. --Damiens.rf 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I enthusiastically support everything Damiens said here. All too often at IFD we run into a large number of people who aren't discussing an image based on policy, but how much they like the image. Take this discussion, for instance, where a number of people commented on the need to retain the image based solely on how much they liked looking at Paris Hilton's face, completely disregarding the policy at the NFCC. While I think all administrators should wait until a deletion discussion is over (if one is started) and that they should probably refrain from deleting images for discussions they participated in (though I don't know that this ever happened), I find no fault in any actions that Future Perfect has taken. He, like Betacommand before, has been willing to make tough calls on images which, when analyzed strictly from a policy standpoint, are almost always upheld. This also tends to make him a magnet for criticism when the primary grievance appears to be the policy with which his actions are executed. I think the distinction there is important for the purposes of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The extent to which we use fair use, both in letter and in spirit is determined by the community. The foundation mandated we have an EDP, but the community decides how liberal we are. Note that the Wikinews community even allows Grant of License images under their EDP, which is basically cc-by-nd. So yes, if the community decides that we should start allowing cc-by-nd, then we are free to do so. It is not our mission to produce and house redistributable media, that is commons' mission. We are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia that is as free as possible. While free is always preferred and a reasonable effort to obtain free should always be expended, we can and we should consider fair use if it enhaces the quality of the article. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong speech, but empty arguments. What you says goes directly against WP:5P. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Further, in order to accuse FPS of taking an image to DRV in order specifically to shift the burden of proof over deletion, we need to prove as much. It is a pretty bold accusation. Far more likely to me is that FPS is speedying images that he feels fall under the CSD while there disagreement over that very fact exists. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support action on him: the NFCC is fine; disregarding consensus is not. Sceptre 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock

Attention please, It seems to me obvious that Bracha Ettinger is being removed from everywhere for political reasons. Ettinger is an activist for human rights and fighting for rights of Palestinians in israel. Some people therefore consider that she should disappear from visuality. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere. Anybody who has doubts can look at Google Books and Google Scholars. I am going to proceed to put her bak where she was removed from, since this seems completely unjustified. I tend to believe that this kind of censorship should not be permitted on Misplaced Pages. Artethical (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.

The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

• 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs)
• 89.138.226.204 (talk · contribs)
• 93.172.16.153 (talk · contribs)
• 85.250.87.108 (talk · contribs)
• 89.0.14.111 (talk · contribs)

The articles in question are:

• Gender studies
• Women artists
• Bracha L. Ettinger
• Human female sexuality
• Culture of Israel
• Psychoanalysis
• Jacques Lacan
• Feminism in France
• Feminist philosophy
• List of feminists
• List of French artists
• Women artists
• Film theory
• List_of_feminists
• Twentieth-century French philosophy

--Cailil 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Misplaced Pages.

Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ( ) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.

Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T (who was banned from Misplaced Pages). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• See also Drawing Center, where I was dealing with an IP's changes before I saw this thread. TravellingCari 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.

Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.

And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at this: (1600 hits on Misplaced Pages) (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

She is so famous she has only article in the French Misplaced Pages (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

She's faculty at the European Graduate School: . They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Misplaced Pages, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well now, User:Ori Redler has just started doing exactly the same thing as the IPs (see their recent contribs). MOdernist has just asked for an explanation--Cailil 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I got an account.
2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Misplaced Pages
3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
4. She is non-notable
5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Misplaced Pages too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Misplaced Pages. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.

I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman☿ 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I am convinced that the Bracha Ettinger story is exposed as hoax, fakery and sockpuppetry. I've removed Ettinger from Women artists and Postmodern art because frankly she never belonged in those articles in the first place. She was placed on a list that read: "it was painting of the artists Valerio Adami, Daniel Buren, Marcel Duchamp, Bracha Ettinger and Barnett Newman that, after the avant-garde's time and the painting of Paul Cézanne and Wassili Kandinsky, was the vehicle for new ideas of the sublime in contemporary art." - its way beyond where she belongs to be, and she's listed but it's clearly a contrived addition...We have to be careful to realize that she is basically notable, and she has authored published essays and books and she has exhibited her paintings in galleries and museums - but like many other notable figures in the art world she is largely obscure and simply isn't that well known....yet. Modernist (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• It a mess - Ettinger belongs in certain articles with certain mentions and she should be removed from places that she does not belong..like lists of enormously important and famous contributors to art and science. Although she belongs on more general lists of artists and scientists. She belongs where she is referenced specifically and should be removed where the mention is simply ambiguous. Modernist (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Eyes please on List of painters by name. Ty 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back. I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes.....Modernist (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• more IPS

85.250.86.53 (Talk);

89.139.9.85 (Talk);

89.0.12.202;

89.138.185.137;

93.172.35.29;

89.138.174.146;

89.0.9.203;

89.139.239.124;

89.138.161.140;

89.139.191.198

Ugh. The G-hits from my linked search at the top of this section revealed the following 50 articles which had mentions of Ettinger. At a guess, from the text I saw in the various hits, probably 50%-75% of them may be gratuitous insertions. I'd bet histories will reveal recent activity by our rouge IPs on these articles. I'm going to sleep.

Women artists The Matrix Robert Doisneau Psychoanalytic theory Psychoanalysis Postmodern feminism Postmodern art Other Luce Irigaray List of psychology topics List of psychoanalytical theorists List of postmodern critics List of painters by name List of French artists List of feminists List of female philosophers List of contemporary artists Linda Nochlin Julia Kristeva Jacques Lacan Jacques Derrida Influences and interpretations of The Matrix History of feminism Hans Prinzhorn Hélène Cixous Griselda Pollock Gender Gender studies Gaze French structuralist feminism Film theory Feminist theory Feminist philosophy Feminist film theory Feminism Feminism in France Feminism and the Oedipus complex Félix Guattari Eva Hesse Eurydice European Graduate School Emmanuel Levinas Drawing Center Cultural studies Christine Buci-Glucksmann Bracha L. Ettinger Art history Antigone Aesthetics Écriture féminine

Pigman☿ 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Ettinger was one of the only women artists on whom Lyotard was constantly writing and lecturing. This is for example now a subject of a chapter in a book Gender after Lyotard. I think that we must realize that there is an effort to ruin Ettinger's name and reputation, and we don't know why and by whom.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

part 2

The attacks against Bracha L. Ettinger are continuing. An anonymous acting from different Israeli IP's is removing all mentions of this artist from different articles with the untrue explanation that there is a consensus to remove her from major topics.

There is no such consensus. My guess is that this user is deleting mentions of Ettinger just because the information about her was added by User:Marina T., who is suspected to be related to the notorious Israeli troll User:Nnimrodd. This suspicion was never properly confirmed, and in any case, the info about Ettinger appears to be sourced and not blatantly self-promotional.

I agree with the position of Phil Sandifer in the discussion above ("Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock") - it is possible that Ettinger is not be the most notable feminist, psychoanalyst or artist and in that case she shouldn't be mentioned in every article on these topics, but such drive-by removal of her name from every place without proper consensus is definitely wrong.

Also, this frequent IP changing is worrying and the user already admitted that he is "changing my IP after each edit for security reasons". If he would be acting in good faith, he wouldn't have to change his IP all the time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and i forgot to mention that this anonymous editor wrote personal attacks in Hebrew on my talk page twice. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just how close are the IPs being used? Any chance of a rangeblock? Alternatively, you can watch and perhaps semiprotect the relevant articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the earlier thread User:NZQRC seems to admit being the one who was editing from all those IPs. Looks like he made a few posts, then went back to his old tactics. It's a shame because his arguments for many of these edits actually were getting some traction, but it looks like he'd rather be disruptive by hopping IPs every two minutes so that no one can engage him in discussion. If there's any way he can be encouraged to stick to his registered and stand up like a man (woman?) and make a case for what he's doing, he and the project would be much better served. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Stephen, the IPs mostly resolve to Haifa - and NZQRC is going through a huge volume of them. I don't know if a range block is possible - it will take a significant amount of time and effort just to identify the removals and the IPs involved. As it stands NZQRC is not blocked - I'm bordering on blocking them per WP:DUCK for using multiple accounts (IPs) to avoid scrutiny. This behaviour is beyond the WP:SPIDER level of disruption--Cailil 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack. The ducks are now blocked at midnight. Given the persistence we may see more, though. A good article for people to watchlist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are also having a go at any articles with Ettinger mentioned. See Modernist's contributions for where he has reverted. Ty 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The IPS are growing, I think admins have to start blocking them wholesale. It's beyond reason, something is rotten. Modernist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• What about France, Israel, Women, Female, Europe (France is in Europe), Asia, Earth, Human, Art, Culture, History, History of France, History of Israel, Glasses (She wears sun glasses), Elderly (She is not young), Painting, and Photography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.142.105 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's fun, but please, do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Last chance: The German Misplaced Pages is the largest Misplaced Pages after the English one. Now check those links: , (most of the results came from this photo ). You can do the same in every Misplaced Pages you want except the French Misplaced Pages (she's been spammed in the French Misplaced Pages too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.161 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks Modernist and to everyone else for their diligence in tracking this problem. I'm implementing an emergency semi-protection on all the articles where Modernist reverted NZQRC's IPs (this will exclude the articles where she may be unduely represented). This will be a week long semi-protection. Also I had been blocking these IPs for 3 days. I'm now going to reblock, the one's I've already caught, for a month and then block the next lot for a month too. If any one thinks any of this is overly harsh just drop me a line--Cailil 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

part 3

I've started Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NZQRC - all the IPs listed have been blocked until the 26th of September 2006. Can anyone who finds any further NZQRC socks please tag the IP's talk pages with {{sockpuppet|NZQRC}}--Cailil 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3 more - tagged but unblocked:User talk:89.139.239.124; - User talk:89.0.9.203; - User talk:89.138.56.247; Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They're blocked now--Cailil 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are tagged but I don't see a block Modernist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You can check it in their block logs - the templates saying "you've been blocked" are manually added and I forgot to add them here. But i've fixed that now--Cailil 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to reduce the number of protected pages we have, I am going through articles Ettinger is currently inappropriately linked in and removing her, then unprotecting as that article is, presumably, no longer a target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. At least a few of us will have the pages watch-listed in case of any further funny business--Cailil 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil - that's the best way to handle this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but do we know about any other purging of Nimrod Kamer additions (some of which will be spam, others not)? This is a link to the dashboard for User:Nnimrodd, and this is the one for User;Marina T.
From a quick glance at these I would watch Joshua Simon, Michal Heiman, Herzliya Biennial, Michail Grobman, Efrat Abramov and what links to their articles. Also take a look here for even more--Cailil 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am watching them.

No doubt, Nimrod Kamer and Marina T. wrote a lot of cruft in Misplaced Pages and i purged everything that didn't fit established notability policies, but what remains looks reasonable to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bracha Ettinger is being now systematically persecuted and her name deleted from everywhere probably because she is an activist for human rights in Israel. Her name is being now purged, massacred and deleted by person(s) who write defamatory and untrue information on her. For example she was deleted from the Women Artists page since it was claimed by User:Ori Redler that she was not a participating artist in the show Inside the Visible. Ettinger was in fact both a participant artist in the show AND a contributer to the book. Apparently there is a vicious attack going on all over the place on a major artist, theorist and feminist, who is also a courageous fighter for human rights and a model for many young artists and feminists. I invite the editors to consult Google Books and Google Scholars, and to help to restore her name and dignity. User who deletes her name so bluntly from all over the place and give misinformation should in my view be blocked. Artethical (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are, without question, places where she should be mentioned on Misplaced Pages. However, and I say this as someone well acquainted with the field, putting her on the same level as Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva in Gender Studies, or saying that, along with Rorty and Barthes, she is one of the major descendants of Lyotard is ludicrous. She's a fine scholar, but she's not on that level at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM

Resolved – No administrative intervention required.

Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reopened - does not appear to be resolved. --Ckatz_spy 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A small group of experienced editors are effectively hijacking WP:MOSNUM, claiming their point of view reflects consensus when in fact it does not. They are using their modifications to MOSNUM to justify many edits elsewhere, which are not in compliance with the consensus view of "date autoformatting." These editors are well-intentioned, but over-hasty in claiming consensus. (sdsds - talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Crikey! Can you be more specific, give diffs and explain what you are asking admin intervention for? --Pete (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand reading all of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) can be a bit daunting! This edit shows the debate was closed as "resolved" when in fact it was not. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's best practices for an editor who was active in a debate to close it. If there was consensus, a non-involved editor should have "made the call." (sdsds - talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Arguments for and against where one of the leads in introducing discussion Tony1 has carefully set out the reasons for considering an optional change wherein autodatelinking is deprecated. No one is forcing anyone nor cutting off constructive criticism or debate while the virulent opponents to change have the temerity to go about bandying claims of "hijacking". The issue is being resolved and if a consensus has not been reached, it is a developing consensus that is obviously going one way, despite the cries of "foul" from some individuals. FWiW, this is another attempt to stifle discourse when "things don't go their way". Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

For context, an example of one of these edits is here - delinking dates (to get rid of the blue I suppose) that will inadvertently stop the software from fulfilling date display preferences. This contradicts recent practice (ie over the last few years) so although I don't think admins can do anything specifically about this, since it is a large change in behaviour perhaps the Community noticeboard should be used for an announcement.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In reading through the back story, this has been a two-year long discussion on the value of having autodate linking that may not be used by the majority of Misplaced Pages readers (as well as providing non-content links). FWiW, regardless of the "practise", the discussion clearly indicated that only a tiny percentage of users even had date preferences set in their browsers. BTW, is this even the proper forum to discuss essentially a "content issue"? I do not see examples of malefeasance as claimed. Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Commander K, it was flagged at the VP, at numerous WikiProject pages, and more than 100 article talk pages. There were many responses, and apart from a few clusters of ill-will, they were overwhelmingly positive about the proposal (I can provide a centralised link if you wish); this is in addition to the ongoing debate at MOSNUM talk (the central location for such debates) over some six weeks, which cam to a head in the calls for consensus. Tony (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a case of a clash between ideals and reality. We all, I think, want auto date formats. As in, it is the desire of pretty much everyone in the debate that each reader can see the dates in their own preferred form. Sadly, the fact is that the autolinking method, which is presently the only way to achieve automation of date formats according to preferences on Misplaced Pages, doesn't live up to its promises. Firstly, it doesn't work for the great majority of readers who don't have an account or sign in, or who do but don't activate preferences. Secondly, it allows editors to type in inconsistent dates in an article and not see how it will look to the great majority because *their* preferences are set to a particular format. Furthermore it leads to an unfortunate "blue sea" effect which denigrates the quality or "standout" value of actual links in the article, and the links if clicked on are monumentally useless in all but a few very major articles of moment (eg World War Two). At the end of the day our objective should be a readable encyclopaedia and, short of some sort of developer hack which is never going to happen, the proposal Tony and others have put forward is the best way forward so long as fights over date formats between editors don't become a problem as a result. It's probably worth noting that I initially opposed the proposal. Orderinchaos 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Orderinchaos's statement "we all, I think, want auto date formats." Given that various national varieties of English will always be used in Misplaced Pages, I prefer to see consistency within an article, and that includes the date format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was meaning in an ideal world, i.e., assuming that all technical hurdles were overcome and every user could indeed see the dates the way they wished, rather than a fraction of one percent of users as was the case with the date linking method. Orderinchaos 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The example Channel Tunnel provides an excellent illustration of one of the problems caused by autoformatting. The mix of date formats is regarded as an error that ordinary readers will see but are concealed from the view of editors that use autoformatting - the very editors that are needed to correct the concealed error. Some editors now report that they turn preference to 'No preference' so that concealed errors are revealed. Furthermore, it turns out that autoformatting contains a technical error whereby it cannot be used on non-Gregorian dates. Other errors include date range munging like: '12 - March 15'. Do we really need to have the whole debate one more time in ANI? If so, I am sure the decision will be the same, the facts have not changed. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Coming here and starting an entire ANI is an overblown, knee-jerk over-reaction. The editors who’ve “hijacked” MOSNUM have been engaged in this debate for a long, long time. As a result, they’ve seen the epiphany editors have recently had over how date autoformatting only masks editorial content problems from editors and doesn’t benefit 99.9% of our readership (I.P. users) whatsoever. Some of the editors who were part of this new consensus said *what?* and turned off their user date setting in their user preferences in order to understand the junk we were forcing regular readers to look at. In some cases, we editors thought a date was a wonderful-looking June 6, 2005 when, really, 99.9% of Misplaced Pages’s readership were looking at 2005-06-06.

  User sdsds has been largely absent from this discussion. He weighed in once on 16:14, 15 August 2008, and was completely silent—and, I assume, totally clueless to the developing consensus—until 23:22, 24 August 2008 when he became extraordinarily active and quite animated about the new direction we were heading.

  This is the second time (for me) in last few months that an editor has been absent from large portions of a discussion, and when they come back and are thunderstruck at the new consensus, they don’t go with the flow at all well. If our previous experience with the other editor in that other issue is any indication, dealing with sdsds is going to be difficult; he has simply missed out on all that goings-on that transpired, and sorting through it with an open mind would be difficult for anyone.

  Finally, since when can a small group of editors “hijack” any article? I think this term tends to be thrown around when there are only a few, highly motivated editors driving the issue through to a conclusion, and the majority of editors think it’s probably a good idea. “Change” on Misplaced Pages is never easy and there will always be editors who don’t agree; particularly when they’ve been absent from the vast majority of the discussion. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When only a small group of editors edit it, and they do not hesitate to revert war; MOSNUM has been protected at least twice because of disputes on other issues. There is sentiment, among several of us half-dozen regulars, that autoformatting is not the best idea; there is no consensus to deprecate it - indeed there have been objections on the talk page (not only from sdsd) in the last twelve hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There was solid consensus for deprecation after a long, long debate. Anderson loves to twist and spin with language, and the use of "half-dozen" serves his purposes well. Go look there for yourself. And if that's not enough, a collection of supportive statements from many talk pages is here. But I don't know why we're turning this into a complete duplicate of the debate at MOSNUM. This is ANI. No administrator action appears remotely relevant. I suggest that this page be closed. Tony (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have claimed elsewhere; please provide a link. That three editors have vociferously complained in the four hours since MOSNUM read not encouraged does seem to throw some doubt on the widespread nature of this alleged consensus. (We would be better off if autoformatting had never existed; but deprecation of this long-established practice, as opposed to presenting the arguments against it, requires very wide-spread consensus.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to occur all the time. The proponents take read of the general consensus from a number of middle-of-the-road editors, who write things along the lines of “I didn’t know autoformatting was doing that to regular I.P. users, this makes sense to me to no longer use them”, and there seems to always be an editor or two who are awfully vociferous on the issue (starting an ANI over it, as if the proponent editors strapped C4 to their bodies when they “hijacked” all of MOSNUM). This is particularly true when this sdsds editor doesn’t even participate in the bulk of the deliberations and has a WTF reaction to what’s been going on after a decision has been made. That tends to produce absurd allegations like those of sdsds.

  But just because an editor is perfectly willing to don orange robes and set themselves alight over an issue is insufficient to require that we all go over the entire deliberation process—he simply missed out. And do we need his buy-in? No. A consensus on Misplaced Pages does not require that 100% of editors are in complete agreement, and it never did—particularly for an editor who didn’t even participate in the bulk of the discussions.

  Finally, a consensus is reached by considering the various opinions of all the editors and hashing out what seems like the wisest course. Sound and rational reasoning must be put forth to hold sway with others. The arguments advanced by sdsds, while highly impassioned, are simply not persuasive. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rare for any topic to be discussed as long and thoroughly as this one. I poke my nose into Talk:MosNum and the pot is still bubbling. Has been for months, if not years. I haven't checked, but I dare say that several of the participants are admins. So I'm not sure why AN/I reporting is needed. Perhaps to get eyes on the topic that are unfamiliar with the long debate. I've been religiously autoformatting dates for years. I turned off my date preferences a year or so back so that I could see what most Misplaced Pages users see - the unlovely mish-mash of date formats - and correct them. Whenever I got the urge, I'd check the then crop of FAs, and guess what, there'd always be a few with differing date formats. Our best articles, looking unprofessional, and worse, full of links for users to click and end up on a page utterly unrelated to the article's subject. Recently Tony summarised the drawbacks of autoformatting and I was a convert. I'm not going to go out and remove every autoformatted date I see, but when I change or insert a date, I don't wikilink it. I urge all editors to check out MosNum from time to time, weigh in on discussion, and keep up to date with current thinking. I don't think that the debate has been hijacked to an early end. I think it went on for about a year too long, and it came to the logical conclusion, because there are simply no good reasons for supporting what was originally a developer's hack. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• When I wrote above of “middle-of-the-road editors” and of “hashing out what seems like the wisest course”, I was referring to editors like Pete here. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would agree with Pete's summation here. I well and truly had to be convinced, a check of Mosnum will confirm I was originally a vociferous opponent of the proposal, but was ultimately swayed when I realised what most users actually see - and it really is an unacceptable mess. We should be an encyclopaedia for readers, first and foremost. Orderinchaos 06:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain what urgent administrative intervention is required on this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any. Orderinchaos 06:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz is an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on his page. However, his striking of Tim Vickers' aministrative action in declaring this discussion "Resolved" needs to be seriously questioned. I ask him to read this policy statement:

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions.... Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for immediate revocation of adminship with Arbitration following in a number of cases.

Now, although in the context this refers to an ensuing chain of reversions, the spirit of the statement is that admins should tread very carefully when it comes to undoing each others' actions; apart from the instability it creates, it's a poor example to the rest of us of what is meant by "good faith" and the avoidance of conflict, especially conflict that could be the germ of an edit war; we look to admins to provide an example of smooth, collaborative behaviour. I see no evidence of any attempt to warn Tim Vickers that his admin action was about to be contested and reverted by another admin. In addition, this statement at the same policy page is relevant, since Ckatz was indeed responding to a request for assistance by Sdsds:

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.

I'm concerned that Ckatz has a conflict of interest in this issue, having been a robust and early opponent of the reform. Under these circumstances, he cannot act in the capacity of an administrator. I believe that the proper action is for him to self-revert his striking of his colleague's decision.

I note also that the instigator of this page, Sdsds, has advised me that he will no longer contest the change.Tony (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Recently I had raised the point on the MOSNUM discussion page that certain editors supporting the deprecation of autoformatting were creating a climate that was not conducive to open debate. Problems included insults and inappropriate language (such as "spoon-feed", "privileged" and "act like grownups") directed at opponents. All in all, it did not inspire me to actively continue to participate there. Having read the preceding post, I can honestly say I would prefer to return to that arena, rather than address such an offensive action. Frankly, I am appalled that Tony would attempt to misrepresent my actions in such a negative manner, especially as he did not even extend me the courtesy of contacting me first. If any other editor wishes to enquire about this, I will certainly do my best to respond to any questions. As for Tony, though, all I can say is that I hope he has the decency to immediately remove his inappropriate, insulting and offensive post. --Ckatz_spy 09:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, please note that I began my post by saying that you are "an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on page". I want to reinforce that by pointing out the extraordinary amount of administrative good that you do, readily apparent in your contribs list. Please don't react to my post emotionally—I do not believe it was "inappropriate, insulting and offensive", nor that I lack "decency". I guess I didn't contact you first because I'm frankly a little nervous in dealing with you on a one-to-one basis: you're very emotional about this issue.

My points deserve substantive answers, or simple action in self-reverting per the evidence and the policy that I've explained. I certainly won't think the worse of you for doing so, and I don't think anyone else will—quite the opposite, actually: it would demonstrate that you really are worthy of the title "administrator". I think you've made a misjudgement (such as we all do from time to time), and ask for calm, measured remedial action. Tony (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I had hoped you would remove the post. You may not see it as offensive, but I certainly do. As for your most recent statement, either provide support for your claims about my actions (such as that I am supposedly "very emotional" about this issue), or stop making them. Frankly, based on how you have responded to others during the autoformatting issue, I find it hard to believe that anything I've said would - or even could - make you "nervous". --Ckatz_spy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Tim: Earlier, you asked why this should be on the AN/I board. I would suggest that a simple review of contributions to the autoformatting discussion from Tony, Greg L and other proponents of the change, directed at opponents of the change, will demonstrate why this ended up here. --Ckatz_spy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Tony: Yes, I am discouraged enough to give up, and will no longer be actively voicing or explaining my opposition to this rewrite of MOSNUM. That is a kind of "consensus" within which we can collaborate. (sdsds - talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• There was never any need for urgent administrative intervention on Talk:MOSNUM. That venue has plenty of pro-active, knowledgeable editors who can band together to handle any inappropriate conduct from a small group of editors in a leadership role. No small group of editors can “hijack” Talk:MOSNUM and if they tried to do so and were editwarring, MOSNUM would have quickly been locked down and the misbehaving editors sanctioned. This is a simple case of a single editor coming back late to a discussion (after having missed out on the vast majority of developments), and wonder why the whole congregation had decided to pull down the old church and build a new one on a different site. This issue should be closed.

  And on a parting note, I used phrases such as “Do we editors need special tools that can spoon-feed custom content just for us—as if we’re a special privileged class? We should be looking at exactly the same editorial content as regular users.” There is nothing wrong at all with a statement like that. May I remind Ckatz that Misplaced Pages has clear rules against “personal attacks” (death threats, threats of legal action, racially insulting someone, etc.) and also has rules against incivility. This later class of misconduct covers such behavior as writing “if you aren’t capable of dealing with issues this complex, why don’t you leave it to someone who is more intelligent?” Ckatz, I utterly reject the notion that what I wrote (and you have tried to impeach) is “inappropriate language” that can’t be uttered in a decent and civilized society. Your accusation strikes me as grand-standing by someone who thinks “leadership” is now measured by how exceedingly PC someone can be. Rhetorical questions directed at no one in particular—other than editors as a class, a class that includes me—such as I’ve employed to make some of my points, are the simple tools of debate that are taught in any high-school-level debate class. So I’ll thank you to not be so quick to slander me with unfounded allegations of inappropriate conduct here. Misplaced Pages can not be allowed to be taken over by a mentality that one “wins” by being even more thin-skinned than the next guy; our debates would become utterly worthless baby pablum. Misplaced Pages’s ability to resolve disputes and identify a consensus are already handicapped enough (*oops, I used the H-word*) without you standing on a soapbox, impugning my reputation, and presuming to tell me how I may think or express my thoughts. Greg L (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I agree completely with everything Tony wrote in his 08:13, 26 August 2008 post. I think he hit the nail right on the head as to why we are still here with an incident still marked as “active.” I also think Ckatz’s response to Tony’s post was unhelpful and not at all what should be expected of an administrator. Greg L (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  P.P.S Big changes on Misplaced Pages rarely come easily. But check out what Dank55 had to say about MOSNUM as of late. Greg L (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Chinese?

I have just noticed Hikikomori.hk (talk · contribs) adding comments to talk page warnings on User talk:Misofalalala and others in Chinese. --triwbe (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand Chinese? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We need someone fluent in Chinese and English to be sure. This issue of foreign language use comes up from time to time. If it's between two users who speak the same language and involves no one else, it's not such a big deal. But if they're replying to someone who doesn't speak that language, that should be avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text from one of the pages. 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ I'm almost positive that it has nothing to do with food or Yankees. Running it through a couple of online translators comes up with nonsense. I've left a message at WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can confirm that 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ has nothing to do with food. It does, however, have something to do with crooked teeth, seven of something, and twisting. The rest of it isn't understandable to anyone but a native speaker (which I am not). Calvin 1998  18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Mandarin and not Cantonese, and this surprisingly doesn't mean anything to me at all. If you want a translation, be sure to get someone who speaks Cantonese. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user that s/he is under discussion here. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an attack. This is in Cantonese. I don't speak Cantonese well, so my translation may be a little off. But it should be mostly correct, that this sentence is very rude, using a bunch of curses used in Hong Kong. The translation is: "Shut up. You are so fucking annoying. You have not even fucking registered (or logged in)! Stupid (literally: penis head)!" It has nothing to do with teeth or the number seven. All those words mean penis in Hong Kong slang.--Mongol (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, here's a radical idea: DELETE IT. Posting non-English in the English wikipedia amounts to vandalism and should be removed. Also, the poster should be advised not to do it again or else. You write in English here, or you don't write. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, posting non-English in English wikipedia is not vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are, and the only reason for posting a comment in a foreign language is to make comments that are known only to whoever's saying them, i.e. likely an insult of some kind. So they should be deleted and the poster should be told not to do it again. Baseball Bugs 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't prohibit posting in non-English languages, and we certainly don't automatically consider non-English postings to be vandalism. And, forgive me, but given your earlier remark, I don't think you're the best one to make this call. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed that comment to be polite, because I was asked to do so. If you're going to refer to it, maybe I should re-post it. Baseball Bugs 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, he does make a reasonable point. As a general rule posting in a language that is not the language in the wiki that you are using should be viewed with suspicion. There are of course valid reasons for doing it, e.g. the poster doesn't speak english and is asking for help with the language. Does this look like the case here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to determine. Our best guess right now is that it might just be random nonsense, but that is just a guess, and it comes from non-native speakers of the language. We're still waiting for a response from WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The complainant has good reason to think it's a personal attack. Here's another radical idea: ASK THE GUY. If you don't get a reasonable answer, then he's trolling, and should be dealt with accordingly. And if you've already asked him, and he ignores it, that's a dead giveaway that he's up to no good. Baseball Bugs 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, asking for help in sentences ending in exclamation points? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I remarked a little earlier today, there's a guideline on this at WP:TALK. Talk page comments are supposed to be in English on English Misplaced Pages. Although comments in other languages are not necessarily vandalism, it seems just a trifle ridiculous for users to scurry around trying to find out what someone's post means. I think the correct response to this is to say "I didn't understand you. Please translate." If it's on an article talk page and the poster can't or won't translate, it's deletable. And really, if a user doesn't understand English well enough to respond to that request, what possible interest could he have in English Misplaced Pages? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As someone with SUL, sometimes I find myself editing on other Wikipedias of which I have no knowledge of the language. All I do is fix blatant mistakes, and I leave an English edit summary. Maybe sometime I might find a mistake and make an English post on the discussion page asking if it really is a mistake. Should the native speakers of that language ignore my request simply because it is in English? If a user communicates in another language, we should assume good faith and try to get someone who can communicate with them. If they have a legitimate complaint, then we improve. If they don't have anything contributive to say, then we remove or ignore them, just as we would if the comment was written in English. As for this user, I'm fairly sure that the user is using written Cantonese, as evidenced by the "hk" in their name and the sentence's syntax, but it does not appear to be constructive. Does anybody here contribute to WP:zh-yue? bibliomaniac15 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can't write in the language of the wikipedia version you're working on, then what, pray tell, are you doing working on that branch of wikipedia? If you don't know the language what "blatant" mistakes could you be fixing? Font sizes? Sorry, but Mr. Anderson wins the cigar, as he hit this one on the head. Baseball Bugs 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, converse in English (of whatever variety, and to whatever the extent of competency) on English Misplaced Pages. If things needing to be said are beyond your proficiency in English, ask for someone who knows your native language to help you - but beware, in that case, of atempting to edit (as opposed to converse) beyond the core of your competency. I've run across a number of instances recently of people attempting to correct English grammar, punctuation, etc. who were not sufficiently familiar with the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting fixes (tables, colors, indents, images, leading spaces, unclosed bold or italic tags)? Broken links or typos in references (particularly to English-language references)? Interlanguage article links? Reverting vandalism? Those are the first tasks off the top of my head; I'm sure there are scads of things a reasonably bright person could do on other Wikipediae without speaking the local language. I don't imagine that most people would spend a lot of time working on a Misplaced Pages where they didn't know the language, but I can see where there would be room for occasional edits—mostly to solve serendipitously discovered problems. If I were to leave a talk page comment in the 'wrong' language, I wouldn't expect any English response, nor would I expect a rapid resolution of whatever problem I brought up. Nevertheless, I also wouldn't want my good-faith comment deleted out of hand; someone who spoke English would hopefully, eventually, come along and act on whatever concern I raised.

It's reasonable to request a translation wherever one might get one; it's reasonable to remove foreign-language comments written by editors who have a demonstrated history of abusive remarks. It's an ugly act indeed to remove foreign language comments if there's no evidence of bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but this was a talk page comment left on a user's talk page. Regardless of how well someone understand English, it is surely their right to talk in another language with another user if the other user does not mind. While user talk pages belong to the community, their primary purpose is for communication between users. If users choose to communicate in another language in their talk pages and provided they don't use communication in another language to hide what they're saying (e.g. if it involves policy violations or repeated off-topic discussions) then they should be entitled to do so, and not have busybody editors removing their legitimate discussions because they don't understand what's being said. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you TenOfAllTrades for summing up my point exactly. As for the edits on other Wikipedias, Baseball Bugs, here are the diffs you wanted: cawiki, dawiki. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy's edits show he's conversant in English, so it is reasonable to be suspicious when Chinese suddenly pops in, especially where it did, and especially with exclamation points. Delete it. Baseball Bugs 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get overly excited. The user was contacted, but doesn't seem to have been here for a few hours, which is perfectly normal. In the meantime, rather than reverting on sight, we're trying to figure out whether there's anything to be concerned about. Eventually either the user will return and explain himself, or he won't and we'll move on. And please, can we get over the exclamation points? For all you know he was saying "thanks!" Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it could be inflammatory, the safest course is to delete it with a request for an explanation. Baseball Bugs 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！means "stop, this is getting annoying. You are a huge trouble." I have no idea what "柒頭" means. This is definitely not a personal attack. Furthermore the the above translation is not directed to Misofalalala (talk · contribs) but instead to Triwbe (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly (and mistakenly) tagged Misofalalala's articles for speedy deletion. On the other hand, "triwbe 屎忽痕，香港球員既野又關你事咩，你唔識唔代表唔出名，屌你老母啦" is a huge personal attack on Triwbe. It is directed towards Triwbe and translates into "Asshole, Hong Kong athletes are none of your business. The fact that you don't know someone doesn't mean their not famous." The last part "屌你老母啦" is a nasty attack on Triwbe's mother that I won't translate. This attack is venting frustration on Triwbe for repeatedly tagging User:Misofalalala's legitimate articles for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"柒頭" means penis head, used to describe stupid people. 撚 means masturbation or penis. It is an attack. --Mongol (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note, when I tagged as these articles for CSD they did not show any claim to notab. The fact that the editor later added the required information meant that the CSD could be removed, but at the time it was quite valid, for example. As for the repeated personal attacks, how do we deal with that on WP ? --triwbe (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I love how a personal attack in Chinese becomes a series of question marks in English. So ???????????????????????????????????????????????????. Edison2 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our triwbe is one of our WP:NPP "warriors" that is tagging a page for speedy deletion four friggin' minutes after an apparently good-faith editor creates it. In the past these fellows have held little contests to see who could speedy the most pages - hope that is not happening again. Please see this thread. Doesn't excuse bringing in anyone's mother but I am sure it is frustrating. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Way to assume good faith. What other requirements of the speedy deletion rules do you think should be rescinded? Your claim here, and the claim in the link that you provided, do not provide evidence that anybody is having a contest to see who gets to delete something first, it's merely a bald-faced claim with nothing to back it up. Corvus cornix_talk 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I said that "In the past" there was a contest. You did not read the linked thread very carefully if you did not see that one of the NPP editors admitted that there was a contest. Personally, I strongly object to tagging someone's work for deletion two friggin' minutes after they create it (Iu Wai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) without at least having a real communication with the person. Not a template. A real communication where you write something to them and then you wait a reasonable period for a response before undoing their work. Sorry if I was harsh but I have seen this before and it doesn't look much better now. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff re "the contest". --Justallofthem (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, an unsubstantiated claim. Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've done my share of NPP and I do use CSD#A7 when appropriate, I also PROD, tag and even improve when able (add sources, add cats etc) and I have had a few -ve comments on my talk page (there for all to see) and I have responded accordingly. Does that give anyone the right to insult my mother ? Also, I have never "competed" on the number of CSDs, I am only trying to keep up standards --triwbe (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Absolutely not re the insults and they should be dealt with strongly. Re my strong words about NPP and WP:BITE, if the shoe does not fit you well then I apologize. Especially if you are not collecting notches. I did not do an extensive review of your work however I do know that I stand by the specific objections I made above. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What specific objections? That a number of unidentified editors are or have competed in some unsubstantiated contest? That you disagree with a speedy deletion tag? What specific objections do you have? I love the non-apology apology, too. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly were. Corvus cornix_talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've dealt with the insults by reverting them. I also blocked Hikikomori.hk for the abuse. Had he said it in English I would have left a strongly worded warning telling him to be civil but the fact that he chose to write it in a language that the vast majority of admins will not understand leads me to the conclusion that he did so in order not to be detected. Therefore I think a 24 hour block is necessary. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa, I hope now he knows we are aware of him he will be more civil or at least insult us in a language we understand :-) --triwbe (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He only edits about once or twice a month, so he probably won't even notice the block. Baseball Bugs 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's mainly symbolic, but now he knows we know now what he thought he knew we did not know now (how's that for chinese? :-) --triwbe (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also he'll notice the block message I put on his talk page and other admins will notice the block in the block log should he ever try it again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper sock

Thousands of socks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in May as a bad username, requested unblock yesterday, and it turns out that the reason they had logged in was to send abusive email, so I have reblocked with email disabled. I'd be interested in knowing if this is on the same range as Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but only out of mild personal curiosity. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• And now confirmed in another email (which helpfully tells me that those wonderful people at Encyclopaedia Dramatica are now saying that my late father, who was a teacher by profession, was a paedophile - charming lot, God knows why we gave them back the article on their festering heap of webshite, but that's another matter). Note that Abaddon Clan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same individual. I suspect there will be others, but he asserts he's using public WiFi. Remind me to turn my honeypot server back on... Guy (Help!) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, if we can afford to have an article on Joseph Goebbels, then I'm sure we can afford an article on a webshite :D --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Convergence and Union

This static IP has a quite long record of adding "progressive" to the party definition, when it is received wisdom that this party is not so. The operator of the IP has been prompted by myself and other users (such as user:Cnoguera) to please bother to discuss or add sources for his/her claim, to no avail. Every once in a while s/he comes back with the "progressive" addition, deleting "conservative" without bothering to explain why.

It's high time for this IP to be blocked from editting in this article. Thanks. Mountolive _{please, behave} 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months with account creation enabled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why keep AC enabled? The IP is definitely static, and having new accounts every day doing the same edit won't help. -- lucasbfr 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be reblocked with account creation disabled if it becomes a problem, but the activity on the ip was so low as to make account creation enabled a reasonable option. Otherwise, it is simple AGF courtesy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Convergence of Catalonia

Thank you for your prompt action. I am not sure if you blocked it from any editting or only for that article. In the latter case, then please extend the block to Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (one of the two constituent parties of Convergence and Union) for I just realized (I dont have this one in my watchlist) that s/he is doing the same mischief over there, too. Mountolive _{please, behave} 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was to the account, and limits them to editing their talkpages only for the duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank...U ;)

Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects

Recently User:Alden Jones, joined revert war on the page that he never edited before, and came up with reveletion on his previous revert warring. Alden stated that he was asked off-wiki by some en-wiki user to make these reverts. Leaving the question who this user asking for revert favours might be, I'd like to bring to the attention Alden's editing record.

User:Alden Jones who also happens to be Juguu/Cetzer/Zun/Zunpl/Prasuk historyk/Prasuk/Tramman/Karu/Frank3 (that is not full list) on various wikiprojects was indef blocked at pl.wiki and according to ArbCom of pl.wiki involved in block evasion, hoaxing and abusive socking, confirmed by checkuser (socks Karu, Juguu, Cetzer, IP 80.54.94.196, 195.117.128.81) . Alden's socking is extensively covered also at pl.wikibooks during his attempt at adminship there .

His rich blocklog at pl.wiki includes off-wiki harassment, disruption, block evasion, spamming.

Pl.wiki was not the only one hit by Alden's socking. Disruptive socking is also recorded at en. wiki: IP 212.122.214.173 who is clearly Frank3 , who clearly is Alden Jones (also Pawel, also from Bydgoszcz - common self-identification by this user's accounts on different wikiprojects) vandalized this userpage .

Same disruptive activities of this IP have been recorded at wikinews. But there this IP is connected to yet another Alden's persona "Prasuk historyk/Prasuk"

And then this circus. Alden vandalized other user's userpage as IP , and removed his vandalism logged in as Alden Jones

Personal attacks is another issue that must be addressed. After his failed adminship at Wikinews Alden went on this trolling rampage , later he apologized. This reminds me recent incident. These brutal personal attacks "troll get lost from article about polish" were followed by apologies

Now again he makes remarks towards admin that blocked him, implying that to block him and trolling is the same thing "in this situation block would be trolling. "

This cycle of trolling and vandalism followed by apologies makes me think that we have a case of WP:NOTTHERAPY here, and there is no solution but complete project (not just en.wiki or pl.wiki) ban. ----- M0RD00R (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to go along with this. His responses to any sort of corrections seem to be "mind your own business"; for example, I can't said why did I revert --- this my business, so please don't more ask about it me, because I won't answer on your questions about my reverts in response to my objecting to a blind revert on his part. He's admitted he's acting as a proxy for someone else: But I've reverted it for requests one of user EN-Wiki. --jpgordon 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. This sort of disruption isn't helpful at all, regardless of where he's doing it. Hersfold 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Alden to create content, instead of revert warring and personal attacks. Even through he seems to like me, he does not heed my requests, and only "helps" by occasionally popping up and reverting in some articles I am involved with. I can do without such "help". If he does more random reverts or civility attacks, I believe his record speaks for himself... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's strange about your request to Alden, Piotrus, is that he claimed another user asked him to revert on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. True enough, he did turn up after a three weeks + absence in the middle of your edit war, and reverted to your version. No-one else was reverting to your version except you. So who was asking him, if not you? Your guardian angel?

The day ends, and you resume next day busying about, doing your thing. Then at 2034 GMT Alden lets it out, , someone urged him, and soon after you're at his page warning him in public not to revert but to create content. I saw this going on, and, weak as I am, suspected there might be some truth in the course of events. I was wondering either how my perception could be mistaken or else how on earth you'd try to escape that, and when I saw your post I quite honestly cringed. It was exactly what I expected you to do, as you'd left him a similar message after he'd helped you in a previous edit war. So it appeared to be pure ostentatious orchestration. Now in your proposed arbcom hearing you've come up with a story about him being a devoted fan who worships you, and follows you about reverting to your version in hope of Kudos from a great man such as yourself, rather than at your instigation. But in spite of this it looks more like you've taken on a "pet dog" that's turned out to be too wild to control.

Creativity aside, either this looks pretty bad for you, Piotrus, as the bad part of me was thinking, or I'm missing something really important here. It's the evidence as far as I see it that is bad here, not my faith. So please tell me, what am I missing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that looks bad is your bad faith. Alden once told me he considers me a "wiki hero", follows my edits and every now and he likes to "help" me by reverting to my version. He IMs me often (on average once per day... I am considering blocking him from my IM), I usually ignore him or tell him to do something constructive with his time... and apparently a few times he thought "being constructive" is stalking my edits and "helping" me by reverting to my version (and several times he reverted perfectly good edits and I had to revert him...). He has poor command of English, but likes to use it and sometimes even I cannot understand his explanations. I told him to stop reverting and to concentrate on creating content, so far with little effect (see my posts to him on his talk page). I am not going to defend him (block him and good riddance), but I resent your meatpuppetry accusations. I am again disappointed, Deacon, in your judgment that instead of trying to help me deal with this problematic user (you have never even asked me about him on my talk page), you are starting by accusing me of meatpuppetry here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, that's what you said on the Arbcom. But the evidence, including his own testimony, suggests that you recruited Alden and got him to edit war for you, however you've agreed to present your relationship publicly. The evidence is against you, Piotrus, not just my faith. G'nite. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your "evidence"? Care to share it with anybody? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think playing dumb is going to help either. Certainly has no effect on me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, this is pretty unseemly while a RFAR involving both of you is underway. --jpgordon 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is actual evidence, the claims by Alden Jones prove nothing. It is entirely possible that Alden Jones "helps" Piotus to intentionally discredit him. I have seen recently how a user was blocked for "meatpuppetry" because he was stalked by an IP who pretended to "help" him.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. For the record, I am pretty sure Alden really thought he was helping; he is a naive teenager and I believe recently I've finally managed to convince him not to revert again... PS. I just had a thought: given Alden's poor knowledge of English, the request he got might have not been encouraging him to revert, but discouraging him - and he simply misunderstood it. Since this is much more likely (Ockham razor), and kills the conspiration theory, that's my current explanation for this incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd editor

Seems to be trying to impersonate me, eg link and link. What do you do about people like this? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Block them, which I am about to do. --Rodhullandemu 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, has now blanked the User & Talk pages, but appears to be doing good edits. I'll keep an eye on this. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a good edit . M0RD00R (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, but he is now blocked for WP:3RR anyway. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Nishkid64's assessment of the username violation. I've chimed in as well. — Satori Son 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru's talk page template

QuackGuru has a deceptive box at the top of his talk page that is quite deceptive:

• See the top of this version

He is definitely not "semi-retired" or "no longer very active"! He is extremely active.

When asked to revise or remove it, he has removed my remarks instead of being collaborative and removing the deceptive box:

• once
• again

This deception has to stop. We can't have deceptive editors here. It ruins any possibilities for AGF and collaboration. -- Fyslee / talk 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified QuackGuru of this discussion. — Satori Son 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

deceptive box is deceptive?--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Who cares if he has a box at the top of his talk page saying he is semi retired? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dumbest. Edit-war. Ever. HalfShadow 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe next time try dropping a friendly note instead of first telling an editor to behave and then accusing him of being dishonest over a stupid box? Way, way over the line. Shell 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that the conclusion here is that users are free to deceive others on their talk page, I think I will put a box at the top of my talk page saying I am an admin on WP. - DigitalC (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT taken.

As for QuackGuru, I suggest just ignoring him until he gets bored and finds a new article to mess with. That's what I've done ever since he tried campaigning to put a WP:BLP template on Children because the article dealt with "living people" in the general sense, and it works much better than trying to argue with him does. Arguing against him just seems to make him confused and excited. --erachima talk 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikayla12

Not sure if this falls into the class of "inappropriate user page for a minor" or not. I tend to believe the self-identification, not the part where she is a singing sensation that is best buds with all the Disney stars.Kww (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CHILD. Looking at her contribs, we could be dealing with some vandalism as well. Blueboy96 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems similar to another user who recently had the same issue, unfortunately I can't remember that user's name. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many new redirects

Recently, many new business redirects involving pages such as Kennametal, John Wiley & Sons, Jefferies & Company, Kinetic Concepts, ITT Technical Institute, etc, which can be found here. Some of these changes conform to MoS guidelines (Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (companies)), but others, like "Graco Inc." to "Graco (fluid handling)" do not, as it says to use "Inc" for disambiguation purposes. Also, he drops "Corp" sometimes and adds "Corporation" other times.

Could some of the worse redirects be deleted? (note, originally posted 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) and changed later to reflect the concern and later information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I undertstand what you're getting at. Whiskeydog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made no page moves but has created a bunch of redirects from full company names to the actual article. If the MOS says that the article and redirect should be swapped then just do it. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, created a bunch of redirects. Why? It is rather standard to link directly instead of creating redirects. It appears that they are all connected to S&P 400. I guess each page needs to be hunted down and linked to directly, instead of being redirected. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to link through a redirect - in fact it's preferable to piping a link because there is less potential for issues with the backlinks. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the topic accordingly. It doesn't seem to be as a big issue, but will need someone to clean up the links to be direct, at least in a few important cases. A few of the Wikilinks seem unnecessary as their original names are improper and will need to be deleted after the original link is fixed (Belo Corp. (New), Gallagher(Arthur J.), and Zebra Technologies'A' in particular). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The company name formatting sucks, but it's what S&P uses on its charts. See Any change to the exact formatting misses the point (mentioned below). Whiskeydog (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As CIreland says, redirects are fine; see WP:R2D. There's also a chance of someone typing that into the search box. --NE2 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue I don't think; I wish you'd have asked me directly first. The above editors have already explained Ottava Rima's misinterpretation—no page moves have taken place. I'll address the redirects. Yes, these redirects may appear to be rather "cruddy", but redirects are cheap, and there is a rationale. They are the business names used by S&P in its lists of stock market index constituents. The redirects allow articles like S&P 400 and S&P 600 to be updated, from scratch if necessary, with constituent data that can be wikilinked without having to be piped. (Any piping that was done to the articles' links would be lost if the tables were generated from scratch data. If the lists are kept up to date, it's a hypothetical issue, but they're generally not.) Whiskeydog (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Whiskey. I only wanted the redirects of poor names to be deleted. It would be best having them not show up in searches if they are not used. I don't think you have the ability to do that, unless you are an admin and no one knows :). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - (because some people wondered), I mentioned Whiskeydog, but I did not contact him, as he isn't really needing to be involved per se , except as the source of changes (as it isn't a complaint against him). The only thing necessary is to delete a lot of bad links that were originally started from the S&P 400 page (redlinks turned to redirects, I assume). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WhiskeyDog (and I created some of these redirects as well: see my contributions here): please do not delete any of them. Any "fixes" (including pipes) of the company names in the List of S&P 500 companies, S&P 400 and S&P 600 articles get overwritten when these 3 artcles are automatically updated for changes in their constituents. Redirects are cheap, and in fact, even though they appear strange, these are frequent search terms from outside WP because S&P is such a significant source of data on companies, and so having them is very useful to WP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced by that. I didn't realize that this came from an S & P naming convention, which apparently conflicts with Misplaced Pages. Since it is such an important thing, the redirects are obviously notable enough alternative titles and shouldn't be deleted. Should we list the S&P name on the individual articles also? Or is this not necessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the S&P name is necessary on the encyclopedic article; there would seem to be much more encyclopedic information that should go into the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?

I'm sorry if I'm submitting this to the wrong place. I'm involved in a dispute with an editor who is making unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and incomprehensible edits to this article, possibly based on original research, and who for several years has been protecting this article from anyone trying to fix it, and attacking people who try with extremely intemperate language, accusing us of being ignorant, not knowing the subject, etc. etc.

The article is Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? and if you look at the Talk page there you will see a great deal of material from him, going back to 2006. I came into the picture recently, originally just looking for information about the art work, and finding an incomprehensible mess instead.

The core of the dispute is the authorship of this work of art, which has traditionally been attributed to Richard Hamilton. Recently the son of another artist, John McHale, argued on a website that his father should be credited with the picture. This claim has not to my knowledge been evaluated by any art professional or critic, and has not been discussed in any of the many books on the subject of Pop art, Hamilton, etc. As such, I feel that the attribution of the collage MUST be left as Hamilton until some outside authority has weighed in, besides a single person intimately associated with the issue. The user I am struggling with, Ottex, feels differently.

Another area of contention is references. The user Ottex is repeatedly filling up the article with unsourced claims about the contents of the collage, including much irrelevant associational details. He CLAIMS to have provided a reference but instead of elucidating his point he merely continues to repeat the same bald assertions over and over with much contemptuous mocking of me and other editors, who are too ignorant to understand the brilliance of his claims. The fact that his editing and talk contributions are riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, making them very difficult to understand as English, and the fact that he has apparently invented a person out of a typographical error, puts his supposed expertise in some doubt.

I'm a hot-tempered person by nature, and if I continue to engage with him on this subject, I'm going to blow my top. That's why I'm coming to you. As it stands, his version of the article is ruinous, and damages the understanding of any unsuspecting third party who merely seeks information. But I can't re-revert it to my own admittedly poor but backed-up and readable version because of 3RR.

Please advise. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same editor pushed another editor, Freshacconci, off the article a few months back. He seems absolutely devoted to attributing the work to McHale, though the only real source is the one interview, which didn't seem to grab headlines elsewhere. a recent book about these guys, found via Google books, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future, doesn't mention this controversy at all, despite devoting pages on pages to the pop art history and the groups McHale and Hamilton were in. he may need a serious warning, with blocks and topic ban to follow. ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have in my hands four major books on Pop art. None mention the controversy. McHale's son didn't pop up until 2006, which means it may be some time before it IS addressed, if ever. However, if you read the McHale Jr. interview, his credibility is undermined by some complete misunderstandings; i.e., he thinks Guinness stout is called "Murphy" in Ireland (Murphy's is actually a competing brand of stout ale). I don't think McHale Jr. is a credible source. I definitely don't think he's an encyclopedic source.

This is but one example of what dealing with this guy has been like. How can I revert an edit that's been re-reverted already, even though it has spelling errors in it? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Ottex of this thread. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested assistance at WikiProject Visual arts, where folks are usually both helpful and knowledgeable. I think we should be able to handle it from now on. Ty 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ty, that is an excellent first step for dispute resolution. If you do not get enough help at WP:WPVA, I would strongly recommend the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Since the subject of the article is still alive, adding this poorly sourced negative information is a serious BLP concern. — Satori Son 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope

For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it:

Here are diffs of warnings: Jayjg 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that, judging from the tone of the reverts, as well as the snippy on Jayjg's page, that this dispute is far from over. and in fact will prolly lead to a block. While a calm voice does help, when one is reverted, the time for discussion is then not after an ANI thread is begun. - Arcayne () 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prolly" a block, you say? Edison2 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prolly = probably. And yes, while the well of Good Faith does spring Eternal, some of that headwater peters out when some folk abuse it too much. I am guestimating that the user has a tiny bit of good faith left, and it won't help them the next time they go flippant. - Arcayne () 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No more patience for this single-purpose account

Chicago1919 (talk · contribs) is the epitome of a negative POV-pushing single-purpose account. This editor has never edited a thing besides the Steve Dahl article, and even then all of his/her edits have been negative POV and loaded with weasel or peacock words (depending on who he's referring to). He/she engaged in a series of tendentious edits back in 2007 on that article, then came back in July to start readding comments to the article (which Jauerback (talk · contribs) and I have brought up to GA status) that are written using terms like "ratings dives", "ratings slides", etc. When his edits are reverted and he is questioned, he makes personal attacks and accuses me (and others) of being professional advocates of Steve Dahl . He has multiple posts to his talk page asking him to stop refactoring language in the article to support a negative POV and there's a long discussion on the Dahl article talk page (archived) about this same topic. The editor in question refuses to stop, as just today he has once again added POV language (again, weasel words like "plummet") to the article, and subsequently been reverted by Jauerback. There was a previous discussion about this person at AN/I in November 2007. My patience with this person is at an end as they are apparently unwilling to contribute constructively and are a negative POV-pushing single-purpose account who has never done a thing on Misplaced Pages except add POV to Steve Dahl. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To that user's credit - while his tone is very negative–he is usually adding sources to his statements; is it possible that the information he's adding could be written in a more neutral standpoint rather than just removed? For example, if Dahl does have extremely low ratings, that's notable. I am probably more entitled to your username, as I am nobody of consequence, however, from a quick glance at the article and the talk page, I feel like some good work to be done if everyone involved just took a step back–the language being used on the talk page now is extremely confrontational, and, in my opinion, only going to agitate both of you further, so I would recommend you both just examine the sources and trying to compromise.--danielfolsom 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: one is the referenced information about ratings, and changes in hours or formats. Another is the spin placed on the info via POV verbiage such as "ratings plummeted." In Chicago1919 chooses to edit only this article, I can certainly live with that preference. (Note: I edited the Dahl article and added some refs in the distant past). It is unfortunate that Nobody of Consequence's patience is "at an end." I suggest going for a walk in the fresh air, or engaging in some refreshing real-world activities until some of the patience is restored. All parties should take a step back, and resolve to avoid personal attacks. Steve Dahl and Garry Meier are innovators of and legends in talk radio (591-Rock, 591-Roll), and year by year their articles have improved. Non-point of view characterizations of ratings changes should be insisted on. Uninvolved admins can place short blocks if necessary after appropriate warnings for policy violatins. A feeling of ownership of an article should not lead anyone to come here and demand that someone with an opposing viewpoint should be banned or prevented from editing an article. Edison2 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to WP:OWN the article. And I don't have a problem with factual information. What I have a problem with is that Chicago 1919 continually adds stuff to this article using POV language. He has been specifically asked a number of times to please stop using this kind of language, yet he ignores all such requests, accuses others of being hired stooges for Dahl. This is not about the article itself, it is about the behavior of Chicago 1919, who repeatedly violates WP:NPOV with his "contributions". This is disruptive and the editor shows no intention of adhering to NPOV or listening to any of his fellow editors. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this thread. He didn't edit at all for almost two weeks. His edit does quote the source directly. Why couldn't someone just cut out "as his ratings continued to plummet" from the first sentence? I mean, the source does say that his ratings "plunged"? It's not an inaccurate description. I agree that he needs to learn to write more NPOV, but wholesale removal of his text isn't appropriate either. Just remove the POV language and keep the rest in. If he was edit warring over it (the talk page comments are over a month old), I'd be more concerned. He's going to learn that he isn't going to get to keep all his POV in. He can either grow up and make it more NPOV or watch it get mercilessly edited away. It's totally up to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by banned sock master

plyjacks (talk · contribs) was banned for being a sock master based upon a report made by me. He has recently started registering new accounts and vandalizing my user page. I report it, he gets blocked, he registers a new account and the cycle repeats itself. The latest was by his new sock syjacks (talk · contribs), is there some way we block this moron? BTW, he has now set himself up on Commons, and has started this crap over there under the name Plyman.

I would also look into P-W-EE-Her Mn (talk · contribs), as this one is doing the same thing and maybe related.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Syjacks (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as being Plyjacks, as is Kegatic (talk · contribs). I've just run the check per your request the other day. Sorry about the delay!. Also (and most annoyingly), P-W-EE-Her Mn (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as being PWeeHurman (talk · contribs), obviously returning to ensure his college range gets hardblocked again :/ - Alison 05:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics

There's a multiparty significant content revert war in progress - in particular, User:Ohconfucius and User:Badagnani are going at it on User talk:Badagnani and the article talk page. I can't tell if this is just more bitter consensus-development than normal, an attempted whitewash, a nasty response to perceived whitewash, or all of the above. I have to go to bed, but someone with some time might want to take a look at it and try talking some participants down... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags and User:76.90.224.167

This IP address has taken it upon himself to remove stuff with fact tags on it. That's basically his only activity, other than copping an attitude toward various users who have challenged him on it. Is this appropriate behavior? Baseball Bugs 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm there is a couple of points here. I don't think he has support for removing material with a fact tag. I don't agree that adding a fact tag is challenging the material, I personally have added the tags because i felt that things should be cited not because i think they are not true. Having said that, I don't think he is "copping an attitude" because he disagrees.

As for removing the welcome message, he has every right to do that if he wants to and the person edit warring to add it 3 times is out of line IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, another user edit warring over a welcome message is silly. I would probably delete it myself if I were the IP, and an editor has the right to delete most anything he wants from his talk page. Baseball Bugs 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Most (not all) of the edits seem to be reasonable removal of uncited original research, thus "While some suggest...", "Still others believe that...", "It is believed that...". The attitude could do with an improvement though, as you say. Black Kite 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By "copping an attitude" I mean that he says he's going to continue regardless, and he won't answer challenges. I don't disagree that at least some of what he's zapping looks like off-the-wall OR stuff. It caught my attention due to the Apollo hoax article. But by deleting this stuff, it deprives others of the chance to find sources, since they will likely be unaware of it unless they schlog through an article's history. The stuff he deleted from the Apollo hoax article, for example, looks like legitimate questions raised by hoax believers, and simply needs to be sourced. Baseball Bugs 10:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of what he removed certainly isn't legit questions, but pure bollocks :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. And I've been known to delete such stuff myself. But at least I'll talk to someone who challenges it. And in the case of the Apollo hoax article, which is what brought this user to my attention at least some of it looks like questions that hoaxsters have raised, and deleting it is liable to fuel claims of censorship. About that specific article, I've alerted one of that page's most frequent editors. In the case of the others, there are various editors who've challenged him and his answer amounts to "I don't care what you think". Not good. Baseball Bugs 10:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I believe is currently blocked or just coming off a block, has been known to delete any and all information that's been fact-tagged, (see this) and refuse to talk about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew wikipedia

Hey, the Hebrew wikipedia is threatening to sue us as seen here --Thanks, Hadseys 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation? Algebraist 11:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's it say? I don't think most of us can read Hebrew. --erachima talk 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Hebrew, but that revision doesn't seem to exist. Anyway, "the Hebrew Misplaced Pages" can't sue "the English Misplaced Pages", so I don't understand what the point is. Kusma (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Bstone (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, it doesn't say anything about suing. The translation of the current page is:

Hello, I am Sheva-Shalosh (Seven-Three), Proud Israeli and Zionist. I wrote on the English Misplaced Pages and suffered a bit from antisemitic repression, whilst also corresponding about it with Israelis and Jews from all over the world. Thus I crossed over to the Hebrew Misplaced Pages.

However, User:Shevashalosh was blocked on en.wiki for making legal threats. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like he. already dealt with the issue then? --erachima talk 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Her blog makes interesting reading though. "Wikipdians Jews against discrimination". Here she does talk about suing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• My browser displays both an english and a hebrew message:

Wikipdians Jews against discrimination

Wikipdians Jews against discrimination

Have you suffered from Anti-Semitic discrimination on English Misplaced Pages?

If so, we are getting organized,

Please write to: shevashalosh@nana10.co.il

So we can go to the press, and later file a lawsuit against English Misplaced Pages.

Send a mail to organizer - User:shevashalosh

I was sent an email about it presumably because I' Jewish --Thanks, Hadseys 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The site lists Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign as an example of antisemitism here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an email reading:

I'm Mm40 on the English Misplaced Pages (See http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mm40 )

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have suffered from nothing of what you are saying.

In addition, the English Misplaced Pages is not a separate organization. You would have to sue the Wikimedia Foundation together. Anyways, you are being :unreasonable. Please stop, you're wasting your time.

 Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, the best thing to do when you come across something like this is probably to take the issue to the wikipedia (or whatever) involved since they can do something about it if it's a violation of their policies (which it was in this case). In the Hebrew wikipedia, that's He:שיחת ויקיפדיה:שגרירות and see Misplaced Pages:Embassy if it's some other wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do the arabic and hebrew wikipediae understand that as a sister wikipediae they are bound to the core principle of WP:NPOV? Are there folks checking their contentious articles to make sure that ethnocentric biases are not slanting the usual suspects? How are the I/P articles? Are they more polarized than ours? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I have seen Jimbo personally say that anything legal related should just be sent direct to Mike Godwin, our lawyer.--mboverload@ 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen User:shevashalosh in action, and his boneheadedness is so blatant that the people on Israeli Misplaced Pages won't be able to miss it. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Productive socks

I have blocked two socks of community banned users: User:Kostan1 is a sock of User:M.V.E.i. and User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is a sock of User:HanzoHattori. For the proof see User_talk:Biophys#Good_work in the hindsight it seems quite obvious.

Both socks earned a few short blocks on their own right but overall were reasonably constructive and IMHO have done much more constructive work than disruption. I do not feel indefinite banning them is in the best interests of the project.

I propose to change the community bans to community civility parole and community 1RR per day restriction for the period of one year. Lets say any administrator could block them for the period of up to 1 week for incivility of revert warring (more than one revert per article per day). Three such blocks would mean restoring of the community ban. Thus, they would have a very little room to disrupt but all the possibilities in the world to contribute constructively.

As they are of the opposite POV I feel it is good to keep the restrictions to be equal to avoid supporting a particular POV. Although in my opinion Hanzo was less disruptive than M.V.E.i.

Any thoughts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Alæxis_¿question? 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence and discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i, plus a cursory look at their block log, I would feel extremely uncomfortable removing the community ban of M.V.E.i. (block log). I haven't yet had time to review the situation for HanzoHattori (block log), but unless they are related shouldn't we be discussing them separately anyway? — Satori Son 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I understand these two users edit some of the same articles, but I still think unban proposals should be discussed individually. If others agree, perhaps we should start a subsection for each? — Satori Son 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure of the premises here. You blocked two accounts for violating WP policies, but wish to limit the sanction because they have good contributions - even though they are obviously the socks of other accounts who have been banned for using socks to continue their POV compaigns? If I am right, you are advocating the rewarding of a couple of editors whose recent accounts were used for some edit warring by permitting them to continue while the ratio of vandalism to good edits is... "reasonable"? Nope, sorry! As you have had to block them, again, it is evident that the editors are trying to game the system and have not moved on from their previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object to M.V.E.i ever being unblocked, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons. Not very familiar with HattoriHanzo, although what I saw of Captain Obvious suggested his heart is in the right place, albeit he has civility issues. Neıl ☄ 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made here. I don't really know M.V.E.I. here but I've seen reports of him creating sock puppets all too much. How many accounts has he created? As for user HanzoHattori/Captain Obvious, assuming that they indeed are the same person, let's recall what got him banned in the first place. HanzoHattori was banned by an admin after he made a bad remark about this admin. This was an extremely dumb move, and in part may have been motivated by bad circumstances and said health problems he had back then. His ban seems to have been protested back then as well. I think that an attempt to give this user limited acces again to wikipedia would be addressed anyway at some point in the future, because he created and updated a lot of good articles to wikipedia. So yes, I support this move, looking back that a ban in the first place may have been far too strict. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All users are different. This can only be decided individually. I agree with Neil and Satori Son that M.V.E.i. should not be unblocked. As about "Captain", I would like to see a checkuser report.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no way should M.V.E.i. ever be unbanned. Do we need racist, neo-fascist trolls contributing to WP? No thanks, I think we have plenty already. I'm amazed this has even been raised again. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed unban of HanzoHattori

I agree with User:LessHeard vanU and would strongly object to ever unblocking HanzoHattori, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons and the community noted that they had shown an incredible amount of tolerance to him. We should not essentially reward a banned user for ban evasion, socking and violating policy - not to mention Hanzo's sock continued to break 3RR (3 times in a month-check Captain Obvious' block log) and continued to be uncivil-""Fuck this shit, I'm outta here".

For those unfamilar with Hanzo, his incivility was dreadful. Here are just a few examples:

I wanted to post here so Mr. Bot would fuck off

what the fuck

Fuck you Misplaced Pages.

Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass

Yes, note this. You can kiss my ass too.

Blanked page and replaced with lol wikipedia

Another Fuck you wikipedia

God dammn. WHAT THE FUCK?

"Well, I've got sort of a pretty bad real life crisis, I'm unemployed but I have a chronic depression and the meds don't really help, so the nonsense like this should be the last thing for me to take seriously about now. You know, I wanted to leave anyway, but I found myself too addicted and also I lied to myself that what I'm doing has any importance. So if they think I was doing a shitty job, fine, I'm not going to BAAAWWWW about this and I wasted my time enough. In short, Misplaced Pages is worthless, my life suck, and I should instead get off the internets and get my shit together. (Which I probably won't anyway)."

This user clearly has serious issues. As another user noted at his permanent ban proposal, wikipedia is not therapy. Community endorsed bans are given for a reason, we should not reward users for evading bans, not to mention that his sock continued his incivility and edit warring. Allowing an unblock of Hanzo would set a procedural fairness (a legal concept where everyone is entitled to the same procedure) precedent - we would have to tell all banned users "you are banned but if you evade your ban and your sock acts nice then we'll let you come back".--Miyokan (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have a grudge towards this user, Miyokan. As you yourself have also been nominated for a 1revert limit before I don't think the paragraphs you've written above should influince administrators decisions.

Many of the incivility comments that you seem to have archived are from his old account, and the post about his health problems was under emotional circumstances after he was banned. I agree with Alex Bakharev, this user has also proved himself to be a great contributer. Considering his incivility I would like to address that back then his health problems may have attributed to his, so I'm also in favour of a second chance. Grey Fox (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also strongly hesitate in having Hanzo unbanned. He's made positive contributions, yes, but valid edits aren't a currency that one can exchange for immunity to our civility policies. He's incredibly antagonistic, and I'd rather we not reward his inability to make the much-needed attitude adjustments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to comment about the "old account/health problems" thing, please. I have as much belief that Hanzo's long-standing antagonistic attitude was tied to "health problems" as I do that a unicorn will chase the Easter Bunny out in front of my car on the way home. The diffs above are from earlier this year; I first blocked him for personal attacks in 2007, and his first block (for edit warring) was in 2006. This is not some sort of "incivility flare-up" that is a largely isolated incident; it's a perpetual behavioral issue, and one that I don't see any clear evidence has been cleared up (especially since CO's "smartasses" comment sounds exactly like the Hanzo of old, and CO has already garnered himself some blocks for edit warring). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo and all his socks should be indef'd. We don't need this behavior nor disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who banned him in the first place right? Don't you think you've been way too strict? It could have been a long ban instead of a permaban. The only problem with this editor is that he occasionally uses swear words, in the same style as rappers do in the states. Grey Fox (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog - and with HanzoHattori in the past. I support his unblock, and as I said some time ago, we should put spirit (of encyclopedia building) above the letter of our wiki-laws: if a banned user proves he is useful, unban him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how calling an anon editor a fag, or lobbing childish "your mom" jokes, or just flat-out calling someone an idiot is in the "spirit of encyclopedia building". If he can't make positive contributions and follow our civility policies, he shouldn't be here; end of story. It's a collaborative environment, and he has issues collaborating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw someone getting a 2-day block for far worse behaviour (if you want I can show you). Why are these uncivil comments (perhaps against anonymous vandal users) from a year and half ago worth a permaban? Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the ones I cited in my block of him from May of 2007. I've got better things to do with my time than to sort through his more recent stuff; he's a problem editor, has been for a long time, and is still excessively antagonistic. User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 2#Geez... clearly shows that attempts had been made for him to improve his attitude, yet he hasn't. I've yet to see any reason that the ban shouldn't stick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this editor wants to return to the project as a purely constructive editor, nothing is stopping them from doing so under a new user name. The sock demonstrate that this isn't someone who has exactly found themself locked out of the project by the ban to begin with, so they clearly know enough to create a new account. If they are serious about being a non-disruptive member of the community, it is almost in their best interest to just start new. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But Captain was blocked exclusively for being an alleged sockpuppet of HanzoHattory, not for any specific disruption. I had extensive communication with HanzoHattori (much less with the "Captain" recently). I actively argued with him on various occasions. I found him much more collaborative than a number of users who currently edit here. I would actually call him a "neutrality fighter", who was much less biased than me (that is why we argued). He was a strong enforcer of WP:NPOV policy, but an impatient one. And he was extremely productive. Yes, his irony and occasionally incivility was a problem, but I think a civility parole would be sufficient. If "Captain" was him, he definitely demonstrated a visible improvement lately.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, excellent point. It's obvious he's here to be a non-disruptive member of the community, which is why he's garnered three blocks for edit warring. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Well said. He was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of a banned editor, but that may not have happened if he had not been blocked previously, and had a clean track record. Of course, he was blocked multiple times in the past month for disruption, so the block was entirely reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes the block. But a person who made this block (Alex bakharev) came here and asked if these two users can be unblocked. Hence this discussion. My reply to EVula: I have no idea why User:Deacon of Pndapetzim blocked Captain, but in two other cases that was a violation of 3RR rule on his side. On the second occasion (that was actually Battle of Tskhinvali rather than 2008 Ossetian war) he reverted repeated copyright violations by User:Top Gun who was later indefinitely banned. On the first occasion (Okinawa) he tried to remove poorly sourced accusations of war rapes by US soldiers. Yes, he is guilty of 3RR violation. But this does not justify his indefinite block.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock. From what I've seen, the positive contributions far outweigh the "incivility". We could do with a few more foul-mouthed neutralists round here to balance out the "civil POV-pusher" brigade. --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to find out why Deacon blocked him; see User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog#3RR violation for the block notice. While you're at it, scroll up, and you'll see a slew of additional warnings about civility and edit warring. Gee, almost like he hasn't changed his editing patterns or something... strange, who'd have thunk? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I took my time to think about this one, and I agree with EVula, LessHeard vanU, and Rlevse that the community ban of HanzoHattori is still justified. Even if we ignore the socking issue, there has simply been too much disruptive editing. — Satori Son 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CU or someone knowledgable regarding identifying ip addresses required

A target of a bad faith AIV report has some concerns here. The report is . The reporter has only been editing "today", which makes the knowledge displayed somewhat suspicious. The question is, "How did they know?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:Kwamikagami#Useful stuff, under "Alias". Nothing to see here, move on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... Folks, don't worry if your monitor shows a brief pink tinge... that would be me blushing, that it would. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LionWolfFan

LionWolfFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been building a fraud, trying to make it appear as if Jack Black voiced Tigger in The Tigger Movie, which then went on to great awards. False info posted to Annie Award for Best Animated Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was what got me looking: then looked at the edits to The Tigger Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He forged data into Jack Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to support it. Looking over his other edits, nearly all have been reverted by other editors, and I got the few that were not. This is beyond AIV, but needs blocked as a vandalism-only account.Kww (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down needed for IP

An IP-hopping anon has gotten out of hand over a dispute as to which images to use in some articles, and has been violating NPA. I tried to block the IP for a cooling off period (48 hours), but the user is hopping around (66.176.139.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.191.12.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.196.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 98.211.229.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 98.211.229.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) so far, all Cox Cable, so a range block is out of the question). I also suspect there is a connection between the anon user and this sockpuppet case, as Comayagua99 was the anon's first target. At this point I need other heads to review the blocks I've made and to step in, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prior to your posting here, I had submitted request for page protection on four articles that seem to be the focus of the same anon: South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida. No comments or action have been taken on those requests ... but I'm wondering if temporary full protection would be better than the semi-protection I had requested so that all involved can sit back and discuss. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The four related articles have now been semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The anon is currently posting under 66.176.46.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). See:

• WP:AN3#User:Comayagua99 reported by User:Miami area editor (Result: ), where the anon has posted a request for a 3RR action against a user who was content-warring against their multiple IP socks.
• Image:Brickell1.JPG, where anon is repeatedly requesting an image uploaded by Comayagua99 be deleted.
• Image:Brickell3.JPG, where anon is repeatedly requesting an image uploaded by Comayagua99 be deleted.
• User_talk:Comayagua99, where anon repeatedly re-applies 3RR warning (the user receiving the warning has removed it themself 3 times, demonstrating it has been seen - yet the anon insists on re-applying it)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that this is the indefinitely blocked User:Miamiboyzinhere. He is a Cox Cable customer and he is hopping IPs, probably every time he logs into Cox. Semi-protection of his target articles may be the only way to prevent disruption from him. -- Donald Albury 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your evaluation is correct. Perhaps semi-protecting all the relevant pages for 2 weeks, and block if the user turns up anywhere else. All your blocks on this so far are sound. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Messy137

Right from the creation of account user added nonsense to articles and then created a non-notable musical band page now up for speedy deletion. When I placed appropriate tags on the user's talk page, their response was to place the words "screw you" on my user page. Thanks for any assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If all this users edits are vandalism, then report at Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and request a (probably temporary) block. If they aren't all vandalism, then warn on their talk page (as you have done). If it continues after the final warning, request a block. --Ged UK (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty obvious this user wasn't going to be constructive any time soon. Blocked indef. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:190.154.122.201 at List of fascist movements by country A-F

User is a single-purpose account, every contribution of which involves the unsourced and unsupported assertion that the ruling party of Ecuador is fascist. User has been warned on talk page as well as in edit summaries ( ) to stop or provide sources. User is utterly unresponsive. Disruptive editing has continued since 15 August. --Killing Vector (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this IP for 24 hours for edit-warring following a previous warning. CIreland (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sneakernight

I'm trying to figure out a better way to handle this. Sneakernight was redirected to its parent article as the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sneakernight, and absolutely nothing has changed to alter that result. Someone is upset. There have been a series of throw-away accounts attempting to bypass the AFD results. They pop up, create the article under a slightly different name, and then do little else. Sometimes, they do other edits that are likely to get them whacked with a block. It's repeated attempts to create deleted material, which is one of the classic uses of protection. We are up to the eighth time this has happened. It's far from an isolated event. See:

• Sneakernight
• Sneakernight(song)
• Sneakernight(Song)
• Sneakernight (Identified Song)
• Sneakernight (Single)
• Sneakernight (Identified single)
• Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudgens song)
• Sneakernight (Vanessa Hudegns song)
• Sneakernight(Vanessa anne hudgens song)

Today, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry refused to protect it. I disagree with his logic, but he isn't blatantly wrong. It's obvious that they won't run out of slightly different name variations. I've tried to track the accounts, but, like I say, they appear to be throwaways. Even if I got the results back saying the most of the accounts were linked to at least one other, none of that would link me back to the main account.

What's the best action to take here? How does this problem get fixed instead of reacted to?
Kww (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I'm just reluctant to protect every article this chap decides to make. Can we do a rangeblock or the like? Would that work? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, but I've salted all those articles anyway (apart from the original, which is a protected redirect); perhaps they will get the idea that it's pointless continuing after a while. We can only hope. Black Kite 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a productive use of the title blacklist? Black Kite 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a title blacklist? It at least sounds promising. In the event they wiggle past that in the future, do you think that I could kill these articles off with CSD db-repost by linking back to this discussion?Kww (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could. The title blacklist prevents articles being created with certain keywords in them, by the way. Black Kite 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not having been cursed with admin status, I can't go add it. I would recommend *, *, *, and *. It would go a long ways towards fixing this.Kww (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.202.65.243

User:71.202.65.243 is disrupting the Talk:Ecosystem page the last half an hour. Could somebody take a look, please. I have referted him multiple times now, and he doesn't respond to any of my comments on the talk page -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be just a dispute over layout. The IP seems to prefer to organize the page by-the-book to certain Misplaced Pages guidelines, which he has even cited. You prefer the layout a different way based on the flow of the article. Neither are really wrong here, but it is up to the editors on the page to reach a consensus, and not just endlessly edit war over it. Others may have a different opinion, but I don't see this as requiring administrative action at this time. I DO think that everyone should stop editing other user's comments on the talk page though. Arakunem 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just talking about the Talk:Ecosystem and the (previous) disrupting User:71.202.65.243 (was) is making there, not the changes to the Ecosystem article. But he seemes to get the message now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored all changes made to the initial discussion by user:71.202.65.243 before 21 August 2008. myself now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

Not protected. Bstone (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Del Martin just died. Please protect. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Incidentally, requests for page protection are handled at WP:RPP.  Sandstein  19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we do preemptive protections? Corvus cornix_talk 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't. But additional eyes on the article would be appreciated. Maralia (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline deletion issue

An important (though not well-worded) segment of WP:DAB that more properly belonged at WP:NCP was deleted yesderday, to resolve a dispute at WT:NCP. While I question whether deleting guideline material to satisfy one side of an ongoing dispute about whether the guideline applies to them is proper procedure, my real concern is that a better-written version that addresses the concerns of both parties is being editwarred out of WP:NCP. I've reverted that deletion twice and stopped, and even been attacked for going that far, on the flimsy basis that I have no consensus for this, when of course the missing consensus was for the original deletion. Moving the material from one page to another and fixing it up is one thing, but eliminating it entirely quite another. No one has disputed the re-wording. Rather, this seems to be a fait accompli end-run around process by a small group of sports-bio editors to get rid of a guideline segment they don't like, despite the fact that it no longer even affects what they are doing. It's quite mystifying.

I'm not seeking any kind of action against anyone, just advice on whether to:

1. Just leave the material out of the guidelines generally, until discussion plays out, which could take a day or 18 months, who knows
2. Put it back into WP:DAB from which it was deleted without consensus (with or without the wording improvements that render the dispute at WT:NCP moot), and from which it is likely to be reverted back out again by the same people
3. Seek temporary page protection in one or both locations (even if it is presently the "wrong version"), until discussion arrives at a consensus.
4. Or what.

I'm told that edit history at WP:DAB shows that I'm responsible for the original language of the passage to begin with, many months ago (I didn't bother to verify this). I spend so much time in MOS and related pages that I really have no recollection, and it doesn't matter. This isn't about whether my text was perfect (obviously it wasn't or I wouldn't have overhauled it to make the sports-related dispute at WT:NCP resolve itself), but rather whether a one-topic micro-consensus can change policy by removing long-accepted advice from one guideline, where it has been stable and adhered to for a long time, across almost all bio articles (4 particular sports seeming to be the only consistent exceptions) and then refusing to allow the material into the guideline it arguably really belongs in. Strikes me as a fillibuster. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the discussion knew that one person redirected the section in WP:DAB to WP:NCP until just now. What people said you added was the language that was in WP:NCP which you added about 6 months ago without discussion. No one moved the language from one page to another. They just redirected the DAB section to the NCP page. I think you may have assumed someone moved something and then got upset when none of us there knew that happened because it handn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a long-standing and stable guideline section and redirecting it to a page that ostensibly has more detail on the topic, but is in fact missing a key component of the deleted guideline material is a deletion without consensus of guideline material. There is simply no way around that. I'm not sure what you mean by no one knew; Francis Schonken announced his redirect of the DAB section to NCP at WT:NCP rather prominently. I never said anyone moved the material, other than me, in a sense: I restored it, in a form specifically adjusted to answer your concerns about its original wording, to NCP, and you and others reverted it as an "undiscussed addition". It is not an addition, it is a restoration of an undiscussed deletion of stable guideline material (in a way that does not dispute the redirection of the section in question to the larger guideline on the topic; you can't have it both ways - either the material belongs in DAB or it belongs in NCP, but redirecting the DAB section to NCP does not void the material that was in DAB without discussion as to its faults; this is just Merge 101, here). Whether there was broad discussion of its original addition to WP:DAB is completely irrelevant. WP:BOLD is policy, and the addition was a well-accepted and generally-followed addition (because it mostly simply wrote down what was actually consensus de facto practice; the current revision of the language is even more accurate). Cf. WP:CONSENSUS: silence generally equals assent, especially in a page watchlisted by thousands. All that said, new discussion has opened on the talk page at WT:NCP and hopefully it will be more productive than argumentation about who wrote what when. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think for simplicity sake, leaving the guideline pages where they are and letting the discussion play out works fine. The contested wording is not going to have any real impact on how "Misplaced Pages at large" and "the sports rebels" will disambiguate their articles. The status quo remains regardless of the existence of the text. If you wish to resore the balance, so to speak, by restoring what was removed from WP:DAB, I personally wouldn't have a huge issue with that, so long as there was no discussion that led to its removal. The conversation at WT:NCP can continue, and any consensus reached can later be reflected in both guidelines. Resolute 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Just wanted to make sure that a revert of the DAB deletion wasn't in order as a matter of WP:PROCESS. The deletion wasn't discussed. It was just a bold move (which is fine; WP:BRD is normal). I have faith that it will smooth out fairly quickly. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

Just when I filed the above report, the suspected socks started playing around like before (just like when I filed Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3). I am sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report-just like the last time. User:Ausonia is doing just that and keeps making undiscussed/controversial page moves and changes by using several sock accounts.

...The last time I filed a report, the socks noticed it and made more negative edits. It looks as if this guy is contributions-stalking me and that really disturbs me. I have had about enough of this and want it to end ASAP. There should be no excuse for continuing such edits for the millionth time. Isn't there someone who can help me out here? ~ Troy (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon looks to have responded, at the SSP subpage; checkusers can be quite useful dealing with this sort of problem, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully this mess gets cleared up—I can't let it happen ever again. ~ Troy (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.184.97.80

This ISP has vandalized the Matt Costa article three times with the same URL phishing (see article's history), changing the subject's homepage URL, mattcosta.com, to matthewcosta.com, which redirects to an unrelated MySpace page. I've left two notices on their talk page with no response. Emw2012 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered requesting for page protection? ~ Troy (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass violations of WP:DATE

I recently warned JakePlummerFan (talk · contribs) for mass violations of WP:DATE, see here. The user has however ignored my warning, continuing to link dates despite the fact it is against WP:DATE and unneeded in the context of the article. Please see for examples of his edits. I'm already rolled some of his edits back from earlier, but don't wish to do so again to avoid edit-warring. Assistance by an adminstrator is probably required here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a final warning, with a little explanation. If they resume, take it to WP:AIV for possible action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:FinancialAnalyst

FinancialAnalyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - check the deleted revision of the user page, and the early contributions. This is obviously a returning user, and the likely candidate seems to me to be Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but that is a guess based on Dimension31's comments in the history of the article now at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The ASCII on the user's page is innocuous, not sure about the (Chinese? Kanji?) script though. Is this a problem, or am I just seeing reds under the bed again? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Japanese says "Japanese / English", according to Google Translate. --jpgordon 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• That user certainly has shown copious amounts of bad faith in the past. And Dimention31 jumped right in the fray with the SocialPicks mess (check the deleted contribs) after a long absence. Fishy. — Coren  22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: are you sure Dimention31 is active again? I must be missing something. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean active now, active in March after 6-odd months of inactivity (this is when the SocialPicks article was deleted). — Coren  00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't think this is a returning user, based on his poor username choice (a returning user would know better) that led to a block, and his complete surprise and annoyance at the deletion of the article. In any case, Dimension31 is not blocked and has been inactive for 6 months; if they are the same user, the alternate account seems legit. Mangojuice 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bracha L. Ettinger's persecution on Misplaced Pages - probably a symbolic massacre on political grounds

I would like to draw your attention to this: Bracha Ettinger had been added to a list who monitors "self-hating Jews" who are helping Palestinian. Indeed she is an activist of human rights and works against the occupation. It seems that she is monitored by some right wing extremists, and this is visible in Google, and therefore her name is taken from just any possible place on Misplaced Pages, so that she will not be considered influential. Ettinger is very influential. This is a scandal. This seems like a massacre, a purge, no less, of a very important artist, feminist, theorist. This is probably done as a political persecution, unless it is the work of a crazy anonymous person. Please check Ettinger on Google Books, and on Google Scholars, and help me to restore her dignity and name, and also our dignity as a group of serious contributers. This cleaning of Ettinger's name seems to me a very serious affair. Artethical (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for the admin community to do here. Can you clarify? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither - what is it you want done? you realise that administrators have special buttons to help the community with certain matters, they aren't generally enforcers as such and cannot mandate content in articles. --BLP-vio-remover (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the threads above on this page. Ty 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NewCiaraFan09's incivility

I submit to the community the following actions and/or edit summaries of NewCiaraFan09. As a review of the editor's talk page will show, the editor has been warned at least five different times for incivility and several other times for adding inappropriate content. The editor came to my attention today, after a period of inactivity, when they chose to move Good Girl Gone Bad to Good Girl Gone Bald. After reverting the move and leaving a warning on the talk page, the editor responded with this.

Further evidence of activity of this manner can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

• Blocked for a week, with a warning that the next one will be indefinite. Last chance saloon, I think. Black Kite 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Jackmantas

Have had continued trouble with user. Blocked for the most foul of edit summaries within the last couple of weeks. Returned today to write 'screw you' on my user page. What will it take to block this user indefinitely? I've endured trolling and theats via Misplaced Pages Mail service (and all I could do about it was discontinue having an email address listed). Obviously I am using my IP address for this as the user monitors my every edit. Thanks for any assistance. 68.147.60.114 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked for a week and will be disabling his access to Twinkle as soon as I can find where the page is to do so. Hersfold 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa

I have been continuously attacked by Tenmei (talk · contribs) on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa and relevant talk pages. I had not been interacted with the user until I found out that three articles on a same subject of Korean and Japanese relationship exist Misplaced Pages such as Korean missions to Edo created by the uer, Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa. Except Tenmei, the other creators do not seem to be active for months. Therefore, I visited him to suggest for merging the three in due course. His articles is the newest one, so I thought his article should be merged into the oldest one. The discussion started peacefully except a little friction on the title. He started to attack my comment on User:LordAmeth's talk page, so I said him to be civil.

However, the user suddenly kept out of the normal track and nominated one of them for deletion in the middle of the discussion. His rationales for the deletion is Joseon tongsinsa does not meet WP:V and its title with the proper noun is not WP:English. However, the Japanese user did some research on my contributions, and stated that his nomination is because I've been engaging in editing Comfort women. Also the user clearly states about his WP:Ownership on his created article. Almost everyone said the AFD is ill-attempted, so recommended him to withdraw the nomination and encouraged us to keep the discussion for merge. Other editor pointed out on his usage of the perjorative "Wonkery" as well.. I also implemented the article with a reliable Korean sources to prevent the deletion of contents. However, he even doubts the source and makes the AFD page with adding all irrelevant things to make WP:POINT to delete the whole content and agendas like Liancourt rocks. As he also uses very vicious languages against me and drags his anti-Korean sentiment to the AFD, so I gave him warning and requested him to remove his ill-faith comments and disorganized and unhelpful contents from there. He also pasted my warning to him without my permission several times. He rather more making inexcusable ad hominem attacks regardless of the chances. The AFD is going to nowhere. The page turns out to be a place for him to abuse the procedure and make personal attacks based on his strong bias against Korean editors. The user recently was recently reported for his personal attacks like this. WP:ANI#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei filed by admin, Nick Dowling. I think the user really need a proper lesson on WP:Civility. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

--Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NO to "strong bias against Korean editors"

This a phoney claim -- contrived for purposes I can't fathom. We all come to Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons -- Caspian blue comes looking for a fight, hoping for an argument, angling for something to complain about. I avoided participating in that game to a greater extent than I would have thought possible given the repeated provocations.

The one phrase that most deserves to be highlighted above is "strong bias against Korean editors."

This could be a very serious charge, but it deserves to be reject as completely out-of-place here. This is over-reaching, and in way -- sad; but to the extent that the accusation is designed to cause me harm, it needs to bring down harsh rejection in a fashion that Caspian blue cannot misunderstand. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following. I'll address the other specific complaints Caspian blue makes; but for now, this is a good beginning. There is no offense in this -- but there is a demonstration of the plain fact that I've had the good fortune to learn from a children's story -- The Emperor's New Clothes.

The fact of the matter is that there are problems in some articles which involve both Korea and Japan. There is current strife between Korea and Japan. That's not a revelation of any kind of anti-Korean bias, it's just the way it is. Having written an article about a time when something went right between Korea and Japan, the question Caspian blue and others force me to confront is how to foster scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development. At the same time, the task becomes one of figuring out how to avoid the endless litany of pitfalls which fill the talk pages of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort Women, just to name two of them. What to do is a real question -- it's not "Korean bashing" unless heightened sensitivity, thin-skinned indignation and a need for something to argue about are combined to make something out of nothing for reasons I don't have to understand ....

I see a problem which affects my ability to work effectively on the task of improving Misplaced Pages articles, and I did address it in a straightforward manner. As a first step, read what I wrote. The following is an invitation to work together towards worthwhile goals. It was rejected entirely and instead, Caspian blue wants to fulfill a quite different need.

Instead of adding in-line citations and reference sources to Joseon Tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo or just any article which attracts interest, Caspian blue chooses to focus on me. Read the following and decide for yourself where I've tried to engineer my focus:

Withdrawal from AfD
Taemyr counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?

In re-visiting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, I was inspired to examine Misplaced Pages:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. If someone else is able to stretch WP:AGF farther than I'm able to do -- if we assume that everything above is really nothing more than a big mistake, then would it be reasonable to consider "userfication" of the text posted at Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Taemyr counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.

Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from Foreign relations of Imperial China.

Both Joseon Tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo at present account for only a relatively short 300-year period in the history of the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.

This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Taemyr's well-reasoned and patient counsel, I have been persuaded that it is no longer essential that Joseon tongsinsa be deleted, but that does not mean I disagree with Stifle. With Taemyr's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.

Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of Taemyr's wiki-weltanshauung still troubles me because it necesssarily implies a deliberative cognitive dissonance, a stance which is undeniably best in this setting .... This is in no way a criticism or a complaint. I have nothing but thanks to offer Taemyr as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.

There is no reason for Taemyr to have expanded the ambit of this AfD evaluation to include a consideration of Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in Japanese, which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if Stifle was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:

----This is a controversial topic. Before making substantial changes, please

----read the talk page and make sure to edit only in a spirit of cooperation.

----This article is currently under special administrative surveillance and

----absolutely no edit-warring will be tolerated.

----Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked.

----Incivility and edit-warring will not be put up with, and all reverts must be discussed fully

----on the talk page before you revert. Not after! Thank you.

Although Brianyoumans may have known about controversial Dokdo class amphibious assault ship and about ROK naval manoevers last month , there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."

I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting Korean missions to Edo so as to avoid, as best I could, any plausible cause for controversy. That I was unsuccessful in real world terms does not undercut the extent to which I did manage to comply explicitly with WP:V -- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:

1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." -- NO, CAN'T BE FIXED

2. "Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable." -- NO, NOT REPAIRABLE

The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.

Misplaced Pages has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. The dignified and sober Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know, but I would invite consideration of the following:

ONE: It is frustrating that the following fell on deaf ears in this AfD venue:

"The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort ...." --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TWO::It is frustrating that it would take hours to respond to just one paragraph Caspian blue posted at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Opposition to Merge, and in all probability the questions were merely rhetorical -- which means that any misguided attempt to respond calmly, rationally, critically will only become fodder for yet another perverse escalation of angry accusations:

Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development

It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).

Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.

An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.

In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.

Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.

My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.

No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.

No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.

Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't even read your lengthy rambling but still seem like you fill with same disdainful false accusations. Your serious false charge of me are all attached above. You abuse the AFD from the ill-faith as filling with all bashing instead of focusing the AFD. Besides, you paste the same comment from the AFD. Even User:LordAmeth said that you have a tendency to make personal attacks to editors. Heh.. he knows you way better than me. Well, this rambling seem to be your tactic to distract people's attention. I think you really deserve a proper sanction. Will see.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Good grief. I have read both of your ramblings and they are entirely long, winded, and contradictory. Can both of you sum it up in a few paragraphs, with relevant citations, so that the administrators can infer just what has gone on? Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  If you read my thread only (I sum up the situation), you can grasp why he should be reported to here. More shortly, Tenmei who has tendency to make personal attacks suddenly made a peaceful merging proposal to be a place for making personal attacks at the AFD. He drags irrelevant articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women which I have edited as a method of attack and distrust for my merging suggestion. He also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. I said he should be stop his making personal attacks and removed irrelevant bashing from the AFD, but he refuses and keeps continuing such behaviors. My report is not for a content dispute, but for his so impeccable behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008(UTC)

User:Calvinliang

Would someone please look at the move logs of Calvinliang (talk · contribs). They appear to be doing a lot of page move testing/vandalism. The actions of this user has now messed up the page history of the article Chinese Singaporean. The history of the page appears to be at Chinese Singaporean people. Cunard (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Sandahl, and I fixed the page move stuff. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Cunard (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IP efforts to undermine process on changes needed in Anthony Burgess article

On July 17, I removed a large number of laundry lists of "facts" about the author, including irrelevancies like he was flatulent, had back cysts and the chicken pox, and included a stark listing of places Burgess lived in his life, the names of some pets and his favorite foods, here. to this article, based on the article being largely unsourced and full of laundry lists of "facts" about the author. After doing so, I left this note, explaining why I did so. When I approached the article, it was in excess of 89KB and contained exactly three inline citations for all of this. A query was posted on the talk page, to which I responded, further clarifying my issues with the article, here. I did a bit more work on July 20, and added citations needed tags, here. The next day, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted part of it here, calling it vandalism. The rest was reverted immediately after here, stating vital to an understanding of Burgess to know the many different countries and places where he lived and worked, despite that the article already contains most of the residence information in the main body. I left a note on the talk page for this IP here, explaining the issues with the material, and included an admonition about calling good faith editng "vandalism." I reverted here, stating removal of this was NOT vandalism; it is unsourced trivia with no context or relevance. I was quite clear in all of these talk page notes as to what in specific is at issue and why it is.

The next day, User:Pleather reverted again, stating Sorry, those cuts were far too extensive. Much of this IS sourced, from his novels and memoirs. Could be improved, but certainly doesn't deserve deletion. He then added three fact tags to the article. I again addressed this on the article talk page, here. User:Pleather responded on the talk page, asking for time to work on the article, but also implying that I was not in the position to make a call regarding the material because I wasn't familiar enough with Burgess' work, and declaring that the material is vital to understanding it. How that was vital wasn't explained. I replied here, agreeing to allow time and further discussed the specific problems in the article as it pertains to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. My comment is that the everyday person who reads that article will no better understand why farts, chicken pox, back cysts and the pets are vital to his work than I do. It isn't a requirement to have preknowledge of the subject of the article, it is incumbent upon the authors to make it understandable and readable. Otherwise, it is just so much fancruft. Two days later, User:Pleather made this edit. It changed the "Habits" section heading and added a three sentence introduction to the section, stating changing section heading, adding intro. Starting to make this real bio material, not just gossip and trivia.

No other changes were made to the article, thus on August 13, I made this entry on the article talk page, noting that nothing else had been done on the page in nearly three weeks. In the interim, User:Pleather was active on Misplaced Pages, making over 50 edits between those times. Meanwhile, only one non-bot content edit was in total on the article. When a new account made a few minor (and grammatically incorrect) changes, IP 77.99.78.38 corrected them. I waited another week with no movement of any kind on the article. On August 24, I went back in and began removing some of the trivial facts, leaving edit summaries for each systematic change. Edit summaries included notes unreferenced; relevance and context not established, bare listing unencyclopedic, not a fan page, and also questioning again things like favorite foods, chicken pox, back cysts, and questioning the context for this material. I also made efforts to preserve some of the more descriptive content and changed it from lists to prose. This is the diff spanning those changes. In the interim, someone else added a few inline citations for fact tags that were placed. On August 26, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted this work, stating These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work. This material IS sourced, as a glance at the indexes of the two biographies will confirm. I'm not sure how referring one to the indexes of a published book constitutes proper sourcing according to WP:CITE, nor does the IP make that clear. Nothing was addressed on the talk page of the article. I made a rather detailed entry on the talk page delineating my issues with the IP's reversion, also commenting on the patronizing tone in the edit summaries. Then I reverted this change here stating not to revert it and referred anyone reading it to the talk page for discussion. At that time, I requested an outside opinion by an editor whose work I trust. That editor's comment was entered here.

This morning, another IP, 145.246.240.14, reverted the article, stating This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism. See comments by Pleather and others. Concurrently, persondata placed on the page in the meanwhile was removed. Again, the work was referred to as vandalism in the edit summary with no forthcoming discussion entered on the talk page. I made this entry on the talk page, this time more strenuously detailing some of the article issues and reverted the change here, clearly telling whoever to take it to the talk page. I then noted on the talk page that I had put in a request at WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Columbia University, both interested projects, for comments on the issue I am trying to clear up, and stating "Please stop edit warring anonymously regarding this article and allow input from other editors." Soon after, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted again, calling it vandalism. This is the third time this work has been called vandalism. No talk page discussion has been forthcoming by any of the opposing parties since the end of July. No productive work has been done on the article by these parties since the changes by User:Pleather at the end of July. The actions by these IPs are becoming tenditious. They refuse to leave the article with improvements or give the requests for input from the projects time to be made. Some help with this would really be appreciated at this point. This article, as it was, is an issue that needs to be addressed. It can't when any changes made to it are reverted and called vandalism. I apologize for the length of this, but it covers the problem thoroughly. This must stop and the contentiousness of the actions by the IPs need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an WP:RFC is the way to go. Corvus cornix_talk 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DCFan101 user page bonanza

This list of user pages looks a bit beyond the pale to me. The complete Disney Channel schedule and complete list of Disney bootleg download links seem especially beyond reason.Kww (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main UserPage seriously needs to be deleted, as he gives away WAY too much private information. Further, he's got multiple pages of links to off site downloads. His barnstars are all 'You found a hidden page' nonsense. I'd deep six it all under the ' Misplaced Pages isn't MySpace'. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of bootleg links is particularly troubling and a fairly clear misuse of Misplaced Pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted two pages of "download links" under WP:ADVERT. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm reviewing all the pages, and will be deleting any that are blatantly inappropriate; any I find questionable will be put up at MfD. Some of these pages look like they may be intended for article work, and so I won't be nuking all of them. Looks like Todd just got the important ones, but some of these still need to go, methinks. Hersfold 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I suggest IP blocking of IP 71.252.102.174. This user edited various sexual and anatomical entries with subtle non-professional and nonsensical terminology, obviously for personal amusement. As this appeared to be repeated occurrence, with seemingly no other useful or constructive edits made, I request that this user be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.229 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a better place to report this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards