Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 23 November 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last entry I made which you deleted concerning the Moorer Report was this one:

===Independent American Investigations ===

Findings of the Moorer Commission of 2003

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Marine General Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)...". The Moorer Report continues: "in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States".

1. There are descriptions and titles supplied of the primary authors. It is difficult to imagine how any real American Citizen loyal to the Unites States could consider an Ambassador, a Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine General, and a Rear Admiral are behind a Fringe Theory.
2. The Entry contains the quote "there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from...". This quote is lifted directly from the report. What follows, are the names of presumably reputable persons who are in agreement with that statement.
3. Each of these persons are identified, and each of thier statements have the stated third party reference as part of the entry. The assertion that "Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided" is 100% incorrect. Each of the 5 persons listed has a secondary source identifying that each of these five have said what is implied in the quoted Sentence.
4. Since statements by each of the 5 above are reproduced in the articles listed, there is no violation of WP:OR. There is no original research involved. The articles are published, and readily available, via link, directly from the entry.
5. WP:SYN is also not violated here. Each of the sources speaks of ONLY that person speaking - effectively making the point that is stated in the Moorer Report quote which I reproduced.

It is interesting that you played the 'anti-semitic' card. I suppose I am supposed to cringe at this thought and somehow defend my actions. I think not. I am merely trying to get portions of an Independent Report from the 4 reputable persons listed on the USS Liberty incident Page. There is nothing anti-semitic about the truth.

The comment you made when you last removed the entry above is: 20:50, 14 November 2008 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (76,838 bytes) (rv no talk page consensus for this edit. Relevant policies WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit) (undo)

I would now like to address each of these objections, and others which have been voiced, individually:

"Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:CONSENSUS is impossible with your methods, primarily since you violate the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS yourself. Specifically, the policy calls for changes to entries if one feels that entries are incorrect. You have chosen to delete the entry every single time you see it. There is simply no way to reach consensus if you delete the entry, and every other variation of the entry you see. WP:CONSENSUS is impossible to reach if the only act you perform is to delete the entry. You have never even attempted to edit the entry to rid it of your objections. That is both a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and the first reason for why I make the charge that you are trying to censor any mention of the report on the USS Liberty incident page.

WP:UNDUE claims: WP:UNDUE says, in part: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is little mention of the Moorer Report on the USS Liberty incident page. Without it, WP:UNDUE is valid for the list of reports, since it gives undue weight to those reports mentioned, and none to the Moorer Report, entries to which you invariably delete. Amazingly enough, the only report which is not quoted explicitly in the USS Liberty incident page is the Moorer Report. Since it is niether an American nor Israeli government report, it was explicitly listed as an Independent American Investigation. It is you who are in violation of WP:UNDUE, buy allowing mention and quotes of the other reports, but consistently deleting any contents mentioned from the Moorer Report.

WP:NPOV claims: Another interesting one. The Moorer report makes several numbered statements, the collection of which is it's conclusion available here. That is it's purpose. To have investigated the USS Liberty incident and come to a conclusion. That you do not like the conclusion of the report is not my problem. One of the numbered conclusions of the report is that "there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew". This point is not made anywhere on the USS Liberty incident but is available in the Moorer Report. Inclusion of the Moorer Report actually completes the NPOV of the USS Liberty Page. After all, there can be no way that the USS Liberty incident can be considered Neutral if it explicitly does NOT provide at least some conclusion of the Moorer Report. So we have again you making an accusation, when it is in fact you who are guilty of the accusation.

There is a link to the Findings of the Moorer Report at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page. Your charges of WP:FRINGE on the entry I made has never actually caused you to remove the link at the bottom of the page to the Moorer report. Are we to understand that the Moorer Report is an acceptable link when a link to it in "Sources claiming attack was deliberate -> Other Sources" is available, but is a Fringe Theory if any mention is made on the USS Liberty incident of the contents of the report? Your inconsistent treatment of this entry speaks volumes about your intentions. You only delete any quotes or entries made on the Moorer Report, but you do not appear to object to a link to the report. Is my belief that you are trying to censor the report really that far fetched, in this respect?

You have argued that there is no secondary sources for the Moorer Report Findings for some time. I am astounded that the following reports, also listed on the "USS Liberty incident" page do not have a single secondary reference listed. The reports listed which do not have a secondary source are:

1. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
2. Joint Chief of Staff's Report
3. CIA Intelligence Memorandums
4. Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Investigation
5. House Armed Services Committee Investigation
6. The NSA History Report

Why does the Moorer Report require a secondary source, when not a single one of the other reports listed have a reference?

Lastly, a checkuser (whatever that is) is welcome, as would be any other WP investigation you choose. I do not worry about my actions.WorldFacts (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Gee Narson if I somehow took his comments out of context then I do sincerely apologize however it is far from obvious who he was referring to. Loosely, freely and carelessly throwing the words "anti-semetic" around any conversation, especially into a serious conversation that undeniably shows the actions of the Israeli military and government, and the actions of the American government, in a less than reputable and upright station, is a far too common and ordinary tactic. Just say it or someone's "anti-Semetic" and hope they'll run away. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute how 'serious' a conversation is when one side screams 'CENSORSHIP' and 'Look at our dead Americans!' followed by more 'CENSORSHIP!' and then legal threats. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee Narson maybe you should *Stop with the persecution complex already*, The truth hurts doesn't it ?--Henrywinklestein (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice come back. Really. Tell you what, go away, think real hard, then try and come up with a comment about the content. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again pal ... a couple of days ago I apologize for perhaps taking something out of context (and its still not obvious but maybe ... just maybe ... I'll try to give him the benefit of a doubt) and you've got to drag us all back into the mud. Don't for one minute tell me there isn't an overriding bias on the parts of many of the editors involved here - and that some of their interests - including yours - are completely self-serving. Plain and simple - censorship - maybe on "technicalities" but censorship nonetheless ... these actions are deplorable and do a severe injustice to the American sailors and marines who were murdered in cold blood by the Israeli's on June 8, 1967. Go ahead and hide behind your veil of "content" but the truth is out there - and everyone knows what it is.

So now you want a comment on content --- WORLDFACTS said it best : "Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever. ""

--Henrywinklestein (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that is when WORLDFACTS is talking about his edit where he uses source from 1990 for a report from 2003? I do see that we are onto the silly hyperbole about self serving, censorship and 'Oh noes the dead people!' again....along with a bit of 'The Truth (tm)'. Someone should make SPA rants into a drinking game. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called cruft, and it's harmless. PR 08:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: ] (] · ]), ] (] · ]) and ] (] · ]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Misplaced Pages policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional PR 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Misplaced Pages:Edit war and noting by reference Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone having been found to meat-puppet. PR 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. PR 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As someone has pointed out on my Talk Page, there is an implicit legal threat above against me. I would be grateful for an admin to comment please. Justin talk 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked that account, as it's a NLT violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A good block OrangeMike, but just BTW, you wrote "infinite" on the block log. I wouldn't disagree with that, given how very long that log is, but did you mean do that? IronDuke 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the software for the blocking mechanism which says "infinite" instead of "indefinite"! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the legal threats have been deleted, surely policy indicates using strikethrough as now the narrative is destroyed. 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meat Puppets

Rlevse mentioned meat puppets on the check user and several other editors have uttered similar suspicions. How do you go about checking for that? Justin talk 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets arn't something one can check for. They are merely SPA whose only purpose is to espouse the view of annother (Hence they are like a sock puppet in their actions but acctually are filled by something, annother editor ). Meatpuppets are usually far more difficult as I imagine each admin will have a different intepretation. Certainly at least one of those who was suspected of puppetry of some kind has proven himself as his own person (Yellabina). It requires an admin to examine the page, examine cotribution histories and decide what, if any, sanctions are required. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there an admin prepared to do that? Justin talk 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the two of you can write a book on "conspiracy theories". --Henrywinklestein (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article appears on Misplaced Pages review on 9th October, , on the very same day at least one of the accounts pushing edits based on Moorer appear at USS Liberty incident, see edit history . Quite possibly this is simply a co-incidence. Having no experience of any suggestion of a meat puppet being involved in an article, what is the best way to proceed on this? Justin talk 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

good heavens ... it must be a conpiracy. or maybe just maybe there are a heck of alot of people interested in this issue because of the seriousness of it's content and the blatant censorship on the part of the so-called "editors" ... me oh my ... i vote conspiracy! Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT

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

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Misplaced Pages" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Misplaced Pages. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Misplaced Pages, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Misplaced Pages. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Misplaced Pages user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on wikipedia to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Misplaced Pages and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is wikipedia a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow wikipedia policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog? I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Misplaced Pages being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Misplaced Pages. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on wikipedia which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time, wikipedia does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Misplaced Pages is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been rejected by Delicious carbuncle. Ty 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not acceptable

This page would not be permitted on a user page. It violates WP:UP#NOT and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space. It is not acceptable to game the system by posting an external link to it instead. The page concerns a banned editor, and a real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan" with the comment "I couldn't have agreed with this statement more", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the commentator states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". The fact that some of this was stated on wikipedia is irrelevant. Some of it shouldn't have been in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be compiled and attention drawn further to it. All of this is far in excess of Delicious carbuncle's purported motive of simply asserting that s/he is not Pauline Berry, which can be achieved by a plain statement to that effect. If Dc, as appears the case, is not willing to voluntarily remove the link, then it would be best done by someone not significantly involved in this discussion. Dc has indicated that this is acceptable, but if they then replace it, they should be blocked for doing so. Ty 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would second the above. The link is not acceptable merely because DC has found some random line on a guidleline page that may be used to kinda-sorta justify it. WP:OUTING is a sacrosacnt policy at Misplaced Pages. We cannot control what happens off-wiki, but we really should prevent people from making any attempt on-wiki to out other users, and linking to a page which outs a Misplaced Pages user is the same as outing on the wiki itself. If the link is removed, then there would be no problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread I'm being unnecessarily threatened with blocking (both times by admins who have off-wiki contact with Bellinghaus). I've made my position clear in my earlier comments. If quoting the guideline that I'm supposedly breaking is finding "a random line" and wikilawyering then there's little I can say in my defense. I'm making no further comments here so that I won't be blocked for being "disruptive" which is usually what comes next in these kinds of witch hunts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I personally believe that this does not need to be solved at an administrator level. As I'm officially a neutral party with no real previous interactions with either, I have offered to John and DC to informally mediate. If they both agree I would personally like to put this ANI issue on hold until then. To start, I would like to only involve the 2 original parties, and will involve additional comment later. I am awaiting response from John and DC on my talkpage in order to move forward with a resolution that is acceptable to WP and all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

A mediator should be neutral. I do not regard Bwilkins as neutral, so I reject this offer. The consensus here seems reasonably clear in favor of removing the attack link. I suggest that Bwilkins or another party remove the link, and that DC be blocked for a short period if they restore it. DC has rejected what seemed to be a reasonable compromise offer in favor of the status quo, which I don't think is acceptable. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a sad understanding of both WP:CONSENSUS and of my own neutrality, if the above is actually what you believe. I'm actually quite blown away that you have no realization that your "opponent" is also a human being with feelings, and that I (as about the 4th person who was disagreeing against only 2 others) was somehow against "consensus", and is anything other than neutral. Wow. Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Marking as resolved as the link no longer works from DC's page. ►BMW◄ 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse and attacks by Libro0 keeps getting ignored: I demand action!

I demand an investigation of Libro0's actions, pattern of uncivil behavior, and frankly and apology from him. If he was polite and civil to begin with we would not have this sort of mess. He needs to be penalized for his actions and not defended. He intimidates those who disagree with him. He attacks in a textbook passive aggressive way, which those who aren't familiar with how passive aggressive people act would dismiss as normal. I have tried to bring his behavior to light, especially his attacks, often done in a passive aggressive manner to light several times, but it has fallen on deaf ears , , , , . Here are some examples of his false allegations including the first and the second in a series of false sockpuppet alegations. Then there is this exchange where he eventually issues me an ultimatium - . There is more. Can't something finally be done or will this rouge be allowed to continue his bad behavior and waste the community's time dealing with the mess he creates? My guess is no. How about you step up to the plate and take some action? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nice to see you are polite, civil, and non-aggressive. On your user page you've told us all to 'go to hell'. I won't be going there, but I'm certainly not going to spend time looking into your 'demand'. I'm not your servant. dougweller (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, "demanding action" will get you nowhere. I will draw admins attention to User_talk:Libro0, User_talk:Your_Radio_Enemy and User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy to see the oh-so-fun background. ►BMW◄ 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can't resolve it by consensus on the talkpages, then I recommend mediation (see WP:DR) between the 3 of you. There's nothing that requires immediate administrator action that I can see. ►BMW◄ 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I demand that everyone who edits this page gives me $1,000,000. I suspect we're going to get the same response...except my demand might not be received with an understandable eye-roll.

        Seriously. "I demand" is like the Godwin's Law of AN/I--the minute you invoke it, you've totally outweighed any perfectly-reasonable point you were making by the sheer tantrum-esque-ness of the WAY you chose to make it. If you raised the point before and didn't get the answer you were looking for--hey, it happens to all of us. Try again, CIVILLY, and maybe you'll get a better outcome. But I can well-nigh guarantee that "I demand" won't get you there.GJC 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

        • Plus, if it was "ignored" the first time(s) it was brought up, then nobody here must have agreed with this being a situation that required immediate intervention ►BMW◄ 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It's the Majikthise–Vroomfondel Law. I demand that I am Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Phew. I thought "Your Radio Enemy" was talking to me there for a minute. I demand that I may or may not be SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is simply impossible for anyone here to imagine how utterly crushed I am that I didn't come up with that reference. I will be under the bed crying if anyone needs me.GJC 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about you step up to the plate and take the action suggested by user:Bwilkins? I demand...lol. Shnitzled (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I demand a sandwich! With cheese! HalfShadow 17:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright concerns, input requested

• User:Chrisieboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following up a note at WT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material to Anglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice about London Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay, here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did, here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation is a personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add UIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice from WP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this. EyeSerene 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hopefully your input and that of Doug Weller at my talk page will help underscore the seriousness of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this - back in January this year he tried to get me 3RR-blocked for reverting his addition of a non-free-use image without valid rationale - see here. More relevant would be the simultaneous discussion on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page (here in his archives), in which Chrisieboy tries hard to Wikilawyer us into believing he's right. It's crystal-clear that Chrisieboy has learnt nothing from this, and the observable trend is concerning - we have a serious copyright violator here. _TalkIslander 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, considering that The Co-operative Bank seems also to have been an infringement I cannot read the source, but the contributor who cleaned it is the one who brought the problem to WT:CP to begin with, and he has been correct with respect to other contributions, as when he cleaned District Bank. The contributor attempted to restore that, too. See here. His response to that contributor for restoring infringement to Anglia Regional seems illuminating: "Sorry, I thought (hoped) you had disappeared." I've been working on some other copyright concerns, but hope to have time to take a deeper look at some other contributions later. --Moonriddengirl 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message from Chrisieboy in you post is very concerning, to say the least... _TalkIslander 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 or 3 lapses into cutting and pasting by Chrisieboy, that I cleaned up one by one without disagreement. I hadn't wished to trawl through all his contributions, so after inviting Moonriddengirl's intervention, I am surprised to learn that there are so many so early in the search, and surprised that his perception of free content has lasted so long.

He is a serious contributor, and has a featured article to his name (much more than I have) and I have dealt with him cordially in the past. I notice that he has done little editing in the last two weeks, and I sincerely hope that he acts to de-escalate things, and we can look forward to more of his very useful contributions here.

Oh, by the way, I can't read the source for the possible copyvio at The Co-operative Bank either. However, Google Scholar seems pretty certain that the text I deleted came from that 1996 article. Chrisieboy did not contest my deletion there.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been the very model of civility in this. :) Good contributions can balance well against a lot of concerns, but persistent copyright infringement is not among them. In my opinion, on the contrary, copyright problems are even more worrisome with a prolific and dedicated contributor, since we do run the risk that copyright violations will work their way into what should be Misplaced Pages's best content. I hope that this contributor has simply misunderstood the policies and laws in question and that there won't be any further infringement, but his defensiveness in response to these concerns (including in the initial article's talk page, on my talk page and in response to the issues raised by TheIslander above) and his removal of the matter from WP:SCV does concern me. --Moonriddengirl 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Personally I'd like to have some kind of assurance from Chrisieboy that he now understands the issues and won't be repeating them. In the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off, I think future contributions will also need to be monitored, and to protect Misplaced Pages the account should be blocked at the first sign of any new problems. As Moonriddengirl has pointed out, a good contribution history often does result in the odd hiccup being overlooked, but copyright violation could have consequences for Misplaced Pages as a whole and we have no option but to take this very seriously. If we don't get these reassurances as to future behaviour, but editing continues, I'd suggest perhaps blocking the account until we do. EyeSerene 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Chrisieboy to come, take a look at and comment on this thread - hopefully he will, and if so, we'll take it from there. _TalkIslander 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ;) EyeSerene 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see that he has not edited in several days, but hopefully he'll choose to participate soon. Moonriddengirl

Some of the contributions here are way out of perspective, for instance Islander's remarks (on an entirely separate matter which occurred nearly a year ago) "that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this." I can't "get 3RR-blocked," only he/she can do that by his/her actions, I can however, follow proper procedure and, on that occasion, Islander was not blocked or warned. Also, in response to EyeSerene's comments "in the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off," I would remind you I am a volunteer here, so please remember to assume good faith. Anything I contribute to the encyclopedia is part of the public record, as my edit history reveals and my attempts "to laugh off" amount to a challenge to deleting the entire page, when only one section was called into question.

The importance of this policy has been impressed upon me, but I do take exception the above character assassination. EyeSerene's warning on my talk page is one thing, but now to "suggest perhaps blocking account" because I decline to participate in this discussion, is quite frankly an abuse of power. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Evidence suggests that you have blatantly pasted content from a for-pay student essay to Misplaced Pages which moreover was linked from our front page. In light of that and persistent copyright concerns, after notification by CorenBot and advisement by a fellow contributor, blocking your account unless you are willing to address these concerns seems quite reasonable and within policy. The assumption of good faith "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." A refusal to acknowledge and frankly address these concerns would certainly be contrary evidence. In fact, in the face of what seems to be an action that would have you expelled from many educational institutions for academic dishonesty, allowing you an opportunity to continue to edit is in itself an assumption of good faith. In addition, refusal to engage in discussion about conduct concerns is listed as a form of disruptive editing, which can be in itself due grounds for blocking. --Moonriddengirl 15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I must also note that I believe you have misinterpreted the characterization of your actions here. I'm sure EyeSerene will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine reference to laughing it off was to this edit, which had nothing to do with the blanking of the whole page but with your restoring the single disputed section here, after previously having restored it here, here and here. --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be continued Wikilawyering here. His characterization of filing a 3RR report as "proper procedure" rings hollow. Filing a 3RR report is a pain in the ass, and people only do it if they expect/hope action to result from it. Nobody fills out a 3RR report just because they happened to notice someone making four reverts in 24 hours -- people only fill out the report if they think the reverts were inappropriate and/or want to see action taken against the person in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would remind you I am a volunteer here...". Oh please. I would like to remind you that we are all volunteers here. You're continued wikilawyering is doing you no favours - Jaysweet, above, puts it very well. The bottom line, which all editors in this thread seem to agree on, is this: you have been made clear of various policies regarding copyright, and have acknowledged this. Any single further breach of these policies by yourself will result in a block. _TalkIslander 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging v. untagging

Hi there, I did a stint at new page patrol, and I'm rather new to it, so I'm just trying my best. This article Sho Uchida doesn't seem to have established notability, so I've tried to tag it, but I get reverted. If someone wants to explain why I'm wrong (there is no edit summary in the reversions) or suggest the appropriate course of action, I'm all ears... or eyes, as the case may be. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert either, but if the contents on the page is correct the page does meet notability, see WP:BIO "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.", so you should not have added a notability tag, what you might question is the references, my chines is not so good and a better reference should be resonably easy to find. On the other hand, to just revert you was not really correct either, the user that removed the tag should have explained in the comment why he removed your tag. --Stefan 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not really worried about the other user, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. Does this mean that every Olympian can have an article? What about Div. 1 athletes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. --Stefan 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on this line of WP:BIO is currently happening at the talk page of the guideline. Fram (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input and the pointer to the relevant discussion. It's been helpful to me. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, why don't you ask the person undoing your edits why they did do so? It is much easier and friendlier than directly going to an noticeboard over something like that. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not an appropriate use of rollback by Yellow Monkey. He reverted clearly good faith edits. Enigma 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have notified YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) that he is being discussed on an Administrators' noticeboard. Should you mention an editor (and especially an Administrator whose actions are being scrutinised) on a noticeboard, please take a second to issue them a notice in the interests of courtesy, and to solicit their view and/or an explanation on the matter—such is the routine discussion etiquette and procedure, really. Thanks, AGK 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know he was an administrator, as his userpage contains no such designation and he's not in the category. Either way, it was more of an aside than anything. Not worth any drama. Enigma 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • ...erm, actually, he's an Arb.GJC 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is resolved. I wanted a neutral perspective and some insights, and that's what I got. Thanks to everyone involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice again,

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now, I brought this user up here once before because I was unsure him/her, and due to sleep issues, notifying him/her of the discussion slipped my mind.

My original concern with this new user was this edit to Jimbo's user talk page, which is basically an attack/rant/monologue about how his time at WP was running out, he would be replaced, etc.

So far, this user has been rude to various IP users, who, as we all know, are users too. Even if the content of the IP's edit was vandalism, there is a reason that have standardized warning messages. Here are some more, rather rude warnings that the user has left on others' talk pages.

What made me bring this to AN/I again, however, was this edit to my own talk page, as noted in the edit summery, and in the message, this user is telling me to quit wikipedia because of a small mistake involving common courtesy. Not only that, but... well. No, I'll let all of you read the message for yourself. Something needs to be done here, as this user does not seem to understand how Misplaced Pages operates. I would suggest mentorship.— Dædαlus /_Improve 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy's trolling. A misguided user doesn't write a long, elegant rant citing bizarre historical precedents in response to a minor error - i really get the feeling he's just after a reaction. ~ mazca 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAPBOX... Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably only fitting that I address all of your concerns in a salient and forthright manner. I would not want anyone to be led astray by the machinations of one Daedalus. As you know, I have already called for his or her resignation. Notice first the inability of Daedalus to confine his or her report to the truth. He or she accuses me of saying time was running out on Jimbo Wales and that he would be replaced. Sadly, neither of these statements are to be found. Given that Daedalus either deliberately misrepresented these facts or lacks the mental ability requisite for the recitation of factual information, asking for his or resignation is appropriate. Nothing short of resignation can remedy the stain of incompetence for which such indifference towards the truth can thrust upon the fact-laden, digital pages of an encyclopedia.

Note also that Daedalus admits to making poor ethical choices while editing due to sleep deprivation. This is an admission of guilt. The integrity of Misplaced Pages should not be compromised because of the poor decision making of one editor. His or her resignation is in deed appropriate.

Finally, as it pertains to Daedalus, he or she recommends mentorship. I do like this recommendation. Given the significant amount of knowledge I have that I could pass on to others, I do believe I could mentor other people to be excellent contributors to this great project. Unfortunately, I do not possess the time to engage in such mentorship. Hopefully, I can merely lead by example. Perhaps such a compromise would be to everyone’s liking.

Next, I will address Mazca. I thank Mazca for recognizing me as speaking in “elegant” fashion as well as having mastery of “historical precedents.” No doubt such ability and knowledge is valuable to such a project as Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your words, Mazca.

Regrettably, I come now to address the unfortunate comments of Gwen Gale. This user directed a savage and vile warning at me, for which there was no merit or validity. This user charged me with failing to assume good faith. Note that such an outlandish claim is both unwarranted and unsupported. When I rightly called for the resignation of Daedalus, I specifically said, “If you want the best for Misplaced Pages, as I believe you do…” Not only did I assume good faith, I assumed the very best of faith on the part of Daedalus. Thus, I have judicially and gracefully decided to dismiss the warning on the part of Gwen Gale.

To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Misplaced Pages.

As a final matter, I turn my attention to Grsz11. This editor is guilty of a crime most foul. He or she has engaged in edits so reckless that the very metaphorical fabric of justice has been torn. This user has removed numerous of edits. These edits were designed to prevent the continued destruction of Misplaced Pages by vandals. These vandals seek to harm Misplaced Pages by leaving scurrilous epithets, frivolous comments, and otherwise unbecoming intellectual products on the digital pages of Misplaced Pages. Grsz11 has abrogated the justice due these hooligans. As the people of Mississippi denied justice to Emmett Till, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Adolf Hitler denied Anne Frank justice, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Pontius Pilate denied Jesus Christ Justice, so too has Grsz11 crucified me for my righteousness and honored the evil of the wicked. Grsz11, there is no place for your kind of disdain towards the ethical realm on Misplaced Pages. Atone for your sins, Grsz11, and resign. In one final act of selflessness, resolve to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Resign.

Thank you. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the most gratuitous violations of WP:NPA (and even some wikilawyering) that I have seen in awhile. You had to make 4 or 5 edits to this page, just so that you could slip in some inflammatory commentary (possibly even equating actions to racism). Wow. My applause shall have no end. Gigli was more enjoyable than that rant. ►BMW◄ 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, for any reviewing, even though it may be blatantly obvious, I never said I was going to resign, or that I planned to, and, although I mentioned the diff the first time I was here about this user, I'll mention it again: the user telling Jimbo that, basically, his time is running out. I shall also note this diff above in the starting paragraph of my report.— Dædαlus /_Improve 23:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Given I'd already warned this editor, I've blocked 48 hours for personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Words fail me. That's an awful lot of words for no purpose at all. I second Gwen's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this user isn't that new to wikipedia? Also, I've gone and reverted his inappropriate warnings, as Grz had done(I got what he missed).— Dædαlus /_Improve 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small note, it had been about two days passed after I notified this user of this thread before he replied, either he doesn't edit wikipedia often, or there is some other reason, my point being, that if it is the former, he might not even notice he was blocked. He needs to be watched.— Dædαlus /_Improve 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs

I've posted this at WP:BLPN, but vandalism is going uncorrected so perhaps admin attention would be beneficial. This is an article about a recent suicide that was allegedly broadcast live over Justin.tv. It's already internet-famous and has attracted the attention of the chans. There is likely to be a lot of traffic to this page over the next few days, so I'd like it to be on as many watchlists as possible. Danke, the skomorokh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this per WP:BLP1E or something? Or per WP:CSD#G13, "articles that drag the encyclopedia even further down into the tabloid gutter"? --barneca (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics like this always resurface, and reliable coverage of them tends to emerge slightly slower than coverage in tabloids/blogs. To delete now would not serve any long term purpose. See Megan Meier, Jason Fortuny etc. the skomorokh 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be callous, but if he is dead how is this a WP:BLP issue? – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual response would be family, friends etc. You can imagine how inaccurate information about Abe's suicide disseminated via Misplaced Pages might effect them. the skomorokh 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but as it stands WP:BLP applies only to living people. I agree that the article should stick to the facts and avoid tabloidism etc, but that is pursuant to WP:V, WP:RS etc. If material otherwise conforms to WP policies and guidelines, we should not, in my view, be censoring it out of sympathy for his family.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that the article be censored out of sympathy for his family; I only mentioned BLPN so that editors here would not recommend I post it there. I would simply like responsible editors, preferably including some admins to watch the article so that vandalism is quickly dealt with and high standards of sourcing (note the types of sources that have been used so far in the article's history) observed. Regards, the skomorokh 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per BLP1E. While there is some coverage by sources much more notable than those that were present, this is still a classical example of what Misplaced Pages should not publish - we're not a news site nor tabloid. MaxSem 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way, I guess I am. I don't mean per the exact wording of BLP, but the philosophy behind it; that we should try not to be dicks when it affects real people, like any family or friends. Having this pop up as an article while the body is still warm just makes me feel like I'm associated with jackels and hyenas. I wish we were more civilized and let one of the 10,000 websites devoted to immediate pop-internet phenomena deal with stuff like this. I also wish I had a million dollars, though, and that's not going to happen either. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted. What foresight. the skomorokh 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by, among others, the Associated Press and The Times. WP:BLP1E does not justify speedy deleting articles, it only justifies—"cover the event, not the person"—moving and refocusing articles. I propose that the Abraham K. Biggs article be restored and moved to Suicide of Abraham K. Biggs, with the aforementioned coverage in reliable sources added. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Biggs represents a larger issue. Many people are curious about this incident, and there are several links to the now non-existent page. All facts were double-checked, and the page was rewritten for proper tone. Every paragraph had a reference. Several people worked to write a proper page, and no warning of the deletion appeared. Pepso2 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If he represents a larger issue, then write an article on the larger issue. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore People who just learned about this on CNN are turning to Misplaced Pages for more information and finding zilch. Pepso2 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If they learned about it on CNN, then there's a strong likelihood that they are now in possession of all the facts which can be reliably confirmed. Since we should not, per policy , have anything more than that, there's not much need for us to have an article until the facts come out, the dust settles, and the wolves and jackals stop licking their chops over the tabloid-exploitable nature of this tragedy. We should let the poor guy's body cool down, rather than sticking a flag into a mountain of questionable "facts" and claim "we got here first".GJC 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of Biggs' family: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtO167ywBhMURgOmp4ScpR7rBdvgD94JV9P80 Pepso2 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be restored. Has been the subject of media coverage, like Kevin Neil Whitrick was.-Boshinoi (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it should at least be restored and subject to AfD discussion. WP:CSD explicitly does not list "biographies of people notable for one event", so this deletion was out of process.-Boshinoi (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simple Wikilawyering. BLP violations may be deleted on sight. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He is dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. We fall back on WP:RS and the other relevant policies and guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

• Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to ask for a community review of editor Krzyzowiec. I have run accross him in relation to the National Revival of Poland article. After looking through the history of his contributions, it seems to me that this is a highly tendentious POV-pushing editor who is a net negative to the project. His user page essentially proclaims that his intention is to do WP:BATTLE here: "I am here to edit a lot of English Misplaced Pages's articles about Poland and Polish right wing or "middle" movements, history etc. because a lot of articles here are written by Polish left wing liars. I'm here also because Polish Misplaced Pages isn't fair, 3/4 of Polish Misplaced Pages's Administrators have left - liberal point of view on everything and they make changes as they believe in real life, so their articles aren't fair." There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Misplaced Pages (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!" His edit history shows that a great deal of his edits are indeed related to extreme far right, fascism and Jews related articles and appear to be exactly of the kind that WP:BATTLE proscribes against. There are 5 blocks from May to August of this year for edit warring, 3RR, incivility, personal attacks and the like. Although there are no more recent blocks than the one-week block on August 11, it does not seem to me that the editor changed his attitude much or that he is in any mood to reform. Just by looking at the edits for the last few days, one sees the following examples: an anti-Jewish rant, tendentious fact tags, more tendentious and clearly inappropriate tags on National Revival of Poland (the article is well-sourced and the notability and primary sources tags are obviously not abpplicable), an edit summary Who are you to decide what belongs in the article ?!, and finally the charming placement of the fact tag next to the statement about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax in the List of conspiracy theories article. All this shows a dedicated POV and WP:BATTLE warrior who is here for the wrong reasons. I think that either an indef block or a topic ban on all Poland, Jews and fascism related articles would be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community review as you said, wouldn't a request for comment for user conduct fit that bill nicely? That is, that would be the best way to go if a topic ban is desired. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is for less clear-cut cases than this one. Here, according to the proclamations at his talk page and his actions, we have a self-described POV warrior whose main motivation on Misplaced Pages is to do WP:BATTLE and whose actions confirm this. I do not believe that this is a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as a "rant against the Jews" as you say and quote: >>There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Misplaced Pages (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!"<< I see nothing wrong with what was said, and it's a sad state to see any mention of a Jew lead to accusations of insensitivity or antisemitism. In addition, his ideas and opinions on the "left wing liars" bending Poland related articles towards their views...well it may be true! Who are you to decline him the opportunity to contribute here? The editing power of Misplaced Pages, the way this place works, prevents a lone person from hurting the project. Everything can be undone. I think you're over reacting, and I see no action necessary against this man. Good luck though. Beam 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You do not think that the passage about the Jews ending with This is how you pay us back ?! as offensive and repulsive? Now, that is pretty sad. What about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax fact tag? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Beamathan: Sorry no... Misplaced Pages is not the place to post ones political views regardless of whether said views support the left or right wing of any political system. Misplaced Pages is about collecting verifiable information from reliable sources and reporting that information in a neutral manner. Its not the place to post random rants about personal beliefs over conspiracies and the like. Misplaced Pages is about building an encyclopedia, if one wants to post their personal political views, there's another place called "the rest of the internet" where such views are quite welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is precisely what WP:BATTLE is about. Someone who, according to their own user page, comes to Misplaced Pages with a self-professed agenda of fighting some political and ideological battles here should find another place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• This report seems to document disruptive editing. The appropriate response is an indefinite block. The user is repeatedly violating WP:NOT by using Misplaced Pages to advocate their political/historical views. Additionally, they are engaged in a campaign of anti-semitism. It is fairly easy to spot their use of traditional code words and arguments. This diff really gives it away. The user has not edited since the notice about this thread was posted to their talk page. I will hold off on blocking them in case they want to respond here. Should they resume disruption on any other page, I or any other administrator should block them immediately. Jehochman 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

This user is banned for three years currently on Polish Misplaced Pages for all kinds of disruptive editing block log. Just one diff from pl wiki titled "Why I am (here)" - one section of the user page is titled "Dlaczego jestem Antysemitą ?! (Why I am an antisemite), when long collection of anti-Jewish quotes follows. This is year 2006. And this is year 2008 and en.wiki: openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language. Anti-Semitic "Talmud quote" (a forgery still popular in modern far-right and anti-Semitic circles) is cited: Žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit. ("Jew can not steal, he takes what belongs to him. The money of non-Jew is a property without owner, Jew has a full right to take it"). This user claims to be associated with National Revival of Poland on his user page. When talking about this organization he often uses word We. So agenda behind his edits at National Revival of Poland article is quite clear. Disruptive abuse of templates is repeated on regular basis for months now . Recently Krzyzowiec stated what he would never leave this article , and I believe him. M0RD00R (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to take into account his activities outside of English Misplaced Pages, although I do think that his behaviour here, in en-wiki has been sufficiently disruptive to merit an indef block. Are you sure, and if yes then why, that the user on Polish Misplaced Pages whom you referenced and User:Krzyzowiec are the same person? Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on my non-admin account until I get back to a secure computer. I believe you can go ahead with the block if you are uninvolved. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Florentino Floro who claimed to talk to invisible dwarfs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnitzled (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That picture...wow what has been seen cannot be unseen. On topic, that talk page might need to be locked down to prevent further, uh....rants. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aagggghhhhh where's my eye bleach?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

...sitting with mouth unhinged....That's just...i mean...Dude. That's the most....no. Seriously. Dude. I mean....what the...DUDE! What the FA...... No, man, seriously. I mean....why would you...what did...

...shakes it off... I'm going to bed. Would someone please come and remove my brain while I sleep? Thanks. GJC 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my turn to be no fun, I guess. Folks, this is somebody with schizophrenia. He has a brain disease that makes him behave erratically. That doesn't mean he has a license to disrupt Misplaced Pages, but it means that we should take the necessary measures without making fun of him -- in spite of how tempting it is. looie496 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the amount of time, thought, and--good heavens!--typing involved in the creation of that userpage. Can you imagine how long it took to write and format all that? Or how many articles could have been written during that interval, or with that number of keystrokes?? (I would add to his list of probable maladies "repetitive stress injury to the wrist"!) The content may be....um....yeah, something...but it's among the best-organized, most-fluent "um-yeah-something" I've ever encountered. Despite his diagnoses, he shows an impressive mastery of language and communication--assuming (and it's a BIG assumption!) you can ignore the WTF-ness of the content. (Could have lived without those ::::shudder::: pictures, however...Well, the "violet" one was pretty, anyhow.)GJC 06:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never underestimate the sheer endurance of those who've been Called By God, dear Gladys. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that fact mentioned on his page, but anyway, wouldn't it be better if Misplaced Pages prevented user pages from being indexed by Google? Surely such an action would prevent certain Misplaced Pages admins from bragging on slashdot that they're more popular than other famous people with the same name, but I don't consider this side effect a bad thing. Pcap ping 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

o_O I had no idea that we actually had an article on him... Wow. And Cortez, I'd be glad to remove your brain :) Anyways, what is it that we should do? ♫ IceUnshattered 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the last version of the mainspace article that was written mostly by Floro himself . Quite different from the current article, isn't it? He was clearly using his user page for more of his POV. The article and his user page are the top 2 hits on Google when searching for "Florentino Floro". Indexing of user pages makes soapboxing too easy for all but banned users. Of course, given his psychotic antecedents, Floro just embarrasses himself on his user page, probably without even realizing it. I don't think that facilitating self-ridicule of the mentally ill is a goal of Misplaced Pages. Good job blanking the page, but not allowing Google to index such pages would be better. Pcap ping 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The next time Bill O'Reilly goes off on a rant about American judges, he should take a look at this Judge. He may seem like a nutcase, but how many are not that far away from becoming what this guy is? In short - judge not, lest ye be Judge. Baseball Bugs 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's totally nuts. He's been spouting his nonsense on other forums and people's blogs as late as this month, identifying himself as "established Misplaced Pages editor Florentino Floro" and "creator of legendary 14 page forum thread." He's also been mailing viruses and copies of his books to bloggers and Misplaced Pages editors, and pestering us with friend requests on every social networking site available. I browsed through his 900 page book which he emailed to a Wiki admin, and it's just an archive of all his forum posts and rants from the talk namespace. --Migs (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the poor chap is bat-shit insane. Quite sad really. One feels for his friends and family. Can he not be ignored in the hope that he'll eventually slip into dignified obscurity? X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I actually came here to say. Users LUIS_Armand_and_Angel and Judgefloro are two of the dozen alternate accounts he claims to have. This is in addition to the now blocked Juanatoledo. They haven't been active since 2007, but should something be done about those accounts? Especially since he declared his intention to keep editing either anonymously or under another name. --Migs (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, it is good to see this issue (finally) getting some attention from the community. I think the proposal to prevent google from indexing user pages is a really good one. Where could that be taken up? xschm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins may also want to be aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, which he has recently been claiming that he won (presumably on the grounds that his account wasn't permanently banned on the spot). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel bad seeing that page blanked. It's like the world's longest monument to formal thought disorder next to the randomly-faxed pamphlets of Francis E. Dec. And this one's got pictures! I will admit, I laughed myself hoarse over the shirtless one with the rifle. God love this place... Bullzeye 05:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply, deeply upset by the comments I'm reading above. It's completely inappropriate to talk so disparagingly of someone who has worked hard on Misplaced Pages for quite some period of time. Can we consider unblocking him now? Have any conditions been discussed? If there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. At the very least, let's restore his user page and quit adding insult to injury. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring his user page would in no way be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. If we did that, it would be a statement that almost anything except attack pages is acceptable in userspace. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so totally pleased that people are now finally talking about how crazy this is. For so so long, I thought no one else could see it. TheCoffee (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, and smell the coffee! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pcap ping 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I IAR and delete the personal images? We (and I suppose, he) don't really want anybody out there to turn some of those into some internet meme or something, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, they are all on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, let me guess, we can't delete a picture of a half-naked psychotic individual holding a rusty rifle because it's free content? No WP:IAR on commons? Pcap ping 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Holly dwarfs! Did anyone check out his commons user page? Pcap ping 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we just need to find a commons admin. I don't know if the user is even blocked over at commons yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit in doubt about deleting all his images. This one won't scare the children. He's been admonished for uploading lots of personal images to commons (see his talk page there). The irony is that he's an encyclopedic subject, so some pictures of him may be appropriate. But we should have some decency, even if he lacks judgment, and it's all too easy to make fun of him. Pcap ping 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, uh...nice pictures -shifty eyes- , but I really can't see any encyclopedic value in them. I'm not really familiar with the deletion policies, but I really feel uncomfortable with just letting those images sit there. ♫ IceUnshattered 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is taking admin abuse to a new level

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

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems incline to take the definition of admin abuse to a new level. He is the ultimate epitome of unsavory administrator conducts.

In his most recent exploit, Future Perfect at Sunrise aggressively albeit controversially pushed for the lifting of the ban of User:Alex contributing from L.A., who has a habit of making death threats, creating ban-evading sockpuppets, and possessing an overall lack of respect for the due process. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Alex_contributing_from_L.A. He controversially unblocked the ban-evading sockpuppet Alex contribution from L.A. himself after little discussion on AN/I claiming that there was since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked

As a neutral editor, I noticed the AN/I thread and immediately questioned Future Perfect's judgment in this episode as well as his categorization of "fundamental opposition". Alex from L.A. was extremely hostile, but Future Perfect's continue to patronize the ban-evading sock. Future Perfect, angry at the fact that someone is questioning his judgment, became extremely defensive and was eager to shut me up by saying "let's close this discussion". He accused me of NPA against ban-evading sock Alex. He then tried to exonerate Alex's pass transgression and sockpuppetry ] as well as demonstrating a flawed understanding of WP:SOCK. He then failed to assume good faith WP:AGF by accusing me of boosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya?]

He then launched a relentless campaign to wiki-stalk/harass my contributions as well as censor/impede my editing. He even threatened to block me ] just because I questioned his unblock of a ban-evading sock. After he stalked my contribution, an edit war occured at Salma Hayek ] ] ] ]. He continued to threaten to block me, even claiming that "conflict of interest" does not apply despite the fact that no other editor reverted me during this time except himself. ] He seems to be reverting out of personal vendetta. Even my attempt to compromise by telling him to move the objectionable sentence to another part of the article was rebuffed as he continued to hurl insults in edit summary such as accusing me of being a sexist, misogynist, among other personal attacks.

I urge the community to take decisive action against this rogue admin who plays by his own rule, have little regards for the due process or wikipedia policies. I demand a formal apology and I also sincerely hope this admin can refrain from wikistalking and censoring my edits based on personal vendetta. If this desysopping is the only solution, then we have to do what we have to.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Alex situation, but your behavior at Selma Hayek was quite bad. Your post here is ridiculous. If your other allegations are as sensible as what you're saying at the Selma Hayek situation, I see no reason to look into them. Misplaced Pages requires that editors behave like reasonable adults. If you're unable to do that, this is not the place for you. Friday (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. You try to force content onto a WP:BLP about someone's breasts and then scream "censorship" when removed? Sorry, not going to fly. Ronnotel (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, you are one of those people who can't look past my userpage and tried to censor it. Judge someone by their contributions, not by their userpage.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that. This time around, I was looking at your contributions. Altho, now that I look.. your userpage is inappropriate. Please put this content on your own website, not on Misplaced Pages. Friday (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go thru your contributions and see if all your edits are as dumb as the one at Salma Hayek, so I guess without research I can't just block you as a troll. But that's a really stupid edit, and it makes me have zero interest in whether you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate gripe here. No, that's not quite right; it makes me quite confident if I actually spent time researching it, I'd find it was groundless. Perhaps leave Misplaced Pages to the grownups? Or go focus on your sure-to-succeed ArbCom candidacy? Or something? I tried for over a minute to resist hitting "save page" on this, in the interests of assuming good faith and civility and treat the children with respect, etc., but I failed. Shoo. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmppphh. Not really worth commenting here, is it? If anybody besides NWA.Rep should want a comment from me, let me know. Absent that, I intend to continue upholding BLP standards of quality against people who think it is a good idea to claim of prominent Hollywood actresses such as Scarlett Johannson that their notability rests wholly or entirely on the size of their breasts . Have fun desysopping me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With contributions like this (notice the player's name and the poor format of a four digit number), this, this, this, and this, maybe it'd be better for you if people judged you on your userpage. Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you tell people to go fuck yourself? User:Badger_Drink/sandbox If we are not talking about breasts, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, wikipedians are overly puritan.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(Obviously a new meaning of the word "Resolved" than I was previously aware of :-) "Hi, I'm leaving Misplaced Pages for good, but please continue to vote for me") ►BMW◄ 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not really "retired", he's just an active free agent. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one useful thing can come of this

Any reason not to just go ahead and community ban? Apparently many are familiar with, and tired of, these antics. Friday (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at users contribs- quite a few edits exactly the same as those to Selma Hayek- to other female celebrities' articles. While I'm not sure we're at community ban yet, a block for disruption seems to be in order. L'Aquatique 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and community ban me :-)) – Seriously though, I'm not familiar enough with NWA.Rep to judge such a suggestion. Note that he has a longer history, including some Arbcom conflict, under his previous account name "Certified Gangsta". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Freestyle.king; User:Bonafide.hustla; other former identities of NWA. MBisanz 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, I see a significant block log, and I see a fundamental lack of "getting it". If he's been around the project over 2 years and still treats Misplaced Pages like his personal playground, I don't see how it's reasonable to assume he'll shape up. I'm not all that familiar with him either, but in only a few minutes, I've seen enough to know what my opinion on this issue is. Friday (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of such sentences are quite common among the category of big bust models and actresses, usually with citations. I fail to see how an established editor, a rollbacker, an arbCom candidate should be community banned when he questions Future Perfect while Alex from LA is allowed to roam around as a ban-evading sock.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One point; the celebrities and actresses whose articles you have edited with respect to shape, size, naturalness (or otherwise) of their breasts, are not notable for that fact - as they are not for the shapeliness of their legs, the colour and styling of their hair, or the occurrence of freckles upon their skin - but for their body of work and the recognition by the public and their industry for their abilities. In this one matter you are consistently at fault, and no pointing toward other peoples perceived infractions should divert anyone from it. As for your "qualifications"; being around a long time without being banned (although blocked, and under different usernames) is no indication of legitimacy, anyone with the relevant number of edits over the qualifying period can run for arbcom (and you are not really among the favourites to gain a seat, it should be said), and being provided with Rollback is yet another indication on how low the standards are in being granted that tool. In truth, I do not support a community ban because you are not worth the effort of the discussion - sooner or later you are going to do something crass enough to get yourself indef blocked... and no-one is going to be concerned enough to unblock you. You do need to seriously consider whether you are able to contribute usefully on this project, and perhaps decide to direct your energies elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given these five unsourced edits to BLPs, I've blocked User:NWA.Rep 1 week for disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the block, not sure his talk page should have been locked down so quickly... Tan | 39 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now. His email still works. Meantime, I'm ok if someone re-enables it, if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep is a candidate for Arbcom and feel if he is allowed to contest he should be allowed to use his talk page and also be allowed to reply to questions put up. Through do not think Jimbo Wales who maintains high standards will nominate someone blocked or those with recent blocks to Arbcom even in the unlikely event of the candidate winning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-enabled Nwa.Rep's ability to edit his talkpage. Gwen, there was no need to restore the block notice when he'd removed it, per WP:USER (Users may only be prevented from removing declined unblock requests) - Nwa was within his rights to remove it, and should not be prevented from editing the talkpage except in the usual circumstances of abusing the unblock process Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even done writing the block notice and adding the diffs (see the history) when he removed it. Never had that happen before. Edit warring with a blocking admin straight off after the block is only another sign of disruption. As for NWA.Rep being a candidate for arbcom, so much the worse was his flurry of disruption and pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) He's allowed to remove whatever warnings he likes from his talkpage, except declined unblock notices Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning. I've been editing here for years and I've never seen a block notice removed like that, without someone putting it back. As late as last March, the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice. Now I know and won't give it a second thought if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk, I didn't assume it was malicious on your part. I was also checking that I hadn't missed something blatant! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I never took it that you thought I'd been untowards. Out of the thousands of block notices I've seen, that may have been the first time I ever saw one reverted so quick and I can't remember ever having seen one not restored. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should add that as per WP:BLANKING, the only kinds of talk page messages that editors may not remove from their own talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... and these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The NWA guy's aggressiveness and vulgarity at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball, over the mundane subject of baseball player templates, raises questions about his fitness for anything with authority attached to it. That's above and beyond today's 1-week block for edit warring, and his apparent abuse of the rollback privilege. I don't know how the ArbCom works. Would they seriously consider admitting this guy to that committee, given the type of behavior we're seeing? Baseball Bugs 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we answer ourselves by asking, Bugs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, between this stuff today, and his previous failure in seeking adminship, he seems to be working his way downhill here, and it just reminded me of Frank Nelson in one particular bit with Jack Benny. Nelson, as a floorwalker in a department store, was giving Benny a hard time, as usual. At one point, it came out that Nelson was related to the store owner, or something. Benny asked him, "Are you working your way up the company ladder?" Nelson answered, "Not exactly. I started as a Vice President!" Baseball Bugs 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's written a "poor little me" editorial on his talk page. One of the typical behaviors from someone who's just been blocked. But the block was only for a week. Maybe he'll come back in a week with a bit of perspective and decide that wikipedia is still worthwhile. (I understand, as I've been there too). Baseball Bugs 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove some of his personal attacks on various groups and people on his talk page. He has reverted them. I won't revert back since this will turn out into another edit war. So I'm wondering someone can do something about it =/ Dengero (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One admin locked his user page, and another showed good faith by unlocking it. NWA has now trashed the second admin's good faith. The talk page is riddled with personal attacks towards you and others, and should be both cleared and locked by an admin, at least for the duration of the 1-week block. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Seeing as part of the reason he was blocked was for edit warring, should we remove his rollback access? I'm not sure how to tell by edit summaries if an edit used rollback, but it seems like maybe we should. L'Aquatique 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday already took it away from him. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An undid edit summary will say Undid revision "number" by "User". A rolled-back reversion will be Reverted edits by "user" to last version by "user". HalfShadow 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if there's an accepted practice on this or not, but I would say for future cases any edit warring is a good justification for taking away rollback. Friday (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few rollbacks like these which are not reverts of what consensus calls vandalism. That last one reverts a good faith edit back to an edit by one of his own accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing policy re future cases, then regardless of what happened this time. surely a user who doesn't misuse Rollback should be treated differently to one who uses Rollback in an edit war? ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Is there any way we can start a push to stop indexing user pages? I've seen several cases of what I think are attempts to use userpages for publicity or as articles in the past couple of weeks. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User talk:NWA.Rep

The blocked user, allegedly having "retired", is in fact using his talk page for personal attacks. He has twice reverted the attempts of other users to weed out his personal attacks and leave the rest of his editorial in place. Baseball Bugs 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. See WP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later. Jehochman 10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While selective editing of someone else's talk page is certainly a questionable tactic, taking verbal shots at others while under a block oneself (including, ironically, an empty threat of blocking someone else), is normally not allowed. You're in a generous mood today. Baseball Bugs 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, what you say is true, but outpourings like this are very likely to happen after an eager user who doesn't seem to understand Misplaced Pages has been blocked for a meaningful length of time. As for what he has to say, my only answer is that he hasn't brought up why he was blocked: It had nothing to do with anything he's talking about (I didn't even know he was running for arbcom). It had only to do with putting the same shoddily sourced/unsourced text about breasts into a string of at least 5 BLPs, then edit warring over it and bringing it himself under the baleful gazes at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your statement seems to apply moreso to new editors than an editor who's been here since 2006 (with a rather lengthy block log already established, at that). If he doesn't understand Misplaced Pages by now, and if he's not somehow used to getting blockbucketed by now, I think it's safe to say there's a definite problem here. Badger Drink (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit drinking caffeine about six months ago. I've been getting mellower and mellower. Jehochman 11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove his self-appraisals. But accusing various users and groups things, and even those that are completely inaccurate (eg. He still insists his "breast" edits were good, and I'm in WP:CHINA when I'm not). While I extend my condolences and refrain from aggravating him anymore, I believe those partial edits are considerable. Of course, that is open to debate and I happily accept any consensus of the community. Dengero (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's initial instinct was to lock his talk page, and that was obviously the correct instinct. When a guy is blocked he's supposed to be either requesting unblocks in a civil way or possibly writing civil comments, not attacking others. I don't see why this guy is allowed to get away with it... unless it's on purpose, to leave something visible, to further scotch his chances of getting on the ArbCom, which is an interesting approach that has some merit. Baseball Bugs 11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok it was unblocked though (and said this could be done if need be). Meanwhile he didn't answer my offer to unblock if he'd acknowledge he understood why his edits were taken as disruptive and say he wouldn't do anything like that again. As for his claims about IRC, the last time I logged into IRC was when that longish outage happened about a month ago (?) and even then I couldn't log in to the admin board (didn't bother to ask for help because I was finding out what I wanted on the main one). Moreover, I didn't exchange emails or any other kind of contact with anyone about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He apparently sent an e-mail to someone else, who locked his page with all the personal attacks and verbal shots in place. Baseball Bugs 11:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else? Yes, that's right. You can see in the page history who protected the page: me. Or, well, Bishzilla. I agree with Jehochman on this issue. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

So do I, which is to say, I'm more or less neutral as to what happens to his talk page now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good that his venom is locked in place, as it gives the ArbCom a good chance to read it and consider the appropriateness of giving that guy expanded power. Baseball Bugs 11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bish* almost never agrees with me. There you go. Thread resolved. Jehochman 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But on that point, how would one feel if they were accused of baiting, sockpuppeteering, having a harassment campaign, having a double standard in policy enforcement, initiating personal attacks and having personal vendetta? Hmmm but I guess we can only leave him now. Dengero (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AS one of the prople mentioned on his talk page I don't give a flying whatever if a user contests a block he made months (years) ago when he makes whatever kind of attacks - its so common from users who have given up in disgust after their particular view of WP morality has been rejected that I am immune (oh and of course, like his recent - most of my blocks are 1 second blocks to apologise for making a mistake" claim, the claim, his claim that I missapply policy in deference to certain parties is demonstrably false. Viridae 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't archive this thread for another day or so (dear bot). I'd like to review the present block, and I'm busy and it's complicated. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

If at all possible, please let's avoid blocking ArbCom candidates. I have known NWA.Rep (a k a Certified.Gangsta and a few other account names) for some years. In fact you'll see him mention me, if you've read far enough on his talkpage. He's certainly a problematic editor, but I think him well-meaning. In my experience, he responds better to trust and AGF than to threats and contemptuousness. NWA.Rep obviously isn't likely to get the votes to get into ArbCom, but that's not the point: his candidacy is serious, and is no kind of attempt to game the system.
Unblock and topic ban. In order to leave the man some dignity, I intend to unblock him, unless Gwen strongly objects, and to remove the shaming—though well-intentioned—block notice on his election questions page. To replace these measures while I further review the thread above (oh man.. it's so long !), I will topic-ban him from all pages except those directly to do with the election, and also excepting this ANI thread. (If in doubt about what's included in this page ban, just ask me before you edit, CG, you hear me?) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

I didn't even know he was running for arbcom, though I don't think that should sway a thing. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would we decide to unblock him solely to give him a public soapbox for ranting about Misplaced Pages? That doesn't strike me as sensible. Running for ArbCom doesn't – or shouldn't – get a candidate a free pass on Misplaced Pages's user conduct policies. If he wants to preserve his dignity, I would support allowing him to withdraw his candidacy, followed by a courtesy blanking of the ArbCom election pages. Bending over backwards to allow him to continue to participate in what's supposed to be a serious process related to Misplaced Pages governance strikes me as a way to waste both his time and the community's. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Sorry Bishonen, but I too disagree here. Keep him blocked. He was blocked for all-out disruption on multiple fronts, one of them being this very report here. (If I were to start enumerating how many plain untruths are contained in his initial complaint above ...) Do you really think letting him back into this thread would lead to anything constructive? And I don't see how his (self-appointed) "status" as an Arbcom candidate changes anything. Calling oneself an Arbcom candidate doesn't give one a free pass; plus, this particular candidacy comes from a person who at the same time claims he doesn't want to remain on Misplaced Pages anyway, so yes, it is in fact in a very real sense not a serious candidacy any longer, he just wants it to remain listed to make a political point. I don't think we need to bend over backwards just in order to allow him to continue playing that game. (As for what kinds of communication he is likely to respond more or less well to, honestly, in the encounters I've seen him in over the last few days, he hasn't been responding well to anything.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Running for ArbCom doesn't give you a free pass. If anything, the community has indicated that running makes you a target of criticism and abuse.--Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bish, this is an awful idea. Running for ArbCom does not give a person a free pass to edit war and act utterly imbalanced and incivil. He has not been blocked indefinitely, and will still be able to participate in the ArbCom elections when his block expires. What also makes me nervous is the overtures of cronyism that accompany such a proposed unblock. While I'm assuming good faith (that is to say, I don't believe your actions were proposed with an evil, mustachioed grin), the fact that NWA.Rep was so vocal regarding IRC and a handful of Giano Affairs™ makes it very hard to consider you a completely unbiased, uninvolved admin in this instance. I don't consider you "involved" to the point where I would automatically disregard any argument you had regarding his unblocking due to your said "involvement" (whew, try parsing that sentence), but I do consider you "involved" enough to the point where I would prefer somebody else perform the unblock, if such an unblock had to occur (and I'm in favor of it not occuring). Badger Drink (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism? All right. But you must admit it's funny how the phrase "with all due respect" generally turns out to mean that no respect is due. As I mentioned, Badger Drink, I've known the user for some years, i. e. since long before the IRC case. I strongly doubt that the rather ignorant newbie Freestyle King, as he was when I started to communicate with him and treat him (for my crony-collecting purposes) like a human being, had ever heard of me or Giano. (Fuck, is no thread complete without Giano?). Bishonen | talk 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

The reason for the phrase is to state that, despite how the following might sound, it is not uttered with hate in the heart. I need a mention of Daniel Brandt or a link to WP:AGF for bingo. Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least now he has owned up to the reason for his peculiarly sympathetic view toward that character. If someone with the attitude of NWA.Rep gets a power position, then wikipedia will have abandoned its supposed principles. Baseball Bugs 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him because he's an ArbCom candidate? What a joke. Reminds me of a line from The Blues Brothers: " is on parole! You can't go calling the cops on him!" Baseball Bugs 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bugs, this is not constructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like tolerating his behavior somehow is constructive? Fine. Delete my immoral comments. You have my permission. Baseball Bugs 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Bish* here: the proposal to supersede the block with a topic ban seems amicable to me. Indeed, this new proposal from Bishhonen essentially makes the block itself moot in that NWA is now unable to contribute to the handful of pages he finds himself unable of not edit warring on. With the idea in mind that keeping the block in place would either be purely penal or purely a POINTy action (made to make an example of NWA: being a candidate is not a free pass to not being blocked), I offer a tentative support to the unblock, with a caveat that any failure to adhere to the topic ban by NWA after this lifting of this block will most probably result in it being immediately restored and reset.

  Tznkai and others make a good point, however. Being a candidate to the ArbCom should not be a pass for edit warring or unhelpful conduct across the project, under any circumstances. If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, however, I wish to observe that if NWA was not a candidate this year, it is highly likely that a proposal from a competent administrator (Bishonen does, of course, fall into that category) to remove a block on he, a long-term contributor, in favour of a respective topic ban would pass rather uncontroversially. Just as being a candidate should not be a free pass to ignoring the Community's standards for conduct, so to should it not be a rationale to hold that candidate to higher standards of conduct: such is the remit of the electorate on voting day—the community can give its opinion through a resound rejection there of an unfit candidate, but not through unfairly withholding an unblock.

  Just my two pence, but accurate ones, I think. AGK 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

His actions are immature, tragic and daft, but is this statement part of his attempt at poetry/rap whatever, or the lyrics from a song, and/or also a suicide threat? "Despite all this, now, I must turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it. Put it to my brain and scream "die Bonafide hustla" and pop it " Sticky Parkin 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncredited reference to "When I'm Gone": "I turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it / Put it to my brain and scream 'Die Shady!' and pop it." --Moonriddengirl 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing, nothing in the world, that pushes my "urge to violence" button like people who quote Eminem. Oh, wait--unless it's wasted potential. A moment of WP:OR, if you please: There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Misplaced Pages. In the Venn diagram for the two groups--"true gangsta/hustla" and "Misplaced Pages editor"--the intersection is the null set. The amalgam of the two does not exist. Either/or, not both/and. The dawg in question? Does not hunt.(/OR). What's sadder, to me, is that just leafing through his edit summaries, this user reminds me a lot of myself: one foot in each of two very, very incompatible worlds. Maybe at my age I've hit the point of realization--you gotta pick a side, and (sad but true) the dividends of being on the "boring" side are much more palatable than those of the "edgy" side, to say nothing of the "mammary-fixated rapper-in-waiting" side. Hey, NWA--there's a very intelligent user in there somewhere, maybe even a future admin/arb. Do yourself, and Misplaced Pages, a favor--let THAT guy run the show for a while. Leave the fixation with hawt actresses for your...erm, quiet time; edit the way you've shown you can edit. This doesn't mean you have to entirely QUIT stirring the sh*t--sh*t needs stirring, sometimes--but once you leave behind the side of your personality that edits like a teenage boy and pisses people off, you'll find that when you DO stir up sh*t, your words will be viewed with more respect. (There. I'm done.) GJC 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Misplaced Pages." -I just mentioned this elsewhere. This "Growing up in Compton, California, I choose usernames such as “Bonafide.hustla”, “Certified.Gangsta”, and “NWA.Rep” despite significant ridicules from the community. Being one of the few Wikipedians with any sort of street credibility, I often find it frustrating to blend in to the mainstream." made me giggle inside. (Involuntary?) comic genius.:) Sticky Parkin 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The persona he's made for himself here is amusing, sure. But his disruptive behavior is not amusing. It's time to show this kid the door. His behavior is not compatible with being a productive editor. I don't care about his "dignity" at all- his own actions have removed whatever of that he ever had. Friday (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See, I DO care about his dignity. And I'm not amused by his persona--actually, it makes me sad. It sucks to feel like you SHOULD fit in somewhere, but for whatever reasons, you just....don't. I can't think of too much that sucks more, and I'm an adult--can you imagine what it feels like to someone younger??? I think there's a very smart person in there, and just from the little I've seen, I think THAT person would be a very good editor. But--for whatever reason--he's putting his "street cred" ahead of his maturity. I'm not going to play amateur psychoanalyst here (esp. since if I was going down the Freud route, I'd probably run headlong into a wall of surgically-augmented boobage before long) but from what I'm seeing, the minute he realized that his street cred means zero here, and his words and work mean everything, THAT's the moment we gain (I suspect) one hell of a Wikipedian. So yeah--I believe we should treat him with dignity; under similar circumstances, you'd want the same, wouldn't you? GJC 23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So kinda like a cross between Curtis Wilkins and Adrian Mole, then? Badger Drink (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we need to hold compassion at some point. Care about dignity whilst showing him the door, sure—but remember it's a real person behind NWA's persona, however laughable you think it may be. The second we stop caring about our fellow editors' feelings is the day our community will truly lose the ability to write a collaborative encyclopedia. That's a self-evident truth, in my mind, and one I'm not inclined to forget whilst contributing here. AGK 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A block isn't a personal attack. If the wording of the block notice wasn't wholly neutral, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.rep's statement is over 400, which brings up some issues, that I brought up here.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my experience with this user had been very unpleasant. The fight between the legitimacy between ROC and PRC has just subsided and NWA.Rep comes in on a third side about ETHNIC taiwanese. Except he doesn't even know what they are by definition. Vandals are easy to deal with, but editor who obviously have the wrong views yet know a bit of wikipedia policies are the hardest to deal with (the amount of technical jargon he threw at me-phew). I can dutifully say I solve most problem talking over the table, but his aggressive attitude towards editing was just tiring in the 4 or so days dealing with him. He can revert twice, wait 24 hours and revert again. It was like an endless hounding until you give up. And while WP:USER does not restrict editors from blanking their userpage, his preference to delete the comments that portrays him in a negative view while keeping the positive ones just ticks me off. Plus reconciliation with him after he came back proved fruitless. So to be honest, I think a one week block is very appropriate and hopefully during that time, he can find his mistakes in this cyber world, and perhaps act more accordingly in his real life also. Dengero (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence, Mercenary2k, and Ragib

It seems that despite my best efforts to reach consensus on the Inter-Services Intelligence article, two users are conspiring to have their own PoV on the page. And one of them, Ragib, is an administrator. The article was hastily protected by Ragib a week ago. When that week expired, I re-proposed changes to the article, BOLDLY, and putting the discussion in the talk page. Those changes sat for TWO DAYS. I was then reverted by Mercenary2k, and WITHIN TWO MINUTES, the page was re-protected by Ragib. It seems pretty clear that Ragib has a bias towards one version of the article. Mercenary2k continues to make racist accusations (saying I'm "Indian"), and deletes administrator warnings from his talk page. I find it unbelievable that within two minutes of Mercenary2k reverting to his version of the article, Ragib has reapplied protection. It makes one wonder, seriously.CSHunt68 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the sleaziest attack I've ever faced as an admin. These two users have been edit warring over the article for a long time, and reverting each others' changes almost on a daily basis. To prevent that, I had protected the article a week ago, and requested both of these users to discuss their differences in the article talk page. CSHunt68 ranted that protection is not a solution, and I should "Stay out of the article" (for the record, I am not involved in editing the article).

Over the last week, there has been only a couple of exchanges between these two editors in the article talk page. However, no fruitful or good faith discussion took place, and as soon as the article protection expired, the two users started their edit wars once again.

Administration is a thankless job, and admins always protect the wrong version. However, I find it unacceptable that a serial edit warrior would make a sleazy accusation on my protection of the article, and my advice to both of the users to once again discuss their content dispute in the article talk page. I would recommend blocking both of the involved users to stop this relentless edit war over the article. At least, the personal attacks on me is totally unacceptable.

For the record, again, my only edit to the article in question was this, 6 months ago, which fixed a wikilink.

I demand an apology from CSHunt for this sleaze job, and also would request other admins to take actions against both of these editors who constantly edit war over the article without any meaningful discussion. --Ragib (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How dare you protect the wrong version. How dare you. Meany. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. :) --Ragib (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a time line of events:

• November 7-12: Mercenary2k and CSHunt68 revert to each other's preferred version a total of *15* times
• 13 November 2008, I protected the article for 1 week as a result of the edit war.
• 13 November 2008 I requested both users to resolve their differences via discussion in the article talk page.
• 13 November 2008 - CSHunt terms the protection of the article to prevent edit war as: This is an absolutely ridiculous solution, as you would have noticed from Mercenary2k's behaviour, if you'd investigated AT ALL. Here's what's going to happen: I'm going to ask Mercenary to discuss things on the talk page. He's going to ignore me. I'm going to post on his talk page - and perhaps administrators are as well. Mercenary is going to delete these postings. The block is going to expire. For lack of any discussion, I'm going to BE BOLD and implement the changes I feel are appropriate - by reverting. Mercenary is going to revert my changes, noting "revert vandalism". Rinse and repeat. You need to find a better solution.CSHunt68 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• 13 November, I again request CSHunt and Mercenary2k to resolve these differences via discussion in the talk page, and that the threat of further reverts made by CSHunt will only result in longer protection of the article.
• November 13, CSHunt threatens me to "Stay away" from the article (which is amazing, considering I only protected the article prevent their revert war and didn't edit the article myself).

• Between Nov 13 and 19, there are only 3 exchanges by these 2 editors. None of them constructive or trying to build consensus.

• After expiry of the protection on Nov 20, CSHunt and Mercenary2k again engage in revert was sans any discussion to resolve their disputes.
• First thing I do when I log into WP on Nov 21, I protect the article for 2 weeks, and
• Nov 21, I again request both editors to resolve their differences. This is followed by CSHunt's personal attack against my protection of the article. --Ragib (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

--Ragib (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Merc's motivation to discuss is a bit limited, since you seem to have protected in favor of his version each time. That's what has CSHunt so upset -- he tries to discuss, Merc refuses, and you protect in favor of Merc's version. Or am I misinterpreting? looie496 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have protected the article twice without showing any preference to any version in my comments. There is a 50% probability of protecting any single editor's version. Of course, did you expect me to revert back to CSHunt's version before protecting it, just to be "fair"? --Ragib (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• While not condoning the attack on the Administrator here, it's obvious that protecting the article and asking the two editors to discuss the situation is not actually resolving the problem. A cycle of Revert War - Protection - Protection Expires - Revert War etc isn't going to acheive anything - a different solution is needed - probably knowledgeable neutral 3rd parties to step in and try and resolve this. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried my best to inform the users of the dispute resolution process. CSHunt raised the issue during the last time the page was protected, and was advised by other admins to go through discussion in the article talk page first. I have stepped in as a neutral third party, and had the wrath of CSHunt directed towards me. I suggest other admins look into this closely and enforce policies. --Ragib (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have it exactly right, looie. My version sat for over 24 hours, and within TWO MINUTES of Merc's reverting, it was protected by Ragib. You be the judge. Ragib has TWICE protected Mercenary2k's version. I would have expected - IF YOU WERE UNBIASED - that the article would have been protected sometime after MY reverts - not within TWO MINUTES of Mercenary2k's. 50% chance, my *ss. There's about a 99% chance that the article is protected some time after my edits, and a 1% chance - based on mere random timing - that it's protected following Merc's. I call shenanigans.

I've spent much time already trying to get Mercenary2k to the table (any acknowledgement of THAT history?), but he has constantly shown total disinterest and disdain in the collaboration effort. I've been accused of being Indian, biased, and told to "go away". That's all there is to it. A "timeline of events"? LOL Nice to NOT INCLUDE any of my attempts to discuss changes. Good job.

I am asking Ragib to step away, and for Exxolon's recommendation to be accepted - 3rd party. Ragib is clearly not neutral. You will get no apologies from me for your "sleazy" edits - your term, not mine. Too many admins getting away with too much, these days. This was a prime example. You WERE involved in "editing" the article, Ragib - you twice protected the version you favoured. Period.

Please, someone, anyone, look at the Discussion history and Mercenary's talk page, and tell me who has tried to gain consensus, and who has been insulting and unwilling to talk.CSHunt68 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not helping your case at all by shooting the arbiter. For the record, I noticed the edit war when I logged into wikipedia today. (see Special:Contributions/Ragib ... In your deluded mind, any attempts at preventing the edit war look as non-neutral/biased .... I can't help that.

I do not consider you an "arbiter". I find it curious that you logged in PRECISELY after Mercenary made his changes. I have already said that I consider this evidence of your bias.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Get over your delusions of persecution complex, and please please focus on the article. The discussion that I requested for a long time is missing ... you do not help your case at all by yelling bias where there is none. The timeline of events clearly mentions the 3 messages between you and Mercenary2k between 13-19 Nov, which result in no real dialogue ... and we can see you also claim you'll "be bold" and get back to reverting to your version once the protection ends.

Then youhave not looked carefully enough. I have posted dozens of times to the article talk page, and his talk space, and have been ignored. I asked for discussion, got none, was bold, was reverted, then you protected. Simple enough.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, stop finding ghosts and claiming bias. Both of you should have been blocked a long time ago, a pity that admins didn't choose that option earlier. --Ragib (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You should have stayed out, as you're clearly biased.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are also untruthful about your edits "lying out for 2 days". Your post-protection1 edit, according to this diff, happens on November 20 -11:08am (in mytimezone), you can check my contribution log to see if I was even editing WP at that time or not. On the other hand, my protection to the page occurs at 14:29 (mytimezone), which also happens to be my first edit for today. However, as I see, this still won't convince you, that is not my problem. As mentioned earlier, the protected version is always the wrong version. Now, <sarcasm>it will help me if you notify me next time you start a revert war so that I will be able to protect your version</sarcasm>. --Ragib (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken. It was over 24 hours, not two days. Nevertheless - my version stays up for 1500 minutes, and two minutes after Merc makes his changes, you "intervene". I find that enough evidence to think you're biased, especially considering you haven't looked at the history of the issue.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. If you had warned me earlier that protecting the article at that very moment would make me biased, I would have waited 1501 minutes to do so  :) --Ragib (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it.CSHunt68 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that the solution that Exxolon is refering to is to block both involved editors the next time the edit war starts up. We don't need to keep other editors from improving the article while these two nuckleheads work out their differences. If they continue to refuse to use the talk pages appropriately, or seek their own dispute resolution, then blocks seem most appropriate... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've indicated that this is a fine solution. (Though it REALLY doesn't look like Exxolon is proposing this at all ...) So, I ask, as I did in a previous discussion in here, after I post proposed changes in the discussion space, _if_ Mercenary2k does not respond (as he hasn't at least a dozen times in the past) - at what point am I "permitted" to edit the article without being blocked? Seriously. If I edit the article, and am reverted without comment, should I post asking for discussion again? If so, at what point am I permitted to revert without being blocked? It seems, all the onus is being placed on ME, frankly - the user who seems to be TRYING to talk to the other user. I'd love to have answers to these questions, seriously. No sarcasm intended. Though an edit war must be fought by at least two parties, at some point it becomes obvious who the problem is. There should be some consideration of that fact.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, for your "time line of events", Ragib - during the period of November 7-12, I posted to the article discussion page SIX TIMES, while Mercenary2k responded once (calling me "an Indian"), while reverting SEVEN OR EIGHT times, mostly commenting "rvv". I posted on his talk page EIGHT TIMES. There was never any response there, or on my talk page, except his deleting my comments (and both administrator warnings on the issue ... and every comment I've made since). Just so everyone's informed.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• USE THE TALK PAGE* (apologies for yelling out loud ... but both you and Mercenary2k seem to miss the point when mentioned politely multiple times). Go to next step of filing a request for comments. Mention your arguments .... your preferred version doesn't become the "good" version just because you say so ... mention your arguments in the article talk page. Reach a consensus. Read WP:NPA, WP:V WP:NPOV etc policies and see to it that your edits are in compliance. But once again *USE* the talk page for content related discussions. --Ragib (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE. I've been ignored and insulted. I do not have to stand for racism, and Misplaced Pages shouldn't, either.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Er...I didn't propose a "solution" per se. I simply pointed out that the current approach wasn't working and suggested that 3rd party input was a way forward. Revert Warring is against policy - if you feel that Merc isn't responding meaningfully to discussion attempts try WP:RFC WP:MEDIATION etc. While I don't think locking the article is proving effective in dealing with the problem it IS one appropiate response to the revert war. Stop lashing out at people and wikilawyering and you'll go much further. I'd jump in here myself but it's outside my fields of expertise. To be brutally honest it might be easier to remove BOTH of your contributions from the article, BAN you both from editing it and let other editors work on it instead. If you don't want some creative admin to apply that sanction, I suggest you BOTH start editing collaboratively ASAP. Exxolon (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have third party input. Not from Ragib. I'd rather have Merc's information removed and both of us banned, frankly. If you feel that's the way to go, go for it.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no knowledge of the issue at stake, and don't intend to "learn" it from these two users. I can't guess who is right and who is wrong ... both of the versions claim to be backed by citations and are not obvious "vandalisms", so it will not be ok for me or any other admin to pass a judgment on the "Correct" version. Knowledgeable third party opinion is needed, and for finding a breather space, protection is the way to go here. I should also point out again that the DR process has been pointed out to the parties the last time CSHunt posted a similar note (that was after the first protection) at ANB. --Ragib (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you haven't, clearly, looked at the versions, to be brutally blunt. I have attempted DR on the talk page, and have been ignored.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to look into WP:DR. --Ragib (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to look into the history of an article if you're going to get involved, and see who has attempted consensus-building, and who has been rude.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It also seems that the revert war between these two users date back to October 12, and both editors used edit summaries such as "(revert to previous good version", "restored previous version" etc. There were also heated exchanges in the talk page by both these users. So, definitely, these users need to stop right away, and perhaps be banned from editing the article until they can argue their differences in a civil manner. --Ragib (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you're looking at the history, now. But, you still present it in a very biased manner. How many times have I asked for discussion on the talk page since then? How many times did Mercenary respond? One would think that would speak about who is acting in a "civil manner". Again, I find your conduct biased. Of course, how very transparent of you to argue that we should both be banned WITHOUT the caveat (proposed above) that both of our edits be removed at the same time ... CSHunt68 (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again: "So, I ask, as I did in a previous discussion in here, after I post proposed changes in the discussion space, _if_ Mercenary2k does not respond (as he hasn't at least a dozen times in the past) - at what point am I "permitted" to edit the article without being blocked? Seriously. If I edit the article, and am reverted without comment, should I post asking for discussion again? If so, at what point am I permitted to revert without being blocked? How long must I wait for response, how many times must I ask?" Someone? Anyone? Bueller?CSHunt68 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Round 2! FIGHT! MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Nah, I'll just let him have the last word :). At least now he has started a thread in the talk page of the article ... --Ragib (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started MANY threads in the talk page on that space. Again, nice spin. ;)

"So, I ask, as I did in a previous discussion in here, after I post proposed changes in the discussion space, _if_ Mercenary2k does not respond (as he hasn't at least a dozen times in the past) - at what point am I "permitted" to edit the article without being blocked? Seriously. If I edit the article, and am reverted without comment, should I post asking for discussion again? If so, at what point am I permitted to revert without being blocked? How long must I wait for response, how many times must I ask?" Is there nobody who could answer these hypothetical questions? Really? Nobody?CSHunt68 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The corollary to that would be, _if_ I ask for discussion, get none, the protection expires, I post proposed changes which have sat for two weeks in the discussion space, it gets reverted, and I revert back, will the page be protected? If so, why? What am I supposed to do?CSHunt68 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHILD violation (false alarm)

10-year-old with identifying info at User:Cheverny.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

20 years old. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My math neurons are obviously misfiring tonight. Sorry for the false alarm.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? Well just so you don't make this mistake again, take this! :) —Travis 04:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. It is still the 1990's to many of us. Edison (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. And I haven't seen the news lately. Who won the home run race, Sosa or McGwire? How's that impeachment trial coming along? And how about that Monica Lewinsky, eh? I bet she'll be a big star in 10 years. Maybe even bigger than Salma Hayek. Baseball Bugs 17:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RanEagle disruption

Was warned on talk, yet continues to deliberately associate organizations with the American State. Latest target: Fox News. forestPIG 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And? RanEagle made an edit at USPS on Nov 14. Was reverted and warned about it on November 19th. He made one edit to Fox News Channel. He was reverted (by you), you haven't posted to his talk (which also indicates that he/she doesn't even know that he's being "talked about" here, how would you feel if reversed?) or the article talk. This isn't the first stop in dispute/content resolution. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the user's contribs, you will see that their behavior only just falls short of vandalism. RanEagle has been repeatedly warned, and continues to flaunt his/her issues with the American Government by making sarcastic edits of the manner identified. An indefinite block would not be excessive, IMO. forestPIG 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum. Warn the user and if they continue to be disruptive, take it to WP:AIV. ANI is for issues that need admin intervention right away, and can't be handled through our normal processes. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Foresticpig, an indefinite block would be beyond excessive. It's a difference of opinion on content, it's not vandalism (you say as much directly above). This editor made one edit, you reverted him, and then you ran here with your diff to get someone to indef block him? How is that not excessive? I'm also very curious how you've come to determine that you are allowed to ask other admins (according to your userpage, you are a "non-disruptive sock" or somesuch of an admin account) to do your dirty work for you. Use your own damn admin buttons and take your own damn lumps if you screw up with them. Don't demand other admins to do excessive amounts of wikilawyering on your behalf, that's bullshit. As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of "I have this account so I can edit in sensitive areas and not tarnish my admin account." That's bollocks, and I consider this post of yours, after research, to be most disruptive and distasteful, and I've half a mind to block your sock account (the foresticpig one) so as not to have to deal with this garbage anymore. Don't tempt me. Keeper ǀ 76 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that this use of a sock is what the community has in mind. —Travis 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's how I found out. I went to his user talk to explain to him that an indef block would be excessive only to find out that he/she is an admin him/her self. Bringing another editor here on a borderline case at best instead of simply handling things him/her self is the very definition of disruption, IMO. Without a logical explanation (that frankly, I'm not seeing), I don't see why the sock shouldn't be blocked. Perhaps I should create a sock, and use the sock to go to WP:AN and see if any admins would be willing to do it? Incredulous. Keeper ǀ 76 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian maps dispute

We are having dispute between user:LAz17 and user:Ceha about Bosnian demography maps. Because for me and user:Future Perfect at Sunrise problem has not been very clear I have asked users to give reasons what is wrong on this maps . For few short hours everything has been OK. User:LAz17 has writen about problems with user:Ceha map and then user Ceha has writen about problems with User Laz17 maps, but after midnight user Laz17 has exploded because of Ceha arguments (maybe they are false, maybe they are OK, but for this noticeboard it is not important) and started to use words WHO IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, bullshit, peasants and fuck . In my thinking because of that Laz17 has earned 1 little block, but maybe it will be best to block both users to calm down this situation ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If one user becomes uncivil during a dispute we don't block both parties. If the other user is presenting their evidence in a calm and constructive manner block the party who isn't.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that the discussion has been purged. The link was here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg ... so what now? Were is all that discussion? How will the third parties decide who is right if anyone is? We need that page back. (LAz17 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

That was apparently done as a routine housekeeping measure by an admin not aware of the ongoing discussion. Talk pages are routinely deleted if their main page is gone. In this case, I've provisionally restored (assuming the deleting admin won't mind). We can move it somewhere else later, but at the moment we still need the discussion preserved.

About the issue itself, I'm afraid the recent postings were "tl,dr" for me. And can't you guys discuss these things without those personal accusations? It makes it really harder to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

could you please allow the 1991 map to be on wikipedia until the dispute is resolved? We need that map because we agreed that it is an authentitic official one, and this maps helps prove that Cehas maps are full of laws and POV. I will try to discuss stuff with less personal accusations, but it gets hard when I see what kind of absurdity he says and how nobody at all seems to care about the problems or discussion that is going on. We need other people in the discussion, not just me and him. In every discussion that I had with croats on wikipedia, it was a third side that stepped in to help resolve them. The third side has left... we need help to resolve the problems. (LAz17 (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

As called I was called in this discussion, I'll just make a few comments since its weekend and I promised Rjecina to leave the map's issue till next week. Yes, there was a problem with user Laz17. He used some inapropriate words and was heavy on personal accusations. Also by his own word's he has trouble when communicating with part of users on wikipedia. I don't know, part of the problem could be that parts of his english comprehenshion is bad? Anyways (or he is also going to be blocked for puting maps which are constanly deleted) I would like to offer link for putting images on the internet. That should solve that part of the problem. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Theaveng

Last night (11/20), User:Theaveng continued to add Nielsen Media market data (under the guise that is was from the FCC) to List of television stations in North America by media market‎, after an edit war (which included this editor), the page was protected for 24 hours and the user warned not to add copyright data to pages, especially this one since it is in violation of OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, but the user continues.

Twice tonight, the user has reverted to the Nielsen data (again, copyright data) and refuses to accept that it is copyright. The user claims his data is from the FCC, when it is the same identical data from Nielsen. I bring it to you for your insight. What do I do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:21

Incorrect. I reverted to FCC changes that I acquired from the U.S. Federal Code, which is public domain, and has nothing to do with any corporation or copyright. Oh, and my real name is "Troy". Perhaps I should have picked a better handle that sounded more friendly. ---- Theaveng (Troy) (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I could not find the OTRS ticket mentioned above. However, if it was an OFFICE action that trumps everything. Your data does appear to come from the FCC but if the FCC is using copyrighted material, with permission, we would still be prevented from using it. I think we need to let the office sort this out since they seem to be the source of the original take down. Clearly, the data is at the FCC site but that alone does not allow us to use it. Let the office make the call. JodyB _talk 12:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In looking further I find two questions but I am taking it to the article talk page and moving it from here. The FCC material does not show that it belongs to Nielsen or anyone else that I can see. Aside from some OFFICE ruling to the contrary It seems sourced and available IMO. JodyB _talk 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that a corporation overreached out of greed or desire for global AYB; I'm sure Nielsen actually did throw a hissy fit over the mess, that doesn't mean they had a leg to stand on. Perhaps that FCC cite is sufficient to tell them to go take a hike but that's a decision that, ultimately, only Mike (the WMG legal counsel) can make. — Coren  15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Family removal of details about an individual

In the article about Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut there is a section discussin the deaths of four trainees over the course of a number of years, each trainee has a small section representing the conclusions of various studies into the establishment. The father of one of the individuals has removed the section and requested that it not be re-instated, here.

I suppose I'm more looking for opinions about how to deal with this, at the moment the deaths cover a disproportionate amount of the article content. I'm sensitive to the wishes of Mr James that the material about his daughter be removed, but for the sake of proportionality and weight would tend to also remove the other three sets of details. That said, the investigations into Deepcut played a significant part in the ongoing effort to professionalise the service police organisations of all three armed services as well as the selection and training of instructirs and how trainees are delivered and managed. the topic does deserve to be covered.

I'd be grateful for some opinions on the most appropriate approach.

ALR (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (or part of this edit) needs to be oversighted as the user has clearly revealed their home telephone number. D.M.N. (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

as I read the material, this it is not quite what it seems.They do not object to the inclusion of material, but rather they want to have the material suggest that it was homicide not suicide, as they are of the opinion that the Army is covering up the circumstances. They might prefer to have nothing rather than material giving what they think the wrong impression but this is totally destructive to NPOV, I do not see how we can do other than report what is in published sources, though we can perhaps look for sources other than the government report.

Despite the pain to the family, the material must be included as it is a matter of general public interest. BLP does not apply. Once we start applying BLP-like considerations to the feelings of survivors, where does it stop? This was 5 years ago, not last week. When would we finally be able to write objectively about the incident? If one resents damage to the reputation of ones parent or child, thee would be no history for the 20th as well as the 21st century. However, we should be able to find a more tactful way of wording things. DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not read very well particularly when one of the soliders has been removed and she first gets a mention in a summary. The deaths and subsequent review could really be trimmed down to remove a lot of the details and in an article about the barracks it looks like it has undue weight when the article has no mention about the history of the site or the physical barracks themselves. It may be better to create a separate article about the deaths and review which may make for a better constructed and neutral article without any unreferenced opinion and create a better balance with sourced material. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a pretty obvious case of reinstating the information, despite the sympathy we might feel for the family. We can only reflect what the reliable sources say and, obviously, most will report what a coroner reports. Yes we have a systematic bias towards Official Sources, but that is simply the nature of the beast. An icky situation, to be sure, but yes, revert the info back in. It is relevent and cited. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think that removing sourced material merely because it is distressing to someone (even though I have great sympathy for the James family on this one) is a good idea, on the other hand, the article does go into rather a lot of detail on these cases, and I think it's a borderline case of WP:UNDUE. That said, I think if we're going to cover one of these cases, we ought to cover them all. Lankiveil 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the views everyone. I agree the point that we could do with more substance around the barracks, it's been in existence a long time, although most of what's there is what I managed to scrape together a couple of years ago when I first ran across it. The initial article was mainly a rant about the deaths and went into an excessive amount of detail, as well as being unbalanced.

The main issue I see it is that the outcomes of the Blake review were very far reaching, although I don't think there is much in the public domain about that.

ALR (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal allegations on talk pages

I would appreciate administrators' feedback and advice on an ongoing situation best encapsulated by this sequence of edits. How can this be resolved? Jayen466 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly by informal or formal mediation for the underlying content dispute. However, the repetition of allegations probably should be resolved by explaining about user conduct RfCs - I'll leave a note on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For better or worse, I have responded to the allegation: here. I would appreciate it if any further such allegations on WP talk pages were removed promptly as per WP:PA. If there are any outstanding concerns, I am happy to make private information available to arbcom. Cheers, Jayen466 15:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This just now being a case in point. Jayen466 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest mediation, formal or informal. We need to be extra-cautious when dealing with the subject of an article who is also an editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh sock again?

78.148.56.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added "Scotland" to a city list and has changed the photo in Edinburgh. Does anyone recognize this? Is this the same sockmaster that deleted references to UK? I think it's about the same IP range. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the same user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_Russia&action=history and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th), although probably not worth blocking as the user changes IP address so often (e.g. 84.13.115.209 (talk · contribs) yesterday). —Snigbrook 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Angels Live

Not sure what to do with this. Angels Live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has devoted his entire editing career to creating a very intricate hoax album on his user page. I'm used to kids making up little infoboxes about themselves, but this is an entire fake album with tour histories and extended singles releases for a third party, Jake Glyllenhall.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least two similar pages exist: User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live. The three editors are editing each others pages, so there is a possibility of puppetry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly BatterWow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be the only editor outside of these three that is editing. He has a lot of involvement with Hard Candy (Madonna album), and that is the actual target of many of these links.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

Per Misplaced Pages:USER#What_to_do_if_you_find_someone_else.27s_user_page_being_used_inappropriately, it looks like the User:Angels Live, User:Messager Live12 and User:Devils Live pages should all be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Not sure what to do about the BatterWow issue. A warning at a minimum, for sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all three pages need to be MFD-ed. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• MFD at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/DevilAngel.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comment: out of idle curiosity, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact, User:BatterWow's very first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user named BatterBean (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked in March for similar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the contrib histories I've blocked all three four accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) This bad faith editor has just filed this Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin obviously as revenge for this ani and Firefly's subsequent blocking here and here. This sockpuppet charge, which will be easily refuted by a checkuser, and since I have no reason to use socks, is a personal attack. Since there is no reason to ever consider that I use socks, especially Verbal (talk · contribs) who shares interests in articles, but doesn't cross paths with me as often as about 100 other editors, I would as an extended block be placed on Firefly. OrangeMarlin 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

*blink* I have to say that this does appear from many angles to be a revenge SSP filing. I have suggested to Firefly that perhaps this action is unwise, based on their history of disruption. Filing a completely unreasonable SSP report is going to take more than 1 person's time and energy away from editing articles, and instead off on a snipe hunt - that's purely disruptive behavior. I recommend that if Firefly does not remove their obviously vexatious SSP report that they be given a few days rest to determine if they wish to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages in the future, or if the community needs to make that decision for them. ►BMW◄ 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's out in the open, so it's too late to take it back and take a time out. I think an indefinite block is warranted. In the Misplaced Pages world, this like defamation. OrangeMarlin 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Editors may discuss a shorter block, longer block or community ban and shift this as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it for a year? It's interesting that after his week-long block, he was nice for about a week. Then out of the blue this thing. It's clear he doesn't have the temerity to play nice. OrangeMarlin 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to archive close the checkuser, as it's clearly frivolous, or should someone else do it? Is there a different procedure for checkusuers? HalfShadow 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want Firefly to come back claiming "favouritism" or that his complaints were "unheard" or that he was poorly treated. Let it go through, and if he hasn't apologized for his vexatious attitude by the time it's completed, block him for a year. If he does apologize, continue his 1-month block and welcome him back cautiously when it's done. ►BMW◄ 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important the checkuser be completed per BMW. OrangeMarlin 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's spurious. But since you asked nicely...  Unrelated ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How many bad unblock requests does he get before his ban is extended? ►BMW◄ 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ward3001

Block User:Ward3001 indefinitely. This person is bothering me and messing with my talk page. He's also a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's racist? How about what you said here? ►BMW◄ 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything on your talk page that justifies a block of Ward3001. If anything, the incivility has been on your side. Perhaps a few deep breaths are in order?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not even sure it's a pot-kettle thing; I haven't reviewed everything and have to leave now, so please don't consider this authoritative (more admin review needed here I think), but I can't, on the face of it, find anything wrong with Ward3000's recent edits. Pandyu appears, on first glance, to be resisting requests for reliable sources, and is doing most of the name calling here. A data point only, not a decision, as I'm getting called away but thought I'd mentino what I've seen so far. --barneca (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually re-added the contested category. When an actress wins a number of BET awards for her lead work in black family comedies, I'm pretty sure you don't need to source the fact that she's an African American actress. I have also noted this on Ward3001's talkpage - he was a little overly pushy about the obvious on this one, I believe. ►BMW◄ 19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge Bwilkins' good faith, but I disagree that I was pushy. I don't believe there is an exception in WP:V for ethnicity or ethnic identification. Ward3001 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not the place for content disputes, I was wondering which part of "Black", "Entertainment" or "Television" Awards you were contesting and causes you an issue in this matter? ►BMW◄ 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to further add (simply by reading the External links on that page):

• presenter, NAACP awards
• articles in Ebony and Jet magazines
• presenter, BET Awards.

I know, it could be a stretch on my part. ►BMW◄ 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe receiving or presenting an award, or being featured in a magazine, justifies an exception to the requirements of WP:V, a core Misplaced Pages policy. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I will ask you to please stop edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've never edit-warred in my life :) I restored a valid category. My next edit removed a bad external link to youtube, and reinstated a category AFTER placing information on the Talkpage for the article. I would ask anyone else watching this discussion to give him a 3RR warning if he decides to continue playing (I won't do it because I got involved). I won't be dealing with logic issues here. ►BMW◄ 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate 3RR (and I'm not anywhere close to doing so), and I do not appreciate your suggestion for a pre-emptive 3RR warning and your suggestion that I am "playing with" the article. I again thank you for your civility, but I disagree with both your overlooking WP:V and your reverting the article before consensus was reached on the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quickly, please glance at the external links. One of them (when referring to the actress in question) refers to Contemporary Black Biography, Volume 8, 1994, Volume 42, Gale Group, 2004. This is a little too bizarre. ►BMW◄ 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I have placed a 12 hour block on Pandyu's account: comments such as this one ("you white fuck.") are not acceptable. Ward, I would encourage you to refrain in the future from all interactions with Pandyu. Also note that I have advised Pandyu that any future misbehaviour—especially, but not limited to, that of a racist nature—will receive a swift indefinite block. This may make this matter {{Resolved}} insofar as the project's Administrators are concerned: I see no more we can do for the time being. AGK 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your advice to avoid Pandyu, which I will do unless he decides to intrude on my talk page or any of my edits that are unrelated to him. Ward3001 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Resolved – Betacommand gets his way this time.

I would like for someone who's an expert on the subject to comment on whether Betacommand is correct in removing the logos from that article which have sat there for months with no complaints. He may well be right, but he's been blocked so often for misinterpreting the NFC rules that I can't assume he knows what he's talking about. If someone else could comment, I would appreciate it. P.S. He threatened to have me blocked for reverting him twice. I thought those threats came after three reversions??? Baseball Bugs 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the use of several historical logos (specifically for a TV station, just not this one) at WT:NFC. There has not been any consensus yet, though I am involved in that, the best unbiased statement I can state is that the issue is between too much non-free media without necessary commentary, and those that feel the logos are needed to show the historical changes in the logo, and can go without significant commentary. Is beta right for deleting them? It probably would have been better to tag the page with "too much non-free" instead of deleting them without a resolve to the issue - but there's also the fact there doesn't seem to be a resolve - there's no middle ground that can be readily approached. --MASEM 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, Betacommand is taking his usual slash-and-burn approach and threatening anyone who disagrees. Par for the course. He wins this round, from my standpoint. Just as it was stupid for someone to get blocked for a week over the importance of Salma Hayek's breasts, it's stupid to risk getting blocked over a bunch of TV logos. Luckily, I already downloaded them. 0:) Baseball Bugs 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can be warned after making no reverts, but they are unlikely to be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously, yes you can be warned after two revisions or even blocked for same since 3RR is not an limit but a clear blue line. However, BC making such warnings is habitual (it seems to be his version of "hi, I see you have made some changes to an edit I made - can we talk?") and should be considered within context; does it exceed his civility probation? No, and therefore it is better to take the higher moral ground and investigate the basis of BC's actions and determine whether the consensus exists for it. If it doesn't, or is debatable, then the next action is to civilly draw peoples attention to it - and if it does then do right by yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, give up and let someone else do the fighting. As long as Betacommand is here, there will be no peace. And that's the way it is. The best thing is to avoid him like the plague. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

how about you just follow the policy? and all will be well. β 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy set by legal counsel or policy as interpreted by you? I personally go with what Mike Godwin has said, but that is just me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 02:33

Please shut up as you have admitted you have no clue what your talking about. What Godwin was talking about as a legal issue not a policy issue. Non-free content is not allowed in galleries. it might help if you read WP:NFCC and its talk archives. β 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please shut up" is overly aggressive Beta - try for a more moderate/conciliatory tone please. Exxolon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of his civility probation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 04:17

It is, and I have blocked him for 24 hours for violating that, in addition to the requirement that he "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion", which it does not appear that he has done. If anyone thinks I'm being unduly harsh, please let me know, but by this point, Betacommand really ought to know better. For reference, these restrictions are listed here. Lankiveil 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't think you are being harsh enough. If it were me, I would have gone 72 hours. 48 hours because he last block was for 24, escalation in time, plus since he violated two terms of his probation, an extra 24. That is an this editor's opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:48

Neutralhomer, please be aware that the legal position of Misplaced Pages is a completely separate issue from the non-free content policy set by the Foundation. A gallery of non-free images is, as Mike Godwin has stated, completely legally ok, but that's the legal side; a gallery of non-free images weighs down the free content mission goals. We're not going to get sued by having such, but we are hurting the ability to disseminate free content with it. --MASEM 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, really you are saying, they are "OK", but you are just going to throw any ol' policy at them to get them to go away? When Godwin said they were "OK" to him, that didn't mean delete them anyway. Perhaps we ALL should ask Mike for a detailed opinion on this before deleting everything and if Mike says they are OK and don't violate any policy, I think that should be made policy. I ask for all of Beta's changes be reverted until a detailed opinion on this from Mike is given. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 06:23

They are legal based on USA fair use laws, they are not OK by Misplaced Pages's fair use policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution. Misplaced Pages's fair use policy is much stricter than US law (and I believe always has been, this isn't news) in a deliberate attempt to restrict fair use usage, as Masem said to keep within the foundation's free content principles. Mr.Z-man 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said the "let's delete everything" idea should stop until we get a detailed opinion on galleries vs. NFCC from Mike Godwin. He has the final say on everything. Also, I don't think Wiki should be able to trump law, because, essentially, nothing can trump Misplaced Pages. I think there should be something that can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:04

Neutralhomer, you need to start getting the point. Mike Godwin does not have the final say in this case. Now, if it were the reverse—if Mike said "This is against the law, we need to stop it", then he does have the final say, and we would stop at once. But just because Mike says something is legal doesn't mean we will do it. Mike has the final say on legality. He categorically does not have the final say as to whether or not something passes our policy, nor did he even address that issue, he addressed only the legal matter. If he did choose to address the policy issue, his opinion would carry no more or less weight than any other editor.

There are plenty of situations where we disallow something, not because it would be illegal, but because it would be damaging to the project. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for us to allow companies to place spam/ad arguments about themselves. However, that doesn't mean we will allow that. It is not illegal to use sockpuppets to skew a discussion or vote. That doesn't mean we don't prohibit it, we certainly do. The same is true of our nonfree content policy. We cannot override the law, nor are we trying (we would only be doing that if we were using images we did know or believe to be unlawful). However, this aspires to be a free content project. We seek to use as little nonfree content as possible. In order to become a truly free content project, we would have to get that number to zero; however, we still seek to be as close as possible. That's why we have a policy on nonfree content that is much stricter than the law. That's not an attempt to "override the law", we have every right to say "Yes, the law would allow use of a nonfree image here, but we will not." Free content projects do not use nonfree content just because they legally can. Seraphimblade 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nothing trumps law or is trying to right now; that argument is a red herring. Rather, the NFCC policy is a condition in addition to the law, a policy established by the Foundation, and Mike Godwin's opinion is irrelevant unless he says that this policy is actually illegal according to US law and other laws that may apply. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it. —kurykh 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is legal and "OK", then it should be done. "We don't want to" isn't a good enough arguement. If Mike says it's OK, it's OK. Mere editors (which is what we all are) can't trump the head legal dude, which is what it seems ALOT of people are trying to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 08:55

I can say spam is "OK." Should we do it? I say advertising is "OK." Should we do it? If I were to say launching personal attacks at you was "OK," should I be permitted to do it? Such an argument is nonsensical. No one has invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT except for you, Neutralhomer. Mike Godwin cannot be trumped if he says what we permit is illegal, not if we restrict actions which are legal. —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is "OK" doesn't matter. Mike's opinion matters and he said galleries of images were OK. The anti-fair-use group, which you are obviously a part of, is the ONLY people who have said I Don't Like It (also, I never "invoked it", you just did). The anti-fair-use group is the only ones who are trying to trump the legal staff of Wikimedia and refuse to get Mike's detailed opinion on this because he might, God forbid, disagree with you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

Yes, I'm part of the secret cabal that will take over this place and wreak hellish anti-fair-use tyranny upon you. Please tell me where I can document my registration. —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And Mike Godwin disagrees with me on what? Point it out and provide evidence of your assertions instead of engaging in abstractions. —kurykh 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "policy established by the Foundation" are you referring to, Kurykh? There's a lot of misinformation flying around whenever someone says "Foundation", and it generally looks like the anti-fair-use people have gotten into the habit of claiming their preferred interpretation of English Misplaced Pages policy was mandated by the Foundation when the Foundation said no such thing. Particularly because nobody bothers to question it, except that's what I'm doing right now. If you're referring to a specific thing that the Foundation actually established, though, I apologize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Foundation say "minimal fair-use"? We're circling around what "minimal" means, and some people are wary that anything beyond "almost none" will open the floodgates to "always". In particular, Beta's Non-free content is not allowed in galleries is unsupported at the last discussion thread I've seen. (NB No admin action requested in this post) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess "Foundation policy" was not the most correct choice of words, but I refer you to this. More of a "mandate", I guess. I'm not saying that there should be stifling restrictions (I will leave "stifling" deliberately vague), but to reject the entire policy wholesale just because it is legal to do so does not serve us well. Also, policy changes such as these can be discussed without labeling others without first ascertaining their exact position on the issue (i.e., your seeming labeling of me as "anti-fair-use" when I have neither said nor asserted any such thing). —kurykh 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that because it is legal to do so...it is legal to reject the idea and it really is OK for us to use galleries....you are going to do the opposite for what reason? Because you can? Because ducks fly? Your logic isn't making sense. It's OK, but we said it isn't? Come on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 10:23

No, no, no. You're misinterpreting me again. You're saying that we can do anything because Mike Godwin says it's legal, and that we shouldn't be allowed to add conditions in addition to US fair use law. I disagree with you. Are we on the same page now? Or are you going to talk past me again and call people names instead of discussing this without stuffing words in my mouth? —kurykh 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralH, it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes in your own home. It's also legal for you to forbid people from smoking in your home. We're not talking about what is most legal, we're trying to figure out how much blue haze is acceptable. It says somewhere near the top, "the 💕..." We care about the law, but we also care about the goal of being free. So we set our own rules, within the law but also in accordance with our aims. The discussion is not about what could win a court case, it's about what will best meet our conflicting goals of being both free and encyclopedic. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Because we are a free content project, and in addition to being legal, nonfree content must pass these restrictions as well. There is a lot of content which it would be perfectly legal for us to use which we still do not because it is nonfree. Indeed, we even do not use "permission for Misplaced Pages only", "noncommercial use only", or "no derivative" licensed works (unless they pass the nonfree content test), even though we could perfectly legally do so in these cases. Our requirements for use of nonfree content are much more stringent than simply being legal, and that is by design—the Wikimedia Foundation has specified that use of nonfree content must be minimal. Using nonfree content anywhere the law would allow would be maximal—after all, we would be extremely unwise to make any more use than the law allows, so "everything the law would allow" is the maximum possible. That is not in keeping with our goal as a free content project. I think what you're failing to see is that "Yes, it would be legal to use those images" does not translate to "Yes, we should use those images." Certainly, if I went and asked Mike "Mike, would it be legal for me to remove the images?", he would tell me "Of course it is", and wonder why I would even ask. If I asked him "Would it be legal for me to change every instance of 'colour' to 'color' in every article I see it in?" he would, again, tell me that yes, that would be perfectly legal. Would that make me categorically and indisputably right? Seraphimblade 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. WP's policy is narrower than US fair use, in two precise, quite limited ways. First, because we ask not whether we ourselves could use the image, but whether a commercial downstream reuser using our content verbatim would be okay. Secondly, because we don't accept non-free content, even with permissions, if it could potentially be replaced by free content. Those are the parameters WP:NFC was crafted to defend.

These images aren't replaceable. So if Mike says these images are okay fair-use - which I would understand to mean okay for downstream verbatim reusers, then we should pay some attention to that. Jheald (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Will people please acquire a clue on the difference between "legal" and "within Misplaced Pages policy". For example, it's completely legal for me to spam my website on the external links of dozens of articles, but it's not within policy, and would be removed. It's completely legal for me to include reams of unsourced original research in articles, or to create an article about my dog, but ... you get the idea. The real point here is "do these logo galleries contravene WP:NFCC or not?", and IMHO the answer is "yes, they do contravene it". Though since no admin intervention is necessary here, this should really be at WT:NFC. As for the articles, I'd see no problem with tagging them all with {{Template:NFimageoveruse}} to perhaps spark individual discussion on their talkpages. Black Kite 12:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The key letters being IMHO. It would be brilliant if you could ever have your specific ideas backed up by solid judgements, but you never do. All you have is your own personal interpretation of the NFC, and your endless attempts to represent that as the universal opinion with much heat but without any light. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, a Betacommand thread and who pops up? Anyway, solid judgments? Try WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, which aren't my personal interpretation of NFCC, and both of which the non-free logo galleries fail. I put "IMHO" because I don't presume to be the ultimate authority on non-free images, unlike some people. Black Kite 16:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand keeps citing the WP:NFCC policy as saying galleries of non-free images are not allowed. I'm not seeing that. Could someone point that out to me? Baseball Bugs 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. And yes, this is a guideline, not a policy, because there might be a small minority of occasions in which non-free image galleries might squeak past NFCC - I can't find the article now, but there was one on the history of CGI imaging techniques in film where there was a gallery of non-free images but each was illustrating a particular CGI technique, along with a large amount of text explicitly commenting on the image which of course enables them to pass WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use) snd WP:NFCC#8 (significance). That doesn't happen in these articles - they're just galleries of images. Black Kite 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Based on what I'm seeing above, and based on his edits in relation to Betacommand in the last 24 hours, I believe that something needs to be done with Neutralhomer. This is not the first time he's been involved in warring and incivility with Betacommand. He, more or less, came in and baited Betacommand into a block. He admits, time and time again, that he does not fully understand the policies and guidelines affecting fair use galleries, yet, he consistently engages in revert warring with people who understand the policies and guidelines far better than he does. When he was unblocked in July, he was told to stay away from Calton and JPG. I think that we need to now include Betacommand in this list. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer, which is another action between these two just a few weeks ago, is relevant here. I think some sort of restriction needs to be put in place here as this is a reoccurring pattern much on the same level as his previous actions with Calton and such which led to his block earlier this year. either way (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent of this thread, I have warned Neutralhomer, Betacommand, and Emarsee to stop edit warring over these images. All three need to stop reverting and wait for the discussion to play out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that things need to be done above that. Something needs to be set to prevent Neutralhomer from doing this again. If it's not about the fair use galleries, it'll be about something else. He did the same thing awhile back when Betacommand was tagging images with no fair use rationales. He went through and blindly reverted Betacommand's taggings without reason other than it was Betacommand doing the tagging. A restriction is needed because this is a reoccurring issue. I think the fact that he needs these same restrictions with other users makes it apparent that this is an ongoing problem with Neutralhomer as an editor, either way (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Metros...*sigh*...here "we" are again. Let me answer some of your points.

First, I never baited anyone. People make decisions on how they act, Beta acted the way he did. I didn't make him act that way.

Second, I understand policies about as best as I can, and saying I don't and making is seem like I haven't got thought one in my head (which is the way it sounds to me), is kinda pushing it. I am not a policy genius, but I understand them to the best of my abilities.

Third, you want me to stay away from Beta, all you have to do is say it. No need to bring things up on ANI, just post it to my talk page (it's always open).

Fourth, there is no "something else" to it. I would have reverted Beta's edits if he put "I like penguins" on 26 pages. He broke a rule in his probation, which states if he "undertaking any pattern of edits....that affects more than 25 pages" he must first propose it and "wait at least 24 hours for community discussion" (see here for the full list). Those edits were, yes, something I take difference on, but if it was putting "I like penguins" on 26 pages, I would have reverted. There is no "something else" to it.

If you have anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:00

The baiting of Betacommand is that you came into the thread and added this which only appears to be added in order to provoke Betacommand into saying something to you in response, i.e. baiting him to respond after you knew that there is not solid relations between you two. And yes, you need to stay away from Betacommand. From this point on, the same restrictions that were given when you were unblocked in relation to Calton and JPG-GR will also apply to Betacommand. You are to stay away from Betacommand which includes not reverting any of his actions and not commenting on any of his actions. Any violations of this will result in block. Is this understood? either way (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's understood...and for the record, JPG-GR and I have put our differences aside and are now on the smallest of speaking terms. I wouldn't call use "best buds", but we have had conversations and not snapped each others heads off (all of which was watched closely by several admins). So, I can get along with those of which I have had problems. It is a two way street though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 14:25

• Don't shoot the messenger; there are those who will report BC upon him making the slightest edit in violation of his parole/limitations, and there are those who will ignore BC's occasional slip because of all the good work he does. There is no reason for these two groups to start an argument with each other when BC does appear to have breached his terms. If BC's friends were to notify him when he is about to drop himself into hot water then all this crap could be avoided. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Alastair_Haines

Sorry all, I have been busy and have to rush out the door to do chores. Reviewing civility and RR issues with the recent block issue on Gender of God (again). I'd do all the diffs etc. now but I really have to run. I will do the diffs later, but if anyone looks over it in the mean time and feels all is as it should be then so be it. I am not impartial so as why I am asking for imaprtial eyes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quick glance suggests that Alastair Haines reverted twice on the article within a week. That is a breach of the arbcom finding and the block is perfectly justified. Presumabaly Arbcom restricted the user for a reason so breaching a formal restriction is only asking for trouble. Spartaz 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Original blocking admin here. Here are the diffs of his edit warring violation: 1, 2. L'Aquatique 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Alastair_Haines. L'Aquatique 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd

Continually violating WP:NPOV and WP:V on pages such as abortion. Has been given sufficient friendly reminders on his talk page. When I pointed out that his continual violation of policies and guidelines might constitute disruptive editing, he responded with a personal attack. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just on his user page, Talk:Abortion#Problems with terms is also worth reading, and this IMHO goes too far. ϢereSpielChequers 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of christian groups do tend towards pro-life and there's nothing offensive or going too far about saying that, even to most xtians. His summary is accurate IMHO. I see nothing wrong in that particular diff (towards the end of your comment,) just expressing his summary/opinion in a content dispute. Will say more in a mo when I've read the other diffs...Sticky Parkin 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the vagueness of "Religious views" in that diff, as well as the labeling of one side of the debate as "arbitrary" (WP:POV, anyone?)--not to mention the utter lack of sources. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my reason for bringing the matter here isn't to discuss whether he's wrong or right; it's to point out that this individual is violating WP:V and NPOV, and throwing in a dose of WP:PA violation for good measure. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he shouldn't have said f*ck, I didn't spot that before. Is there an arbcom covering this article, as it's well known as one of our most contentious ones? Sticky Parkin 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Activity is actually rather low, and it had good wardens who were good at handling it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zahd has, in my opinion crossed the line with his incessant accusations of partisanship and bad faith, and I do not refer to the abuse he has hurled my way. As ignoring it, as many users have done, has not made the problem go away thus far, I think an outside admin stepping in would be appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

. Really nice :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just blanked this as polemic per WP:USER, one gets the impression this user isn't here to help build an encyclopedia. Misarxist 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales

User:I am Mario has indicated that he is going forward with an "anti-defamation move" on Jimbo's user talk page. Due to severely limiting connectivity issues, I'm not able to post the dif, but it's under a subsection entitled " response to mr. wales" if I'm not mistaken. Seems like a fairly straightforward legal threat to me, and the account should be indef blocked.--AniMate 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This, for example: Baseball Bugs 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

defamation isn't necessarily a legal term. one simple meaning is "an abusive attack on a person's character or good name". Unless his threat of an anti-defamation move means he's going to be suing and not just cleaning up articles I'm not sure how this is a legal threat. He doesn't really say what that is in the provided diff.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He was going on about pulling in the Anti-Defamation League and the media the other day on there, if one looks further up to the top of the page for the previous commentary on that. It's not really a legal threat, more like an attempt at a chilling effect by invoking some outside forces. Still annoying, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's certainly an attempt at a chilling effect, but legal action is certainly implied. He's been quite careful not to use the word "lawsuit", but his intent seems clear. Regardless, I'll certainly ask him to clarify what he means by an "anti-defamation move". AniMate 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't credible. He claims that we're defaming Albert Einstein and unnamed Holocaust survivors by calling their testimonies "POV". I doubt one can sue for defamation on a non-minor's behalf, and a dead person like Einstein can't be defamed. That's why it's the policy on biographies of living people.--chaser - t 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the administrators Mario is planning on report, I suggest following Jimbo's advice here and just ignoring him. The same articles keep seeing a variety of "new" users who ask the same things, war the same ways, and then get themselves blocked the same way. However, Mario's second comment here indicates to me that he has little interest in anything else other than POV-warring. Frankly, I'm getting tired of insults by various users like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films

There appears to be some deja vu about this. An IP address is adding a bunch of entries to this category. Trouble is, it's a red-link category. But if you go to it, it has a bunch of entries along with 2 separate discussions for deletion from October 2007 and earlier from March 2007. So evidently someone is trying it again. What's the SOP for this situation? Baseball Bugs 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To get to the category, you could go to The Muppet Movie. However, there are many other entries from that IP (71.190.26.165). Baseball Bugs 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The category has been twice deleted and salted. DRV is the next step (I express no views on whether it would be successful) so I'm removing the names from Category:Post-credits scene films. I've asked the IP to stop, and have linked this discussion. Bencherlite 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.26.165 (talk) is continuing to add films to this category, without reply. Bencherlite 00:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like it's time to take him to WP:AIV, unless someone jumps in here. Baseball Bugs 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I just did, and which would leave a bunch of items to roll back. However, I don't want to do that until the IP is blocked. Baseball Bugs 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you gave him a 3-hour tour, er, block. Which end of the list do you want to start the rolling back? Or can you do all of it in one swell foop? Baseball Bugs 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Bencherlite 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I also point out these, Talk:List of films with Post-credits scenes, Talk:Post-credits scene in movies, Talk:Post-credits scene in Examples, Talk:Post-credits scene in Movies and Talk:List of post-credits scene movies, all created and filled with lists of movies by this IP--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks as though this is the same individual at 71.247.88.225 (talk), who did the same thing last October, earning a block then. Bencherlite 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a deletion discussion. Someone nominated it, no one discussed it and somehow out of that we bore a "consensus" of deletion and salting. Whats the real objection to this being a genuine category? There are a number of movies that do this. Its possible to do cite this by using them as a primary source. so what if it was done by a single user?--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously only read the third discussion, not the first two (first, second). Bencherlite 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

and having read them I'm none the wiser as to what the real problem was. As pointed out trident's reasoning didn't quite make sense as he seemed to be talking about deleted scenes and not post-credit scenes and I see a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes (or were we still voting in 2006? I don't think so). The second one is based solely on comments of "we got rid of it once, do it again". Seems like a compelling candidate for DRV.--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did tell the IP to take it to DRV, but he didn't reply. In the meantime, the consensus not to have such a category stands. Bencherlite 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a type of trivia, which is not necessarily bad, but it's also anecdotal and depends on original research, in the sense that someone just happens to notice it in a few films and then defines it as a category. It's possible that there's an authoritative source that would discuss this topic, but I doubt it. Baseball Bugs 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, he didn't list The Cannonball Run series, which I'm pretty sure had clips or outtakes played during the credits. Or maybe that doesn't count? But why shouldn't it? It could be argued that the category itself is original research. Having said all that, this is the reason I generally don't mess with categories - they're shifting sand. Baseball Bugs 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian/Gennarous

I believe Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is back in his Gennarous (talk · contribs) / Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) guise. Immense sense (talk · contribs) has as first and second edits blanked large sections of the Sicily article (a haunt of User:Gennarous) , and both templated me --a sign of an experienced user, in my opinion -- when I warned him about it and then accused of me of Islamocentrism , a classic Gennarous tactic. This seems to be a reaction to my reporting his activity last week on the the House of Plantagenet article. , . Link to confirmation of User:Gennarous as User:Yorkshirian : . Can someone please put an end to this? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... once I have stopped sniggering at their claim that you can indugle yourself (... I might block them for that, it sounds sordid...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per Quacking edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

*snort* Indugle... I missed that. Aren't there laws about that doing that sort of thing in public? ;) Thanks for checking it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Erikbinder

This user has had three edits, two of which are vandalism, and one of which is their user page. I believe a block might in order. --—Cliffb (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warn him using the templates and then list him at WP:AIV. He's stopped editing since his final warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

HIJACKED RfC

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by Caspian blue as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V has been twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

• 1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
  • EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

• 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

• 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

• 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux   10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's otherwise commendable suggestions about WP:Arbitration assumes that this is a mere conflict between two editors; but that mis-reads the broader scope of a battlefield in which my trivial involvement is somewhat insignificant. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Misplaced Pages is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

• What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
• How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw

Following this exchange, Montanabw has begun wikihounding me. This includes making insinuations about me on other users' talk pages and recruiting an administrator, Lar, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04 User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• 04:48 Misplaced Pages talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw Wikiquette alert, in which Una tried to make the case that there was a problem with Montanabw's behaviour. My take on the outcome of that was that Una had behaviour she needed to remediate. I believe that Montanabw is not the only person that Una has had issues with, and the Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring Thoroughbred to FA this year, our current collaboration on Horses in warfare, or her help to a new member working on Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential Libel on Talk:ITT Technical Institute

I am concerned about some of the comments on the talk page made by User:Veecort. In particular, he repeatededly references an alleged class-action lawsuit against the institution ITT Tech, and then proceeds to speculate that the lawsuit is a "pitcher plant" designed by the institution to "trap potential whistle-blowers" so they can be "neutralized". See the comments by Veecort at the bottom of the "Want to add a few sentences but we can't find credible sources" discussion thread.

Not sure whether this is a violation of WP:LIBEL or how to proceed if it is. McJeff (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a bad trip, actually... L'Aquatique 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ungroundable (South Park Episode)

We got some potential problems at this article and its talk page.

User RedPenOfDoom is the victim of personal attacks by the IP address 166.102.104.62 who calls him an "anal douche bag."

User Pizza With Cheesy Crust is accusing RedPen of "bullying" Misplaced Pages users by constantly reverting articles (mainly the South Park episodes) because "he doesn't believe one thing."

He also is accusing RedPen of violating the 3-revert rule. (which is debatable-see RedPen's User Contributions)

I didn't post anything in that argument because I didn't want to cause trouble, so I posted it here.

Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I left warnings on the IP's talk page and on User:Pizza With Cheesy Crust's talkpage, as some of the comments that they made were clearly over the line. As far as I can see User:RedPenOfDoom has done nothing to warrant sanction at this time. Lankiveil 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I left warnings on a couple editors' talk pages about the edit warring, and also removed some unsourced WP:OR from the article and tagged the article. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages

Looking at Template:BuckeyesFootballTeams, I noticed most of the per-year season articles were redlinked, so I've started creating stubs for them - Fills out the infobox, and the "CFB Schedule" templates for the scores, which is pretty advanced so a good start for the article. User:Fatal!ty has started slapping all of the articles I've created with SD templates, and isn't interested in my "please stop wasting time" arguments. Could someone weigh in on this? --JaGa 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a sample. There's a lot of work in that! --JaGa 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See here--Fatal!ty 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that while A7 might technically cover these articles, it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. One could argue that being an "Ohio State Buckeyes football" team is an assertion of notability. I'll wait for other editors to chime in before removing any tags, though. Lankiveil 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

That's the thing. I didn't invent the convention of having an article for each year's team; I'm just getting those articles started. The templates were in place - and not objected to - long before I got involved. If Fatality wants to delete those pages, he should get that template (and the other similarly-structured football templates, there's a lot of them) changed as well. --JaGa 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also speedied and then went to AFD on Mario Fernando Hernández & Hilary Teague, both of who pass WP:POLITICIAN, thus not only not speedy but also not AFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician was speedied by Fatality without checking that the article is in good form. Speedy undone, but was he passed it to AfD. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this user also SD'd Eastern Alamance High School. I think Fatality is blurring the distinction between "notablility" and "stub". After all, if 1944 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't exist, 2005 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't either. --JaGa 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They have also speedied several Olympic athletes so I think its time for a short block to get them to stop and read the criteria as their editing has become disruptive. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked more closely into this editor's recent edits, there appears to be a number of, shall we say, ill-considered deletion nominations. I'm going to assume good faith and just say that User:Fatal!ty is either just having a bad day, or is genuinely unaware of the generally accepted notability standards, but at the same time the volume of these nominations is becoming disruptive. Hopefully they will be able to provide an explanation as to why they thought that these three notable politicians would be deletable (other than the obviously shaky nomination statements), until then I would urge the user to desist from starting any more deletion discussions. Lankiveil 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I've removed the speedys on the Ohio State pages. They're stubs, but I feel they're notable. Dayewalker (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not speedy candidates. We're talking about a team which plays in front of 100,000 people, not some pub side. I'm going to remove the speedy tags. If Fatality really wants the articles gone he could try AfD, but personally I don't see any reason for deleting them at all. Iain99 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it can become quite disruptive to have new articles tagged like this. I believe he is doing so because he believes that stubs tarnish wikipedia's reputation further. Count Blofeld 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} I've summed up everything I'd like to say on my talk page. I view my behavior as justifiable and "encyclopedically-correct". Seeing as neither party is willing to compromise, there are a few options to resolve this "dispute". 1. You take the easy way out, and block me indef for disruption. 2. Start a RFC. The choice is yours.--Fatal!ty 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And he has been asking for retractions from people who remind him of the rules. . Time for a block until he learns about our deletion policy. DGG (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I certainly wouldn't consider refering to India as "Wup-Wup" as acceptable behaviour. To be it looks completely racist and narrow sighted that towns with a population of 7,000 are not worthy of encyclopedia coverage. Count Blofeld 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I note to avoid confusion that the Blofield was the ed Fatality asked for a retraction from--it was Fatality who made the wup-wup comment, and Blofield properly called him on it. DGG (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the removed talk page history, we have very recent removed RFA, revoked and renewed denial for rollback rights, and a recent unblocking, so it appears that this is more of some sort of pointed editing that is not inline with their unblock request: I would like to be unblocked so that I can prove to the community that I am a solid and helpful editor, and that from hereon in, I will use my time wisely - to build and expand the encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

as these continue even as we are talking, I have blocked Fatality for 3 hours. Looking at his block log, with recent blocks for vandallism from several admins, I invite some other admin to extend the block--I suggest at least a month.--I'm about to go to sleep, so if anyone should want to unblock, feel free, but look atthe log first-- Thatcher previously blocked indefinitely. DGG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see how he responds after the 3 hours is up and whether he has learnt his lesson. If he continues to disrupt by his mass tagging again then perhaps a more lengthy block will be neccesary. Count Blofeld 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I Support this block, and support extending it if he gets straight back to his old tricks. Lankiveil 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and started closing some of his nomination, for which the consensus is clearly speedy keep and for which the reasons he provides clearly do not apply. (BLP on dead people, WP:RS on articles with sources from NYT or BBC, etc) - Mgm| 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• User:Fatal!ty just came from under an indef block on Nov 20 on condition that "he edit productively". In view of the resumed pattern of disruption and belligerent behaviour, I think that another indef block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note: The day after coming off a 2-month long indef block, this user applied for adminship, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty. I did not vote there since it was clear that his RfA was doomed to fail, but I thought that the RfA was basically a WP:POINT violation. The remark in his answer to RfA question 3, "It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway", was particularly telling. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who lifted that block, I totally agree. The unblock was based on Thatcher's comment to me that since the IP was clean there was no evidence of the sockpuppetry that led to the indef block in the first place. However, it's clear that there are other problems with this editor. This is the first time anyone I've ever let out from under an indef block has abused his good faith. I was tempted to reimpose the block but I am deferring to DGG and others involved in this discussion. But the next block, if there is one, should be indef. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulnora Karimova article

The Gulnora Karimova article was re-written in a NPOV, press release/fansite fashion in August 2008 (diff). Since then, the single-purpose accounts Danch (talk · contribs), Bespredelwik (talk · contribs), and Unbal (talk · contribs) have resisted attempts to edit the article towards a more neutral tone (there was some related discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Gulnora Karimova#POV issues). Dchall1 has done an excellent job of rewriting the article in neutral, referenced and encyclopedic tone (diff), but the single-purpose accounts continue to revert to the version with POV and tone issues. I'm requesting interested parties take a look at the article to see if any action on an administrative level is necessary. --Muchness (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris Kreiman

Something looks fishy. BBiiis08 brought us to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boris Kreiman which ended uneventfully with solid keeps except the nom. Since then, two IPs have deleted the content of the AFD, and they are the same ISP, diffs + and . The whois are whois .153 and whois .125. The .153 has also been deleting the talk page for the article, and it looks like several IPs have been deleting article content, although that may be ok as contentious BLP. Would protecting so only reg'ed users can edit be appropriate? It isn't a daily thing, but there seems to be a very concerted effort to delete everything that relates to his controversy (game fixing) and web site squatting. These facts aren't in the article anymore, although they will probably show up again as proper sources do exist. Anyway, something looks fishy and I would appreciate another set of eyes on this, and I have the feeling once the more controversial stuff is added back, it will get worse. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the AfD, there is no reason IPs should change it anyway now it's closed. I don't think the page itself needs protection with the current level of activity. I'll put it onto my watchlist, I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP if the IPs become really aggressive in vandalizing the page. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is doing it - and I agree the anon removal does look fishy - the removal of the disputed material is well within policy. Here's the diff : the removed text was all sourced from blogs and forums, which is never sufficiently reliable, and particularly so for material controversial per WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Child's personal details in user page

I'm not sure what should be done about this user page, according to which the user is not quite eleven years old. It gives his full name, his town of birth and his father's and uncle's names. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight request sent. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted the content (and gave my reasons of the usertalkpage), but better safe than sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this block warning warranted?

I was given this warning that I could have been blocked for a joking comment I made on my own talk page to an editor who had been repeatedly posting on my page. I have never posted on his. Here is the warning:

-- Way out of line comment --

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors allowed to use profanity in edit summaries and on users talk pages which was not considered blockable. I have also been personally attacked and have never asked for a block of the other because it seems short-lived and was not perpetuated over time. I am wondering if a joking response on my own talk page is a blockable offense. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to use administrative powers to block editors that one may be involved with. If Dweller had blocked Mattisse for that comment, I would certainly question Dwellers motives, regardless of what was said.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's best to avoid personal attacks in any case. Apparently ADD is a sensitive subject, and it's best to SUBTRACT comments like that. Try to keep all attacks impersonal. Baseball Bugs 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That should mathematically eliminate future issues. ►BMW◄ 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a warnable personal attack to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1. "As I Saw It", Dean Rusks' memoirs, by W.W. Norton, 1990, Page 388
2. "The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, and the 32-Year Cover-up That Has Followed, James E. Akins, Washington-Report, December 1999, Pages 28-34,36
3. "A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency, By Richard Helms with William Hood, Random House 2003,Pages 300-301
4. Naval Institute Proceedings, March 3, 2003
5. Naval Institute Proceedings, March 5, 2003

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards