Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 25 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Seeyou

* Resolve removed, see below,— Dædαlus 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, .. this has been going on for some time now, and to specify, I'm referring to the noted user's apparent unwillingness to follow, or even understand our policies here. A quick overview of the said user's talk page notes that many, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor over various breached policies, including, but not limited to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS.

Many of these 'conversations'(re: see talk page), have not really had the desired result, and the editor in question refuses to either understand the policy, or acknowledge that he or she had done anything wrong. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me just message that this report was made after the final warning was given to this user regarding the insertion of OR.— Dædαlus 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's awkward. He hasn't done anything blatantly negative I don't think, but he doesn't seem to understand most of the policies you linked to...--Patton123 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bates method article is covered by the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and Seeyou has been notified, so this discussion could be moved to ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been some recent disruptive editing of the Bates method article, so I think a 1-week ban from the article could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More Canvassing: , , .— Dædαlus 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going thru Seeyou's contribs to get rid of the canvassing edits. I can't plant any sanctions on him because I'm involved (and have been for a while), so I leave that to other editors. Likewise, I'm not going to try and understand AE's instructions because I was absent for the most recent spate. -Jéské Couriano 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, because of disruptive editing and canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor apparently doesn't see that canvassing was bad, I do not see this as promising, or as a sign the user knows not to do so again.— Dædαlus 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oop, yes, it seems that my {{resolved}} tag may have been premature in light of this. That said, blocks are not punitive, so blocking him for longer would not be the appropriate thing to do. I would, however, suggest that if it happens again we ramp it up by a good bit though, it's not like he's not recieved fair warning. — neuro 09:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, per that, I would believe that for now, this is resolved, assuming of course, he stops being disruptive after the block expires.— Dædαlus 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai

Azad chai (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), is back. The contributions of Baboner (talk · contribs) and 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are very similar to contributions of the banned user Azad chai. Usually he goes around making vandal edits to the articles and calls Azerbaijani people baboons or makes other racial slurs. CU data would be stale by now, but the contribs leave no doubt that it is the same person. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I caution administrators not to fall for this report. The strawpuppetry has to stop. This 'vandalism' from this new strawpuppet and the similar is to associate legitimate positions with sockpuppets. See this particular edit by Azad chai, where Karabakh is written by it's Azeri variation 'Qarabaq' by this Armenian wannabe. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of VartanM. Does he think that the admins should not react to vandalism by Azad chay, and his evasion of ban? Grandmaster 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself, so I bold faced my point for your viewing pleasure. VartanM (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would be good to see real evidence of "strawpuppetry", other than speculations around the spelling of some words. In any case, ban evasion has to be dealt with. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's strawpuppetry? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Straw_puppets "They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." VartanM (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating term, I'll have to remember that one. Thanks. Now your above comment makes much more sense, I thought you said 'the sockpuppetry has to stop'. --Golbez (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently it is meant as a reference to socks being used to set up editors from the opposing camp. Grandmaster 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one too: 70.21.172.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all appear to be the same person or a group of people. Grandmaster 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Vartan is implying that these new apparently pro-Armenian contributors are actually Azeris in disguise. No matter. We dispose of trash no matter its perceived nationality. To believe otherwise should cause you to leave the project. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Said the pro-Azeri administrator ;) (That should cancel the pro-Armenian tag) Thats exactly what I was implying and asked you, the administrators, to get down and dirty and find the roots of this stink, and not just mask the smell and say how nice it now smells. VartanM (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would be really thrilled to see some real proof of Vartan's allusions, other than speculations over spellings. I heard this all from User:Fadix, now indef banned, who is the real generator of all conspiracy theories for a certain group of editors. But of course such claims cannot be taken seriously, unless supported by strong evidence. Grandmaster 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. This was filled by you on Feb 22, Yerkatagear was the last active user, with his last edit on Jan 13 on Jayvdb's talk page, His baseless criticism discredited the concerns. The next sock become active after you added his name. Checking his prior contributions we can see that the user started editing after two months of silence and a day after you filled the checkuser. As reported, when you filled the checkuser no socks were active (at least for over a month) they only become active a day after you filled them. One of the series of sock was possibly AdilBaguirov according to geographic location . You can keep screaming conspiracy theories. This socks magically appear every time you need to vilify the Armenians, just like during the recent elections when all the eyes were turned on us. So under those circumstances, the fact that this pretending Armenian wrote Karabakh under its Azeri variant makes a lot of sense. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, nothing but bad faith assumptions. Btw, Verjakette/Erkusukes/Yerkatagear is still active, as one of the recently registered Armenian editors, you can ask all your questions to him. You know who that person is. Grandmaster 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, please tell me who this new Armenian user is. is indeed interesting. With all the IP addresses that this user has used, as well as his knowledge of Misplaced Pages, he knew that his oppose vote would be rejected and that he was only discrediting the opposing side. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See last CU on Erkusukes, the clue is there. As for the voting, is Divot (talk · contribs) Azeri? He did the same thing as the IP, with the same result. If a certain group of editors did not want to be discredited, they should not have engaged in meatpupetry and vote stacking in the first place. No need to blame others for your own deeds. I think this thread needs to be closed, the issue is resolved, and further discussions about this are pointless. Grandmaster 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to close this? I have a legitimate reason to believe that Azad Chai and other socks associated with him are strawpuppet accounts. The timing and the way they edit articles all point out to their strawpuppetness. Thanks for the info on Capasitor, lets see how long it takes 'till this "Armenian" gets himself banned and a new set of Capasitor socks appear. VartanM (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing the IP accomplished is for you to now point your finger at a certain group of editors and accuse them of meatpuppetry. And thats my proof, confirmed by you, that a certain group of editors engages in strawpuppetry, Thanks. VartanM (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to the guy, ask for his name, maybe meet up to check his real life identity? You are in the same geographic region. Making bad faith assumptions will result in nothing, no one is gonna take them seriously. Remember the story with Ehud and the controversy, that resulted in an arbcom case and proved you wrong? And it is not just me accusing a certain group of editors of meatpuppetry, the entire community does, even Jimbo said that there was an "offsite campaign". If you have another conspiracy theory, there are ways to deal with that. Ask the admins or maybe the arbcom to investigate it, but you'll need something better than speculations. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed there was no evidence, I provided it, now you're claiming bad faith assumption. Here is more, perhaps you forgot, when we make allegations of strawpuppetry, the straw puppet makes them himself. It's interesting that he starts making those charges which will associate him with Rovoam. Then your awaited reply... I always knew that it was User:Rovoam behind all those accounts, and the above post is another proof. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC). When Dmcdevit run the checkuser and came to the conclusion that it's possibly Adil, based on geography, your reply was: Thanks. It is unlikely to be Adil, because all those accounts push extreme Armenian POV, while Adil's POV was quite the opposite. , and more interestingly another allegation by you: Rovoam has a geographic location close to Adil,... Do you know something about Rovoam we don't know? Dmcdevit wrote: Unrelated, and I have no idea about Rovoam, because the edits are too old and the only IPs we have marked for him were from open proxies. How do you know both live near each other? And now you claim that I should ask that new "supposed Armenian" user to answer, when you claimed it was obvious that those series of socks were Rovoam, who from his own admission was not Armenian. But not surprising, this new user you identified got himself blocked for this remark. As for Ehud, I'll give you a short answer, It was Adil. VartanM (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to get way too personal. Vartan, if you think you have good enough evidence, submit it for a Checkuser. Otherwise, these accusations back and forth are getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers have already been done, the links are provided above. Please ask yourself this 2 questions, why is Grandmaster trying to halt any further investigation on a user he reported for racism? What is he hiding? VartanM (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So Ehud was Adil? Why don't you take this to arbcom then? Oh, they said it was not him? Then why do you keep repeating the same baseless allegations over and over again? As for Rovoam's IPs, they are all over the place. Check for yourself. I'm not responding here anymore, if you have any serious evidence, ask for investigation, or take it to the arbcom, or I will. Grandmaster 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single answer to my questions. Why are you trying to halt further investigation? P.S If you read the Ehud arbcom case, you'll see that arbcom didn't say Ehud wasn't Adil. VartanM (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To the Arbcom? Nope sorry, after the elections? It was already useless anyway. BTW, Ehud Geycha claim, there was only one living site, you remember? Well after his claim, several months later it now became the official position of the republic of Azerbaijan and written as Adil and Ehud wrote it. Can't do much, when even Abdulnr who appeared to be a typical user, was related to the same industry (Amoco corporation). Conflict of interest and interest groups are here to stay, one day they will run this place if they already don't. - Fedayee (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How can I halt investigation? Which relevant venue did you submit your allegations for investigation? You can waste space here as much as you like, but that's not investigation. File a request for investigation, if you really want your claims to be investigated. And also, it is time to stop proxying for banned User:Fadix. He admitted that he uses several users as his proxies: , and repeating his refuted fantasies time after time and creating another controversy out of nothing is no good. I think I will have to ask the admins to investigate the proxying for the banned user here. As for Abdulnr, it might be a surprise for you, but in Azerbaijan most people with a good command of English work in the oil industry, as that's where the money are. I also happen to work in the oil industry for many years, you can build a conspiracy theory around that as much as you like. Grandmaster 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting User:Fadix :

... my mission on any Misplaced Pages project now is not to add information but fight desinformation. I can do this banned or unbanned, I can have several members proxy for me, and I have no reason to hide that. By now Atabek, Grandmaster et al. know probably when another member comes with the material and caught them, there is some Fadix behind, and they will probably be right.

Plain and simple, by his own admission, there's a whole bunch of meatpuppets operated by that banned user, who sees his purpose not in adding material, but fighting with what he believes is disinformation. The rules do not allow proxying (WP:MEAT). Grandmaster 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you got conspiracy theories of your own, we'll talk when you come back from your vacation. VartanM (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor User:Johnnysmitthy deleting text in multiple articles saying ' no reference must go wiki rules!'

A new editor removing loads of text from Christian related articles because there is no reference and also stating that he plans to use 'other IDs' for editing . I'm not sure what to do about him. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're being trolled. Indefblocked, but as always open to review ;) EyeSerene 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at this and am ok with an indef block for now, let's see if an unblock request shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, although the edit history doesn't look very promising I'd be happy to be proved wrong. EyeSerene 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a sock, because it seems that he know quite a lot about wiki. Dontcha think? Kalajan 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that the person is automatically blocked, even if they do have a sock, it could be legitimate (not saying that it is... well.) — neuro 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also see his ensuing threat to continue with other IPs/accounts. Enigma 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts and USS Liberty Incident

SPA acccount (see ) User:WorldFacts, recently received a block for edit warring on USS Liberty Incident see . First thing he did on his return today was to re-introduce the same material yet again. See . He has also left a bad faith message on the blocking admin's talk page see . His edit continues to give undue significance to fringe material and duplicates material already in the article. As noted on his block message here and here WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. One of the editors, Narson, accused on being a meat puppet of Jayjg actually inserted a paragraph into the article on the subject of Moorer (WorldFacts pet subject) some 6 or more weeks ago.

The block doesn't seem to have worked, WorldFacts has been disruptively editing the article for some time and User:BQZip01 is attempting to mediate on improving the article. I can't see mediation working unless the editors involved a) using the talk page as intended and b) taking part in the dispute resolution process. The article seems to have attracted a couple of SPA who have disrupted the attempt to improve the article by introducing fringe material with undue prominence and making bad faith accusations of censorship and "cover up" against other editors. As a result many good faith editors are reluctant to get involved in improving the article.

I would suggest that the article is placed under a 1RR provision so that any editor that reverts more than once or reverts to re-introduce contentious material is blocked. Justin talk 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This maybe stretching it, but wouldn't this fall under WP:ARBPIA? The incident involves Israel and took place during an Israeli-Arab war... Rami R 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look as I'm still online. The article would certainly fall within that overall umbrella as it has become linked to the Middle-East conflict and US support for Israel. However, it might be perceived as stretching a point, I think I'd prefer to see the current issues discussed and see if my suggestion for a 1RR probation on the article receives community consensus. Thanks for the suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it if it had wider community consensus. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I must apologise for User:WorldFacts who has become obsessed with one of the lesser distortions of this article. Moorer is undoubtedly a significant source and is not being treated properly. But ultimately, he and his colleagues are the retired US military establishment demanding that a real investigation be carried out and the official record brought into line with what eveyone knows and the RSs tell us about this incident. There seems to be no real dispute, in 1995 (according to the "International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence") "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". Can I be sure that that was the mainstream 28 years after the event (13 years ago)? Why, yes, I can - even the very pro-Israel JVL accepts it was true when it was written, only laughably claiming that subsequent FOI releases have exonerated Israel "even of criminal negligence". The RS version is roughly what the article will say when it's written to policy.
However, in the meantime, ANIs like this (an earlier one sought to smear others editors as antisemitic) are an attempt to lock the article into it's current laughable state and prevent a whole raft of real issues and sources that have been edit-warred out once from ever being re-included. (The trick is to introduce trivial and non-policy objections and then falsely claim improvements are edit-wars).
And if you wonder how an article can have got this bad and not been corrected earlier, then have a look at the really serious editing problems currently plaguing this article. Even when consensus is reached, it's proved impossible to get the necessary agreed edits to stick, there is rampant edit-warring not from WorldFacts but from others very much more effective in imposing their POV. Most editors (5 against inclusion, 2 in favour) object to a particular quote coming from a very problematical source - do you suppose it's possible to keep it out? No, edit-warring rules when it comes to inclusion of, in this case, what at least two of the 5 opposing editors think is a straight-forward lie. PR 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that PR should apologize for me. However, I do not not fault PR for doing so. Instead, I'll accept the apology to others by proxy in the spirit it is intended. Before I begin, I would like to point out an amazingly brazen LIE printed by none other then Justin. The Lie: "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page." Any look at the discussion pages of the USS Liberty will show that between September and today, I have added an extraordinary amount of commentary. There are several archives with commentary I have made. See USS Liberty incident archive 4, 6 and the current discussion page. Just thought I'd point that out. Many others have agreed that my entries should be included. When others agreed with my comments, and there have been many, I have generally stayed out of discussions with others. But one major attempt at reconciliation, available in Archive 4, shows that I have gone out of my way attempting to appease other editors, taking their respective views into account.

That being said, I certainly would not apologize for attempting to add (and add, and add, ad infinitum) a reference to a notable report as the USS Liberty incident page requires a serious dose of reality. The persistent minority who continue their edit war AGAINST the Moorer Report have never been able to successfully argue against the entry. This fact is confirmed by the fact that a link to the Moorer report does exist on the USS Liberty incident page. As some of us already know, truth and reality have nothing to do with how Israel is allowed to be portrayed to the public. A link to the report is acceptable. Damning Israel via displaying contents of the report is not.

It is also not surprising that I am described as the one in an 'edit-war', when I am ADDING valid information, and those who delete the entry are removing facts from this article. Oddly, they imply they are not in an edit war, but I am. Curious, don't you think? A war requires 2 sides, so an edit war has 2 sides.

What is most important is which side is getting clandestine support from within Misplaced Pages and which side gets the majority of editors, both inside and outside of WikiPedia(*) to agree with him. My entries have been agreed to by a majority of editors within WikiPedia, but alas, that minority of editors who wish not to have the entry, and who miraculously are not involved in an edit war, and who are also deemed (by themselves!) to not be pushing their own POV, are getting their way.

I am most satisfied however, by the word on the street. People CAN read. People DO read. In those locations where the minority of editors here do not have the level of control Wiki provides the select few, the commentary shows without any shadow of doubt who is right. That would be me, of course. (*)Please check here. Wiki Articles and their discussions threads are read by more then just Wiki Editors. WorldFacts (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am not sure how to respond to this. The majority of wikipedia? I doubt the majority of[REDACTED] gives a damn either way or has even visited the article. Clandestine support? Ah, everyone supports you they just arn't saying it? Wikireview agrees with you? That is likely more that they hate Jayjg for various reasons and is hardly relevent to anything. Oh, and the moorer report is mentioned in the article. It doesn't need a poorly formatted giant ass section just for it.

Accusing Justin of lyingis also a little strong. You left a message full of bad faith assumptions on my talk page before you were blocked, including a statement that you "have found that talking isn't productive...", followed by more accusations and the usual load of dross about censorship. I do not think it is unreasonable for Justin to describe the fact you have edit warred to the point of 5 reverts in a row plus several other reverts without discussion as "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page".

As a final point, PR accuses eveone of trying to keep the artice stagnant, yet he has refused the offer of BQZip01 to mediate because of ludicrous claims that the USAF will put pressure on him to get the result they want. There is a limit to how far we should pander to conspiracy theorist accusations. That limit is now behind us. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack

The above is a typical example of how the SPA on the USS Liberty Incident have frequently resorted to personal attacks against editors who are merely trying to help them understand wiki policies. As another uninvolved editor pointed out here and here, WorldFacts has not dicussed this proposed edit of his on the Talk Page since November 12. The edit is problematic not only because it introduces fringe material with undue significance, its duplicating material already in the article and the source quoted is a blog by a fringe author on a hard core porn website.

Could I please ask for an admin to intervene, the continued personal attacks and disruption by SPA editors are wearing everyone down. Justin talk 23:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with protocol

I have an opportunity which concerns a small group of administrators. Because of the heated exchanges of the past, I am interested in starting a conversation with an unbiased administrator . If you decide to assist, please don't acknowledge here. They follow and watch everything I do. Send me an email to . I would like to have a chance to discuss improvements without incurring disadvantages from the aforementioned. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely to happen. It's probably best to lay out your concerns, concisely and unemotionally, with diffs to support your assertions. People who are already involved will note themselves as such, and the community at large views possibly-biased statements accordingly. // roux   22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a quick look at his Talk page shows the source of this report. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even odds this is about this debate about whether to include a quote attributed to Einstein on the Insanity article. The complainant appears to feel he is being oppressed by a couple of admins. An outside view suggests that the complainant doesn't quite understand how consensus works here. I don't see any admin abuse evident. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No admin abuse, and probably a little too much niceness based on this: "...Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) ... There you go, JennySuck. Now after I squeeze the last load on your puss, I back hand you towards the door". For crying out loud, this guy wasn't blocked for what really good reason? ♪BMWΔ 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. I missed that one. Jesus christ, who was asleep at the wheel on that one? // roux   23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support any admin who gives a lengthy block, to be removed only with a topic ban or a mentorship, or both. If a problem starts in Insanity, where will it end? ThuranX (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If he starts messing with the baseball pages, he's toast. Baseball Bugs 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Talk:Insanity#"Well Known Quotes" is that what should have been a simple discussion rapidly became far too emotional for no good reason. It's a simple matter, any experienced wikipedian would see the obvious and appropriate solution of transwikiing to wikiquotes, and that's it. No one is being repressed here, JPH turned up the drama to a grossly excessive degree over a minor content dispute. Admins aren't perfect, but people should listen when they make reasonable suggestions. No listening to reasonable suggestions here. No idea if this is characteristic of elsewhere, but in this case it was too much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Reviewing JPH's talk page, I hadn't remembered for my above comment but it turns out I did have dealings with him during his initial edits to wikipedia. Since that time, apparently he has not learned that hostility is not welcome. As an editor, I don't mind turning up the civility during initial learning when noobs are usually more hostile than necessary. This is nearly a year later and the hostility is still there, apparently being used to win content disputes. JPH is leaving a bad taste in my mouth and I see no reason to ask for an unbiased administrator to review anything. This problem is not "Because of heated exchanges in the past", it's because of current (as of December, 2008) belligerence. He has been warned, next personal attack or incivility gets a block, then start escalating. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson received a last warning for personal attacks way back on May 28. Not only that but his trangressions go beyond just calling people hacks, shams, pricks and generally being a dick, he's also engaged in simple vandalism , removed AFD tags and posted copyright vio images. I beleive I'm one of the "admins" (he calls all other users admins by the way) he's referring to. Mostly because I spent quite some time posting about various Misplaced Pages policies, asking him to cool off etc. on his talk page. --Quartet 14:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I redacted the email, diff is here. — neuro 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick review of Jeffrey Pierce Henderson's contributions over the last few weeks, I find that this is an interesting talk page comment. I still can't quite tell whether he is genuinely this worked up or if he simply has a fondness for hyperbole. Nevertheless, calling for media campaign and the personal involvement of Jimbo, threatening the project's tax-exempt status, and doing a bit of all-caps YELLING seems to be a...disproportionate response to what amounts to a very minor content question.

I am very concerned that unless this editor learns to stay cool – and perhaps have a cup of tea when he's about to hit 'save' – then he will continue to find himself frustrated by editing here, and probably won't be allowed to do so for much longer. I am also very concerned that an editor who has been editing regularly for the better part of a year hasn't already internalized those principles. If this is to be a 'final' warning, then it really must be final. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He may have been here a year more or less, but his actual edit count is very low - less than 200. I've read some of the interactions with Quartet, and I'm pretty sure that the problem is with JPH, not two admins viciously abusing their power for the fun of it. Were I the boss I'd put up a permablock and wait for an unblock request to explain what's going wrong, but I'm not and I've never had to negotiate the complexities of being an admin. I'm not sure what to do, but I'm sure something should be done, and common sense is probably better than a strict interpretation of the P&G. ThuranX suggestion makes sense to me. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to work with him but my patience quickly ran out when anything I said to him went totally unheaded. As a result I've stopped trying. I'm not stalking him by any means, however quite a few pages that he edits including his talk page are on my watchlist and I've watched him closely. And I'm not an admin and I've made that clear to him. By the way, this just appeared on this talk page ]--Quartet 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I can't tell you how much it means to me that I might be able to continue learning more about how to edit here on Misplaced Pages, but most importantly I am happy that I might continue learning how to debate important issues in a more peaceable and constructive manner. I want to thank the three admins who emailed me concerning my troubles here and want to assure all interested that I will heed and act upon all their suggestions. Furthermore, that I will conform to and abide by all the laws rules and regulations concerning editing articles in Misplaced Pages and will obey the spirit of the law of civility in future edits. I sincerely apologize for making that aforementioned comment and hope others will see past it. I want to put this behind me and make reconciliation if possible, but the problem I am running into is being repeatedly harassed by a small group of admins who refuse to let me advance to becoming a better editor. Just recently one of them threatened me again merely because I asked for help here, hence my request for an email. My problem is this. I don't know the protocol for getting assistance. I am not even sure I am in the right place! I have asked around outside Misplaced Pages to other editors and found that I am not alone. Am I at the right place to complain about a small group of admins, and am I safe from harassment form those admins when I post my concerns here? Thank you in advance. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this threat. // roux   17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

JPH: The very, very first post on your Talkpage: "If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question" ♪BMWΔ 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want this whole problem to go away, please read and take to heart WP:AGF. You may also want to consider adoption, and relying your adopter for advice for a while. You could also try politely asking an admin or two - they're usually helpful and pleasant if you don't insist on something without being aware of our rules. Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be quite complicated, yes, but that's a reason to patiently try to learn them rather than assuming they are intuitive and then insulting a bunch of people when it turns out you are wrong. This isn't a message board and we don't like flamewars. Note that on Talk:Bench press#Big James Henderson you actually posted an edit that ended up standing, after discussion to figure out the sourcing. Discussion works if you're willing to ask questions. Keep in mind that after this latest round of attention to your previous history and this noticeboard posting, your actions will be under close scrutiny by a larger number of editors than before - it's the reality of being flagged as problematic. So please be polite, and ask questions. I will happily try to help if you have an issue you are unsure of, and I am pretty confident any answers I give you will not get you into trouble. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I second what WLU posted above. Talk:Bench press#Big James Henderson was a pretty good example of working out a problem without getting uncivil. Talk:Insanity#.22Well_Known_Quotes.22 is not how to go about discussing changes to an article, especially this edit . And that edit was not the result of being harrassed by administrators or being held back from being a better editor. As I wrote on your talk page back in May - the key is to just learn what you may have done wrong and come back with better material that works within the policies and guidelines. Getting worked up about it and picking fights, calling people names and making threats about having admins stripped of their duties will only cause everything you do to be scrutinized further. Stay cool. And remember - anyone can edit your work at any time - and it's okay if they do. Articles are never finished... --Quartet 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge has resulted in problems. I will review everyone's posts again and seek out assistance for future interaction, edits, and issues. I consider this thread finished, but I will keep returning here over the next couple of days to read any new posts to this thread. For all the advice and action, I thank everyone who posted to this thread, my talk page, and emailed me. I have learned a great deal and look forward to learning much more from you. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of knowledge" was responsible for this?? Okay.... Well I'll raise a toast to the hope that new knowledge helps curb your temper. BTW - does this new conversion mean you're handing out apologies for all the users you've insulted in the past? If so, mine can be posted on my talk page. Thanks! --Yankees76 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That last comment was uncalled for. Keep it cool. — neuro 11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Deanb

I've transferred the follow from WP:AIV as this is a more appropriate forum. Kcordina 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deanb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has been uploading copyrighted content falsely tagging it under GFDL for a while. His latest one is a re-upload of the image File:TA Skyline.jpg, which was taken from here, and has been deleted in the past. Another one is File:TA Skyline2.jpg from here. This is despite continuous warnings spanning several months. In the past, he also uploaded File:TA.jpg (from here) and other images I can't remember (althouh this version of his talk page says a lot. Also in reply to a previous warning, he indirectly stated that he had no intention of stopping ("Do us both a favor and stop 'being bored', OK?"). I know that the warnings weren't from last month, and one may argue that there aren't sufficient 'warning levels'. However, because he is a long-time registered user who is ignoring basic warnings, I think some kind of administrative action is in order. I have filed an ANI on this user in the past for an entirely different issue, but can't find it right now. -- Ynhockey 08:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a bit complex, more appropriate for an WP:ANI report, IMO. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that he's been given clear notice of blocking, but he's certainly been pointed to policy many times. Copyright is a potential legal land-mine for Misplaced Pages, and if he refuses to respect our copyright policy, his contributions do not belong here. I am giving him the templated copyright warning, with notice of potential block. If another admin feels that he's had warning enough and chooses to block now for the protection of Misplaced Pages, I certainly wouldn't find that inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Moonriddengirl. I believe that Deanb should be blocked because of numerous policy violations which add up to a stream of persistent subtle vandalism. Copyright violations are just the most serious cases, but there are a bunch of other things he has been doing, which display that he never really 'got the message', despite being told nicely a million times. I respect your decision however, and won't pursue further action unless another admin reading this has already decided to act (based on the previous evidence). If the copyvios continue though, I will probably take the liberty of blocking him unilaterally as after this warning, it should be considered a clear case of vandalism (please correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ynhockey 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support a block if he continues with the copyvios and, as I indicated above, wouldn't look on it as amiss if he were blocked for the copyvios he's done already. The block warning is a courtesy, not a requirement. Our blocking policy says we should generally ensure that users are aware of policies and give them reasonable opportunity to change. He's had that. One of these images he uploaded twice: (File:TA Skyline.jpg) He knows better, and he keeps doing it. --Moonriddengirl 11:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Long-term edit war on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Two editors have been involved in edit warring since before the Nov. 4 election. While several other participants quit as soon as the election was over, Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · logs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs · logs) have continued. This article has previously been locked because of this war: the first was just prior to the election; the second, at the end of November. Instead of locking the article again, both these editors should be blocked. Oh, and they have spent volumes of text sniping at each other on the article's talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't see it immediately, has WP:MEDCAB been tried? — neuro 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, an agreement to participate wasn't forthcoming. This has been going on so long that I'm not sure. I'll look in the archives. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

An AN/I report seems unproductive at this time when we seem to be on the verge of compromise. csloat (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

...or is the ANI report a threat in case compromise fails? Just being Devil's Advocate here... ♪BMWΔ 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but I didn't know that threats were considered an appropriate means of ensuring a compromise here. In either case, I'm pretty sure a compromise will be reached soon. csloat (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Commment There was a request for mediation, but it was rejected because not all parties agreed to it. It has since been deleted, but administrators can view the contents, if they so desire. Enigma 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the rejected medition request, two of the three talk page archives and the current talk page are filled with discussions of the disputed text, and include a couple of requests for comment and several fleeting claims of consensus. Seriously, nothing has yet worked, and the edit war continues. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tavix

Tavix (talk · contribs · logs) is again actively moving some 200 articles in the last 90 minutes which he knows and has been asked numerous times to stop and for which there is a previous ANI thread. It centres on the use of the dab (Canadian football) primarily because he knows that I have clearly expressed that I find this is almost never a suitable disambiguator for biographies of football players. The user is clearly being disruptive in trying to antagonise me. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCP and specifically WP:QUALIFIER. (football player) is the preferred dab when there are no other football players with the same name as these players often play more than one code of football and there is no need for further and more specific disambiguation. The dab "Canadian football" is also a poor choice because it is not an adjective describing the person as is preferred and is often misleading as the player may be American as well as having played other codes of football. I would like to see User:Tavix clearly asked to stop these kind of disruptive moves and if continued, short blocks and requirements to discuss and gain consensus for any page move. It can be seen from his talk history and previous ANI thread that the user has often moved articles without understanding of the guidelines and styleguides. It would also be useful for an admin to mass-revert his moves of today. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in the previous thread was it established he was incorrect? Naming conventions are supposed to be simple, but they are not supposed to be incorrect. Are these players football players or American football and Canadian football players? --Smashville 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• They didn't get anywhere in the other one, just one admin and DoubleBlue saying that there should be a consensus. Tavix (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice in moves, grammatically horrible, confusing, and what do we do with Jeff Garcia and Doug Flutie (to name just a couple) ♪BMWΔ 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• May I ask, how is it grammatically horrible? It is simply the name of the sport that the person played. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie was the first one I checked out. He doesn't even have a parenthetic qualifier, as there is presumably only one notable Doug Flutie. But it does raise an important question, about anyone who might be on a disambig page and has played in both CFL and NFL. I would think they should only say American football or Canadian football when there's one in each. Usually you want to keep the qualifiers as general as possible. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there is a person who played both American football and Canadian football, you would look for whichever sport they were most notable for playing. That is usually equivalent to the number of years they played the sport. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie (dropkicker)? --Smashville 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)]

• The position the person played is only to be used when there is two players who played the same sport becuase you want the more general disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem...it was a joke in reference to the one time Flutie kicked an XP... --Smashville 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Zealots and ignoranimuses seldom have a sense of humor. Baseball Bugs 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Everybody, There is nothing incorrect with what I am doing. The reason "football player" isn't a good disambiguation because it could get confused with Association football, which is known as football in the majority of the countries. If you ask anybody from Europe, Asia, or Latin America, "football" is Soccer. So "football player" is incorrect and misleading. It is also for consistency with those people who play "American football" because the people who play American football use "American football" as the disambiguation already. If there really is that big of a deal about it, get a consensus together, but at the moment, I am doing nothing wrong. Another note, a person who played baseball uses the (baseball) disambiguation. It is never (baseball player). A person who played hockey uses the (ice hockey) disambiguation, it is never (hockey player). There is a general consensus (but not official) that in the world of sports, you use the name of the sport to describe the person. Tavix (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One flaw in your thinking is that the specific players are likely to be only on American or Canadian football teams anyway, so a soccer fan is not likely to be looking for them. Another is that what if some guy actually did play for both a soccer team and an American or Canadian football team? What would you do then? Worse still, though, is that your own comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football, which I can assure you with a complete lack of bias are much more interesting games than soccer is. Baseball Bugs 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anyone that would play (professionally) both American/Canadian football and Soccer, so I don't think we would ever need to figure that out. If that happens though, (football player) or (footballer) is probably best as it covers both sports. "your comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football." I'm completely sorry if I seem biased, I'm really not biased whatsoever against the sport. I am a huge football fan, and more in generally a lot of sports. I also enjoy soccer and I used to play it way back when as well. So sorry if I seem biased. Tavix (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your previous move of a player of both Australian and American football to (American football). DoubleBlue (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills there. =) However, I say that between soccer and a type of football, not two different types of football. Tavix (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Above you correctly state that more general disambiguations are desirable but then you contradict yourself and say that (football player) is not specific enough. It is precisely that the general dab football player is preferable since many players play in more than one code of football. It is only desirable to be more precise when there is more than one football player with the same name. Baseball and hockey are the only exceptions to the WP:NCP guidelines and I frankly think they are misguided. Nonetheless, football is what is under discussion at the moment and football players are far more likely to be notable for more than one code of football than baseball players are to be for more than one code of baseball. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, actually the thing is that (football player) is highly too general, with my reasons stated above. It's almost like saying John Doe (sports player) because football refers to about 10 different sports. Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here would be that it's a change that's not necessary. It amounts to "busy work". There are plenty of articles that need actual improvements. This effort improves nothing. Baseball Bugs 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain to whom this is directed. Clearly the moves Tavix has done from (football player) to (Canadian football) and (American football) are not only unnecessary but harmful. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, you hard headed DoubleBlue, why do you always have to go out and say these moves are harmful when in fact, neither of the moves are actually harmful. People will find the article just as fine wheather it says (football player) or (American football). Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. Hence there is no reason to have changed it. Baseball Bugs 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear - the changes he's making are pointless. Baseball Bugs 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's basically for consistency. It's not like it is harmful or anything. Tavix (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is harmful to unnecessarily dab a person with an overly-specific dab that makes it misleading. If John Doe is the only John Doe notable for playing football but he's an American who has played both American and Canadian football, then surely the best dab is (football player). To move to John Doe (Canadian football) is misleading and unnecessarily violates the general guideline for dabs to describe the person rather than the sport. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• So it violates guidelines, and is pointless busy work. Baseball Bugs 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• And there's another flaw in his argument. This is the English wikipedia, and in the English-speaking world, it's called soccer primarily. So if he's going to say "American football", he needs to change all the soccer players from "football" to "soccer". For "consistency". Baseball Bugs 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pssst. // roux   20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't violate any guidelines. There is an exception in the third paragraph in WP:QUALIFIER that allows my moves. I don't see what Baseball Bugs is referring to by moving "footballer" to "soccer" for consistency. It already has a consensus that anyone who plays "soccer" is known as "footballer". Tavix (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The common sense exception is for "awkward or overly-long disambiguations". How does (Canadian football) fit that exception over (football player)? DoubleBlue (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) Indeed there is such a consensus. Just as there is a consensus that we use the least-specific meaningful dab available. // roux   20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which consensus is that? Please bear in mind I am using the least specific dab available. It is the same reasons for the ice hockey people to use (ice hockey) and not (hockey). Ice hockey is the name of the sport, not hockey. Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:NCDAB: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)"." // roux   21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No need to copy the mistakes of others and they have much less likelihood of hockey players playing multiple codes of hockey. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Who said those are mistakes? "Ice hockey" is the name of the sport. Tavix (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that Tavix continues these moves unabated. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills. =) Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you start noting the genuine lack of consensus for your moves and stop? Hmmm? ♪BMWΔ 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no lack of consensus whatsoever. Sorry, but no. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "No lack of consensus?" Who, besides you, wants this? Baseball Bugs 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's what he seems to be missing...every single editor on this page says "stop". That's apparently a consensus. ♪BMWΔ 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have to support DoubleBlue entirely in this matter. Tavix has a long history of disputed page moves (in reviewing the entire history of his talk page, I can find only a single favorable comment about his often massive page moves, and over a dozen requests that he stop, with explanations of why he is violating the naming conventions, the disambig guidelines, or just plain common sense). And not just with sports articles. Tavix's moves in this case do violate the naming conventions, this has been explained to him by at least 3 parties that I'm aware of, also violate the disambiguation guidelines by overdisambiguating (we don't have articles like "Claire Voyant (particle physicist)" unless we have to physicists named Claire Voyant to disambiguate), and this has also been explained to him several times. He's simply recalcitrant, unwilling to discuss and seek consensus anywhere, and self-righteous. He has also stated clearly on his own talk page that he will not stop these disruptive page moves until he is "banned" (I think he meant blocked). So block him, and we can all go back to business as usual, and when the block expires maybe he'll find something more constructive to do instead of starting pointless fights by moving hundreds of articles at a time to unhelpful names without consensus to do so. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, what's the solution, at this point? Baseball Bugs 10:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The solution is for Tavix to desist. I don't know how he is measuring 'consensus', but his meter is surely broken. Just about everyone in this thread has argued against this happening, and I don't know how he can't see that. Consensus can change. — neuro 11:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, except he's already said he won't desist. So, what's the solution, at this point? Baseball Bugs 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the first thing to ask him is to link us to evidence of this ever elusive consensus... :S — neuro 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He already said "NO", that he was going to do what he was going to do. Baseball Bugs 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not like I'm hard headed or anything, but I just don't see any consensus against it. If you look at the disambiguations of just about any sportsperson, you see the name of the sport they played and not XXX player. Ice hockey is the biggest example because they use (ice hockey) and not (hockey). American football is the offical name of the sport. Also, we shouldn't use (American football player) per paragraph three of WP:QUALIFIER, which says that a disambiguation can break "rules" if it is too long, in this case. All in all, I am done now anyway so I will stop. Thank you all for your help. Tavix (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, he says he's done, and he obviously considers the comments here to have nothing to do with "consensus". So, should we start systematically undoing his efforts? Baseball Bugs 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

...and based on his snotty comments on my talk page simply because he doesn't like the project's definition of WP:Consensus ... I'm prepared to start undoing his make-work-for-others project. Any way we can remove "move" rights from his account? ♪BMWΔ 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Football project somewhere, where some other heads can be brought into this discussion? I think that guy is being disruptive and taking ownership, but the admins aren't seeing this as being a big enough thing to take any action on, so far. Baseball Bugs 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if it seems like I am taking ownership, I'm really not. In addition, there is nothing disruptive about it. People can find their way to an article wheather it says (Canadian football) or (football player). The problem is (football player) doesn't describe them. The name of the sport is American football or Canadian football (where applicable). Tavix (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, Tavix, is a player with the (Canadian football) or (Canadian football player) disambiguator a player of Canadian football, a football player of Canadian origin or a soccer player of Canadian origin? The (ice hockey) example you like to use doesn't fit this argument, since there is no ambiguity surrounding what ice hockey means. Your moves in this case create unnecessary confusion. Resolute 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• (Canadian football) is actually pretty general as it can refer to anyone who is involved in the sport of Canadian football. It is the name of the sport, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the name of the sport is football. We describe it as Canadian when the context is ambiguous. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the vast majority of native English speakers, when they say "football", mean games like American and Canadian football, not soccer. Tavix's changes are pretentious, and are only valid if he's also going to change soccer players to say "Association football" (or "soccer"). Baseball Bugs 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No dog in this fight, but his changes look disruptive and confusing to me. For instance he takes a guy whose described as a "running back" and then changes it to his NFL team (i.e. San diego chargers) -- but that means team changes have to be kept up with AND in the event there are other NFL guys with the same name (now, in the past, or in the future) there's a greater likelihood for confusion (which one is the running back, which one the linebacker? Fred Smith the linebacker played 2 seasons for the chargers, but fred smith the running back is the one playing for them now, etc...) Why not just topic ban Tavix from these sorts of changes? He's already indicated he has no interest in seeking -- or abiing by -- consensus.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• That is a totally different issue. There were 4 running backs in the NFL with the name of "Clarence Williams" who all played in the same era, and were going by birthday. I moved them to the team name because people are going to know the team they played for more than their birthday. Also, none of them are active anymore so there is no need to update. I have already taken up with the NFL wikiproject as well. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, except that would require someone with some authority taking some interest in this. So far, it's his way or the highway. And it would probably also require a block for a day or two, to undo his "work". Baseball Bugs 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that there is no official consensus on this matter. I have already stopped my actions and blocking me will do no good as I am no longer moving pages on this subject. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I take that as a green light to change them back to what they were, with the expectation that you will not interfere. Baseball Bugs 20:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone makes any changes, please read WP:FNC. It is my essay which basically sums up my reasonings. Tavix (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Read it. Vastly inferior to current conventions, your argument is not persuasive, in practice the changes you've made have generated confusion, not reduced it. I posted this to your essay as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) Take the conversation here. This proposal is basically where this conversation is going. Tavix (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat problem.

Over on Talk:Gratin, and the article space, there's been some conflict about the number of potato-in-cream-sauce articles needed. A new editor, User:Believe It Or Not, has been trying to separate the page into three separate articles, against apparent consensus and the status quo. He's pretty insistent on it. As well, two IPs, 86.144.204.217 and 81.157.213.116 have supported BIoN's edits, as seen in the edit history. last night, User:Michael Grossman showed up on the talk page, and as his first edit, supported BIoN's position. I removed, because it sure looks like a sock/meat issue. He reinserted it, and I've left it there. I'm asking an admin to review the situation, and if needed, look into it further.

I came to this page by browsing the 'recent changes' page, and offered an admittedly unsolicited 3O, but it sure looked like a stalemate as far as the regular editors were concerned. I find it suspicious that a page which has scant traffic for months suddenly attracts four editors (two IPs, two accounts), who all hit the page within hours of each other, all supporting the same major revisions to the article. I also find suspicious that a new user's first edit is to a talk page of a nascent, yet both contentious and stalled, conflict. Thanks to whatever admin looks into this. ThuranX (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles about potatoes-in-cream-sauce? *blink* ♪BMWΔ 19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, we have at least three. What's bad is we have more candidates for a sockfarm ABOUT potato-in-cream-sauce dishes than we have articles about potato-in-cream-sauce dishes. 4:3 is a bad ratio on that. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, what's with all the edit-wars re: food items lately? We've had the hummus wars, the hoagie conflicts, and now the gratin contretemps. Anyone want to join me in creating a pool on what comestible will be the next victim?? GJC 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The great hoagie conflict of 2008. POV pushers will, of course, redirect it to "the hero wars" or "the grinder action". Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Until an unseen flotilla of 'Sub conflict'ers rises up to ambush us all. (Can some one please look into this?) ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I've looked...and it looks like good progress is being made without me. Am I right? GJC 16:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's AfD conduct

Badagnani has just suggested that I be banned from Misplaced Pages for nominating an article for deletion. Normally I would let this go, but this has now happened several times (see my previous comments here and here). Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm starting to feel intimidated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was contacted privately by Cordless Larry). Have you actually been warned formally to stop deletion nominations in this field? I'd be surprised if you had. Badagnani's conduct on the specific AfD is incivil and unnecessary in my opinion. There's no reason to focus on the contributor if he has a legitimate worry about the content, and to suggest you should be blocked (as opposed to banned) is misguided.

Somewhat slightly unrelated, but the actual content issue might be worth raising at the Misplaced Pages:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been formally warned, no. I don't see why I would have been since I have always provided justification for my AfD nominations and many have been successful, including ones where Badagnani previously suggested I be blocked. I presume that Badagnani is referring to the past suggestions that she/he has made that I be blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The larger issue is whether the articles on Spanish Germans, Australian Indonesians etc. are appropriate article subjects. The statistics are included in official fact books and there are a lot of theis type of articles. Apparently he took issue with your multiple nominations of articles dealing with this type of subject. I don't think his comment was helpful. Perhaps you could ask if he's willing to engage in a discussion of why he thinks those articles are worth including. Maybe someone knows the best place for a broader discussion? As far as his comment goes, I'd ignore it. I suspect he was just frustrated. Don't take it personally and happy holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd be happy to ignore the comment but this is the fourth time it's happened now by my counting: here, here, here and now this time. They also did the same to another editor here. I got an apology once before, only for this behaviour to resume. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask if any of these articles have been deleted through AfD, but I see that some of them have. So it seems the consensus is not to include all of them. I'll leave him a note and see what he says. I think it's his way of saying he strongly objects to the nomination and deletion of articles on ethnic groups within countries. I would just take it as that, an over the top expression of his opinion, but I'll try to encourage him to avoid framing his view in that manner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He/she also needs to provide reasons for opposing deletions, preferably citing Misplaced Pages policy, rather than simply objecting. I've made this point in several discussions and on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the larger issue is indeed his conduct Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive499#User:Badagnani_personal_attacks.2C_assumptions_of_bad faith_and_stirring_the_pot. He seems to have an issue assuming good faith even though he is repeatedly reminded of it. Editor conduct isn't immediately excused because they are frustrated.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall you and another editor were the majors for most of that feuding, and that archive is full of complaints about your behavior. I don't think it's helpful to bring a separate issue into this to try to get back at someone you had a prior disagreement with. Unless you have something helpful or useful to add I suggest letting more neutral parties handle it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall almost none of those complaints came with any diffs and when pressed on it, he refused to provide any. These diffs, which any can check for content to verify the claims made there show a pattern of behaviour on the part of this editor in attacking other editors in disagreements. Its completely relevant to this complaint as it shows an on-going issue not isolated to a single encounter. As I also recall more than one editor told him assume good faith in that case and he continued make bad faith assumptions and attacks long after he was told. Making good contributions doesn't give you a pass on civility.--Crossmr (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are several editors who spend a lot of time building or improving the encyclopedia who get defensive of attempts to distract from or make those efforts more difficult. I haven't said the behaviour is okay, but if people are going to delete other's work, you can't exactly expect them to welcome your efforts with open arms. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for that, as I have sternly warned the user several times as well as spelling out in bold on a previous AFD not to call for the banhammer on other users with no good reason. The user seems to take every AFD against his articles (hint-hint) as a personal insult. (It's also laughable how he considers such a warning a "death threat") MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He makes similar nonsensical statements to me as well. Look at the diffs I provided. In one he cautions me against writing in all caps, yet I can't find any words (except the abbreviated link to a policy) that appear in all caps in my statement. There is nothing that remotely looks like a death threat in what you wrote.--Crossmr (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about improper block by User:Phil Sandifer

I was recently blocked for 24 hours for nominating three articles (Michelle Stith, Tim Bowles, and Body thetan) for deletion. All three were nominated on the grounds that there were insufficient reliable, third-party sources (WP:V and WP:RS). This is a perfectly normal nomination rationale. Rather than discussing the issue, or attempting to find the appropriate sources, Phil Sandifer blocked me, claiming that the deletion nomination of three marginal Scientology articles was "egregious disruption" and POV-pushing. See ; note that he later changed the wording from "mass" to "batch" after he apparently realized that 3 articles might not count as the former. In contrast, User:TTN routinely nominates dozens of articles a day for deletion (many of which are merged or kept), and, while this has raised considerable discussion and controversy, a perusal of his block log shows that he has never actually been blocked for it. Note that I am not saying that someone else got away with bad behavior and I should therefore also be entitled to do so. I am saying that even more substantial "mass" deletion nominations have been discussed by the community before, and no consensus to consider them disruptive has ever emerged. It was grossly inappropriate for Phil to block me for a mere 3 nominations in one day, with no discussion of any kind.

I believe the purpose of this block was to create a chilling effect and to prevent the application of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines to Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. *** Crotalus *** 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified User:Phil Sandifer about this thread. No opinion on actual complaint. Exxolon (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically I dismiss these sorts of threads as BS, but this one might have some validity. From what I can see - and I might be mistaken - there was no discussion or warning from Phil Sandifer about the block, or any chance for Crotalus to explain himself. Further commentary should probably wait for a statement from Phil, however. Tan | 39 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation from Phil as well. A quick examination doesn't reveal blockable behaviour to me, either.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption, and well justifying a 24 hour block. I glanced over the talk page a few hours after the block, after I saw that an unblock request was made, in fear that perhaps I had overreacted. However, I was dismayed to find that, even in the face of a patient and clear explanation of the issues, Crotalus displayed no understanding of the problems with using automated tools to nominate articles for deletion in accordance with a POV he has clearly and openly pushed on Misplaced Pages. That nobody else responded to the unblock request makes me suspect that my dismay was not an uncommon reaction.

Frankly, as a user whose contributions amount almost purely to POV pushing, I would consider 24 hours a pleasantly light response. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? If that's really your statement here, this needs to be escalated. Tan | 39 21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I am highly disappointed. Are you open to recall? Is there any way you would voluntarily step down as an admin? Bstone (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Three noms is 'mass' now? // roux   21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on here, fellas. Bstone, put down the shotgun and step away from the Arbcom button, allright? No one is, or should be, calling for anyone's admin resignation here unless there are a shitload of other problems that I'm not aware of. If we can discuss this calmly and either get a valid explanation or "oops, I messed up, I won't do it again" apology from Phil, then we can close this and move on. One questionable block a bad admin does not make. Tan | 39 21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So our criteria for even suggesting an admin step down is a "shitload of problems" but apparently regular editors can be blocked willy nilly for no reason at all. No wonder things are so screwed up here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Given User_talk:TTN#Request_at_ArbCom, he might actually be sanctioned in the near future for the indiscriminate mass noms. Best, --A Nobody 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Crotalus Horridus has been wronged, and gave a lengthy explanation on his talk page. It does not appear to me, an outside observer, that CH has disrupted anything or pushed any kind of POV except for his interpretation of our inclusion policies- which is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to AfD. Reyk _YO! 21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am disappointed at Phil's statement above, especially the claim that I am pushing a POV. I consider my actions to be the opposite - pushing NPOV, and trying to maintain the same high quality and neutrality on Scientology-related topics that we maintain on other parts of Misplaced Pages. It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed desirable, to remove low-quality sources regardless of whose POV they support, and to nominate articles for deletion when no reliable, third-party sources are available to substantiate them. I also do not consider myself to be a party to the arbitration case simply because I have posted evidence, though of course it is ArbCom's prerogative to determine who is involved and to what extent. Incidentally, I will be leaving for Christmas vacation soon, and may not be able to respond to further comments left on Misplaced Pages for several days. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh give me a break. You've been heavily involved in the case, and your views amount to "the sources that do not support my preferred POV are unreliable sources." Presenting your contributions as improving NPOV is absurd. Frankly, the correct response for tendentious POV pushing of the sort you engage in is a permablock. I threw up 24 hours for a particularly inspired bit of idiocy in the hopes that perhaps you would take the hint. The underlying fact remains - use of automated tools such as Twinkle for POV pushing edits is inappropriate, and the edits amounted to a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. A brief (which is what the block was) disruption block does not seem to me particularly out of line. In any case, the block is resolved now by default. I will not block Crotalus again for disruption, as at this point I seem to have reached the point of being involved. As there is no outstanding issue, and my involvement with the matter ends here, and as the overall tone of this section has completely jumped the shark with braying calls for my desysopping, I'll not be stopping by to throw any more chum to the adoring crowds. I stand by my decision. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one call for desysopping by one of the more easily excitable editors. However, I gotta say your complete lack of contriteness in the face of perhaps five or six other agreements - and zero disagreement - that your block was improper is disturbing. This is not adminly behavior, by any stretch. Mistakes will be made, but if you don't acknowledge them or act mature about it when they happen, I start to lean towards action being taken. Tan | 39 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I disagree with the assessment, and disagree with the attitude that discussion over... two hours can possibly generate any sort of meaningful consensus that has innate persuasive force that ought bear down upon me with sobering resolve. If the block were still active, I might respond differently and consider lifting it on the grounds that the message of caution had been sent, but there were concerns about the block. But as I stand by my assessment that Crotalus's behavior was actionable disruption, and as there is no block to rescind, I see little that I can do. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could attempt to explain yourself, and why you think Crotalus's behaviour was so objectionable. It's not obvious to me or to anyone else here that Crotalus has done anything wrong at all. If you could provide some diffs that show ongoing POV-pushing that would be one thing, but all you are doing is going "I'm right, so nergh!" Reyk _YO! 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know bad admins when I see them. Phil is a great editor but a bad admin. He is refusing to take any responsibility for his utterly bad block. Tan, want to join me in support of desysoping? Bstone (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and I'd appreciate it if you acted a little bit more like the 28 years old your user page says you are. Tan | 39 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Tan, I just have to ask you to be more WP:CIVIL. You've stated I am "bitch"ing, said "fuck" and now you are indicating I lack maturity. You have read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, right? If not I would gently suggest you to go review them. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please step off of your soapbox, please. There is no basis or rationale for desysoping, and all administrators make mistakes from time to time (this is not a review of this administrator's actions). We would have zero administrators if we allowed all to be desysoped for every minor infraction. seicer | talk | contribs 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Utterly no soapbox of any sort here. Just reminding someone- with an admitted quick temper- to please be civil and avoid WP:NPA. Have a great day! Bstone (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Admin abuse! Hang him, quick! Tiptoety 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion to Desysop Phil Sandifer

1. Support Admind must be held to a much higher standard than editors. Minimally, Phil needs to be blocked for 24 hours. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be punishment, nor prevention, and out of process. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No fucking way. Tan | 39 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Fuck no. This was one error, not grounds for calling for someone's head. Jesus. // roux   21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Silly idea. This isn't the place for this anyway. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose as on balance I think I have seen more good than bad from Phil Sandifer. Best, --A Nobody 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Not necessary. I would be satisfied if Phil would apologize for the block. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose- I'm more concerned with getting this wrong righted than with retribution. If Phil Sandifer continues to abuse his power we can discuss desysopping, but I don't see any reason to expect he'll do that in the future. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
7. This is a fucking joke, right?. No fucking way. I don't have much opinion of Phil, but really? One possibly bad call, still under review? for a 24 hour block? There are legitimate cases where a 24 hour block might call for a desysop, but this doesn't read like that. It's a shitty call on Phil's part, however. He could have closed them as contrary to an open Arb-case, issued a talk page warning, and brought it here for review, all actions which I would've supported, so long as there were no predications of double jeopardy attached to Crotalus' renomming after arbcom. Phil looks to me to have made a shit-tastic decision, but it's also a no-harm-done decision. Admins can note in your block log the block was reversed, and that'll be that. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Delays in unblock reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. We aren't desysoping anyone here. Want to discuss the delays in block reviews? Please seek a new thread or venue. This thread has been tainted. seicer | talk | contribs 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment on the merits of the block for obvious reasons, but I am very concerned about the fact that an editor's unblock request apparently went more than 23 hours without being reviewed. The promise is made to blocked users that their block will be promptly reviewed by an uninvolved administrator on request and we should keep that promise. After all, we should always bear in mind that for a blocked user, Misplaced Pages has become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you. It would probably be helpful if more administrators kept an eye on the requests-for-unblock user category as well as the unblock-en-l mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost always watch #wikipedia-en-unblock, so I see most requests. The problem is, most of the time people write like 1000-byte unblock requests. This just complicates things, and makes me less likely to deal with it. Apparently, I'm not the only one, because from my experience watching that channel, there is an inverse relationship between how long an unblock request is, and how long it takes for the request to be addressed. J.delanoy_adds 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1500+ admins and not one- not a single one- answered the fellow's plea for an unblock. And in this case it was a horrible block is absolute violation of policy. Yes, the system is utterly broken. Bstone (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, go bitch somewhere else. You don't help the situation, you only inflame it. Tan | 39 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very civil response Tan, please consider moderating your response. Exxolon (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

←Bstone, how about instead of complaining about the current system you try and fix it? The whole reason this section of the thread was started was to address the issue, not sit around and complain about it. Now, I must agree with J.delanoy, often times I see a unblock request that is 1000+ words and simply skip over it. I think it would be a good idea to have some kind of limitation to the number of words. But, that is just me...some admins have more patience and time. Tiptoety 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am simply observing where this poor fellow was failed by the system. Perhaps you can be a bit more tactful? Using words like "fuck" and "bitch" are typically not received well. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exxolon, puh-leeze. Look at Phil's talk page. All Bstone has done is call for Phil's head and berate admins for being the cause of a "broken system". Moderation of response considered, declined. Tan | 39 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Bstone's edits or viewpoints, resorting to epithets in reponse isn't going to help. Nor is resorting to sarcasm. You could easily have gotten the same view across in a civil fashion viz :- "Please consider continuing your complaints about the failure of the unblock system somewhere else. Bringing this issue up here repeatedly is only likely to inflame the situation" - exactly the same viewpoint but a much more civil tone. Paradoxically, resorting to "bitch" is actually more likely to have a contrary effect to the one you wish - inflaming the situation more. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Tiptoety For some reason Tan has decided to steer this sub-thread's conversation to me and not about the issue. Now I claim that with 1500 admins there ought to be enough to answer blocks. 23.8 hours is way too long a response. I have some ideas for improving on this. Would you like to hear them? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously have a temper, I'm not the one calling for desysopping. Look at the response you got above - what is that, eight resounding NOs? I had to essentially warn you about harassment on Phil's talk page. You can try to act like the calm one here, but your actions show otherwise. Tan | 39 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to continue to disrupt this conversation about admin responses to blocks or would you like to discuss my ideas? I have a few and I think they may help. What say you, Tan? Bstone (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the system broken? I've responded to a few unblock requests today. The ones that are still up are either waiting for discussion from the blocked editor, or they're complicated issues that aren't clear-cut enough to undo another admin's block over, so they're waiting for input form involved parties and the blocking admin. A delay means that there was something about the request that made admins reluctant either to deny or to unblock, not that no one reviewed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What an odd and pointless thread. Crotalus doesn't IMO have much of a cause for action here, quite simply because he put up an unblock notice immediately and no admin felt it warranted an unblock.

Heck, I was one of the people he was arguing with in the original AFDs in question - I wouldn't have blocked him (I responded on the AFDs saying "no way" in the standard fashion), but his lack of awareness of how it could have come across as querulous disruption indicated a severely worrying lack of good judgement. (This is by the way not a statement of assumption of bad faith - I am fully confident that Crotalus' actions are all undertaken in sincere good faith and he's as dedicated to writing a good encyclopedia as any of us - but my subjective impression of his judgement calls toward our common goal. I'm sure he'd say the same about me. Welcome to Misplaced Pages ;-) ) So I didn't unblock. I did discuss the matter on his talk page, in a hopefully productive two-way fashion - I don't have anything against Crotalus, I'm just unsure of his good judgement, as I'm sure he may have qualms about mine. That's fine, y'know.

Basically: his appeal was to put up a "please unblock" notice. Plenty of admins keep an eye on these, and not one who looked at it was inclined to act upon it. Other people who objected to the block didn't find an admin willing to undo it. That means the block was basically supported, as far as I can tell.

Given that, it's hard to see what the point of this thread is likely to be, and the call for desysop on a block no admin could be found to object to is, uh, what? - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• As Phil says, I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption. Whether it is block-worthy or not is a judgement call well within the bounds of normal administrative discretion. Probably Phil should not have blocked, but almost certainly Crotalus should have held back pending the arbitration, since this is a contentious area. This thread amounts to "The nasty admin done me wrong" and then a succession of "yes he did" and "no he didn't". If one applies WP:AGF, the entire matter vanishes in a puff of smoke. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am deeply concerned by the actions taken by some here who think it is acceptable to unite arms to force an administrator out of their respective position because of one mistake. It is, in irony, egregious disruption to assume the worst on one instance. With respect to the unblock(s), I also find that there is an direct relationship between complication and response timing. Caulde 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• That is a terrible attitude. If I were an admin I'd have unblocked immediately. The fact that in nearly 24 hours only one admin took enough interest in an unblock request to comment, and didn't act because they happened to turn up with only 20 minutes left, doesn't mean the block was supported- just that nobody cared. That's a massive problem. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Due disclosure: I have given extensive evidence in the arbitration case related to these actions. Phil, would you be willing to retract the word idiocy? It doesn't reflect well. Crotalus, would you be willing to exercise greater restraint regarding matters currently under arbitration? Three nominations isn't a whole lot, but the use of automated tools and a rather transparent tit-for-tat WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale does look POINTy. Probably better resolved with discussion than with either the tools or calls for anybody's head. Durova 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will grant that "idiocy" was an over-dramatic choice of words. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many people looked at the unblock and decided not to deal with it. And if there were an inverse relationship between complication and response time, then complicated issues would be dealt with the quickest. I think you mean a direct relationship. Grandmasterka 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Amended, with thanks. Caulde 23:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Grandmasterka on this. The fact that an unblock request received no response in twenty-three hours doesn't mean that it wasn't seen for twenty-three hours. I know that I have on occasion looked at an unblock request, concluded that any action I took would likely make matters worse, and left well enough alone. Call it a 'soft' denial of unblock — I think the block should probably stand, but actually posting a denial would be inviting a lot of time-consuming and pointless argument. (Heck, it might even lead to talk page protection or an extension of the original block.) I'm not saying that that is necessarily what happened in this case, but I'm sure it is what happens for a lot of unblock requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That admin turned me into a newt! Well, I got better. Baseball Bugs 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wiki Witch traded the mop for a broomstick. If you drink this potion I promise it'll upgrade your newt to a toad. ;) Durova 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Awright! I'll hop right on that. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Move on people. Bad decision by Crotalus to inflame an already controversial area, and bad idea by Phil to consider that a blockable offense. Is there anything else that needs admin assistance? Aside from the moronic call for Phil's head, which deserves a trout slap, there's nothing. — sephiroth bcr 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian irredentism everywhere

How many times should I complain abut this problem? How many times? How many times[REDACTED] administrators will CONNIVE or at least IGNORE Persian irredentism destroying the historical articles? I have complained about the issue many many times at different levels, in different places here in wikipedia. But nothing happened. "THEY" continue their plan. But nothing definitely nothing has been done against this PROBLEM.

Nevertheless, I will report the problem here once more.

What is all of this nonsense? If there actually is an issue here, is there anyway you can sum it up in an intelligible manner without random capitalization and ranting? John Reaves 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you condense your complaint in a few paragraphs? What administrator intervention is required here? Is this a content dispute that requires dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious once you display it like this...

Persian[REDACTED] users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the[REDACTED] and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. They just BLANK it and write "Persian".

He's auditioning to be the next Time Cube guy, spouting wisdom like a never-ending upside-down waterfall.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you... l'aquatique |✡| talk 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's complaining about a concerted effort to expunge the descriptor "Turk", "Turkish" from articles by a group of anti-turk POV editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Exxolon is correct. I would point the OP in the direction of Misplaced Pages's reminder to assume good faith about other editors. If you have concerns, let's discuss them calmly and rationally. Maybe there is something we can do to help. TN‑X-Man 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wall. Of. Text. Was gonna TL:DR this, but I read it. I wish I'd TL:DR'ed this. Paranoia strikes deep, I guess. nothing to see here, but I know where the first block should go when it's time to hand them out. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Polysynaptic's conduct

He is a highly problematic user and unfortunately removes sources from the top universities in the world, sources that meet WP:RS, replacing them many times with non-English nationalist fringe sources that do not meet WP:RS. He has also been blocked once for nationalistic attacks for one week , and he continues to make personal attacks with racist overtones:

Note the comment came after I challenged his source: . His response to a source from Cambridge University which challegned his fringe source was: "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap."!!

He was blocked once for these type of edits for one week:. Basically the user summarized it well, he thinks Cambridge University and Columbia University are bought out by “Iranian nationalists” and are "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap"(quoting his own word)! and that he can use non-English and homegrown fringe sources(that do not meet WP:RS ) to replace them. This is not a dispute of the article, but one can not even have a conductive atmosphere with such a conduct. And if other users use sources published by Cambridge University and Columbia University from the top experts in the world, then they should be deleted and stopped. Although he himself summarizes it well: You can find millions of references to these sources. (mentioning cambridge and columbia universities), not understanding that the reference to such sources rather than nationalist rants as above are due to their credibility. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Blocked for 3 weeks. The "mentally damaged Persians" comment was particularly nasty. Moreschi (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Q: What is one clue that an editor is a kook?

A: Claiming that publication by Columbia University Press & Cambridge University Press makes a book unreliable. (Not that they haven't published unreliable books, but unless otherwise shown it's a safe bet that a book they publish is a reliable source.) Other publishers this applies to include Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, University of Chicago Press -- practically any university or college with a national or international reputation for excellence. YMMV. -- llywrch (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, all around! ... well, not him, but yeah, the reast of everyone. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why we need this guy back when he makes edits like this ? He doesn't even understand the scholarly term "Turkic". Plus he changed the common English spelling of Samarkand to "Semerkand" . If he behaves like this on his return he should be given a permanent holiday from Misplaced Pages.en. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No arguments with that last sentence. He'll go if he fools around any more. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

same vandalism from different accounts

These users have done the same vandalism to chess articles:

• 64.24.45.59 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 64.24.45.165 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Tutuman (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

I have warned all of them. Tutuman has just done the same vandalism to Threefold repetition for the second time. These are all probably the same person. Is there a way to stop it? Bubba73 (talk), 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tutuman also vandalized White and Black in chess four times. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would continue to monitor their contributions and warn them as necessary. If they persist with the vandalism, you can report them to AIV. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I watch articles, not editors. The editor is vandalizing several pages, some of which are not on my watch list. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:64.24.45.59 and User:64.24.45.165 are from the same ISP, so it is possible that they are indeed both Tutuman.

It looks like ZimZalaBim has initiated a conversation with the user on his talk page. The user appears to be inserting references to a chess player (who does not have a corresponding article). Hopefully he'll respond to ZimZalaBim's note. TN‑X-Man 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he inserting a sentence about a redlink, he is inserting it in inappropriate places, in places that have nothing to do with the player. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there is Tutuman2 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) (note the "2") doing the same vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And another IP address: 64.24.41.70 Bubba73 (talk), 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tutuman2 blocked indef as a sock, Tutuman blocked for a week and pointed to WP:N. I'll look at the IPs now. --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Range for the IPs is a /21, 2048 users, but will see if it stops. Please notify me if it doesn't. I predict little collateral damage would be caused for a shortish block if it needs to come to one. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given this response which, to be honest, ain't gonna get him unblocked, I've now indeffed the main account Tutuman. I think we can live without him from now on. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant it with affection. Baseball Bugs 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet KosovoLegacy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He made a change to one article today. Is it a bogus change? Baseball Bugs 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is basically the same change that Tutuman, Tutuman2, and the three IP users above made to about six chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was going to revert his edits, but you beat me to it. :) Baseball Bugs 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm being open-minded about the latest, but neither do I rule out WP:MEAT. --Rodhullandemu 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the contributions by

• 64.24.41.50 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and
• Bootsatbush (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

to Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history. Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you want any help reverting stuff. I'm in a reverting kind of mood tonight. Baseball Bugs 02:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bootsatbush indef and the range /512, so not too large, for a month. This is clearly some concerted campaign. It stops. --Rodhullandemu 02:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Baseball Bugs, but I'd rather get it stopped at the source. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• 64.24.57.103 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) seems to be another one of them in the same range of IP addresses, diff. Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Largegs (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is another suspected sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Largegsss (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), another one. Bubba73 (talk), 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • All now blocked. --Rodhullandemu 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mdandrea

Hello everyone,

The Arbitration Committee received a block appeal from User:Mdandrea. Rlevse investigated the sockpuppetry accusation using the checkuser tool and has confirmed that the users are not sockpuppets and has decided that the two users are indeed unique users. However, I noted that there were still considerable disruption of the article in question, and that the users were slightly deceptive by initially totally denying any sockpuppetry accusation.

It was decided that Arbitration Committee invervention was not necessary (see this comment by Newyorkbrad that eloquently describes when we feel it is appropriate to intervene). Given there is new evidence that the community is unaware of, we are passing this information onto you all so you can review the original block. It is the recommendation of Rlevse that the block duration be reduced to two weeks, as this was not a serious case of sockpuppetry as was originally suspected.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this is excellent ArbCom communication! // roux   21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you can expect further notifications like this from me in future. Seems we're coordinating well right now. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No comments on this yet? If there are none soon I'll go ahead and reduce his block per Rlevse's suggestion. --Deskana (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse reducing the block, also, what Roux said. Good job guys. — neuro 11:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Unblocking is easy - once the autoblock expires, anyway - and blocking again is even easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Anhydrobiosis

• Anhydrobiosis (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Nominations of articles such as S (AfD discussion) for deletion always raises flags. I've spent a while reviewing this person's contributions history, and there are a lot of questionable ones, too many I think to ascribe to a new user who immediately leaps in to the use of Misplaced Pages:Twinkle without knowing how to drive it. Some examples:

• — reverting User:NawlinWiki for "vandalism"
• — Erasing sourced content from Global financial crisis of 2008 and then warning the editor who actually added that section for removing content.
• — section blanking and source removal
• — reverting edits that actually corrected grammar and fixed a problem with an unclosed <ref> element
• — reverting the removal of vandalism
• — reverting a good faith attempt to neutralize some clearly unbalanced content
• — reversion, with the edit summary "typo"
• — reverting the addition of an interwiki link to an article on the French Misplaced Pages
• — reverting the addition of another interwiki link
• — reverting article cleanup
• — reverting article expansion
• — reverting good faith attempts by editors to fill in sections that had been previously blanked by vandals
• — reverting a fact correction
• — reverting a fact correction

Add to this this content addition, the nomination of insult for speedy deletion (which xe then self-reverted), these two false corrections of "hanged" to "hung", and I think that attention is required here. And by nominating S for deletion, this person has gained it.

Incidentally, these edits are a good reminder to the "I've never seen a good edit by an IP!" crowd. Most of the good faith edits involved here — the article expansions, the spelling corrections, the fact corrections, and the vandalism reversions — were by editors without accounts. 24.82.231.23 was indeed correcting Misplaced Pages. (Lipatti recorded the Waltzes in 1950, not 1948. I've checked against a source, which I'll put into the article next.) 67.173.89.212 was also correcting Misplaced Pages. (Our article is based upon a source that was written in 1968. But more recent sources confirm that the winter of 1978–1979 did smash the 1951–1952 record.) 72.133.197.212 was removing vandalism. 74.65.225.204 was correcting grammar and bad markup.

In comparison, Anhydrobiosis is an editor with an account, note. At the very best, xe shares the "All edits by people without accounts are vandalism!" philosophy espoused by some. Don't adhere to that belief, because this is where it leads to. ☺

But to return to the main issue: Even assuming that this isn't bad faith, and vandalism under the guise of countering vandalism (which vandals have done before), should this person be driving Twinkle or MWT? Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I spot checked five of this user's edits, and the only edit I could find that one can regard as good was the insertion of a comma before an "and" in an enumeration - a matter of taste. Clearly, this user has been creating far more drama than good. I feel it would be for the best of Misplaced Pages to block this user right away. But I will assume good faith and give them one last chance to improve, so I only posted a last warning on the user talk page. — Sebastian 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Is a legal threat? Exxolon (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK, merely saying that something is against the law isn't a legal threat unless you actually threaten legal action. This person is skating on thin ice though. I think a warning would be appropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thinly veiled, yes. His talk page is also of concern. He's currently blocked, however. It has the same effect of trying to bully contributors that a full-fledged legal threat would, Reyk, so it's just as bad as if he had outright said, "Change X or I contact my lawyers." -Jéské Couriano 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I see your point. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't the block be extended to indef pending a possible retraction of the threat? MuZemike (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Not for IPs. -Jéské Couriano 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually it should be extended until the legal threat is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Funny, I thought that Verizon IPs are dynamic and a lengthened block would catch collateral and be easily evaded... -Jéské Couriano 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's shameful that so many administrators, when faced with a complaint that a biography of a living person is inacurate, are concerned with blocking the person that makes the complaint, and that not a single one of them, apparently, goes to Kyle Eckel and checks to see whether there is any substance to the complaint. In fact, there is. Three sources are being synthesized to assert that someone was dishonourably discharged when none of the sources contains any statement to that effect, and one of the sources indeed reports that it was unable to find out from any reliable official source why this person parted company with the Navy. Shame on all of you! Especial shame that this is how you react to an issue of biographical concern actually raised at the biographies of living persons noticeboard itself. Uncle G (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama and User:Die4Dixie

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

The Barack Obama article is supposed to be on probation. There is this one editor, Die4Dixie who is trying to push his personal interpretation on what constitutes membership in a denomination. He has an agenda to try to demonstrate that Obama is not actually a Christian. He also presumes to know how often Obama goes to church. As a result, he is fomenting an edit war on the Obama page over whether Obama is still a member of the UCC denomination. Forgetting the content dispute and POV-pushing, he's in violation of the 1RR probation rule on that page, and obviously is accelerating disruption. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation#Notifications, he hasn't been given notification of such probation, so I will now do that. Any further edit warring by D4D will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As this user already knows,(as I even pointed it out on his talk page) the "they" for the last edit was not the Obama's, but rather the other editors. I clarified that here ], here ], and on the talk page there] so he knows what he has written here is is false. He has continually iserted unsourced material ,which I have removed. I have no agenda about trying to disprove he is a christian, as I have been happy to let that stay in the box. Attribution of an agenda is bizarre. I asked an academic question without the slightest attempt to make an edit related to the question. The continous insertion of unsourced material is the problem her, and this users inability to assume good faith and attribution of motives. Prior to this ani , I edited the page ( self reverted) and added formerly, which I felt to be a good compromise.Will provide diff in aminute.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The continued isertion of unsourced material , which I have removed twice. Please refer her to the article probation status about unsourced materialDie4Dixie (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You continue to put your personal spin on what constitutes membership in a denomination. That's original research on your part, and is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The article is under editing restrictions, which forbids disruptive edits, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And he was notified of probation, here: He chose to ignore it. Baseball Bugs 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That certainly dcoesn't say what probation means. Please use the correct channels for notification.. Not even a link to it. Now I understand.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the oine wanting to put unsourced material in . the onus is on you to provide your source for what constitutes mabership and affilitation.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His last known denomination was UCC. Unless you can provide proof that he left the denomination, NOT your personal spin on it, then he remains in the UCC. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So says your original reseach . Provide a reliable third party souce that substantiates your claim. Die4Dixie (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary for the above says "nice try, girlfriend." Perhaps you'd care to enlighten the audience as to just what that was supposed to mean. And do your best to imitate a Christian while explaining it. Baseball Bugs 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reliable third party source that substantiates that he is no longer in the UCC denomination. Baseball Bugs 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need one, I'm not trying to inserted unsourced material.The burden is on you to supply the source to add the unsourced material.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama's religion is sourced under Barrack Obama#Family and personal life. Citations are not typically entered in an infobox, as they are typically found in the body of the article. seicer | talk | contribs 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And there is nothing in the citations that says he left the denomination. Baseball Bugs 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, your tendentious editing and commentary is growing old. Especially in light of your continued ignorance of what has been penned in sections below the infobox. Note the word, "is."

"Obama is a Protestant Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life."

These are well sourced passages, as noted on the article page. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)- :

please try to track. The source says "was". The issue is not if he is christian , but if he is in the UCC fold after having repudiated and renouncing his membership at TUCC. If you like, since you are bandying about tendentious, then I can send you an attached Venn Diagram to help you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d, provided that you email me first Die4Dixie (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie is a good faith if opinionated editor. He's been reminded of article probation, so I think we can count on all parties concerned to hash it out on the article talk page with reference to consensus, sourcing, and policies, while staying civil and avoiding edit wars. I don't see that any further administrative attention is needed as long as everyone keeps it in that spirit. Right? Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4 has yet to provide any hint that he understands that he's to stop edit warring. Also, I took this to ANI after Die4 threatened another user that he was going to do so: Baseball Bugs 00:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The other user would be me. I have a pretty deep reservoir of good faith, especially around Christmas, but D4D has sucked it dry. PhGustaf (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Between him sucking something dry, and referring to me as a "girlfriend", we now know way too much about that guy's orientation. Baseball Bugs 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. I assumed you were a female. My mistake.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption as to my chromosome arrangement was also a personal attack. So we'll call it square. Baseball Bugs 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please try to focus on the issue at hand, not antagonizing each other, both of you. Hermione1980 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My tit of good faith has all but been sucked dry. It's practically powder now :O) seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That was an udderly bad joke. I wish'd I'd a-thought of it. :) Baseball Bugs 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Pehaps you soud really actually retire. You have misrepresented my argument her. I am not trying to say he is not a christian , but rather he is not in the UCC fold. I'm not certain that you are not being WP:DENSE or purposely mendacious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Retire? You wish. And you have yet to demonstrate that Obama has left the UCC fold. Baseball Bugs 01:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

i think that Dixie fellows been blocked. i guess this issue is temporarily resovled until hi s reapparation. Smith Jones (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think you meant "reapparition" - like something come back to haunt. Baseball Bugs 01:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ah my apologies I meant 'reapparance', after he had been unblocked. Smith Jones (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks By user Baseball bugs

] and ]. Is this acceptable?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Questioning your orientation is probably over the line. Asking you to act like a Christian while explaining something, I have a hard time seeing as a personal attack, especially since it was in response to you calling him "girlfriend" (term should probably be avoided even if you know you're dealing with a girl). Can we all play nicely now? Hermione1980 01:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

this shoudl really be in the thread where it take splace, since it took place on this very page Smith Jones (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And blocked for three hours for tendentious editing and commentary. When you return, please seek dispute resolution for the content edits or accept that Barrack Obama is under editing restrictions, which you have now been informed of. Note that this is not a block regarding the article itself. seicer | talk | contribs 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This block was unwarranted. Another admin to correct the grievous error.--Gen. Bedford 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He can use those 3 hours to find evidence that Obama is no longer in the UCC. Baseball Bugs 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, your conflict of interest in this is almost amusing. Furthermore, the block was not in regards to the article itself, as indicated here, but for tendentious editing and commentary. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some cranking-down on the bitterness handle would be welcome, as it might seem to an outside observer to be not that far from thinly-disguised bleating about some perceived injustice. Others may differ in that opinion, but I can't speak for them. --Rodhullandemu 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no "tendentious editing and commentary". As for the first statement, NDWR. He should be unblocked pronto. If anyone should be blocked, it's Bugs.--Gen. Bedford 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(About 17 edit conflicts later) I took "nice try, girlfriend" as a personal attack, and instead of going apoplectic, I made a joke out of it. Or two. Which he then took seriously. Baseball Bugs 01:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people just don't get humor... Hermione1980 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he can use those 3 hours to study the collected works of Henny Youngman. Baseball Bugs 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on User talk:203.87.202.142

I'm not sure how to proceed regarding the conversation on User talk:203.87.202.142#Who is amatulic?

At first I considered the anon's request for personal information about me to be a personal attack. What instigated this, I'm not certain, but it appears to have something to do with my reversion of talk-page soapboxing and subsequent warning not to use talk pages as a forum, which resulted in a long complaint on the anon's talk page about many things unrelated to this incident.

The anon seems to think that I'm engaging in harrassment due to Misplaced Pages's mechanism of continually notifying anonymous users of messages on the user talk page. My explanation, which I felt was civil enough, only seems to inflame this editor even more, to the point of abusive language.

All I have done was (a) revert the anon's talk page edit, (b) explain why on the anon's talk page, (c) respond to the anon's reply. After the anon created a special section on the talk page just for me, my attempts to communicate have apparently had no constructive effect.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed, or any intervention deemed necessary, but for now I've said all I need to say and will probably leave the editor alone unless some other disparagement about me is posted. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What is an audit? Is it some sort of legal threat? WP:NLT aside, would a short block be appropriate here? VX! 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You should never respond to such a request. Just blank it and then warn about trying to out an editor. It is against policy to out an editor. I am going to be bold and do that right now. Rgoodermote  01:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also requesting a block. Rgoodermote  01:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested. Happy Holidays everyone! Rgoodermote  01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, although I'm not sure what a block will accomplish. It doesn't prevent the anon editor from making more disparaging comments on his or her talk page. Anyway, I've left as much of an "apology" as I can muster in light of the recent abuse from this anon. I can say no more, and will leave it. Happy holidays, all! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You never had anything to apologize for. You were in the right. The editor is a troll. Just wants to piss you off or scare you away. Just ignore him and not respond to him if he starts again. Just file for his talk page to be protected and maybe an extension to his block (only if there are like 10 hours left on the one he already has) and if he is already unblocked request a new one. Happy Holidays! Rgoodermote  01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unusual contribution history

Is there any cause for concern regarding this edit history? In addition to a lot of dubious AfD noms (Harvard Graduate School of Design?) there also seem to be a lot of edits marked as minor that removed significant content or links. Thanks for any informed consideration and opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

i personally aisagree with a few of his noms but i dont think that any of them are acutally criminal. you should go on his talk page and open a dialogue re: the minor and major tags. one thing that i have noticed is that ofr some suers its set as default to mark all edits as minor unless its deslected on the edit summary page. i am sure that if you worked with this editor swon this talkpage he might be more responsivable to your statementations. Smith Jones (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good explanation and suggestion. Thanks. Although I do think that an editor who seems so focused on deletions is a bit concerning as far as building an encyclopedia goes. But I suppose it takes all types. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer you original question is NO this is no concern here. Yes, I am a new editor and I take it people don't like my AfDs. I listed academic colleges within larger universities that per Misplaced Pages:UNIGUIDE#Sub-articles and WP:N are not outright notable like the university itself. Maybe I should have explained that better in the AfD or maybe WP / WP:UNI needs to change what is notable. Some of the reasons to keep Harvard Graduate School of Design is because it is "Harvard"... which is wrong.

Minor edits. Going back and looking at my minor edits I agree some of them are mislabeled, made a mistake. However, others were done under the idea of 'Obvious factual errors' or 'Removing vandalism and graffiti' from Help:Minor edit. But I will keep my use of M under control in the future.

When I got down to your complaint about it "takes all types" I guess it does. I kept noticing so many "ads" or spam within[REDACTED] as just a casual edit / user to WP. I could not stand the bias or lack of quality control on some articles and figured I would remove the WP:CRUFT (see my AfDs above) before doing research to "build and encyclopedia". 16x9 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If something isn't independently notable a merge might be more appropriate than deletion. I would think Harvard Graduate School of Design, for example, should be included in some form even if not as a stand-alone article. That being said, I appreciate your explanation and your good faith. It's not for me to tell you how or what to put up for AfD. I'm just sharing my opinion, and if you'll ease up on the minor edit button, I'll do a better job of communicating with you first if I have a question.  :) Sorry about that. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey ChildofMidnight, maybe that was a good-faith nomination, but the user also left me a not-so-nice message on my talk page--in the AfD discussion I asked, rhetorically, what the nominator was thinking, nominating the Harvard Grad School of Design, and the user responded not so rhetorically. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. You're both on the naughty list. "What was the nom thinking" is probably not the best way to phrase your keep argument.  :) And his *cough* comment wasn't helpful either. I suggest we let it all go and celebrate the holidays with a loving spirit of peace and collaboration. The new year is right around the corner, and I'm optimistic with confidence that 2009 will be wholly conflict free and full of civility for all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

75.2.143.40

75.2.143.40 (talk) - reverting my edits to various articles, previously warned for PAs aginst me; also removing warnings and {{ISP}} template from talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because this goes beyond simple vandalism. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If he's been warned before, and he's doing it again, it would at least be worth a try. The worst they could do is not take the case. Baseball Bugs 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that's just what I thought about ANI. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you try, they might do nothing. If you don't try, they will definitely do nothing. Baseball Bugs 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI is for slightly more serious infractions of policy than these, I doubt anyone is going to mind you taking it to WP:AIV. :) — neuro 11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV is explicitly for "for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only" (direct quote, my emphasis). Wiki-stalking and harassment goes beyond that, even if it's no longer serious enough for ANI. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One key issue there, where IP's are concerned, is whether it's happening right now, and if they've ignored warnings. Why everyone who can do something about it here is ignoring it, I couldn't say. But I don't see why you don't post it on AIV. It's not like there's a penalty for posting it and they decide not to do anything. The main thing is it has to be happening right now. If it's not, they won't block an IP. Baseball Bugs 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mabbett

I don't understand why Mabbett has a problem; when he's been to arbitration many times, previously been banned in the past from Wkipedia for harrassment and reverts whilest causing other good editors to leave. He makes himself look like a goody goody two shoes and does sneak. If it's not his way, he gets very upset. Text changes are constantly here. I'm only 15 years old and still learning. 75.2.143.40 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:GDETY

This individual is insisting on continuing his disruption via the talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. He's been clobbered. Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

bias

I consider the biography of Andrew Vachss, a living person, to be biased. Vachss is a controversial figure. I have attempted to insert a neutral description of the views of his critics. These have been repeatedly deleted. I am, by the way, a former journalist and am quite certain that the material I have included, although critical of Vachss, is neither libelous nor irrelevant. I would lie the situation reviewed. At the very least, if my actions are truly out of line then I need a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(added section header) He's referring to Andrew Vachss. 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227, I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.

Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.

1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:

a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, "I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change."

Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Misplaced Pages article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.

b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP: The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible.

The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV.

2) Deletion of link to personal website:

Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page.

3) Deletion of material on Talk page:

Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Misplaced Pages to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg, satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.

Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page. I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.

For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not at the moment have as much time as I would like, but appreciate the chance to air my views and sort this matter out.

Starting with:

" Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro(talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

No, that is not me. I have made several informal edits to Misplaced Pages in the past. As this is the first time there has been a controversy surrounding my edits, this is the first time I have felt the need to formally sign up as a Misplaced Pages editor. I am, however, a former journalist with some experience with libel laws and deny that my edits were libelous, particularly since Vachss is not only a public figure, being both a well-known author and an outspoken advocate of his views, views that are often controversial.

If you are not 65.110.137.227, then why did you claim to be her on Talk:Andrew Vachss? Golemarch (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If the edits did not conform to Misplaced Pages policy then I am quite willing to work with Misplaced Pages to improve them, just as soon as I have some guarantee that they will not be deleted out of hand by persons who wish to deny that Vachss holds views that are both controversial and disputed by others.

"I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227, I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.

Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.

1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:

a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, "I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change."

This not correct. Although the addition was done quickly, the sentences do not violate copyright law. They were each rewritten before being inserted. A comparison of the original source and the inserted materials will show that although they are quite similar they are not the same.

Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Misplaced Pages article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.

If this is the case, then I am perfectly willing to seek a better source. As stated, I am new to Misplaced Pages.

" b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP: The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible."

I am perfectly willing to cite sources for the above. Please note that although the first part of the statement, that some criticize Vachss is unsourced, I am amazed that anyone considers he second part, that Vachss includes these things in his novels, to be the least part controversial. The third part of the statement, that these things are controversial was cited with links to other[REDACTED] pages where a balanced view of the claims is included.

"The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV."

These statements are simply not correct.

1) In the novel, "Sacrifice," the author presents Satanic Ritual Abuse, a controversial subject questioned by the FBI, as fact but then quibbles over the motivations of those who allegedly performs it.

2) Many people feel that "False Allegations" does not cover these claims in a fair and balanced manner. Many argue it's just another tool that Vachss uses to slam people who disagree with him.

3) Although the DSM-IV does include this disorder, it is still a highly controversial disorder. At best it has been overdiagnosed, at worst it is non-existent.

As this paragraph shows, rather than present the controversies surrounding Vachss and his work in a balanced manner, this page has been edited by persons who wish to deny these controversies exist. Rightly or wrongly, controversies surrounding Vachss do exist. The man is, rightly or wrongly, a celebrity who has appeared on Oprah and in many other prominent forums. Therefore to present a biography of him without even acknowledging these controversies is not a public service.

"2) Deletion of link to personal website:

Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page."

Again, I am new to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this was not the best source, but I think a look at the source will prove that Vachss is controversial and does have critics. I felt the linked piece had some fair and even-handed criticisms of Vachss' views.

"3) Deletion of material on Talk page:

Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Misplaced Pages to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.

Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page. I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.

For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

I consider this last portion, quite frankly, to be nonsense. This person, in my opinion, is trying to stifle debate and hide criticism of not just an out-spoken celebrity and well-known novelist who holds controversial views, but also those views themselves.

I would like to see a more fair and balanced Misplaced Pages page that acknowledges the controversies surrounding this well-known public figure and his often extreme and controversial views.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

While I hate to create controversy, there is a user who is edit warring to make this page a redirect. There is a bit of a history here, so I request you read the history, as I will outline below:

• The user has edit warred with a large number of other editors in the past. He has reverted the page exactly 13 times, against, by my count, at least 8 users.
• The user has consistently claimed consensus was on the side of redirecting the article, when by my count, there were 8 people for a separate article on the singer, and only 2 for a redirect.
• I recently brought this issue to Deletion review (see the log, linked from the talk page). The consensus was an overwhelming restore, with about half being "speedy restores", as the person passed WP:BIO quite easily. The user is claiming this DRV is irrelevant.

To be honest, I don't feel like edit warring, but it seems silly that a user can edit war against over half a dozen people, and against a DRV, and this be considered appropriate. I request an administrator address this situation.

Also, I've had nonadministrators in the past shut down my threads as "no admin action required." Please don't shut down my thread if you aren't an administrator, and, for that matter, if you are an administrator, please give the thread a chance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only admin action I'm seeing that would be needed at this point is blocks for both of you for editwarring, and/or protection of the article. // roux   06:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to block them, so I protected the article for a few days. This isn't an endorsement of the current revision. I'm going to look into the history of this a little further. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15, which is relevant. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this is my pet peeve: if you are basically going to bring the conduct of a user here for review, just name the user. It doesn't help to point to the article and say "a user", we are going to look and see it was User:Neon white soon enough. I know this wasn't an attempt to be cute (unlike some other editors who shall remain nameless), just an unwillingness to name names on this noticeboard. For future reference, so long as you are posting a (relatively) unbiased request here and aren't dragging someone through the mud, it is productive to list names and it is always productive to include diffs (even though you gave a precise description). Protonk (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not have the diffs; the page history tool gave them to me. I will provide in the future. And yes, I did not name this user as I have no desire to go dragging someone through the mud. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You can pull the direct link to the diff from the page history. See Help:Diff for some more info. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Someone needs to connect w/ Neon and let him know he should disengage from the article (as he seems to be editing against consensus and I have no idea why). Other than that I don't think anyone needs to be blocked (the edit warring today was relatively minor w/ attempts at communication and no one breaking 3RR), but the page protection can stand for a while. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is a clear consensus on the talk page to merge the article. --neon white talk 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to have that big ugly lock template at the top? I'm sure the people who are arguing over it knows it's protected and I doubt any outsider who is looking for information on her would care if it is protected. That just looks ugly to me. Will someone put one of those little bitty lock icons on it instead of that huge template? Tex (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

askmen.com as a source

• I notice that this article has a source, askmen.com. I looked at that source and would be astounded if it meets our reliable sources guideline, especially for WP:BLP articles. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 11:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, it fails WP:RS. — neuro 11:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My statement

I consider this report utterly unecessary. This article in question was discussed at length and a clear consensus to merge (the reasons are clear on the talk page, primarily because the article is 95% copy and pasted info directly from the parent article falsly attributed to the subject) was agreed and performed. Since then the article has been continually discussed on the talk page but no consensus to 'spin out' the article has ever been agreed. User:Magog the Ogre has never attempted to take part in these discussions but has ignored them completely and attempted to seek a seperate consensus by opening a deletion review on a 2 and a half year old afd on a previous obselete version of the article that ignored the consensus already established, the valid points made and the clear guidelines established at WP:MUSIC. None of the editors involved in either article or the discussions were informed of this. That, together with this report is bordering on forum shopping in my opinion. User:Magog the Ogre is welcome to join the discussions on the talk page and present any new sources or evidence of notability to the discussion and discuss the spin out of the article but continually talking this to different boards is not an appropriate way to discuss the issue. As far as i am concerned the consensus on the talk page still stands and therefore reverting the page to a previous version that was changed with good reason is disruptive and unecessary. --neon white talk 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like there is actually no consensus. If anything, many more editors over the past year have been on the side of creating a separate article. // roux   17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isnt a democracy and consenus isnt a vote, no editor has made a valid case for a seperate article. All we have is 'there should be a page cause i think so' and 'i like her so she should have a page'. Remember that not every subject needs a seperate article and notability guidelines on music artists dictate that info on band members who's notability is 100% inherited from a notable group, as is the case here, should be contained on the parent page not on seperate articles unless there is enough to spin out, (there are numerous reasons for this that i wont go into here) but that is the community consensus. Currently this article minus the copied and pasted info, the unsourced fancruft, weasel words and incorrectly attributed info is one single line that is currently quite happily and sensibly contained in the parent article. Also remember that we should edit to improve the encyclopedia not to create article on our favourite celebrities. It's sensible and neater to do it this way. As i said earlier, i fail to see why User:Magog the Ogre is not able to use the talk page to discuss this as is customary and what myself and other editors have done. Admin, User:Either way also voiced similar concerns in the drv about the dubious methods being used here. I like the assume good faith but i'm puzzled as to why User:Magog the Ogre, who has never once edited the articles or been involved with the discussions chose this course of action. --neon white talk 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It doesn't really matter if 8 people think she is notable. It's the actual proof of notability outside Paramore (which there is none) that counts. about 7million people think George bush is an idiot, we dont have that on his article. PXK /_C 17:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There may be some in the future but currently none has been provided to the discussion that i know of. Obviously this person is still active so the discussions are ongoing and the potential to spin out a seperate article is always there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the relevant section on the parent article should be expanded first to the point where we have enough encyclopedic info that a seperate article becomes necessary. The subject still exists on wikipedia, just in a different place, within a subject that is not only very relevant but which the subject's notability is wholely dependent on. We need to remember that we shouldn't create articles simply to pay reverence to a person, this is about how the info is best presented. --neon white talk 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor blanking own SSP

If I understand Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking correctly, only the community can decide to blank a page out of courtesy to an editor, and it should do so only after due consideration. Mister Alcohol (talk · contribs) has just blanked his own SSP with the edit summary "to clear my name". Is this okay or not? Aecis·(away) 11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's all there is to say. — neuro 13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And reverted, anyone wants to revert me, go ahead - no need to contact me. — neuro 13:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Don't mess with Mr. Booze..." Baseball Bugs 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

He's been blocked 6 times in 6 months. He's nothing if not consistent. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Two people sharing one account?

• Benfo-Dutch (talk · contribs)
• From userpage User:Benfo-Dutch: Benfo-Dutch is a co-operation between the two Dutch contemporary painters Ben Vollers and Fons Heijnsbroek: Benfo.
• See also en.wikiquote user page, wikiquote:User:Benfo-Dutch, stated on their userpage: Benfo-Dutch, we are two contemporary Dutch artists ... We started working on Wikiquote-English in november 2008.

I do not think it is allowed to have more than one person on one account. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The applicable policy is laid out, at WP:NOSHARE. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, but it appears the account was only used for a few days in November. I don't think any action needs to be taken as long as the account remains inactive.--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because an account may be promoting something (which, I might add, is a violation of username policy) that happens to have multiple parties in it, it doesn't mean that the account itself was operated by multiple parties. The case is stale anyway, unless it begins to edit again. Anyone want to slap a {{resolved}} on this? I would do it, but I just want to check people don't think differently. — neuro 11:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, initial edits seem to be in good faith. — neuro 11:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a query about it on the account's talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

IP talk page rant

Someone might want to have a look at the rant against the majority of Wikipedians, including a few lucky individuals singled out for personal attacks, on User talk:76.166.221.159. I was about to be WP:BOLD and remove this material myself, but then again I don't want to be an amoral "vandal of the soul." Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

From their contributions, it looks like they made a good faith edit which was reverted as vandalism, they then removed the same material from the talk page and got reverted, and they're now going around posting rants everywhere trying to complain. Hut 8.5 13:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

They claim to be visually impaired, so in the spirit of Christmas I think we should also act as if visually impaired and ignore it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just returned from the midnight christmas Eucharist. Anyway, I would love to give a short statement regarding the matter. I guess he got angry that we reverted his removal of blog references in the articles he edited. This reverted edit of his seems to be his final straw. Then, the ranting started. I'm also giving my statement particularly because of the remaining statement of his on the user's talk page, he targeted me (for having a name that suggests that I'm trying to 'take over his page' and so on (dont read the diffs; read the revised article as of that edit to see the content). Well, to clear up the air (although he removed it. I guess he learnt WP:CIVIL a bit?) it is the name of a song by a Korean-pop group H.O.T, Operation Takeover. Anyway, now that this matter has met closure, I guess what I say won't matter much now, right? Optakeover 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What you say does matter, but if the incident has calmed and there is hopefully a future that contains good contributions from all parties then - in the spirit of the season - let us give it a chance. If things don't work out... well, this can be revisited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Roses images being removed

Almost every article on[REDACTED] on video games such as GTA 3 and all have character pages with images of the main characters. However, userUser:J_Milburn seems adamant about removing the images. If GTA and other games(which are incredibly popular and obviously had admin approval for doing so), why not the same apply to Rumble_Roses#Characters ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered polite to notify users when commenting on them on the noticeboards, and it's also generally useful to actually discuss the matter with the users first, not just come running to a noticeboard when someone cites policy at you. I have already pointed you towards this useful essay, the non-free content guidelines and the non-free content criteria, and explained that removing character portraits from lists that discuss the characters briefly, without discussing theur physical appearance, is standard practice. I have also explained to you that pointing to other, extremely low quality articles as evidence that something is acceptable holds no water. The images on the GTA list appear to have been left over from merges from articles on the individual characters, and have now been removed anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When I posted this in the noticeboard, my intention was to get the attention of other admins, as I feel a third party might be able to judge better, than the same user. As you can see List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV Milburn's wonderful edits have been reverted by an another user has reverted hisedit and it appears there was a consensus that determined insering images of the major characters of a game are OK.

So in a nutshell : Other admins please help ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what you're basically saying is that you disagree with me, but rather than discuss it, you want to get others involved to judge the situation. It's not like I have a history with either you or this article, there's no reason to be posting here. If you really wanted a third opinion, and not just to stir up some excitement, a better place to post would have been the non-free content talk page. However, I will say it again, the standard practice is to actually discuss it yourself before requesting a third opinion. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm another admin, how would it be if I were to block you for trolling, disruption and abuse of non-free content? Or was that not the sort of other admin you were looking for? Dispute resolution is second on the left down the hall, all you will do by posting here is make yourself look bad and attract possibly unwelcome attention. These are not the admins you're looking for, be on your way. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like I got a full house against me... Either way, the milburn guy seems to be putting it across as if I've just blindly come here : WHICH IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. I don't about mil and frankly I don't care, but if my messages are still there on his talk page,you'll know we were not able to reach an agreement. And that's the reason I came here.

And jguy ,your message was not one I'd expect from a professional admin, not that I thought you were one anyway. You see to be have blind faith that admins are always correct,even though I had given ample proof as of here where mil seems to have gone against the consensus reached after a lengthy discussuin (search the talkpage and you'll know what I'm talking about). And as for your dissing me as a troll and other comments, I pity you. --Roaring Siren (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

JzG is right. This is not the correct locale for this. ANI is to report serious incidents that require more or less immediate admin action and not for petty disputes over whether or not images should be allowed. Dispute resolution is the correct way to handle this situation. Remember, adminship does not necessarily equate to moderatorship and vice-versa. MuZemike (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A sub-page

Please delete User:Rogerchocodiles/FooledRUs? SANTA IS HERE 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon reverting my comments on talk pages

Hi, I need help for dealing with KoshVorlon. He insists on removing my comments from Dwight Lauderdale talk page , using abusive edit summaries. He also reverted me on the article with such as hostile edit summaries (and I'm avoiding joining this edit war) and had left an aggressive message on my talk page .

Even after I tried to communicate with him he posted on more aggressive message to my talk. --Damiens.rf 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have had a stern word with him on his talk page. If he does it again I suggest a block. Really, his conduct here was just ridiculous.--Patton123 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Bstone (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, your'e supposed to alert the other party if you post an incident... Regardless, Damiens.rf has repeatedly trolled the article. His first act was to stubby the article NPOV, V, Weasel Words, Reliable source when, in fact, reliable sources were in the article, ever claim was sourced to the article it came from by number, and each number when to a reference at the bottom of the article. I placed a note on his page asking to refrain from blanking the page as that's vandalism, instead I asked him to describe any problem he had with the article so that it could be directed, . He reponded with long list of problems and I answered point by point (again, nearly all complaints were baseless)

I then asked for editorial assistance recieved it from BradV he and a few others changed the article and made it more ship shape and in-line with wiki's guidelines. Everything was pretty smooth up untill I removed the tag on the article stating what problems existed a note that this could be reverted if it was disagreed with. Damiens came right back and inserted some of the same claims as before this as OR when it was already referenced and language directly from the article this time stating it was improper language.

Again, these items are all referenced. During the article re-build, spearheaded by BradV, Damiens did nothing. Bottom line, he's trolling the article, and yes, I got upset, and yes, I told him to stay off the page. Yes it was incivil, and yes I know my reputation is shit here right now (with reason) However, if you have a need to warm me, then you need to do the same for Damiens as well.

Thank you

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this an encyclopedic article. Much of the sources are unreliable and there's a whole section there that shouldn't appear in any article – "Things you may not know about Dwight Lauderdale". Daniel took out most of the bad content. After you reverted his removal of most of the articles content – though some of it was, admitedly, ok – he took it to the talk page. He provided a long list of things he thought were wrong with the article and wanted to fix them, but you labelled him a troll and ignored . After that you just reverted every attempt at communication he made. You eventually gave him a rather incivil warning on his own talk page. Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.--Patton123 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Patton, that's not accurate. He posted a list of things wrong with the article and I responded point by point . Both there and on his talk page. He did not respond further, the editorial assistance that I recieved addressed the real issues of the article (with no response either on my talk page or on the article's talk page from damien. That's why they were reverted the first time. Yes, I reverte him again because the article was cleaned up and the complaints were not valid.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Patton, NONE of the sources are un-reliable. Local newspapers,(Not tabloids) local news websites, even an interview with him on a website sponsored by a reputable newspaper association are reliable. There were no blogs, no youtube, no myspace junk. SO, kindly explain what you belive was un-reliable there ? Yes, the original article had a broken link (was active but no longer is, and that got fixed!) The "Things you might not know about Dwight" was per WP:IAR. It did get removed per consensus and it never got reverted. BTW - he made no attempt to communicate except to restore his original gripe list Please go back and look at the history on that page, his page and mine. You're pretty innacurate here

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses like "BULL #!@&!@%^#&!@^%&#^@!@&#%&!@%#&!@^%#&!@^% " and "READ THE DAMN REFERENCES" are hardly civil.--Patton123 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

.....You DID see that I went back and changed that to with an edit summary "Reverting my stupditiy" in like 10 seconds, right ? (Just so were totally clear, that edit DID happen, and NO it was not civil, that;s why I reverted it.) BTW - you never answered the question about what was un-reliable.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{resolved}}, seems a little premature. — neuro 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Waraji changing User templates

Seemingly inactive editor has now introduced two drastic changes and POV to two different userbox template pictures without obtaining consensus. Asked to explain change and discuss before editing by myself and warned by another. Contributions limited to only disruptive edits. How should I proceed? MrBell 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that this account was created as a sockpuppet for solely nefarious purposes. I have attempted to converse with Waraji without any response about his previous peremptory and malicious editing of user boxes. The initial vandalism occurred in the context of sometimes contentious edits both I (for example: ]) and MrBell (for example: ) made to the California Proposition 8 article. He or she has not responded except to repeatedly engage in the same disruptive behavior. I request that admins run a check on the IP address used for this account to attempt to identify another account which controls the sock puppet, and to discipline the individual accordingly. -- btphelps 19:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not incident

This page contains the issue of WP:CRYSTAL: Stronger (Amy Winehouse album). Please delete. ROGERCHOCODILES 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you're looking for WP:AFD. This is for discussion, not immediate deletion. — neuro 17:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

IP trolling on Mississippi articles

I came here to report something that was reported 2 days ago, but you ignored me. There's some user with tons of IP sock-puppets that all start with "91.0", that keeps removing gay sections from articles because he doesn't approve of gays and thinks his home country is better than the US (which is a racist remark). He/She has been edit warring for weeks, and i when tried to break up the fight, i became his/her's new target, he/she would seen serval harrasing messages to my and AllStarEcho's talk pages. Eventually the Mississippi article and my talk page was temporarily semi-protected, and the IP was blocked, thinking this would solve the problem...WRONG!!! The IP waited untill my talk page was un-protected to do the same thing again, and is now wiki-hounding me with several of his/her's sockpuppets. Now he/she's calling all american users idiots and "assholes" and is now vandalizing Equality Mississippi, another article about gay mississippians. There are so many of his/her sock-puppets that i can't count them all. But here's a list of the one's i've observed:

• 91.0.91.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.63.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.105.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.85.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.111.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.65.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.67.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.81.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.104.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.112.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.117.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.107.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.78.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.108.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.58.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.59.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.107.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.118.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could someone please block all these sock-puppets, someone who's not involved in any of this? And end this madness once and for all? Elbutler (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I might be able to do something fantastic for you. Give me 15 minutes or so to do some investigation. --Deskana (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, if you can link to block logs of accounts that prove that he is evading blocks, or prove that he has violated 3RR the IPs, then I can block the range he is on. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

* Added IP vandal templates for ease of reviewing and blocking.— Dædαlus 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His IPs broke the 3-revert numerous times on the Mississippi article (, , , ). Elbutler (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

East718 blocked the range before I could. I guess he saw this. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromised account, or troll that managed to fool an admin?

Per this edit, which blanks an entire page... well, just look at it, you'll see what I mean. Previously, this user was auto-blocked because the IP was trolling. And now this. Either the account has been compromised, or the IP and the user are one in the same.— Dædαlus 19:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume it's compromised. Possibly get a CU to check to see if the associated IP is in a different geographical area? Bstone (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Something is just....off.

For the past 3 days, there's been an IP user in the 98.28.xxx.xxx range, who's been futzing with the "Funding" sections on all the PBS Kids' articles. Aside from just horrifyingly weighting down my watchlist with his one-byte edits (to a section I would mercilessly purge with fire wherever it appears, had I my way), there was very little to judge as not-right...BUT. This user jumps IPs about five times a day. I finally had to block one of the IPs (98.28.204.87‎) for blanking content after a final warning, but I have no doubt he will be back with a new IP in minutes. My questions: Is there a "something-just-ain't-right" criteria for blocking? Is there anything against policy with his series of minuscule edits? ("Aggravating Gladys", alas, isn't a policy violation.) What about the IP-hopping? That, particularly, seems suspicious.

So basically, I'm acting on a series of suspicions, none of them blockable when taken individually--but taken as a group, there's something just WRONG. Any advice, other than "have an eggnog and forget it"? GJC 21:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It may simply be an dynamic dialup account which would account for the ip hopping. If so, there is not much that can reasonably be done. If more nefarious then a range block could be in order if small enough and serious enough. JodyB _talk 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but i'll through in my 2 cents anyway. Maybe it's just a combination of guilt and stress. I felt a mixture of feelings when Simulation12 was blocked, because i had this nagging feeling that she was just trying to help, but didn't know how to. I'm sure someone can come up with a better explanation. Elbutler (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP Gladys lists is allocated to Road Runner. It's also part of a huge range, 98.24.0.0/13. It is fairly easy to force your DHCP to allocate you a new/different IP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso canvassing

Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blatantly canvassing (as first noted by DoubleBlue) in WikiProjects against a draft proposal, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) that he does not like (and, from the discussion so far, appears to be opposing because it naturally agrees with WP:DAB and WT:NCP, which he would like to change).

Specific incidents so far:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Naming standards:
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball#Just a note which would have been okay by itself, but was modified by

I have addressed misrepresentations in these posts, here, and here.

The goofy thing about this is that it isn't even a proposal, just a draft, and won't be proceeding as a proposal without WP:RFCs, so this canvassing panic is rather "extra overboard". — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notified user on talk. — neuro 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals such as this but such requests should be in a neutral tone simply inviting participation not with such unfair and untrue characterisations of the motives of the proposal and editors involoved. I'm disappointed in Djsasso's approach here as I've long seen him as a positive contributor and hope that a single clear caution from here will remind him to keep his cool. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals, why didn't you notify the related projects? —Krm500 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The parent WikiProject Sports was notified as was WT:NCP. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems at Pedophilia article, perhaps

Well I'm about to log off and disappear to drink and eat. However, check out this edit by User:ForesticPig ]. He removed a "sexual violence" infobox with the following edit summary -- "act of pedophilia is definitionally not sexual abuse; don't add tag again." Any Moslems, Jews, atheists, or simply christmas haters out here, please keep an eye on this. Full disclosure -- I earlier today reverted an act of uncontroversial vandalism at this article (an insertion of a photo of santa with a little girl on his lap).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

!!!! Some people claim feelings of pedophilia are not abusive, but acts of pedophilia definitely are IMHO (though of course some WP:POV pushers on those articles have denied that too.) Sticky Parkin 23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A very repellent subject, and I had no idea there were so many articles about it here. ForesticPig seems to be on a crusade of some kind, and unfortunately he has no concept of what "violence" actually consists of. Baseball Bugs 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That ForesticPig is the sockpuppet of an administrative account is known, that ForesticPig is editing in a disruptive manner is known, the identity of the administrative account is not known, the checkusers have been advised of this situation for sometime as has arbcom, but nothing has been done, which I take to be tacit approval of the status quo and with which I strongly disagree. MBisanz 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chad Dukes (Radio Personality) -- unnecessary reverting and deletion of discussion page by editor with possible issues (trying to be nice)

This may not be the right place for this, but Misplaced Pages's strength is not end-user documentation, so I'm putting it here.

What's the dispute?

Editor named NeutralHomer reverts my comments and claims vandalism, which is not true.

Today (12/24/2008)I saw that at 5:30 am 12/22/2008 NeutralHomer removed the ENTIRE discussion from the Discussion page, including the following:

"Don't jump to delete. You waited, what, 30 seconds before tagging the stub for deletion? I was still working out the disambiguation during that half-minute. Allow me to continue with the article before considering for deletion. Thank you! --Tischlerpaul 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

which was posted by someone other than me. This NeutralHomer fellow is out of control. Please fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinityAsianCoed (talk • contribs)

Looks like he removed vandalism and non-constructive comments. No problem here. Grsz 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Those comments were removed becuase they were reinserted repeatedly by IP editor(s). They don't make any sense, as the article in question (Chad Dukes (radio personality) (talk) is not listed for deletion (but it has been discussed two times). Any comments not geared to improving the article can be removed. Reinserting those comments was not helpfull, therefor they were removed. — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the heads up on this Grsz11, I appreciate it. Secondly, like you said, I seen the whole thing by the anon user as vandalism and non-constructive and removed it. The anon user has a history of adding posts like those to Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman, along with claiming that "Grease" was dead loooong after he released an audio statement saying he wasn't. Another user, Loaves asked for my help in keeping the vandalism and non-constructive statements to a minimum. Loaves has also been reverting the anon's vandalism in the past as well.

Personally, I see this as a vandal just plain angry that his "statements" are being deleted and his "fun" being stopped. I am not sure if it is possible, but since User:151.200.31.230, User:151.200.32.170, and User:151.200.35.192 are the main anon vandals, probably a final warning should be issued by an uninvolved editor or admin and then a range block to stop the vandalism altogether. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:45

A new user, User:TrinityAsianCoed (who also started this thread), created a MedCab on me about this very article. Please see here> Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Chad Dukes (radio personality). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:47

User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behaviour by this admin at Sarah Palin talk.

At the Sarah Palin discussion page a new section for discussion gets created: Here it is for handy reference:

Start quote >

Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill

This essay presents a critical, but insightful and vigorous character sketch that I think should be incorporated into the article. A passage:

Having come to power saying that her agenda was to pare down Wasilla to ‘the basic necessities, the bare bones’, she surprised its citizens when she redecorated the mayor’s office at a reported cost of $50,000 salvaged from the highways budget; its new red flock wallpaper matched her bold, rouge-et-noir taste in personal outfits. Another $24,000 of city money went on a white Chevy Suburban, known around Wasilla, without affection, as the mayormobile. She hired a city administrator to deputise for her in the day-to-day running of Wasilla’s affairs and employed a lobbyist in DC to wheedle lawmakers into meeting the town’s ever-expanding list of claims for congressional ‘pork’ (so named from the antebellum custom of rewarding slaves with barrels of salt pork). That expenditure, at least, paid off: during Palin’s six-year tenure as mayor, the federal government doled out more than $1000 for every man, woman and child in Wasilla. Her pet project was a $14.7m ice rink and sports complex, which opened in 2004. It is said to be lightly used, it has left the city servicing a massive debt, and a Jarndyce and Jarndyce lawsuit continues over the bungled way in which Palin acquired the land on which it’s built.

Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill London Review of Books Vol. 30, No. 19, 9 October 2008, pages 7-10, Jonathan Raban --24.17.191.27 (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

< End quote

Anyone there? No! You're all drunk as skunks at Christmas parties! — Writegeist (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm rather hoping for responses from admins with normal reading skills and adult attention spans. But thank you for your helpful contribution. — Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, there have been roughly a gazillion opinion pieces written about Sarah Palin in the past few months. This is one more. My sense (from when I valued my sanity so lightly as to edit that article) is that opinion pieces in general, even those appearing in august publications, are generally denigrated as sources there. Posting snippets of opinion pieces with no suggestions about how or why they should be incorporated into the article verges on violating the talk page guidelines. Here's my suggestion: everyone chill out and drink some eggnog. If you reinsert the piece, don't excerpt it, but instead make a clear case for why this particular opinion piece belongs in the article, as opposed to any of the other gazillion pro/con opinion pieces published about Palin - preferably with some proposed text that you'd like to incorporate into the article. MastCell  00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards