Misplaced Pages

Admin abuse of tools

On February 9 I was blocked from the Masonic conspiracy theory talk page, based on invalid rationale. When I tried to argue my case using the unblock template I was subjected to verbal abuse, and then had my user talk page protected. Not a single admin has been able to argue his side, and instead all have tried to gag me to stay quiet. This sets a very dangerous precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukufwakfgr (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified blocking admin and the three reviewing admins. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Ukufwakfgr had his user talk page projected after the fourth unblock request in quick succession, most of which suggested incompetence/malfeasance on the part of the blocking admin, Elonka. (I'm a participant in the content dispute on the other side.) This message is a textbook case of calling the cops to report that your marijuana was stolen...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol...now now...civility and mutual respect. :P

But seriously, I can find no fault with that block, and most certainly, no tool abuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed Uku's edits and the blocks and, like Ncmvocalist, see no problem with the latter. As to the former, whilst Uku continues to be aggressive in a pompous sort of fashion, he will find precious little support for his arguments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me too. — neuro 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No complaints either. One should note that firing off a rapid succession of unblock requests after they are denied will result in a talk page being protected, per this handy dandy guide. The unblock requests were vague and did not address the block itself. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No issue found. Marking as resolved - frivolous complaint. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(followup) User has been blocked again, for two weeks this time by Toddst1. --Elonka 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. After two declined unblock requests and several un-called for accusations of impropriety against others on his/her talk page, I have changed the block so the user cannot edit their own talk page. If anyone feels this was not warranted, feel free to change it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu running afoul of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation

Pikacsu (talk · contribs) is a SPA who has been running amok on Talk:Barack Obama for the last week trolling for arguments and pushing an anti-Obama POV. This includes assumption of bad faith against responses to the user's various "proposals". This article is on probation and I suggest that Pikacsu's disruptive visit has lasted long enough. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu (talk · contribs), despite numerous warnings and suggestions (which are blanked without response on his talk page), continues to create non-productive, disruptive, and overall useless discussion topics to the talk page of Barack Obama. Gems include;

• Obama's health report
• Obama and drug
• Died soldiers
• Has Obama paid his tax?
• Could Obama pass Yankee White test? - (Yankee White)
• What is Obama's IQ?
• Obama's IQ is only 116!

These have been either reverted outright or quickly archived as unproductive by a wide variety of editors. IMO, this user's conduct has crossed the line of the article probation linked above. User was clearly notified about the article probation, and, again, blanked it without response. Clearly the actions of regular editors is having no effect here, so admin intervention is needed. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of those edits seem a little forumish, and some are certainly disruptive. Seems to be a pro-Dubya SPA, judging by his constant comparisons of various attributes of this article and related articles with the GWB one. — neuro 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note - because the editor repeatedly blanks his talk page you may not notice all of the warnings. Here is a version with all the warnings intact. Two SPA editors with similar but distinct patterns of disruptive trivia appeared in the past couple weeks, so if the problem persists after this account is blocked we'll probably need to see if there are sockpuppets to root out.Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do just note though that users are allowed to remove warnings. They're to notify editors, not to chronicle a user's past misdeeds. If you think you need to reinstate them, your new warning probably isn't severe enough. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pikacsu for 24 hours under the terms of the Community Probation placed on Barack Obama and related pages. J.delanoy_adds 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A good block. It´s hard enough there without this type of behaviour. Escalating blocks should be very severe.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur.  Sandstein  21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grsz 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A good block. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor removed the AN/I report and block notice. I restored that, but I get the feeling I'm beating a dead horse here so I'm just going to ignore it. Maybe he'll calm down or just go away after 24 hours.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he had actually edited the article, only the talk page. It's still nonsense, but at least it's only talk page nonsense. Baseball Bugs 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no 'at least' in this. Disrupting the talk page of an article is often a lot harder to deal with than straight up nonconstructive editing to the article. — neuro 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but the difference is that in theory it can simply be ignored (or deleted), whereas article vandalism has to be dealt with. Baseball Bugs 09:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But as a rule of thumb, probably better to keep it an equally high priority; separating them as one that has to be dealt with and one that can be left till later was one reason why problem editors became so difficult to deal with; their nonsense accumulated to an unmanageable level. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Better to choke it off before it gets to the point of actually being added to an article page. Baseball Bugs 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that with his block now lifted, he is up to the same thing as before. Brothejr (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, initial edits after coming off a block are: editing GWB article to say he is currently the last white president, blp violation on Barack Obama article, and trolling/talkpage disruption (complete with wondering if a reverting editor is racist) on Talk:Barack Obama: --guyzero | talk 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's back, making insane references about Bush being the last white president, and Obama's IQ. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the same problems. Looks like more time I suppose. Grsz 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh. He's a dead man typing. Whatever. HalfShadow 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. J.delanoy_adds 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as he continues to blank his page and hide the blocked notice from admins, should we also protect his talk page for one week also so that the messages he keeps on removing sink in a bit. Brothejr (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the behavior is similar to that of several of the Dereks1x guises. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a strong resemblance. Landon1980 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this talk page history has a certain soothing visual rhythm to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. It's like ping-pong. Or like John Cleese and Michael Palin having an argument. "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" Baseball Bugs 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for User Pikascu

Pikacsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem editor at talk Obama, a page under the Obama umbrella of probation. His logs are short and problematic. Please view his talk page history for recent warnings. If someone wants to set this up better, since I have no experience with this, I would welcome any help. Diffs are not supplied, as the history is short and can be found in the userlinks.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support upping the block to indefinite. The user has no constructive edits, only BLP violations, trolling, and personal attacks. S/he is clearly here for the wrong reasons. This is an obvious single purpose account with the purpose being disruption. Landon1980 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor has done nothing productive. He added the IQ nonsense to the intro after the block expired and takes all talk page comments badly. He hasn't responded constructively to any comment on his user talk page. Topic ban/indefinite block is appropriate.--chaser (away) - talk 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that an indefinite block for this disruptive SPA is in order, and makes more sense than topic ban. Tvoz/talk 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me. He just needs to permanately stop on Obama pages, and I support any means neccesary to have that happen.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen dozens of admins/editors say you are not allowed to remove block notices while blocked, and now User:J.delanoy is claiming you can remove them. Which is it so I know in the future? Landon1980 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask that too - removing vandalism, 3RR, etc warnings are supposedly considered ok because it's an indication that they've seen them, but I thought block notices are supposed to stand so that other editors can see them. But I could be wrong. Tvoz/talk 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't guess I have ever seen it in writing in a policy/guideline or anything, but I have seen I don't know how many administrators revert the removal of block notices and protect if necessary. After seeing so many admins/editors say you could not remove them I became under the impression that was correct. I always thought you could remove anything other than block notices, declined requests for unblock, sock tags when confirmed, etc. Landon1980 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. IIRC, that section didn't recently have the second paragraph about exceptions like unblock request and sockpuppetry warnings. I think the guideline was updated to reflect the practice of prohibiting removal of those specifically.--chaser (away) - talk 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

These 2 edits are Pikacsu's article contributions to date. These are all of his contributions, in contrast. I'm more willing than most to good faith it, but... rootology (C)(T) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.241.62.18 making childish changes to articles

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#Special:Contributions/89.241.62.18 making childish changes to articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that in the future. I reported it here because I thought someone with a brain needs to look at this. At AIV the report just got deleted by a bot. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to rethink the incivility in your above statement. The directions are clear, vandalism is at AIV. It appears that a bot accidentally deleted the move. Why not post it there properly yourself, and advise that you were referred there by ANI?? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On your behalf, I left a message on the AIV talkpage. See it and its response here. Hope you don't mind me marking this resolved. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the brain comment was directed at the bot? --DFS454 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's what I meant (the bot as opposed to someone endowed with a brain). Sorry if it came across otherwise. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stalking // Bribing Incident

I was taking part in watching after a blatantly inappropriate article until a sysop came around. I kept adding a CSD template, but they kept undoing my edits. Anyway, eventually the article was deleted by a sysop. I figured the story would end there. It did not. Users joined my IRC network and started demanding I undelete their article - eventually some started flooding, using annoying color/control codes, etc. As the network manager, I simply removed them from the network.

Then starting a few minutes after the first removal, I started getting calls on my personal cellular phone. The number was the number used by Sprint's IP relay service. They called several times between 4 and 5 AM. They got my cell phone number by performing a WHOIS on my domain.. an ICANN requires accurate information to be provided on your domains.

Just a small while ago, I had another user join my network, who I believe is user:Dk69 - that was their nickname. He started offering me bribes ($10, $20 then $100) via paypal for undeleting the above article. I have logs of this conversation and his IP. Here is the log of the bribing incident. I also have the IPs (not sure how many are actually their IPs, not proxies) from first wave of harassment, which i can furnish upon request.

I figure that perhaps in circumstances likes this a Checkuser user can use the tool on DK69 and compare it to the IP I provided so we all can be certain that that user was actually DK69 and not another user claiming to be him.

While I normally would shrug this off as a bunch of immature kids having "fun," they went as far as sending me several IMs from different AIM accounts AND calling my personal cell phone number at 4:30 AM.

I can provide any information I have, including IPs of the users, as public information isn't covered by the privacy policy on my IRC network. Please help. Alpha 4615 (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would notify the authorities for harassment. Isn't there also something OTRS or the Wikimedia office can do? MuZemike 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have taken his money. But yeah, email OTRS with the run-down and they can put you in contact w/ a checkuser. I wouldn't start a WP:SPI because of the private data issue. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor might be worth a look. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is outside the remit of what OTRS deals with - OTRS is nearly exclusively for complaints and questions from non-editors, excluding the permissions segment which deals with archiving email releases from copyright - and I'd suggest that OTRS won't be able to assist you much. You can contact the checkuser mailing list directly at mail:checkuser-l, which is probably your best bet. Daniel (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! There is a checkuser mailing list. Should have known. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've notified ArbCom of it and have provided them with logs (including IPs) and additional incidents that occurred after my initial posting. Alpha 4615 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but I don't appreciate being given a warning for assisting in making a page that as far as I could see is not innapropriate. We just want a wiki page for our IRC channel. The editor that started this incident is the "stalker", not DK69, he keeps trying to destroy our page and now has resorted to threatening us. If[REDACTED] is going to start placing limits on what topics we can make wikis on,[REDACTED] may as well just shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably need to read WP:N and should try to understand that[REDACTED] is not hosting space for some whim of yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you were ever threatened. I find it interesting that you are somehow turning the tables on me when I haven't done thing to you or "your people" (a term so eloquently used by Dk69 on IRC yesterday) save for removing you from my IRC network. Pardon me while I drop the BS flag.. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I recieved a warning for assisting in making the page after it was deleted a 2nd time. I take that as a threat. Also:

07:26, 11 February 2009 Jclemens (Talk | contribs) deleted "Baseball2 (IRC Channel)" ? (G3: Vandalism: A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Notice the part where the mod calls it an "eligible subject"? Hmmm. User:Startropic1

Yup. That would be in line with WP:N. Subjects that are not notable are not eligible for a[REDACTED] article. What part of this confuses you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read it properly. He didn't say INELIGIBLE, he said ELIGIBLE. It says the article is indeed eligible. Also a chatroom community of over 120 users I think would be a little bit notable. There are far less notable topics that have wiki pages. User:Startropic1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

120 users! Wow! That's amazing /sarcasm (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also typo. Please use WP:CSD or WP:AFD to bring to our attention these other less notable topics, since they too should surely be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it was a USER page and not a regular wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the User page was an exact mirror of the original channel in question. Full of the inappropriate (used out of context) images and such. Though quite frankly we're getting off topic from the original point at hand. Alpha 4615 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious about the user page being off topic with out of context imaegs? What images are you talking about? Look at the last revision http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Efnet_baseball2&oldid=270151162 Our intentions with the user talk page was to make it appropriate and stop the inappropriate stuff. Look at the revisions Efnet baseball2 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, what part of "thou shalt not use[REDACTED] pages to promote your off-wiki enterprise" are you having difficulty with. Why would you think that such a ruling is even controversial. Please, stop wasting our time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Efnet_baseball2, you know exactly what I am talking about. Correct, those images are no longer publicly visible. They were on the original article and your userpage until they were deleted by a sysop. Alpha 4615 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the self promoting part, but there were no out of context images in the user talk page. I was addressing "Also note that the User page was an exact mirror of the original channel in question. Full of the inappropriate (used out of context) images and such. Though quite frankly we're getting off topic from the original point at hand. Alpha 4615 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)" Efnet baseball2 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:NOTWEBHOST page given elsewhere in this discussion? As it clearly says, you cannot post whatever you want in Misplaced Pages. Content must be verifiable from reliable sources, and the subject must be notable enough. The actual reason for this article to be deleted was that no significance of the subject was given in the article (articles can be deleted if no such indication is given - please see Misplaced Pages:CSD#A7). The notability guideline for web content is WP:WEB. There is no indication that your IRC channel passes any of the criteria given there. Therefore, it can't be included. Also, the people who had been stalking Alpha 4615 should read this. Chamal 11:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Some wikihounding going on

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor, obsessed with adding "Jewish" to articles, is WP:HOUNDing User:David Eppstein at Talk:David_Eppstein#Jewish.3F after their content dispute at Talk:Noam_Elkies#Noam_Elkies_is_Jewish. THF (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring and hounding, so a 12 hour block for disruptive editing would probably be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a recidivist. Twelve hours seems light if a block is appropriate at all. THF (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the block log is that s/he should be considered a user with a single block from over 6 months ago. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, there seems to be some similarity with Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though it's within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same insistence about identifying Jewish bloodlines in biographies. THF (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, just a heads up, but you already probably knew this, there are actually many IPs, editors, socks, meatpupetts, you name it, that have an obsession with Jewish related issues. I send alot of time sending them Jayjg's way :) So I wouldn't assume they are the same editor. I just "treat" them as I find them :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I did bring it up at WP:BLP/N but haven't yet received a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that if an editor is going around generally inserting what they think is a person's religion into bios, they may be being a pain or tendentious or whatever, but probably not racist. But if they are only inserting Jewish into articles, well, that looks like a duck. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews look like ducks? :-P Sorry, could not resist. /humor KillerChihuahua 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wikifan may be aware of the Jewish background of some people but perhaps not aware of the Muslim or Christian background. People tend to know the background of our own group rather than others. That wouldn't be "racist," it would simply be adding material. I haven't looked at this article (and can't speak to the edit warring charge) and know nothing about David Eppstein myself, but generally speaking if a notable person is of an ethnicity or a religion, what is wrong with its inclusion (assuming that there are RS to support it)? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, early Christians were primarily Jews anyway. Maybe someone is looking waaaayyy too closely at the photographs, and can determine if the individual in question went through their brit milah or not? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a content-dispute masquerading as an "edit-war"? Just wondering.  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really. Please read this section. Is there a point here or not?? --Tom 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very creepy. I'd say BLP's requirement for conservative reporting and respecting people's privacy applies, and Wikifan should be warned to stay clear of reporting such information unless it is relevant to the living person's notability. It was not so very long ago that this sort of "one drop" of blood theory was used to create lists of people for adverse action, and we don't want any of that here. Ray (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this obsession? Noam is Jewish, I found a source and put it in there. What is the problem? It was reverted a couple times because my original source was weak, and I got that...but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Half the article is uncited, yet all you guys delete is the Jewish statement? HE IS JEWISH. His name is friggin Noam. Eppstein starting stammering on about blood purity blah blah I don't care about political correctness. I don't care if it offends him, it's truth. I saw that he had his own article and there was no reference of him being Jewish. I googled his name and found some documents indicating he *might* be Jewish, so I asked: craziness. He said his father was Jewish and I told him that he might be considered Jewish, at least according secular law. We kind of got into a little heated discussion about who's a jew etc.. and then he accused me of being racist. Read through the link I provided. Look, If it really takes this much hassle to put it ONE fact, why friggin bother. If this is what[REDACTED] has come to....christ man. If anything I should be reporting harassment...you don't just call some racist. Whatever, take me away and lock me up. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is a thoroughly unreasonable editor with a history of calling others racists. That he takes such offense to that line from David Eppstein is astonishing. And saying that because somebodies name is Noam he must be Jewish, that is a bit OR isnt it? And googling to find if he is and finding information that 'he *might* be', is that reason to want to put in a BLP that he is? Nableezy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never called anyone racist, even if you agreed to that. Please actually read what is going on before posting your painfully biased opinion. You're an extremely pro-Pal, I've been an openly pro-Israel user....nuff said. This isn't going to be another witch-hunt like in the current talk..LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the place for this dispute, but lies are lies: and . an anti-semite is a racist no? Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You said I wasn't racist. Jews aren't a race, as far as I know there's no genetic code to prove one is Jewish. There are however common phenotype traits but they aren't always unique to Jews. anyways, my rationale for my accusations stands and I apologized for them...but only for offense. It's not like you're innocent Nableezy, you're notorious for dragging out accusations and accusing me of hate/blah blah on your talk which you conveniently removed. But, this isn't a place for that discussion. This is about Eppstein's unjustified noticeboard and some user's inability to appreciate facts, (I.e, Delson, Noam is JEWISH.). And that being fact and me trying to put it in the article isn't RACIST, as I am accused of being. Fuck this is exhausting. I give up, leave the articles as is. Facts don't matter these days anyways, only argument. So sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eppstein and THF seem totally obsessed with anything Jewish-related being shoved into articles. I provided a reliable source per TH's request, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Noam_Elkies&action=history But eppstein is still reverting, continually, without going to talk which I requested. this is a FACt. He is Jewish. It can't even be debated, my god why are you all doing this? Don't we have better things to do than combat over easily-proven and blatant facts? If you're a self-loather I don't care, but stop censoring out facts. I changed the sentence placement per MoS, I got a verifying and reliable source even though it's a known fact he is Jewish and half the article isn't sourced to begin with, and you know the rest. Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference was not a reliable source. Your second reference does not mention the religion of Elkies, FWIW. And your questioning of David Eppstein this section was creepy and gives rise to the suspicion that you're a monomaniac. Why is this whole thing so important to you? Why don't you just drop it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not important to me, what's important to me is this arbitrary crusade to delete everything Jewish from those articles. And as I said, the excuses changed as new info was provided, the situation didn't play out like the poorly-crafted strawman you posted. Noam and Delson are Jewish, one sentence in the correct paragraph shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like I'm saying his a racist or sex offender or anything. My discussion with Eppstein wasn't creepy, he's the one that wanted it. And he accused me of being racist and promoting blood purity...NOW THAT IS CREEPY. Makes me cringe lol...blood purity WOW. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wanted you to come along and ask, "Hey David, are you Jewish?" ... where did he ask you to do that? And neither did he promote blood purity; he said "Regardless of your bizarre beliefs about blood purity, WP:MOSBIO says that religion AND ethnicity don't go in unless they're important, and WP:BLP says they don't go in unless they're sourced". You may believe your own propaganda, but the record shows your assertions - all of them - to be false. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? David has his own article, I googled David eppstein and there was evidence indicating he might be jewish, I ASKED IF HE WAS JEWISH. Fair question, no? And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL. Again enough with the strawman and actually read the talk and this. I'm simply repeating myself. And don't get nasty. Poisonous words like racist, propaganda, and blood purity should not be said without justification. I'm sick and tired of this, I proved what I did and provided evidence for my statements, so STOP dragging this out. If you would like to continue repeating the same rhetoric, I will continue to answer it promptly, but don't expect me to sit down because you shout louder. Eppstein was being a creep, I wasn't. He has a tendency to remove anything non-jewish, and his opinion of ethnicities was evident in the talk. what a waste of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - anyways, issue seems to be resolved from an editors perspective. im sure you guys want blood so by all means, but the article is done for now. me and jay are talking about the source issue so yeah. cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. WP:MOSBIO says that ethnicity should not go in the LEAD unless it relates to the person's notability. It does NOT say that it does not belong in the article ANYWHERE. Most "well-written" bios include some mention of ethnicity and religion, whether that is relevant or not is POV. Also, this all started when Wikifan12345 added Jewish-American to the lead sentence which is against MOSBIO so I removed it. After that, we were off to the races as it was. Anyways, --Tom 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other relevant policies here, notably WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikifan12345 seems intent on adding some mention of Jewishness to articles, based not on sources but seemingly based primarily on their names, and is uninterested in any other ethnic backgrounds that the same person might have. In the case of Elkies, the situation seems to be resolved: the word "Israel" now appears in the article, making Wikifan12345 happy, but it appears with a reliable source describing a group Elkies himself is actively involved with, making the rest of us happy. But I think Wikifan12345's edits bear continued watching. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, after reading the "creepy" section on Talk:David Eppstein here, I have to agree with the deep concerns. Wikifan12345 is ... problematic in his interest and approach, and if not racist, is at least biased and focused to an unbalanced degree. I suggest a topic ban on all aspect Jewish. He's not "getting it" here, or elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Elkies is JEWISH, so is Eppstein according to several laws though that may be disputed. I've been involved in many articles that don't relate to Jews. I'm not a racist, I'm not the one deleting facts simply because it has "Jew" in the title. Why is it so controversial? Eppstein, you're reasoning is rather off. I googled Elkies and it turned out he was Jewish, as is the professor he supposedly replaced as the youngest one at Harvard. It is a moderately notable fact and wasting time bickering over it is suspicious. Do you have some undeclared resentment?? I honestly don't care about your personal opinion, but I stand by my actions as I see I've done nothing wrong. Adding a one sentence FACT to a non-controversial article is not bias, Chihuahua. I don't understand your rationalizations so if you would like to elaborate further feel free to. Eppstein, you constantly list BLP and NPOV but I don't think you understand, since I've thoroughly explained why my actions haven't violated those rules. Please see this: Adding the names of editors to an article in order to make textual attribution visible in the main text. I did however use unreliable sources to back up the statement, which has been cleared up as far as I know. You can punish me for that if you want. ; ) Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered a key question - Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered the question: It is a fact. For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard. My question to you is: Why are you so concerned about this? You imply that I have some sinister plan to paint Jew over wikipedia, when that is obviously not the case. A person's religion/ethnicity is notable if there is evidence and it relates to the topic. I've provided sufficient evidence IMO, if you disagree, please say so why. "You're a creep, racist, blah blah" is not acceptable and is highly inflammatory if not uncivil. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, there has been a rather clear trend in the past where anyone who went around adding large numbers of "this person is/was jewish" info to articles turned out to be rather vehemently and in some cases violently racist.

Wikifan12345, I cannot know what's in your mind and heart on this matter. And I have no particular indications of malice or misbehavior on your part. However, unfortunately, the historical incidents related to this particular behavior require us to take a careful and concerned look into it.

The answer "It is a fact." does not answer the question. It may be true - but is not sufficient justification to add the information. Where the information has been persistently used by racists in part of their campaigns to shape public information and opinion, we need a better answer than that.

Again - This is not assuming bad faith or being rude to you. If we were to simply assume that you are another in a long line of racists / antisemites who came here to vandalize Misplaced Pages and blocked you without asking or listening, that would be rude. That has not happened. You are being given every opportunity to explain your position and interests in the matter.

But the history of the situation demands that we examine what you're doing, and demands that we insist on you actually answering the question.

If you think that asking and insisting on more detailed and specific answers is implying or asserting that you are in fact racist or antisemite, I apologize for that implication. But there's no real way around us having to ask, given the situation and years and years of history about this type of behavior.

Please answer the question.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

※I don't accuse anyone here. I accept topic ban if there is sufficient explanation and procedure.※

I edited some Japan-Korea related articles. I admit my edition tendency was somewhat rough.

I was Topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise after my edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women. And this time is the my first edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women.

• User talk:Bukubku#Blocked again

Then I protested my Topic ban with my explanation. (Before I was topic banned, I encountered Future Perfect at Sunrise at Yaeko Taguchi and Korea under Japanese rule.)

• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 15#Let's have a conversation
• User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Please talk civilly

After our conversation went awry, I accept my Topic ban. Then I read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. I think there is lack of procedure. But I don't know Misplaced Pages rules well. My edition certainly tended to edit nationalstic issues, so I think I deserve topic ban. However, my topic ban has no specifically definition.

Administrators, please specify my Topic ban definition like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was given at User talk:Bukubku#... and topic-banned as "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies." Bukubku, what part of "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" is unclear for you? Without being familiar with the subject area, it would seem to me that one would know if an article did or did not fall under this description. Comfort Women - yes. Oxygen - no.

Oh, and may I say thank you to you for accepting the topic ban; very good. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is only Japan-Korea related article and how long? Please, define like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is only articles which fit the description "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" from which you are banned. There is no time limit on the ban. The normal mechanism for lifting the ban would be for you to ask for it to be lifted. You would have to show evidence that you are unlikely to undertake the same sorts of edits that got you banned in the first place. I would suggest that you need to do many months of good work whilst still having the ban to be able to convince an admin to lift the ban. But as there are nearly 3M articles on wikipedia, and millions more that could be added, there is no shortage of good work that you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thank you for your comment. However you are not Admin.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are admin is irrelavant. Don't discount opinion on this topic, and insult others POV in this manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean insult. I wanted Admin replys and I thought him as Admin but not. So I said like that. I apologize my words. I'm sorry, Tagishsimon.--Bukubku (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before accepting topic ban, things should be cleared for other users and me. I was topic banned as POV-pushing of the Comfort Women. However, I don't think as POV-pushing. There are reliable sources. If other users edit comfort women like me, other users will be blocked and Topic banned? Are everyone banned to edit women who are coerced into prostitution for non Japanese Military? South Korean women were coerced into prostitute for Military until 1980s. And Russia and the Philippines women were corced into prostitute near military base until 1990s in South Korea. I don't deny Japanese Military Comfort Women existence. I think Japanese deserves to be accused. However, why specify only Japanese?

My edition

New York Times

Sources

• Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases New York times 2009/01/08
• Former sex workers in fight for compensation South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 30, 2008
• Openly revealing a secret life South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily July 31, 2005
• Deliver them from 'hell' South Korean News Paper JoongAng Daily October 19, 2002
• 미니 인터뷰 ‘한국군 위안부’문제 제기한 김귀옥 박사 “밝혀진 건 퍼즐의 일부” (Short interview ‘South Korean Military Comfort Women’ problems, Dr. Kim Gwi-ok alleged. “The thing which revealed were part of the puzzle” ) South Korean News Paper Ilyosisa 2002/03/26

(Google Translate)

• 朝鮮戦争時の韓国軍にも慰安婦制度　韓国の研究者発表 (South Korean researcher announced South Korean Military Comfort Women system during the Korean War) Japanes News Paper Asahi Shimbun 2002/02/26

(Google Translate)

Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is rapidly becoming content-related ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have swung from "I accept the content ban" to "I do not accept the content ban and wish to contest the whole matter from first principles. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I want sufficient reason for my Topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason was tendentious editing & edit warring on Comfort Women, which you know. The problem with your proposed insertion is that it is about allegations of South Korean hypocrisy. It is not directly about comfort women, except in so far as it is they who are leveling the accusations. It certainly does not deserve to go in the opening section of the article. And we see a string of five edits constituting the war. Caspian blue quite clearly explained on the talk page what was wrong, and where else the information might be placed in wikipedia: you went to war; and you got a topic ban. I trust that clears the matter up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look the page signature correctly, Caspian blue inserted his comment between Oda Mari and Bukubku. He changed turns. And he didn't reply my last comment.--Bukubku (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admin

This is not even close to resolved; I have not even been answered; only one or two of the posts below came close to addressing my concerns at all. Talk:ID is the place for the content dispute, but not the place for concerns about how an admin threatens to use their tools. Almost all the posts below both assume I care about the damn image war and/or assume this has something to do with that image war. It has nothing directly to do with it and I am not involved in it, having made ZERO edits in that mess. I'd re-open this because I have yet to get anyone actually reading what I've said and addressing that, but there seems to be a group insanity here. I'm insulted and annoyed at the tenor of the responses and the nearly complete lack of any kind of meaningful response. I would have appreciated it if those whose goal involved the ID images would have stayed out of this, as they have muddied the waters and lengthened this, and yet I have not received the input/help I requested, nor any rationale why that help is not forthcoming. This is now a large section which addresses nothing. I don't blame those who came after and didn't want to read all this and decided tl,dr; but I'm fairly pissed off at those who misdirected this section and tried to move it, attacked me, and finally closed it as "resolved" when it is anything but. Puppy has spoken; puppy is one. KillerChihuahua 10:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The title of this section is "Admin Abuse". you claimed User:John abused his privileges as an administrator. Two uninvolved administrators told you this is not the case. No administrators voiced an opinion this was abuse. You have your answer. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you have your answer. That is why this thread is closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, I used that heading. Yes, I can't believe I did either. I am at a loss. User:John is in a content/policy dispute, the crux being whether or not criteria #8 has been met on the NFCC policy. I avoid such disputes and am not part of it. However, John has been threatening to use his admin tools to block and/or ban editors during an edit war and after I counseled him against threatening to use his tools in a dispute, he responded by basically saying I was a liar and he attempted a misdirect to the content, accusing me of violation OWN ignoring that I have said nothing on the dispute. I spoke only to his handling of the dispute. He has escalated to trolling my talk page, attacking me and my motives, and continues his attacks on other editors with whom he disagrees. He most recently made a personal and insulting attack on Guettarda. I left a notice on his talk page, but he has summarily removed it, apparently feeling that if he trolls my talk page and is called on it by me, he can ignore NPA warnings from me. I cannot say I am done with John; as if he continues to insult and attack editors, and certainly if he blocks to gain advantage in a dispute, if no one else will act I will feel compelled to do so. Hence my presence here, as John has dismissed me as "not in good faith" and is continuing to attack and run roughshod over other editors. Please, do not confuse this or mix this with the content/policy dispute, which is being discussed elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• John's tone isn't much different from Guettarda's tone in the
• IMO his tone is significantly different, but that's subjective of course. Where did he say he wouldn't use the tools? His response to my concern was to call me a liar and accuse me of violating OWN, neither of which is correct or helpful and neither of which address his threat to end an edit war he was in by blocking three editors who disagreed with him. This is a matter of grave concern; that he threatened to do so at all is very disturbing, and he has responded to concern about it with insults. If he did state he would not use his admin tools, well and good - where did he do so? Do you recall? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Adding, what do you mean "once he became involved" - he was edit warring before issuing the block warnings. That's why I said something. He was deep in an edit war when he made those threats. KillerChihuahua 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  I was referring to this, where John says I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. , and the whole WP:UNINVOLVED business is discussed further at John's talk page by two other admins.-Andrew c  16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, ok. That I missed in the noise, I guess. I note he only considered himself "involved" well after others did, which is still of serious concern to me, as he does not acknowledge that his previous edit warring constituted involvement in any way. I would still appreciate others keeping an eye on this, especially as this editor continues to be verbally abusive and hostile to well-intentioned counsel and criticism, personalizing both the content/policy dispute as well as any concerns about his handling of it in an inappropriate way. KillerChihuahua 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Missed it in the noise because you removed it from your talk page with the edit summary "READ the note at the top of this page. Keep article content disputes on the ARTICLE talk page". You're complaining that I am personalizing the dispute, and here you are... personalizing the dispute. Hmm. --John (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I did miss it in the morass of edits on my page which I removed. I expected you to respond to my concern post; you did respond, but your response was to malign me and dismiss me, as I have already noted. That you chose to change venues and state that you had belatedly determined you would not use your admin tools fails to address that you actually did threaten to do so while engaged in a content dispute. I have yet to see you acknowledge that or address that issue. Further, I fail to see how attempting to engage more of the community in this and solicit input and assistance could be in any way characterized as personalizing; I have made no personal attacks but have addressed only concerns about your actions and behavior. KillerChihuahua 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

John's actions in this matter have already been discussed at length at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC. Since these actions are directly involved with the debate regarding WP:NFCC and Intelligent Design, I earlier moved this discussion to the ID-NFCC page . KillerChihuahua believes this is not the same dispute at all, and reverted this action . I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic. Would someone else please move this discussion as I did? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is about content and policy. This is about behavior; specifically threatening to use admin tools during an edit war, and subsequent attacks on editors who disagree with his position. They are specifically different and not related at all. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably better if KC will agree to close this one. His/her comments have been noted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Closure would indicate my concerns have been addressed; they have only been partially addressed. Closure also suggests that there is an "end point" and IMO that paradigm is inaccurate for this type of concern. Closure is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see the point in having two obviously tightly related discussions going on same topic." Doesn't that apply here as well, then? •Jim62sch• 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. The reported admin abuse has already been discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, and opening up another discussion here at WP:AN/I where that discussion came from is rather pointless. The discussion of the image itself is a rightful standalone. Regardless of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, the question of its use under our policy is perfectly legitimate and worthy of standing on its own. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of "this has noting to do with NFCC" are you failing to comprehend? This is a separate issue. KillerChihuahua 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• What part of this has already been reported are you failing to comprehend? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I disagree with you - or else you are not quite getting what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are complaining about his actions in this event, are you not? You have noticed that discussion regarding the appropriateness of his actions has already taken place at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked over this. The warnings given by John, though they do not specify the policy violation, all relate to potential copyright infringements. John's previous "involvement" doesn't matter as WP:NFCC is serious global policy, and if there is a situation where several editors are collectively violating - knowingly or not - this policy, there's little John could do in theory except warn/block or revert and protect (or get other admins to do the same). Local "consensus" can never override this policy and John, having had the community trust placed in him, is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt to force the application of this policy over local consensus when the latter may be insisting on - knowingly or not - violating it. I don't see how John behaviour can be at issue here. I suggest this thread is closed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The warnings given by John were not about a policy violation. They were about interpretation of a highly debated criteria which one side of an edit war felt had been met and the other side feels has not. This must be resolved by dispute resolution; not by one side threatening to block. The "other" side would have been just as in the right to block John for page blanking vandalism (in other words, not in the right at all, even though that's what he was doing). KillerChihuahua 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it's only guideline so it can be ignored. Understood. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I *know* you aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about, and further, your sarcasm is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Call it as I see it. In NFCC debates, an age old argument is "It's only guideline, so it doesn't have to be followed". John acted properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page. This belongs in that other discussion. THIS discussion is NOT about NFCC, which is a policy, not a guideline. Please do not continue to post your thoughts about NFCC here. KillerChihuahua 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like the cop who likes Pat's Steaks but doesn't (should that be "don't?") like Geno's Steaks only busting people who rob from Pat but not those who rob from Geno. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the other discussion, John clearly believes those edits constituted copyright infringements. So he was only doing his job, and can't be seen to be acting in bad faith or abusively (and[REDACTED] can't chastise admins for attempting to protect[REDACTED] from copyright infringements). The only potential issue would be whether John's intepretation is so unreasonable that his judgment could be called into question. It really doesn't look like that's gonna be the case. So there's nothing more to say here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever. But as a confirmed cynic, I would note that "clearly asserts" and "clearly believes" are not synonymous. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"potential copyright infringements"? Yep, the publishers are gonna pitch a bitch and sue us castrato over free publicity. Duh. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another ancient argument. "They'd never sue over this!" so therefore it's ok to violate copyright. Uhg. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you realise that if you go to cross the street and your first step is not inside the ped-walkway, no matter that all the rest of your steps are, you're jaywalking and can be cited? That's why there's these really weird concepts like discretion, judgment, intent, etc. Oh, wait they're all subjective. You get a ticket. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Arimareiji. Speaking as an admin, I think it is a poor idea to enforce policy in that way on an article you're involved in, once the fact of said enforcement becomes contentious. There are dozens, if not hundreds of uninvolved admins who would be willing to come in and help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:AGF when in doubt. I'd agree that the method John pursued was not the one most likely to avoid animosity for himself, but there's no question of abuse here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for addressing your comments to my areas of concern, Deacon. Clearly there is a question, since I raised it. I accept and respect that in your opinion, my concerns are unfounded and you feel his actions, while less than optimum, are not abuse or even bordering on abuse. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you in any way. Two questions (this is to Deacon) do you feel that his edit warring was excusable as he thought he was enforcing a policy, or do you feel his threatening blocks while edit warring was not in any way using his tools (by threat) to gain the advantage in an edit war? and 2) the NPA violations - acceptable or not? KillerChihuahua 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you drop it now, Killer. It takes two to edit war, and AN/I is not limited to action against the complainee. Your question is loaded and seems designed (as did your initial post) at gaining you sympathy, and possibly advantage in an editing dispute. Let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There were about five or six in the edit war. Only one threatened blocks. I'm not sure why you think I should "drop it now" but you'll have to give me an actual reason to do so. I am no in the edit war; I haven't made a single edit nor have I posted any talk page opinions on the dispute. I have no "side" to gain sympathy "for". You have misread my entire purpose here. KillerChihuahua 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"complainant" maybe, but irrelevant. KC is pooched because she bitched about the same thing others are bitching about? Nice. •Jim62sch• 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

KC is hunting for a declaration that John was edit warring, from another admin. I think the matter has been resolved, now let's improve an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I damn well know he was edit warring. I am concerned that he threatened to block three editors on the "other side" while engaged in the edit war, which is to me a clear violation of the buttons. This has nothing to do with the content dispute per se. KillerChihuahua 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's factually incorrect, as the message I sent on your talk which you erased indicated. Do you want me to show diffs? I already asked you this once on your talk, but you erased the message (as we already discussed above) rather than reply, so I assumed you didn't. Please let me know if you have changed your mind. Or, it should be really easy to look at the times from my contribs and see that I made the warnings before I had edited the article, and that after the one edit I made to the article I recused myself from taking admin action. Let me know if you need any other clarification. --John (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evader continuing their edit warring

A couple of days 23prootie (talk · contribs) was blocked for a second time for edit warring over lists of countries (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week )). This editor's edit warring and dubious additions included adding non-independent countries to the Allies of World War II (for instance, ), claiming that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor was a former country in South East Asia and changing the name of the Phillipines in articles on World War II such as Battle of Bataan (1945) from 'Philippines' to 'Philippine Commonwealth': . A few hours ago Lemen drop (talk · contribs) registered as a new account and is continuing this exact behavior by undoing the reversions of 23prootie's edits: (Allies of World War II: , United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor: , Battle of Bataan (1945): - all their edits so far have been restoring material added by 23prootie). IP editor 203.76.211.184 (talk · contribs) has also just reverted my reversion of Lemen drop's changes and re-added most of the countries 23prootie was adding to the Allies of World War II article: (revert), (revert) and (added more countries - note the similarity to 23Prootie's edit: ). This seems to be a clear-cut case of block evasion and continued edit warring by a blocked editor, and I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into this and take appropriate action. I briefly blocked Lemen drop for block evasion, but undid this a few seconds later as it seemed better for a totally uninvolved admin to review this situation. Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, and have blocked User:Lemen drop indefinitely, and extended the block of User:23prootie to a week from today, in line with the original block. Probably overly lenient actually. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that does seem a relatively light punishment but hopefully it will send the message. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User requesting block on their IP address

{{Resolved}}1=IP indef blocked for legal threats, which trumps not "typically" indef blocking IPs. Also, the IP appears 'probably' static. Take a longer, closer look at the WHOIS. It's a business account from Comcast. rootology (C)(T) 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

After reverting the blanking of User_talk:75.147.171.209 by 75.147.171.209 I received a comment on my talk page asking me to explain my actions. After explaining that user talk pages were not usually deleted s/he has asked for a permanent ban on that address and that the talk pages be permanently deleted. They are also threatening legal action against Misplaced Pages if this matter is not resolved. —Smilers (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The user has no grounds for action against wikipedia. They should, however, be banned for the threat. The page should stay as is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick update: the user (75.147.171.209) has now removed the entire section discussing this matter from their talk page. I have not reverted it as I don't think me doing that would help the situation in any way. —Smilers (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I blocked the IP indefinitely. The block can be lifted once the issue is resolved, or after the IP is released from the current holder and reissued to someone else. I wouldn't be opposed to blanking the talk page, though. WODUP (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That possibly is a good idea considering the circumstances. —Smilers (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought users were allowed remove warnings from their talk pages anyway, as long as they are not currently blocked, as this indicates the warnings were read. In any case, "Block me or I'll sue" gets them blocked, meaning there's no more legal threat since you did what they wanted, so the block goes away, meaning they will now sue, meaning a block..... *explodes* Arakunem 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You blocked the IP indefinitely? When we explicitly do not block IP's permanently? Surely a block of a few hours / days and contact to the ISP would help better - unless you have some magic wiki-pixidust that will alow you to know when the IP is released back to the pool. Further, if you think this is a legal threat you clearly have no understanding of what a threat is. Bad block. this is a legal threat so fair enough. Reduce the time. M♠ssing Ace 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And before we start arguing - from the policy; "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." - I see no evidence this was done. M♠ssing Ace 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a tone like that. It frustrates me to see people communicate in this way - as wikipedians, why do we find it so difficult to keep an element of kindness and understanding? Anyway, off my soapbox, I'm sure WODUP will record the IP and unblock after a suitable amount of time has passed. Seraphim♥ 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A courtesy blank is not unreasonable, and I've gone ahead and done so. An ARIN search shows the IP registered to a company, so it is not likely to be released any time soon, as it doesnt appear to be a DHCP pool. Arakunem 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ace, if that's not a legal threat, I don't know what is. And an indefinite block != a permanent block, as the blocker said. Please don't try to inflame the situation. You're not likely to help much. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(I won the edit conflict lottery! Yay!) Yes, I blocked it indefinitely. I have no way to know when the IP will be released (ran out of wikipixiedust on Wednesday), but it seems to have been issued to the current holder since at least 3 Feb; I don't know if a block of a few days will cover it. I think that it can be unblocked when we're told that the threat is resolved, or when we get an e-mail from the new holder of the IP saying that they don't know why they're blocked, unless you'd like to re-block for some finite but moderately lengthy period of time. WODUP (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming, of course, you won't get hit by a bus tomorrow (I of course hope you don't!) and would therefore be unable to come back and reduce the block. However, yes my initial reaction was wrong. I find it entertaining that I then get rammed for inflaming the situation when I both crossed out my comments, and per we do not block IP's indef. Why did WODUP not remember this and block for a week or so? No that it matters now I guess. M♠ssing Ace 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I edit conflicted about 3/4 times. But do realise that you wouldn't have got "rammed" if you'd just spoken more appropriately to begin with. Seraphim♥ 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologise for my tone / language if you and others were offended by it. M♠ssing Ace 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. Misplaced Pages can be such a depressing place to be when there's everyone sniping at each other (in general). Seraphim♥ 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you hope I don't get hit by a bus, thanks for that. :) The reason I didn't block for a week or so was because, given that the IP has been assigned to its current holder for at least 9 or 10 days, I think it's unlikely that it will be released in another 7. True, we don't usually indefinitely block IPs, but in this case, rather than have the block expire mid-legal action, I think it's the best solution. WODUP (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...this section is archived. I'm still wondering why the blanking was reverted in the first place. It seems like the whole mess would have been avoided if the talk page wasn't restored for no good reason. --Onorem♠Dil 04:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Comcast Business account needn't be static. IIRC, they can be plain DHCP like the residential accounts or DHCP with a long lease. Not that I'm disagreeing with the decision or anything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The indef block should probably be changed to 3 months or so. As the lobster pointed out, Comcast is just a regular old ISP. Barring any objections, I'll reduce it as such. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, but I was sure that Comcast Business class service, such as this, provided static IP addresses, which would be a factor here. Check this URL. I took off the archived templates and struck the earlier comment pending a confirmation. rootology (C)(T) 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think it would call for an indef. The legal threat didn't seem too serious either, probably just a bored employee taking the piss... –xeno (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, after reading that WODUP had no objection to it being made finite, I've  Done so (3 months from now). –xeno (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They do, you're not wrong, I'm just saying that they don't only provide static IPs. It depends on the plan and the market. And even static IPs can be reassigned by the ISP. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:AndrewAntaro

I would like to draw attention to this user. It appears to me that he is using Misplaced Pages to promote his company (MarketingMarksman) and his clients. I have left a message on his talk page asking if we could discuss the issue, but it seems to have been ignored. This user is uploading spam images and creating advertisements disguised as user pages. This isn't the normal spam I run across (rampant addition of the same web address), but appears to be more subtle. If someone could review his contributions and let me know if I'm correct or not. If not, please let me know so I can see what I missed. I will notify the user after I post this. TNXMan 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been generous in crediting photos added to various articles to his company website; and he's edited a user page which looks entirely like an advert. I've removed the excessive photo credits and asked for a speedy of the userpage. I'll drop a note to the user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Our policies on photo credits are ambiguous; I've proposed language at WT:COI to address the situation if anyone wishes to comment. THF (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Captions seems to cover the use being made by Mr. Antaroi: "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." (my italics). None of the images added appear to be inappropriate, merely elaborately credited. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems to be a little more than creatively captioned. I've tagged it for deletion as well. TNXMan 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Elvisandsoxrock appears to be an SPA

intent on advertising here on wikipedia. Request permanete block. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BillDeanCarter, Manhattan Samurai, and false information in several articles

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from the user behind the above accounts (and a slew of others) and have since been briefly corresponding with him in hope of persuading him to apologize for his behavior and return to Misplaced Pages for a... productive editing career. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. After I suggested he publicly apologize for any objectionable behavior and come clean about his use of alternate accounts, I received the following message, which he allowed me to "forward" or post:

I apologize for deceiving my fellow Wikipedians over the years. I have a mental problem and it causes me to lie and fabricate information. The work I did in the "List of works by William Monahan" article is about 70-80% fake. The Old Crow Review journal is fake and only really printed two issues from what I've seen. The Claude La Badarian article is also largely silliness and misdirection. Again, I apologize for this and do not expect to be let back on the web site anytime soon. I need to fix the mental problems I have before I attempt to constructively edit the encyclopedia.

He has also requested that the above articles be deleted, and claims much of the "Early years" section in William Monahan is false/fictional.

Needless to say, this poses several serious, pressing issues—List of works by William Monahan and William Monahan are both featured; what will we do about them, stubify? send to AfD? try to verify whatever content is actually verifiable? This should also have implications regarding our sourcing requirements, particularly our acceptance of offline sources in good faith (although any discussion of this belongs elsewhere).

As I've tried to explain rather obliquely through wikibreak notices, I'm really busy in real life, to the point where I now have to decide between keeping my job and being active on Misplaced Pages. I'd really like to keep my job; it's a nice job which pays unconscionably well, and these seem to be in short supply these days, so I really, really can't be around much. If someone can take point on this one, you'll have my eternal gratitude :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• He's probably full of shit. Don't listen to him. Or, if you do, investigate the claims and sources without making large changes to the articles. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Emails from Manhattan Sammy should probably be ignored. He's got so many stories going on what's happened, his reasons for making his edits, and who his socks are that it's probably not worth the time to sort through it at this point. Publicly discussing him just gives him the attention he craves as the Riddler of Misplaced Pages, or whatever he thinks of himself. Ignore. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If MS tells you the sky is blue, you should look out the window to double check. Nothing he says should be believed. Double check the articles, yes--this is something we should be doing on a regular basis anyway. But don't bother wasting your time believing what he has to say. //roux   05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Old Crow Review largely checks out. Hoax tag removed and another cite added. I changed the BDC block to forbid email use. Let me know what other socks are out there and I'll block their email as well (not like he can't just register another account, but this will make it a little harder). Remember, revert, block, ignore. Protonk (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done? He's lying now. He was lying then. Lying liars lie. Go figure. What should be done is to fire all those highly paid FAR idjeets who spin cruft into wiki-cruft. Exposing that idiocy was the ultimate point of this jerk's exercise, I suspect. Clearly, FAR people dot Ts and cross Is but don't do real reviews of the slop cast before swines.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Has someone written to William Monahan to ask him if the article is accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bhaktivinode

User:Bhaktivinode is displaying consistent ownership issues on articles he works on, refusing to allow anyone else to edit the articles. He removes maintainance tags (including notability tags), falsely claiming they need consensus to be added to articles before they are added, and reverts any edits anyone else makes demanding they discuss them first, even minor MoS type edits (like removing over sectioning)..

He also appears to be engaging in canvassing over a current AfD discussions of one of "his" articles, only notifying those who supported keep in a second AfD on the article that closed as keep (really no consensus), but did not notify the many more people who said delete. He then turned around and made bad faith remarks on three AfDs that have nothing to do with the AfDs themselves. In the discussions he mentioned in those remarks, he repeatedly inferred that I was anti-semetic and made personal remarks. His remarks have no place in any of those AfDs, to me, and appear to be nothing but attempts at attacking the editor than actually addressing the issues.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Collectonian has sated above that I repeatedly inferred that she "was anti-semetic and made personal remarks." These statements are unfounded personal attacks against me that have no truth. If they were true, Collectonian would of provided evidence, but they are only personal attacks against me with no merit or evidence. Although, I do question attempts to delete articles about National Register of Historic Places such as Temple Freda. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You proclaiming people as anti-Chabad and claiming nominations are anti-religions and specifically claiming I'm anti-jewish in my nominations.. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply That is a lie. I never stated you were "anti-jewish." This is a lie that is unfounded. You should be ashamed of yourself! Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3 (Dixie Chicken (bar)) for comments by other editors. As Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007, the articles Collectonian has presently listed for deletion need to be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the whole purpose of AfD is discussion among multiple editors, your remarks are not useful at all. They only imply that something is wrong with my nominations, when there isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please observe consensus. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny words from someone who continues to recreate articles almost immediately after they are deleted, by consensus, and who has created many articles that where deleted as redirects, despite their being deleted, again by consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Funny words?" Okay. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, both of you go to your corners, please. Collectonian, I'm sorry, but the only issue that I can possibly see here is that notifying the editors who were on the "keep" side of the fence in the AFD as you noted. The comments you point out are all from 2007 or early 2008, and as noted, the tagging of the articles was, essentially, a drive-by. If you're tagging an article that is being worked on by someone you've had contentious issues with, I'd really, really suggest engaging in discussion on the talk page before or immediately after the tagging - it doesn't appear you engaged in any discussion about those tags. Bhaktivinode: canvassing is bad, mmmkay? AFDs are seen by a lot of editors, not just those that are involved in editing the article. Both of you: please don't comment on the other contributors, also; your efforts are better used to discuss the article and its merits. Beyond that? I don't see anything that can be really done by admins in this case. I highly recommend that both of you stay clear of one another in future, is the best advice I can offer right at the moment. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned those comments because he brought up those AfDs from 2007 in the current AfDs as a claim that "third parties" should check my AfDs! As if I suddenly decided to "retaliate" against him because of a disagreement TWO YEARS ago, when two of the articles currently under AfD aren't even ones he created (one he never even touched until I AfDed it). He has now removed one of those posts, refactored a second, and left the third as is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Collectonian, I'm now under the very very very firm belief that you're going overboard with some of your AfD nominations. Our job is to improve first and delete second. If you put as much work in finding sources and improving articles as you do in creating AfD's from older articles, and then defending them, we would have some pretty awesome articles. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me??? I spent crap loads of time improving articles, thanks. I have invested MONTHS in some articles, taking them from very bad states to good articles (7), featured articles (2), featured lists (5), and even featured topic, with many more in-progress. I've even done this with articles I had previously AfDed, taking them from nearly nothing to a well-written, well sourced piece that's just about ready for a GA nomination. You want to argue about my AfDs, fine. You want to talk complain about my attitude, personality, whatever, fine. But I take it real damn personally when people start implying that I don't do any work finding sources and improving articles. I see far less actual article improvement coming from those who frequently scream "keep" at every AfD than anyone else. Only around 10% of my edits are in the Misplaced Pages namespace (which includes my very active role in some projects), so my AfDs are not "overboard." And, FYI, not all of those articles are "old". The Eagle one was created very recently, I just don't think newspapers fall under CSD for unnotable company. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not an attack, it was hopefully constructive commentary, which I have clarified above with the use of "some of". You know full well how I generally appreciate your editing, as I have said it in this and other forums directly, and even my last edit summary. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree she does go overboard with her nominations.
• http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Collectonian

There appear to be 374 AFD's started by Collectonian.

   * 137 (36.63%) were probably kept
   * 104 (27.81%) were probably deleted
   * 10 were probably deleted via some other method
   * 32 (8.56%) were deleted at an AFD at some point, and were re-created later.
   * 91 (24.33%) are now redirects

Notice how many of her attempts to delete something, were rejected? And if anyone disagrees with her, she accuses them of all sorts of things. Many editors wonder why someone is so determined to delete articles, thus causing conflict. Dream Focus (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop your damn stalking already! Its annoying, its disturbing, and you've already been warned you'll be blocked if you keep this crap up. This is freakin ridiculous! And as for your OR view on my AfDs, stuff it, only 37% have actually been kept, which is not "many". Can someone please do something about this guy? User:Sephiroth BCR has already warned him, repeatedly, that he is wikihounding me and showing an unhealthy obsession with following me around to make personal attacks, but he is continuing to do it. See Sephiroth BCR and Dream Focus's talk pages for the conversations. He was warned if he didn't stop, he would be blocked, but he is continuing again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is stalking you. And that is rather out of content. Most of our confrontations come from the anime/manga articles, we disagreeing on the definition of merge and delete, among other things. You are constantly in conflict with someone. And I have violated no rules. I read the wikihounding page, and I don't believe I have done any offense. You on the other hand, should read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors Good faith edits are not vandalism. Is there a way to show just how many first time editors she sent a vandalism warning to with no discussion on the talk or user page to discuss what she thought they did wrong? Her constant behavior is most uncivil. Dream Focus (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:General Disarray

Moved discussion to WP:AN/EW#User:General Disarray. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

We've been through this before. At least twice. Now it's SweetEscape12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LoveProfusion12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with an intricate forged tour article at User:LoveProfusion12 and an intricate fake album article at User:SweetEscape12. Time to delete and indef again.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I smell poultry. Blocked and baleeted. Might I suggest a visit to checkuser to see if there are any others, and any suggestions on eliminating the problem in future? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following appear to be the same person:

1. SweetEscape12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. LoveProfusion12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. YouMustLoveMe12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. DoMe12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. BatterWow (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Angels_Live (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Nainki (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. OperatorMan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
9. BrenMadge (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Most of these are no surprise, but the last one appears to be a more established account. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material

I'd like to report a problem with 71.203.134.243's persistent addition of unsourced material. According to other users' comments on this user's talkpage, the user has been informed of this on multiple occasions. I myself have left messages for the user, but the user continues to add unsourced material. Many of their edits are the addition of Category:American Christians to pages, without any sources to back these additions up. This has happened on at least Clancy Brown, Drew Carey, Fred Durst, Kid Rock, Doug Jones (actor), David Garrard, and John DiMaggio.

Any possible solutions? Darimoma (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a category like that, if the article doesn't already say anything about the person's religion, is a BLP offense. I'd say give him one or two of the uw-biog warnings, and if he keeps it up then AIV can deal with it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as vandalism? The edits might be made in good faith. Darimoma (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, wasn't there some sock idiot recently who was adding cats like that? Within the past two-three weeks. I'd dig it up but I have class in less than eight hours and need my beauty sleep. //roux   05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually folks like to add the "Jewish" categories to articles, go figure :). Seriously, the same things apply here. If the article does not discuss religion/ethnicity and it is not sourced, do not add the category to the article. This seems pretty straight forward unless I am missing something which is usually the case :) Cheers, --Tom 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I just get confirmation - if it continues, would it be considered vandalism? If so, what if the edits are made in good faith? If not, what should be done about it? Darimoma (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated plagiarism

121.72.249.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting plagiarized content (the first sentence from here) at South Korea. (I first gave him a mild uw-npov warning, and it wasn't until later that I realized his edits were copyvio in addition to being peacocky.) I reported him at AIV and got a tepid response, so here it is. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 07:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user has been reverted, and just got a strong (yet civil) final warning regarding this. If he / she does it again, we're going to need an admin to IP block. Edit Centric (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I've been reverting him for the past hour. Lucasbfr just fully protected the article because of an "edit dispute." With all due respect, this is not an edit dispute; it's reverting repeated vandalism (see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material"). No offense intended to Lucasbfr, but for the sake of other people who might want to edit the page, I'm asking to have the protection lifted and the problematic IP user blocked instead. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 08:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by another admin, after continuing to plagiarize at a different article once this one got protected. Now that this guy is blocked, please remove the protection from South Korea. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, unlocked. yandman 08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yandman. Once he started doing the same thing elsewhere, that was a no-brainer indeed :) -- lucasbfr 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Account Creators and Sockpuppets

Isabell121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Sacred Cheese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Either I'm slightly wrong here, or we have a problem. I don't know how the sock master contacted the above user, but the above user created an account for a sockpuppet. The user below the above user is the sockpuppet.

The problem is thus: If this account creator created this account for this sockpuppet, out of an act of good faith, well, we're easily allowing them to evade their bans. There should be a way to prevent users from a specific IP, say, the one the sock master was blocked under from logging into any new accounts specifically from that IP, shouldn't there?

If I'm wrong about my assumption of the firstly mentioned user, perhaps she is a sock as well, or maybe she isn't, either way, I believe this warrants admins attention.— Dædαlus 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(notified Isabell) The Account Creation Interface gives a number of options to a user before creating the account, one if those can check the IP contributions, rangeblocks and other things. If there is nothing concerning in the IP contribs, there is no good reason why the account shouldn't be created. It is impossible to gauge the intentions of a requested account with no information in the IP. • \ / (⁂) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm..— Dædαlus 10:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. From a technical side I think what you're thinking can only be done from Checkusers, in any event. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sad this is. I am extremely humoured by the nick "The Sacred Cheese". Maybe it's just Friday. Gives a whole new meaning to the French swear "Sacré Bleu!" (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can recommend Account Creators do would be to check for any existing rangeblocks on the requesting IP in addition to direct address blocks, and also to take note of the email address used to make the request. Generally, if a checkuser has placed a soft rangeblock in response to socking, they'll require an ISP- or organization-issued email address be used to request an account. However, if none of these conditions exist, then WP:AGF remain the orders of the day. Hersfold 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking the Ip of the request would be a good thing (I thought this was already being done), but short of only allowing email addresses issued by in internet provider or school I don't really see any way of fully knowing if a request is coming from a banned user. Noting each email address used would be a tedious task and throwaway emails can easily be made and used through proxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyme Disease page is vandalized.

The "Lyme disease" page has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn@garbett.org (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for incidents. To report vandalism, see WP:AIV. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Just revert it yourself next time. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of admin eyes please on Presidency of Barack Obama

Things are bizarrely getting a bit hot fast at Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#NPOV ("it's assholes like you that make the world a sucky place to live in", minor edit warring, NPOV/WEIGHT disputes), and it could use a little moderating/guidance from uninvolved folks and/or admins. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 addressed a question "Did you erase the entry on Solis because she's a woman.." to rootology with an unnecessarily provocative follow-on. Dudemanfellabra then stepped in with a very insulting rant. Both Grundle2600 and Dudemanfellabra have done serious edits earlier. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra has gotten a WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA warning for that comment. I am concerned about the content dispute issues but I think someone else should review that in more depth and try and calm that down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evader continuing their edit warring continued

While reading about the block of 23prootie (talk · contribs) above, it struck me that in my brief interaction with this user at DYK, I may have stumbled on another sock with the unlikely name of Vanlla-C00kie (talk · contribs). Based on this odd note and this edit to the UNTAER article, along with their brief but odd editing pattern, my suspicions are strongly raised. --Dravecky (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter

Hello. As stated above, these two userpages (and their associated talk pages) seem to be used extensively as a page for users to chat amongst themselves (not about Misplaced Pages-related matters, more in a Myspace-like fashion), which isn't allowed under Misplaced Pages:UP#NOT. I was unsure where/how to report this, feel free to move it elsewhere if there's a better place. Raven1977_{My edits} 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I have blanked the social chit-chat and left appropriate cautions. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Are such edit summaries considered to be appropriate, especially given that the editor in question had been warned to stay civil shortly beforehand? — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aaliyahforever - infringing uploads and legal threat?

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.

Matter resolved. Wehwalt

I've got two issues with the conduct of Aaliyahforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over the last few days.

The first is uploading of apparently unfree images. Today, the user has uploaded:

• File:Aaliyahad.jpg, described as an ad and apparently a page from a magazine
• File:Victoriasecretad.jpg, claimed as a Victoria's Secret ad
• File:Aaliyahiownthisphoto.jpg, a cover of Fader magazine (which I deleted as blatant infringement)

The user has claimed to have purchased the rights to the images but provided no evidence of so doing.

That would be bad enough, but the user has also made an apparent legal threat on my talk page.

I'm now too involved to be neutral; I need another adminstrator to take a look at the situation, since I think a number of images Aaliyahforever has uploaded are infringing. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: second, more blatant legal threat. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked her indefinitely and left an appropriate block template on her talk page. I fully concur that a legal threat has been made justifying an indefinite block.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CABlankenship continues Personal Attacks

CABlankenship failed to assume good faith and launched a personal attack accusing me of dishonesty. This was done on the evidence page of an ArbCom project. I explained that it was an honest error, not dishonesty and apologized. Good faith would have recognized that this was not an attempt to lie or cheat. But, despite my explanation, despite my apology for inaccurate information, despite my warnings given to him about his personal attacks, he continues to make them. I consider these attacks to be damaging to my reputation, to be done without a shred of good faith, and to be an attack on my character. --Steve (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Please disengage from discussions with CABlankenship until I or other admins have weighed in. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

block evader, anon IP at U. Mass. Lowell, vandalizing Nathaniel Bar-Jonah (again and again)

Here's a recent history. For a while the vandalism to Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was coming from 129.63.61.102 which is now in the middle of a week-long block. It seems the vandal is now using 129.63.143.133. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and article John Nicholas Ringling (unarchived)

RE: John Nicholas Ringling, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) is treating me like a vandal and reverting my VERY WELL referenced changes. He is not treating me in Good Faith. Not observing Wikiquette. 3RR. Civility. He thinks that he owns the article. I request an unbiased third-party admin to intervene. - 4.240.78.237 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick skim through the history leads me to believe that he is reverting and then reinstating your additions, and citing reasons why in the edit summaries, such as issues with the references. Are you absolutely sure there is a problem here? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a perception thing. Can't Norton do that without beginning with a reversion? But I don't think AN/I is needed for that discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think Mr. Norton needs a short wikibreak. He adds information not supported by the sources he cites (see his talk page). At the moment he is a net negative for the project creating unnecessary work for other editors. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder Xasodfuih left this on my talk page: "You have very idiosyncratic way of editing articles. You leave them in crappy state for years until someone else starts working on them and then you try to impose your weird style on whoever touches your "great" work." I think he was mad because we were editing at the same time and conflicted when we both tried to save out edits, but a personal attack is uncalled for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He also added back his silly yellow band that fakes the mediawiki interface . Xasodfuih (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it to article talk page. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was archived because after thousands of pageviews no one cares. Don't unarchive it. Take it to a talk page or let it go. Also "Don't fake the mediawiki ui" was about the silliest policy change this project has ever enacted. I'm not prepared to enforce it. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Rochelle Heights

I ask for administrators' immediate assistance to block User:Orlady for a short time for edit warring and to inhibit, however possible, the further edit warring by an IP editor for a comparable time. I am not sure what is possible but could a temporary block on an IP address or a range of IP addresses be put in place?

Background: This is one of many articles on neighborhoods of New Rochelle, New York which have been created and deleted repeatedly. Orlady has been one of a couple watchdogs and enforcers about New Rochelle area articles who have, in my opinion, been over-zealous and have been unfair and punitive against editors in that area. Their enforcement has caught up more than one user in a broad case labelled Jvolkblum and associates. I am preparing a case to make one or more unban proposals to help one or more users caught up in this who I believe have been treated unfairly.

However here I am trying to work on addressing the legitimate complaint of New Rochelle area editors that there deserves to be[REDACTED] articles on their neighborhoods. Mainly, recently, I am trying to manage a centralized discussion at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods.

In the immediate instance, I warned (in edit summaries and at Talk:Rochelle Heights ) both Orlady and the IP editor to stop edit warring on this article linked by merger proposal to the main list, and I put up their alternative passages for orderly discussion at the Talk page. They both are fully aware of edit warring policy. I ask that Orlady be blocked for some time, immediately, even if that is not entirely even-handed. The IP editor is perhaps beyond immediate control, but I expect this user has had one or more previous accounts already blocked and has cumulatively been wronged and punished disproportionately. It is important for my establishing credibility in being able to support / arrange for fair treatment for this and other Jvolkblum-linked editors to have some immediate action taken on Orlady's edit warring now. Disclosure: I have had differences with Orlady in other content areas, due to honest differences of opinion at times and also due perhaps to communication style differences and/or stuff that has seemed to get personal. My request here is unrelated to any of that; I do basically respect Orlady as an editor and contributor and I am just wanting this one instance of edit warring to be noted and stopped by a block. doncram (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've reverted the article just as many times as either of them. Why do you feel that they deserve to be blocked but that you don't? 87.112.81.29 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to act differently than an edit warrior. One difference is that I reverted the article to a short version created by someone else, to which I had only added a merger proposal tag. I am not edit warring in favor of any material written by me, while their edits struck out the others' material in favor of theirs. Also, I was already trying to lead a discussion at the talk page of both contending passages and I put time in to put them there, to get their references showing properly, and so on. Also, unlike the others, I don't have a history of edit warring in articles on New Rochelle neighborhoods. I don't think that most people would view my actions so far as edit warring. If i kept reverting others' changes back, then yes it could eventually appear that i was edit warring. One difficulty for administrators to deal with in attempting to moderate edit wars, by the way, is in determining which version of an article should be deemed the version to be reverted to, to freeze upon while the edit warriors are blocked for a while. My reversion was to put in place a version of the article that was relatively neutral, and which serves better as a fair base point for the article than either of their versions. Perhaps wp:edit war has more on this. doncram (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was created and has been edited by two different sockpuppets (SSH2009 and QUADCIN; see SPI case) of banned user Jvolkblum, who has run some 300+ sockpuppets and has an appalling habit of creating plagiarized articles (and uploading plagiarized images) for which s/he supplies falsified sources. I assume that the various IP users (it's not a single IP user, but two different ones) who have commented on the article or made edits to it are also Jvolkblum socks (the whois records for 69.86.223.174 and 64.255.180.25 are consistent with Jvolkblum's IPs). The article could be deleted on sight as the ban-evading creation of a banned user, but Doncram has taken it upon himself to rescue this and other articles contributed by the sockpuppet. That is, of course, his prerogative, if he or other legitimate contributors are willing to take responsibility for the article content.

Jvolkblum's alleged sources typically are not available online. In this case, I managed to find one of the cited sources for the sockpuppet contributions online, read it, and determined (pretty much as I had expected) that it did not support the paragraph that cited it. (The paragraph may be true, but it's not based on the source cited.) Considering that the source is a long-term vandal and that I could not verify the content, I deleted the sockpuppet contributions, but added a paragraph of my own based on the content of the source. I am willing to take full responsibility for the validity of my content, and I believe that I am justified in reverting Jvolkblum whenever s/he appears.

Doncram seems to have decided to label my changes to this article as vandalism or edit warring with an anonymous IP (never mind that there are multiple anonymous IPs involved), and apparently has taken it upon himself to play "referee" by reverting all of our edits and insisting that we discuss the article on the article talk page. I have difficulty seeing my edits as edit warring, but it does look like Doncram is engaged in a revert war. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that i should have opened this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If someone wants to move this there that is okay by me. Also, I am not aware of a differentiation between a "revert war" vs. an "edit war", so I think Orlady is saying that i am edit warring while she is not.

It is a serious deficiency in Orlady's reasoning that she makes the judgment that an editor is Jvolkblum and holds the editor responsible for the entire sweep of past edits made by other editors caught up by her and others' accusations in the Jvolkblum case. I believe that Orlady has been wrong in labelling various editors as Jvolkblum. It happens that a checkuser today cleared, as not Jvolkblum, one that she had accused of being Jvolkblum. I believe that the checkuser took more care, and came to that different conclusion, because I have recently been asserting there that mistakes have been made. I think it entirely likely that the IP editor engaging in edit warring today has not been banned, because he/she may not be Jvolkblum. It is beyond reason to think that every person erroneously labelled as Jvolkblum by Orlady or others should understand that they are subject to a ban imposed on someone else. As relatively inexperienced users, some of them have effectively had no chance to respond through official channels, and in fact would not be able to do so, because they are blocked and only the Talk page of the original Jvolkblum, perhaps long gone, is left open for anyone to file any appeal. Given a few recently proven errors in accusations, I think it is unreasonable for Orlady to persist in both labelling IP editors as Jvolkblum and deleting everything they write. Particularly not if there are editors taking responsibility for content in various New Rochelle area articles, as I am now trying to do for the neighborhood ones and a few others where i have edited at Talk pages recently. It seems painfully clear that there are frustrated users out there trying to add legitimate content, although sometimes/frequently not in entirely perfect form at first, and with a fatalistic air because they have learned that[REDACTED] is a punishing environment. I sympathize with their not constructing difficult footnotes sometimes, as they must expect more substantial work put in is likely to be deleted anyhow.

This wp:ANI request is not intended to resolve all that. I ask simply now that Orlady's and the IP editors edits (and, I guess, mine) for this article Rochelle Heights be reviewed as to whether they constitute edit warring, for that to be stated, and if so, for the warring parties to be blocked for a short time, if administratively feasible. doncram (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A Date with Fear

The AfD notice on this article has been removed numerous times by multiple IPs, and it's starting to get tiresome. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, so could an admin please look into it? Many thanks. PC78 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)