Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:32, 28 May 2009 view sourceFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →User:Guido den Broeder: refactor my post - there was a line-break here pre-e/c← Previous edit Revision as of 21:34, 28 May 2009 view source Roadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits →User:Guido den BroederNext edit →
Line 688: Line 688:
The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. ] (]) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC) The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. ] (]) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --''] (]) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'' :Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --''] (]) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)''

(after 10+ bwc's) :To clarify: I have no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time. My main interest currently lies in policy development, and occasionally I help out editors with policy questions. I suggest certain users to give me some space, refrain from making accusations related to things that may or may not have happened ages ago, and stop editwarring on my talk page, so that I actually get a fair chance. ] (], ]) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 28 May 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

    Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have concerns or questions of any kind about this, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 02 June 2009 (UTC) (fake time stamp to stop archiving)

    Seconding Deskana's comment and request. Newyorkbrad (talk)

    Threat by User:Petri Krohn

    Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Given Krohn's past on Misplaced Pages, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    "You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it"–with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case , but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.
    As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Misplaced Pages. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Misplaced Pages hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Misplaced Pages, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Misplaced Pages may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Misplaced Pages do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Misplaced Pages may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Misplaced Pages. This is intimidatory. Misplaced Pages doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Misplaced Pages. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

    Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Misplaced Pages. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Note to admins–As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI–publicly and under his own name!
    Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail–Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith–rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior–a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances–plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
    Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

    "Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

    My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn–although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously–claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense . --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Misplaced Pages. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Misplaced Pages. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
              • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks–rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

    "P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

    Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard . Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board . Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Misplaced Pages life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable.", which links to Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:


    “ 5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient... ”
    — Raising good-faith concerns
    The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not support permaban I haven't read any of the nonsense contained herein, but one thing that I did not take what Petri Krohn's comments as was a threat. The truth is, Digwuren is an Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned (it's ok for User:Moreschi to characterise others as this, so this is fair too eh Moreschi?), There was no threat, and other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs (as is usual), and this is yet more grandstanding by said editors. The new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target; not for assassination, or other such tripe, but for targetting by these laws against people who try to rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics, and right here on Misplaced Pages. As Petri mentioned, Digwuren best not make his real life identity known, otherwise the web brigades (note its presence in conspiracy theory category) could make his life difficult, and he could be refused entry into Russia, etc, etc. Oh and User:Biruitorul, Digwuren's conduct has been anything but good since his return; his calling other editors pigs (without a single apology), characterising others as neo-Nazis (without a single apology), stalking, tedious editing, disruption of AfDs, etc and generally being a right pain in the ass, is not what one should characterise as good conduct. How about letting the wikidrama subside, stop f'ing around in trying to off content opponents, and everyone gets back to editing? --Russavia 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Malcolm Schosha

    Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Misplaced Pages should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Misplaced Pages apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    If every admin a user encounters is then "involved", sooner or later that user would run out of admins. Better that we just be shut of the user well before that point. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Good block. And by all means, let his amusement continue, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I think one should be able to blow off some steam on their talk page, and while his comment on 'empty skulls' was over the line it doesn't warrant an indef block in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Support based on his continued justifying of behavior on his talk page Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • We have granted his wish for a block, as it were, and I think both the wiki and Malcolm will be better off. Support ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose. The user in my experience does treat WP as a battleground, and has a substantial block history . But none of those blocks were for longer than 72 hours, and occasional flashes of reasonableness meant I hadn't, despite my experience with him, quite given up on hope of productive interaction. Now that he's accepted it, I guess it's moot, but I'd have suggested a longer "think about why and how you're doing this" block (maybe 2-4 weeks) first, rather than jumping to indefinite. Maybe I'm just a softie, but I'm wary of indefinite blocks, especially of users engaged on very political topics. Rd232 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose The admins involved have a long history of blocking/warning Malcolm and have taken a disturbing obsession with the user. The initial problem with Nableezy was one of controversy and typical I/P trick and probably did not warrant such an extreme response. The vast majority of his blocks have been the result of opposing editors in militant-topics reporting him. Outside of that, he has been a very productive editor and seems to be quite knowledgeable on a lot of topics. I doubt Malcolm truly wants to be blocked indefinitely, it seems he just does not want to have his final edits revolving around another fruitless appeal. As R2 suggested, I believe a more fitting "punishment" (if blood is all that is desired here) would be a 2-4 week block. I don't see any precedent where a user is given an indef block like this and for admins to endorse such a punishment is suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    For those opposed to an indef block, question

    Since the I/P topics and civility seem to be what does the user in, would there be any consideration if you are opposed to an indef block, for a topic restriction in regards to I/P or a civility probation? rootology/equality 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Considering the hostilities have mostly taken place at Malcolm's userpage, and that not-so-nice comments came from both ends, I believe the civility restriction is hardly a fitting punishment. Topic restriction is basically an indef-block for Malcolm so that is even worse. I really don't see why there is such a strong interest in nailing this guy. I'm looking through his edits and there isn't anything particularly unique aside from typical user-page fights. If you bait an editor long enough and treat them like a criminal, of course they are going to get angry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Am I understanding you correctly, that you think all these blocks including those for edit warring a POV are his being 'baited'? Please back up with diffs where he was "baited". This is a guy who was so lacking in AGF and civility that he was actually barred from even editing RFAR by injunction. rootology/equality 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Under the allegation that the blocks were mostly done by the same-set of admins and some of the blocks were reversed, yeah, I can't say with all honesty that the punishment fits the crime. And yes, Malcolm was baited relentlessly by editors and admins alike. I/Per articles aren't particularly notable for its attraction to good-faith. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    In order we have blocks by all these people: Scarian, Scarian, Elonka, Scarian, Gwen Gale, Smashville, Gwen Gale, Sandstein, Tznkai, Connolley, Rootology, Rlevse, Gwen Gale. That is a lot of different admins, but then we see he was also User:Kwork, who was blocked an additional three times by Jayjg, Jossi, and Jpgordon. That is a total of 12 different admins having blocked him. Again, please provide evidence of admins baiting this guy with diffs. Deleted contribs for Kwork here, which show the exact same MO as his turn under the Malcolm handle. In fact, I see that Kwork is indeffed still, so I don't know how we all missed that Malcolm was even editing--he should have been blocked once it was realized he was Kwork. Again, please provide diffs of all these different admins, even Jayjg and Jpgordon, harassing and baiting him. rootology/equality 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Malcom was blocked 6 June 2008 by Scarian for abusing multiple accounts (which is to say, for evading the Kwork block). I had tagged Kwork's user page and he emailed me, claiming he didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed and after a number of emails, I helped him with the aftermath of RTV for Kwork and Malcolm Schosha (deleting his MS user page history among other things). Then Jpgordon unblocked him on 25 July 2008 and he came back from RTV. This is why (and when) I started watching his account. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Withdrawing my suggestion of a topic ban/civ paroles etc. based on his history across two usernames, that I just noticed. rootology/equality 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Geez you really took the time to investigate, eh? I don't know much about Malcolm's previous handle so I rather not comment on it. The degree of action, proportional to the blocks listed, has been extremely generalized and overblown. I'll enumerate and simplify the blocks (though I don't really want to) to prevent confusion:
    • Since the sock-violation was in good faith, we shouldn't count those.
    • Between June 2008 to May 2009 (we can round it off to a year), 19 blocking-related actions occurred.
    • Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were administered by Gwen Gale.
    • Out of those 19 blocks, 2 were administered by rootogoloy.
    • Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were reversed. 1 block by Rootology was self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:DGG for being "excessive," 1 block by User:Smashville self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:MZMcBride for being "improper," and the last was for sock-proving.
    • Out of those 19 blocks, 4 were for personal attacks (one being reversed), 6 were for edit warring (mostly baiting situations), and the rest a mixture of disruption/arbitration concerns.

    Out of approximately 5,114 over a span of almost 1.5 years, Malcolm received 15 unreserved blocks. That's 1 block for every 340 edits. But these blocks aren't exactly eye-popping. Edit warring is standard, and blocks are almost solely dependent on who reports who first. Personal attacks etc.. aren't defendable but again words can be miscontrued and Malcolm has laid pretty clear rationales in the past which had led to blocks being reversed. That in itself is a strong reminder of the strong partiality that has occurred throughout this whole ordeal.

    Again, can you provide a single diff or evidence that he was "baited"? Especially, how is one "baited" into Edit Warring on article content? rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


    It seems Root has taken the liberty of finalizing the issue and declaring Malcolm a "banned" user per direction of the talk page and ANI. I consider this a bit premature. I don't think it is very fair of us to not give Malcolm a voice. I'm sure he has a lot to say. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, that was reversed by me as well I believe and some days ago. rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions

    I'm taking this here because this will likely need administrators to undelete pages. Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) has for some time been deleting redirects for being unused or "polluting Google". He doesn't seem to understand that he's wrong, even after a successful deletion review; relevant threads are User talk:Maury Markowitz#VIA redirects and User talk:Maury Markowitz#Redirects. The next step would be to go through all the redirects he deleted and undelete those that should not have been deleted. I can help create the list, but for obvious reasons cannot help with the undeletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oh my god, this is still going on?! Undelete them all, with my blessings! I don't care one way or the other. But I do care about NE2's constant complaints and casting aspersions. So if undeleting all of these makes him leave me alone, great, full speed ahead! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    User:NE2/redirects includes all of them. There are likely a few non-redirects and a few valid redirect deletions in there. --NE2 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    And done. About half of the redirects have been restored. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. --NE2 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Poor judgment and questionable timing on a speedy deletion

    I am posting this note because I believe that there was poor judgment shown in the speedy deletion of Stanislav Menshikov. Here is the chronology:

    • May 16: a dispute begins over whether commentary by Menshikov that is favorable to Lyndon LaRouche is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead of that article.
    • May 22: Will Beback posts a comment in which he says Menshikov is "not impartial."
    • May 22: Will speedy deletes Menshikov's bio.
    • May 23: TallNapoleon notes that Menshikov is "redlinked."
    • May 23: Cs32en deletes Menshikov quote on the grounds that Menshikov is redlinked.
    • May 24: Cs32en posts this: "If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede?"
    • May 24: Will responds, "That's a good point."

    The reason given for speedy deletion was that the article was created by a banned user. Assuming that this is true, Will had several options:

    • He could have deleted the article over a year ago (he chose to edit the article instead)
    • He could have posted a notice on a relevant board, asking an uninvolved admin to take action
    • He could have invited community participation through a conventional AfD process

    Instead, Will chose the one course of action that was most likely to create the impression that he was using admin tools to shape the outcome of an article content dispute. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    He edited the article only once and deleted it as having been created by a banned user. Any user in good standing can recreate it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm with Leatherstocking on this one. Recreated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, since the article creator MaplePorter (talk · contribs) does appear to be a sock of a banned user, Will Beback was technically correct (which is, as my idol Hermes Conrad would say, the best kind of "correct") to speedy delete it, prior edits notwithstanding, although the circumstances of the deletion as related by Leatherstocking do seem a bit odd. Worse, the recreation by Maury Markowitz might (also technically) be considered both proxying for a banned editor and the beginning of a wheel war. To avoid any unproductive nastiness, I suggest that we just submit the article to AfD to find out whether this (probably borderline notable) guy should have an article or not.  Sandstein  17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Maury Markowitz didn't use the admin bit to recreate the article so I don't see much of a wheel war there (as I said, any editor in good standing could have done that). However, I do agree AfD would be the way to go if anyone is wondering about the notability of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, going by the Google cache, it looks like Maury recreated it without undeleting the history, a big no-no for reasons of attribution. --NE2 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) Well, I assume he used admin privileges to retrieve the deleted content (but, as I said, technically).  Sandstein  17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    The user in question was banned six months after the article was created. The policy is very clear that you SD material in violation of the ban, and only if there are no other major editors. Neither case applies. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Given the very long and sad block log of the sockmaster before and after the time when the article was begun, I can't get too stirred up about the deletion of an article created by one of its socks. I think we can agree AfD is the way to deal with this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    However, Maury, it does look like you rs'd the text by copying from an edit window only an admin could have. This was not what I meant by "recreate." I think both of you have made a muddle of this and I have restored the article history, given the need for attribution under GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.  Sandstein  21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • To correct an error by Leatherstocking: when I edited the article (only a minor edit), Mapleporter had not yet been identified as a sock of a banned user. Leatherstocking has a history of complaining about enforcement activities regarding HK's socks. Regarding Maury Markowitz's issue about whether Mapleporter was banned at the time: we ban people, not accounts. The person behind Mapleporter was the banned editor Herschelkrustofsky, who has used dozens of sock accounts. HK also has a history of creating articles solely to improve the reputation of Lyndon LaRouche, of whom he is a follower. In the year since it was created it was not linked to any other article.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Under the circumstances, then, the appropriate time to delete would be at the time the sock was identified. Also, please refrain from attributing motives to other editors -- I don't have "a history of complaining about enforcement activities regarding HK's socks." I have a "history" of calling attention to enforcement actions, by you, that have the effect of influencing content disputes to which you you are a party. You can avoid my calling attention to such actions, by not taking them. That is why we have this board: call in an uninvolved admin. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't attribute a motive - I identified a behavior. You're welcome to call attention to anything you like. But I've been following policy. Any help dealing with the banned user is appreciated. Even better would be if the banned editor would stay away, as the community has repeatedly decided.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Prem Rawat enforcement action

    I'd like to draw the community's attention to my arbitration enforcement action at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Teachings of Prem Rawat. Because that action involves the block of an administrator (as well as a non-administrator editor), and because blocks of administrators have the potential to become controversial, I am bringing the matter here preemptively. I consent to any change to my enforcement action that might be necessary to bring it into accordance with community consensus (if any).  Sandstein  16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well done. These edits by User:Will_Beback so soon after the Arbcom decision show very poor judgement, unworthy of an administrator. Under these circumstances I would say a topic ban was in order. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
    Concur with block - if ArbCom Enforcement is to mean anything then it needs applying swiftly and without favour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Will Beback made a case that he wasn't in violation, in the 24 May portion of Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#FORMER FOLLOWERS section. When Newyorkbrad becomes available after holiday, I request that he examine Will's defense and offer an opinion as to its merit along with noting any gray areas. Newyorkbrad has the professional skills to parse a defense by detail of rules, and is widely considered fair in making such judgments. Milo 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I would like to thank Milo for his confidence in me. However, traditionally, sitting arbitrators generally do not participate in enforcement of decisions, because the cases may come back again them before a later date and they would then have an involvement in the actions being reviewed. Therefore, it would probably be best if discussion here continues for a consensus of uninvolved non-arb admins. (I also have three truly massive arb cases that I need to work through in the next 24 hours.) Thanks again for thinking of me, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Will Beback is substantially in violation of the section provided at ArbCom Enforcement, in that he reverted to his earlier version within the 7 day period. If he wishes to argue that there may be other findings or directions that permitted him to do so then he should take that up with ArbCom in the Clarifications section - until then he was found to be in violation and thus blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


    Will Beback has posted the following request for block review on his talk page, copied below:
    "I believe that Sandstein has miscounted the reverts. I first added text in following a discussion on the talk page. That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes. That was the only revert. The RFAR editing restriction prohibits more than one revert per week. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period... Since I only reverted once I did not violate the prohibition. Further, I acted in good faith to avoid violating the prohibition, and if I did violate it then I did so unintentionally and with a misunderstanding of how the revert(s) are counted. I received no warning that I'd violated the prohibition, and I would have self-reverted if I had been warned. One revert per week is an unusual standard and I think that either Sandastein or I is not calculating it correctly. Will Beback " by Milo 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

    That looks like legitimate grounds for lifting the block if it's true. Durova 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was having a look at that first edit, and I couldn't find any consensus to add it on the talk page, there was some discussion and then willbeback added it.

    Added by cirt,

    Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation. name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1 name=Conway>Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6</

    this was removed by Zanthorp

    then this was added by willbeback, it's basically a reinsertion of the same material with a small rewrite.

    Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammedfrom Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Carroll describes each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there." name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976)E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

    Clause

    I think Will is misreading which clause of Remedy 3.1 of the RFAR applies...

    To quote the whole thing:

    Revert limitations
    3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
    Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    I believe that the issue is the last sentence ( "Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." ). Will made a change, and it was reverted, he wasn't supposed to change it back until 8 days later (and did so in 5 days). I'm not sure I agree with this provision, but that's what they entered into the rule as it stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Agree. Because of this clause (and quite independently of this discussion) I reached the conclusion to deny the unblock request. I'm not truly aware of the depth of disruption on this article, and this may have been a good-faith misunderstanding by Will about the restrictions, but I felt that unblocking him would be somewhat disrespectful of the RFAR ruling, and also give an appearance of unfairness unless Pergamino is also unblocked. Mangojuice 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Good point. Since this is a newly closed case and neither editor has been warned, perhaps unblocking both and extending a warning would be appropriate? It's an unusual clause in the case, and the wording isn't easy to parse. Had me confused too until I read it three times. Durova 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it is the second element of the restriction that Will Beback violated in this case. I would normally be reluctant to block a user for the violation of that unusual a remedy without a prior warning, but since he was a party to the RfAr and indeed was specifically admonished at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Users admonished for his conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat, I think he must be deemed adequately warned in this case.  Sandstein  05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have declined the unblock request by Will Beback on the grounds that it appeared he did violate the letter and spirit of the ArbCom decision as I have read it; however I also support Durova's proposed solution. Will Beback's comments since my decline have indicated that he made a good-faith mistake based on his reading of the sanctions, and he has clearly indicated that he will tread lighter in the future. Durova generally keeps a very clear head in tough times, and I trust her judgement on these issues. I think a provisional unblock, with perhaps a request to ArbCom for clarification and the understanding that these blocks serve as clear warnings to tread lightly in the affected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I would be uneasy in commencing the practice of allowing one mistake over interpretation of ArbCom decisions; I saw immediately how Will Beback had violated the word of the restriction as provided at AE. As well as being the responsibility of the restricted party to understand and abide by the sanctions imposed at ArbCom, it is likely to severely discourage the few admins that work the AE page if properly arrived at blocks, topic bans are then lifted because it was the first time. The ArbCom case should have provided sufficient warning and notice that sanctions for violations would be enforced - otherwise would be to diminish this avenue of final resolution also. If Will Beback and the other editor (who I note is not being discussed) are to receive a warning, let it be in the form of this 24 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    If an editor (Rumiton) can be banned for a year over Prem Rawat issues without a warning and with only one previous block, any diminishing of WillBeback or Pergamino's tiny 24 hour block would seem like gross hypocrisy. Mind you, ArbCom's decision to enshrine "up to one week in the event of repeated violations and After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year" sends a clear message that bad editing at PR articles are now to be considered trivial. Sandstein, as usual, is right, WillBeback has had adequate warning.Momento (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    We could go either way with this: Pergamino was not named at the case. But consensus leans in the other direction and is internally consistent, so deferring. Durova 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's unfortunate that Sandstein didn't specify which part of the remedy he thought we'd violated, as this might have been cleared up sooner. However to prevent future problems I've asked the arbCom to clarify the remedy so that there won't be any more misunderstandings, whether on the part of editors or enforcers.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

    I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Its rather a bummer. Sam is a pretty good editor, but the aforementioned edit was clearly pov. - Arcayne () 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think you are misreading the situation. All that Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: . It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: , with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. Two days later, Sam Blacketer reverted another vandal: . Metz makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron, to score a popularity point against Cameron. The exact opposite is the truth. Thus I conclude Cade Metz is a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely. ;) JN466 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, I get that, Jayen466 - I do - but there is a reason we avoid those articles with which we have conflict of interest issues. It's incredibly poor judgment. It isn't like editing Hitler and Ghandi's page to keep junk nd out (when you hate one and love the other); the editor had a real connection to the subject. Hmm, we should have a policy or guideline about this... - Arcayne () 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Speaking as a Brit, Sam Blacketer's handling of the image seemed impartial, balanced and fair-minded. No need for a witch hunt here. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that the edit was ok, but a politician should know better (as Brit and a Reg reader). "Sam" did ok, and the big mistake he made was editing under his real name. I also think that Cade Metz is an ok guy, having spoken to him in real life, and that their coverage of wikipedia is rather tongue-in-cheek and funny (it's quite a british thing, though I don't think he's a brit). He's written some good pieces, and this is just a gossipy piece which happens to be correct. Also, WP:BLP applies to comments about Sam and Reg writers, I'd have thought, so lets keep it nice (not directed at MathSci - he's a nice guy too). Verbal chat 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have to say I am rather surprised at all this furore. Among those of us who edit UK politics pages, its well known that Sam Blacketer was David Boothryd. As someone from a different party to David I can say his conduct has been excellent and impartial in all his dealings with both users and articles throughout his editing here. Its a real shame that he has felt that he needed to step down from ArbCom over this. Perhaps this ill informed IT journalist thought he had a scoop, not realising that he was telling the online political community what we knew anyway. I just hope that David carries on contributing to Misplaced Pages as both his in-depth historical knowledge and his eye for detail have raised the quality of our politics articles. - Galloglass 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ill informed? He seems to have been correct, and Sam resigned because of it. I hope he keeps editing too, and I hope attacks on living, identifiable, people stop. I didn't know sam had other accounts. I suggest this section is closed. Verbal chat 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not until "The Register" explains exactly what they meant by calling him a "Labour solider". That seems to be a typo for "solder", but I'm having a difficult time picturing how anyone could be a material used to join metal. Or is this another example of "The Register"'s penchant for erroneous reporting? -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Real world journalists have an annoying tendency to call the ArbCom Misplaced Pages's highest "court" that makes me cringe; this article seems no different. :) AGK 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    David Boothroyd article

    Someone may want to take a closer look at this article and the drama quickly emerging behind this. I think this is going to get ugly. MuZemike 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    That is, it has been rapidly recreated, and another user has a copy of the article on his userpage, which is now up for MFD. MuZemike 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Never mind. Deleted again and salted. MuZemike 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    See WP:DRV. No need for drama. Jehochman 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    The article is now posted on the user page of TAway (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've resolved that. Jehochman 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Vandalism of File:WPAbortion-logo.svg

    Resolved – fixed and protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, I don't know how to fix this, but I think it needs urgent attention - the Abortion "logo" that appears on all abortion related topics has been changed to read "Murder" by CGrapes429 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hmm... I tried to fix it, but something seems to be working wrong. Any suggestions? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Seems to be fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Drilnoth uploaded a new version of it. What is weird for me is that the Murder still appears in the image at the top of the image page, but the update to read "Abortion" at the bottom by Drilnoth looks ok, and I clicked on the Abortion article to see that the sidebar does indeed say Abortion. I figure it's a thing with my computer. I refreshed the page 4 times but it still read as Murder...anyway, I fully protected the image page for 3 days. --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Huh. I protected it indef, and refreshed until the image cache caught up with Drilnoth's fix. In any case, one or more of us took care of it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, y'all. I warned the user who made the change; I hope that was appropriate. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Most probably. :-) I extended the protection to indef again, and deleted all the "Murder" versions so that someone couldn't just revert to an earlier version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Only one edit since January, and it's a vandalism? Sounds like a compromised account. If it were me deciding, I would indef it and see if the user even notices. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Bugs, treating these folk with your fluffy kindness and indolent patience is surely going to backfire on you one of these days. Sometimes love and maple syrup isn't enough! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    And that's why I'm not the one deciding, don'cha know. But as merely a lowly peon; just a simple farmer; one of the people of the land; part of the common clay of the new west; I can always make recommendations. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Just be glad I didn't refer to that drive-by vandalism as the CGrapes429 of Wrath. Oops, too late. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Love and maple syrup are useless without pancakes and sex. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Mmmmmm maple syrup and sex... damn I wish I was young again! --WebHamster 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't recommend mixing lovin' and syrup. Things can get stuck together, and then you'll be subjected to the ridicule of the Rescue Squad. Or so I've heard. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think you misheard, that is super glue and sex. Not that I have first hand knowledge.... The Seeker 4 Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, what they need is some kind of syrup with the consistency of K-Y. That would be ideal for keeping those pancakes lubricated. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Was that from that summer at band camp? Oh... MuZemike 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Good grief I go to Disney World for a week and THIS happens in AN/I? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Standards keep heading down the ladder as we try to wring the last ounce of humor. By now we must be down to the last wrung. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    So the "logo" for abortion is the word "Abortion" with a drop shadow? I guess it's better than a picture of a coat hanger, but really, why do we have this image at all? rspεεr (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    If someone attaches a registered trade mark symbol to it, then we'll have some real cause to worry. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I was surprised how many articles use it. It's being used for a project logo, so that stands to reason. A coat-hanger? How about an illustration of a 13-year-old being raped by her stepfather? Not neutral either? Then the word itself is probably the thing. Maybe a bit too fancy for its own good, though. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I am being hounded

    An IP has been following around Misplaced Pages for about a month now and shows no sign of stopping. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked a month for disruptive editing based on a previous block that appears to not have been effective. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    If I may add a note here, there is another user, SqueakBox (talk · contribs), who may be worth investigating as well. Looking at his contrib history shows a similar pattern to the now-blocked IP's of reverting QuackGuru's edits. In a 7-minute spree on 26 May, 2009, he reverted QG 15 times, all of which were soon reverted by admin, Jennavecia. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Is it possible that this user did not know there was a consensus against removing co-founder? Or possibly thought that guackguru was trying to hide vandalism by implying he was correcting a typo, even though anyone familiar with the situation understood the sarcasm there? A cursory search would suggest the IP user was not told about the consensus, so the IP users unblock request might actually be valid. This still does not really explain why the IP user is editing in that area, possibly following guackguru. David D. (Talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Plausible, as the reversions occurred before the IP's involvement in Talk:Jimmy Wales. But it seems to be a hounding issue nonetheless, as this anon has been involved in revert wars with this user in the recent past, , down in the April 15-17 range. And their first edit to Jimmy Wales was to revert the accusation against him. Maybe a block reduction, then. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Odd possible legal threat?

    What do you all make of this removed edit? Seen on RFPP here. rootology/equality 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Seems like they're violating the "court order" as well. Nakon 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Lol. Does anyone actually understand what Misplaced Pages is outside of Misplaced Pages? - Arcayne () 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not really. That's why they all think it's unreliable. My wife thought it was a blog until I sat her down and showed her everything that goes on behind the scenes. Now she just thinks it's "White and Nerdy"Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, that's why they think it's reliable, which it isn't. --NE2 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think it's a legal threat, I think it's just that someone with the newspaper seems to think that they can include specific information about their newspaper here. The IP needs to be pointed to some guidelines regarding encyclopedic information. (I thought my copyedit of that article wasn't so bad when I removed that bit earlier...) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Agree. It's not intended to be a legal threat. Mishlai (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    They reinserted it. I've gotten politely snippy with the IP. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    And inserted again - I'd appreciate if someone else could explain to this fellow, who I suspect is affiliated with the newspaper in question, why it's inappropriate? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    A rogue bot

    I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

    Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

    What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

    This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

    If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

    For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    <sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

    Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.
    At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like ] to , but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

    So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. I posted something on my talk page about to that same effect -- that if the data is incorrect, there's just as much work involved in fixing the bot's edits as there would be if the bot hadn't touched the page in the first place. Like I said earlier, I think we need to focus on teaching people what the right way is. Can we mark this resolved? Matt (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I noticed myself that the bot was adding DEFAULTSORT even if it was needed (for example in single-word terms). IMO this bot was approved very fast, in only four days discussion without enough feedback from the community. BAG must be more careful. For the rest we have to reach a consensus as a community. I always though that adding DEFAULTSORT in all articles could not be a bot's job. Only in small approved lists maybe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's causing a similar problem with Ethiopian names: Ethiopians do not have family names. The surname is their father's name, e.g. in the case of Mengistu Haile Maryam, his name is "Mengistu", & "Haile Maryam" is his father's name. I've been deleting DEFAULTSORT in these bios as I encountered them -- which means in the rare cases where an expatriate Ethiopian does use his father's name as a family name, I'm introducing an error. (And I won't go into the problems of compound names like "Zara Yaqob" or "Haile Selassie".) -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    The solution here is to draft the bots in to help. I used AWB to add the Listas parameter to several hundred talk pages, a few months back, but limited the pages under consideration to those consisting of specific patterns such "John" followed by an initial followed by an un-hyphenated capitalised name. Wherever a rule can be laid down you will find a bot editor willing to apply it for you. On other point, don't delete the DEFAULTSORT rather replace it. This makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC).
    Rich -- this is exactly what happened here. I wrote this bot because I was approached by Carcharoth with the request that, in the end, all biography articles have DEFAULTSORTs on them. The rule we decided upon was that "all biography articles fall into either Category:Biography articles with listas parameter or Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, let's take the ones that are in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and copy their listas parameters into a DEFAULTSORT for the article". Matt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problems are the following:
    • Not all articles need a DEFAULTSORT
      • Single word title articles
      • Article where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename (Chinese, Arabic names, musical groups etc.)
    • Sometimes the DEFAULTSORT is different than listas for a good reason i.e. YOB/YOD categories listing is not the same with most categories
    • Some articles are for duos, groups of more people and the categories should be piped but no DEFAULTSORT
    -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, we can make exceptions for the "articles where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename" situation pretty easily (which, when you think about it, would also cover "single word title article" most of the time, but not always). I'd argue against not having DEFAULTSORTs for single word titles by default because the name may not match WP:MCSTJR.
    As far as category sort tags, the bot only removes them if they are identical to what the new DEFAULTSORT is going to be. We realized at the BRfA that some categories may want to be sorted differently, and we made a conscious effort to make sure they were left alone.
    Why would you not want a DEFAULTSORT for duos/groups? Matt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    To Magioladitis (or should I address this to Matt?) -- So if you start opting out Chinese & Arabic names, could you also opt out Ethiopian ones? (We can take this specific conversation elsewhere if that works better for all.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, we're talking about opting out cases where the listas/DEFAULTSORT would be the same as the page title. Distinguishing Chinese/Arabic/Ethiopian names from everything else gets VERY tricky, especially for a bot. Matt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:194x144x90x118

    Recently, I asked for some feedback on this user's pattern of uncivil behavior, and what response to it might be appropriate. Only a few people responded, and no one directly replied to the question of whether his behavior rose to the level of needing administrative attention or not. The archived discussion is here. The user has replied to the archiving of the discussion in this section of his talk page, entitled "Still here haters." He says there that he very much wants to open an ANI thread regarding myself and User:SarekOfVulcan, in order to ask that we be disciplined for our 'immature behavior,' and presumably to address the problem that we are both incompetent and insane, but he is unable to open the thread himself because he doesn't feel his English skills are strong enough. I therefore open the discussion on his behalf; if anyone feels that I should be reprimanded, or Sarek should, for my behavior to this user, I welcome your comments. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Second that, again. I'm pretty sure I haven't gone over the line, but I am an involved editor on DreamHost, where most (all?) of our interactions have taken place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I can't deny it, my english and my wikipeda linking skills and all that are somewhat lacking but I wasn't asking anyone to open such a thread for me, the fact that Fisherqueen did is a clear cut example of immature behavior but yeah I'll try to get busy and make all them links, text and all that stuff and post up an ANI thread.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Would you like me to withdraw the thread? I would be happy to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Posting the thread was an immature thing to do which will be mentioned in an ANI thread appearing in the future. Withdrawing the thread is an obvious thing to do.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, if there's a thread coming later anyway, might as well leave this one open for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    My first interaction with 194 was reverting his third addition of a lengthy statement that the DreamHost article had scared him away from using their services. I later removed a similar comment attacking another editor and criticizing Dreamhost (again, after multiple other editors had removed the comment).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Could you folks take this to WP:WQA? I don't see any of this leading to a block. Jehochman 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have no problem with it being here, because I sense it's a prelude to (and hopefully heading off) RfC. We have few members who would comment in WQA, and a significant number here (one would think). Usually, so few of responses means "it's not a big deal" or "not urgent? no need to look". I would suggest that FisherQueen has seen something that her colleagues might want to look at...and sometimes it's more polite to not say exactly what it is, in case she was reading it wrong...and of course, 194's own comments in this thread give hint that incivility abounds - they can't even be polite in ANI! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I too saw their uncivil comments and almost commented on them, but don't forget to assume good faith, it's possible that they are bad at English, and don't realise that their comments are on the line of civility. Cheers - Kingpin (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    It is possible, but unlikely. 194x's contributions tend to be written in fairly idiomatic English with a varied vocabulary; their grammar is sometimes slightly shaky, but their grasp of English phrasing and idioms seems to be good enough. The fact that they copied the talk page "rules" from User:Anonimu, who has been banned for a year and a half for edit warring, personal attacks and harrassing other editors, is also interesting under the circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    FisherQueen and Sarek are neither immature nor insane, and the insinuation that they are is problematic. I recommend that FQ and Sarek avoid antagonizing 194x etc. in the future, but that also 194x avoids any interaction with FQ and Sarek. If he doesn't like working with them, he should not. And he should avoid playing games with WP:NPA. Strong english skills or not, insults are clear in any language. I don't speak French all that well, but I know when someone is throwing around inappropriate comments in French... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wadester16

    Resolved – No administrator intervention necessary. –Juliancolton |  22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wadester16 (talk · contribs) took a half-completed post I had made, but then deleted, fixed formatting so that it displayed (most of it did not in the version I had saved), added a reply criticising me for having posted it, and changed the context.

    This is in gross violation of WP:TALK, both letter (it forbids editing other people's posts) and spirit.

    Diffs: My text had been up for less than a minute when I thought better and deleted it

    Wadester "restores" something similar to the text I had removed. It's claimed as a simple Undo, but see below: It isn't.

    Never claimed undo. In fact, by telling you I fixed your misspelling, I implied that an Undo never happened. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    The edit summary is "(Undid revision 292722654 by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) no, please let everyone read this)". However, you did not, in fact, merely undo revision 292722654; you modified my text at the same time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Text I deleted vs. Wadester's "Undoing" of my near-immediate removal of it. Note the cquote tag is removed. This prevented 90% of my post from displaying.

    Note that, in the version I had briefly put up, the cquote box is broken, only showing a tiny bit of the thread.

    Wadester changes the context. Note that this further gives the impression that I decided to post this, and that this was what I had posted. Neither is true.

    Wadester restores it again, after I complained.

    Look, I'm about to go to bed, but had I done so a few minutes earlier, I'd have missed that he had restored and edited my message, and would have woken up to find that an incomplete statement I had removed seconds later had been edited into a semblance of completeness, and was being presented as my final statement on the matter. This really isn't on. People have been blocked in the past for stunts like this, but Wadester, even when I pointed him to the policy he was violating, remained unrepentant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I admit I didn't think about how it would show itself after removing the quotes, which didn't compile correctly (80% of the text was missing). So I added two lines (----) to separate the text from the current discussion. It even had a "title" line above it, which said "Also pasted from his talk. The background to this was him leaving a somewhat rude message on my talk page , criticising me for not putting through the provisional promotions, and saying I should have done them fully." At the moment, it is still there.
    The background behind this is a disagreement between Shoemaker's Holiday and myself over at WP:FPC. He and Durova have been openly arguing with me there. I believe that this text that he added, then redacted, should be listed, as I believe it shows I'm in the right. Maybe he realized this and removed it because of that, maybe not. This is an overreaction to a minor edit that was done in good faith (the formatting fix, I mean). As for reposting what SH posted, he must be aware by now that you better well be sure about what you want to post when you press the "Save page" button. All text added to a page on WP is GFDL and I have every right to repost what may have been removed. For that matter, this all came from my talk page; I could have easily just recopied+pasted the content and said "This is what Shoemaker's Holiday added, then redacted. I believe it's important to leave here if he felt it was important to initially post." I never edited anything that he wrote (save for helping him by fixing his typo in spelling "for"), only readded the discussion we had previously, text that I have every right to bring over here (especially since he did it first). Hopefully this can be closed quickly... wadester16 | Talk→ 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Wadester, if you're going to restore a post that had been up for seconds, before being removed by the author, it is your responsibility to make it damn clear that this is the case. You did not. The context of what we're arguing about doesn't matter. However much you feel you're in the right in the text I quoted doesn't matter. You edited an unfinished post into a semblance of a finished post, and presented it as my finished thoughts. That is a blockable offense, and you seem unable to see that there's a real problem here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec)Just an outside opinion here, but there have been quite a few additions and alterations that you have made to your own posts since you posted this thread. You refer to unfinished posts. Edit conflicts aside, you might want to consider typing out your responses in a text editor first, then posting them when you believe they are complete. You've already added text to your original post that could have been a reply, and split up one large paragraph into two, without noting that you have done so. HAZardousMATT 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but this needs no admin action that I can think of. I'm fairly sure we can just assume good faith and let it side. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Garden, he continues to state that he has every right to do this, and will do it again if it ever suits him. Assume good faith cannot apply, given that. I was misrepresented. My post was edited to make my unfinished thoughts appear to be my final views. Wadester refuses to see anything wrong with that, so admin action is the only way to make sure he doesn't do it again. He's been on Misplaced Pages for years, that's far too long not to know basic Misplaced Pages policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, I didn't do it to be malicious. I apologized for misrepresenting you, but it was presented in a clearer form (with the lines) than the way Durova did it. And she did that herself. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation, but I still feel it's a good thing to post. Maybe it will make other users think of reasons why I may be so bad at closing FPCs. Or maybe it will show that I'm not so bad. I'd like users to see as much info as possible. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm fairly sure Wadester didn't know these weren't your final thoughts. Maybe indicate this in the edit summary next time? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    This whole matter is touchy enough already; I was hoping we could keep it off the admin boards. Durova 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't even be here to begin with. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    At any other process it would have progressed to user conduct RfC, but we're in agreement on this much: administrative intervention is unnecessary. Respectfully requesting thread closure. Please, let's get FPC back on track. Durova 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Not sure if this is worth a report or not - but it seems to be 4:20 already

    Resolved – pages smoked, editors could be socking but no real disruptive sock editing to block for that reason alone. Watching. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I wonder what could be construed from the contribs of Smoker2000 (talk · contribs) and Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs). Could it perhaps be something portentous of things to come? --WebHamster 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I took the liberty of blanking Smoker2000's user page. It's an apparently nonsense article, but it included an illustration of an identified person. This may be a novel interpretation of WP:BLP, so others feel free to correct. // Chris 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I blanked the other, and believe it could,m and should, be G3'd as well. Interesting that Smoker2000 contrib'd to Marijuanasmoke, whose ONLY contribs are to his faked biography. 'The Golden Ear-rings'? c'mon. It's a farce. ThuranX (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have deleted them both. Mfield (Oi!) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Smoker2000 has reposted his page - . // Chris 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The user has blanked it again, since he posted an attack directed at me, I am not going to rise to it by deleting it again or blocking him personally, someone else can do that if he continues. Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Spoke too soon, now he's adding to it again despite the final warning. Mfield (Oi!) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have G3 CSD'ed the page, because he has again reinstated it. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    File:MagosHerrera1.jpg

    The above file still lacks copyright information, and was tagged as such 12 days ago (making deletion five days overdue). Could an admin please delete the file? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Poof... — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Not sure if this is a spamming session or legit linkings to a reliable source

    71.119.123.23 (talk · contribs) only contributions have been about 8 or 9 additions of various external links related to www.helpguide.org to articles. Now I'm not sure if this is spam vandalism or a legit source. Could I have an admin's view on this? Ta. --WebHamster 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Seems to be legitimate at first glance. –Juliancolton |  23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    The website seems legit and a good external link for the articles. However, Viagra may also give me an erection, but that does not mean that mass emails adveritising such are not spam. That is to say, the website looks legit and useful, but the behavior of adding external links to a wide spectrum of articles without doing anything else could be seen as spamming regardless of the merits of the site. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Now a new account, User talk:Helpguide, was apparently created specifically to add those helpguide.org links to articles, including ones they were just removed on. Clearly not someone being helpful in general and just accidentally starting with links to the same site on different articles but a role account created for spamming. DreamGuy (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    spamusername blocked. Mfield (Oi!) 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    That was fast. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Shearsongs78

    Resolved – sorted Rodhullandemu 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Making a right mess of José_Mourinho, moving it to \_Special_1 and then to The_Special_1, as well as replacing all instances of Mourinho's name in the article text. User's contribs show previous destructive/vandalistic edits and user has been previously blocked for same. Codeine (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked like Lego. If he returns after his one-week block with the same shenanigans, let us know. He can be indeffed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Many thanks. It's tough being an admin on another wiki. On the occasions I do edit here, I feel so... impotent. ;) -- Codeine (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've reversed all the moves. I think we're done here, but he's in my diary for 168 hours time. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Planwater10001

    This jackass just left a very detailed and very personal attack page threatening some family. I'm going to report this at CU since I think that this should be reported to local authorities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Looks like you already took care of him. Feel free to follow up with IRL authorities as you see fit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Emely1219

    Emely1219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Doesn't seem like Ratel, probably a sock from the looks of it. Soxwon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I doubt it -- seems not to like Ratel particularly, in fact. Seems to be a new user who happened to alight on Copperfield from the looks of things. Collect (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Obviously not me, I don't "do" socks. Checkuser will find it's either TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) or Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) I would guess. ► RATEL ◄ 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I doubt it is a sock, at least not worth a checkuser. Misplaced Pages:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet may apply here. We can wait a bit on this one, IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Let's annihilate this SPA/COI/sockpuppet before he/she has a chance to do any real damage -- or good -- to this project. Ten edits should be enough to tell. Flowanda | Talk 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've only just seen this section - looks like a sock of Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) to me and I've reported it as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Strange SPA behavior

    Resolved – Blocked indefinitely as spam-only accounts. rspεεr (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Micheliachempaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Twice, this user has rewritten Eagle Brand Medicated Oil as a blatant advertisement. After a level-4 warning, they did this. Obviously replacing referenced info with that rubbish won't fly, but should something be done about the account? --Sable232 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I say block away. I'm guessing AIV could more expediently handled this in the future. MuZemike 03:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Should be blocked for using multiple accounts: as User:Bordenwiki and as User:Micheliachempaka. --64.85.210.19 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    AIV Backlog

    Resolved – Seems clean as a whistle now--Valley2city 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    If an admin or two could take a look at the backlog on AIV, it would be appreciated. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    POV editing

     Resolved – Being dealt with ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Request an administrator look at the editing history of this IP 77.58.147.83 (talk · contribs) address. All the edits made by this editor have a single purpose: to remove statements he deems to be critical or France or French people and to add puffer statements supporting France or French people. Virtually everything this editor has written has been reverted by multiple editors. What this IP editor writes, however, is not serious enough to be called vandalism. Just POV insertion. In addition, this editor is in the custom of adding inappropriate remarks (bad language/insults) to talk pages--always unsigned. If this is the wrong place to write this, please advise. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    • The first step should be to initiate discussion with the user on their talkpage; not one message (other than SineBot) was left for the user. They may either change their behavior or simply move on once they realize someone objects. If they continue their behavior after being notified/warned, re-report them. --64.85.210.19 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Also it appears this editor wants to discuss possible changes as seen in their latest contribution. Please attempt to discuss before complaining.Drew Smith What I've done 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    In Fact, this IP has given nothing but positive contributions, and well thought out (if somewhat cynical of the english language) arguments on talk pages. Instead of ANIing him, we should encourage this IP to get an account and join the community full force.Drew Smith What I've done 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    And, it is common courtesy to alert someone to the fact that they are the subject of an ANI report. I have done this, however in the future you should attempt to hide your poor form, by doing it yourself.Drew Smith What I've done 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    To lecture Hmains' "poor form" for not notifying the IP in question is too abrupt as most posters fail to do so. If Hmains was a regular at ANI, or an admin, then that's different; but they just wanted to know what to do. Simply notifying the IP for them, as you have done, suffices just fine. Can you strike that? --64.85.210.19 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    (noindent) Drew R. Smith can't have made a comprehensive review of the contributions of this Swiss IP, which have mostly been reverted when noticed. Almost all are unsourced and pure POV. There are two unhelpful contributions , , which look like trollérie; similarly , , , . The last diff contains the phrase neurons masturbators in franglais. Some of the talk page comments border on chauvinism; it was hard to find any constructive edits and most were reverted by multiple editors. Most changes or comments were just "personal knowledge". Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ok, now that diffs have been provided, I can see my error. However, the (most apparent) complaint was behavior on talk pages, so that's all I looked at, and found nothing wrong.Drew Smith What I've done 07:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I disagree. The first diffs I provided have no place on a talk page. Why are you championing this IP and why have you generated the further complaint two threads down below from User:RCS, a german user from Alsace whose use of english the IP criticized in an uncivil way? Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Again, I can see my error. Note the use of the words "was" and "looked". All past tense. I agree with you now that I have been shown proof.Drew Smith What I've done 07:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Drew R. Smith

    Extended drama not helping anything
    Resolved – Being dealt with ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Flies vehemently to the defense of a proven vandal in Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala#Awful English in such a way that it is not only impossible to assume good faith (states "He has no bad/poor contributions" while there is plenty and open for all to see, like ) but even possible to surmise sockpuppetry. What do you think? Cheers, --RCS (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I am not a sockpuppet. I did not fly vehemently to the defence of a proven vandal. And I did not attack others by insinuating that they are sockpuppets.Drew Smith What I've done 07:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Please can we return to the IP. He claimed RCS was a French high school student. But the article was a translation into english of the article RCS has been editing as Edelseider for some time now on de.wikipedia. (According to his de.wikipedia user page he is a perfectly bilingual Alsatian.) Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have tagged this user and the IP as suspected sockpuppets at this stage, investigation pending. C.U.T.K.D 09:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    You can't be serious, right? --64.85.217.122 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Speaking as one who has "been there", you need to be careful about making overt sockpuppetry claims. If you have evidence, you can file an SPI. One user supporting another excessively may look suspicious, but that's not necessarily enough. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I agree one should be careful, but, ahum, do you also think 64.85.217.122 (talk · contribs) was born out of Jupiter's thigh? Just a thought... --RCS (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Try checking 64.85.210.19's talk page. Before you make sock claims next time.Drew Smith What I've done 09:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, so which one of you "comedians" posted this? C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    (ec,ec,ec)The tagging is outrageous -- I'm reverting the templating. Can someone have a word with CUTKID, this is a careless and imprudent accusation. BTW, I'm a sock of the other 64.85.xxx IP from above, no need for an SPI. --64.85.217.122 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Brilliant CUTKD. If you were paying attn that IP in your diff has nothing to do with this thread.Drew Smith What I've done 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    No, he got the right IP (User:77.58.147.83), he didn't tag me. --64.85.217.122 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have clarified my above statement by adding the italicised textDrew Smith What I've done 09:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    What's needed for evidence is not just "support", but also re-posting the same information, similar verbiage, etc. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    If you are referring to this, I think you will find it wasn't actually a diff I quoted above. I was well aware that that particular IP had not posted in this thread, but I find it highly suspicious that shortly after posting here about sockpuppet accusations and causing something of an upset, a "random" IP arrives to leave me a message like that... C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, well an IP vandalised my page after I edited an ANI that you were involved in a few weeks ago. Was that you?Drew Smith What I've done 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Is there a reason why you're so quick to become highly defensive? C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Both of you, try to act a little more mature, eh? You're bitching and sniping like a couple of brats. Is there anything here which requires admin attention? KillerChihuahua 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    It all started with me claiming (and showing) that Drew Smith had been acting with apparently extreme and quite inexplicable bad faith and this had struck also another user, Mathsci (talk · contribs). So this is where admin input could be useful.--RCS (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    (EC)::::Oh, I don't no, maybe because sockpuppetry is sever accusation, and you have nothing to back it up with. Maybe next time you want to accuse someone of being a sock, you can find real evidence first. Otherwise, STFU and goodnight.Drew Smith What I've done 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oh Jesus, KC is here. Well, seeing as he hates me I'll be blocked for sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, POV pushing, and edit warring in no time.Drew Smith What I've done 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not a wise tone, Drew. May I draw attention to Drew's conduct at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. Ultimately I don't find his conduct there particularly bad, especially as he too eventually pointed out to a user they were being rude and incivil (User:BullRangifer). Computerjoe's talk 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    (after ec) Ah well, I can corroborate that. Drew accused me of participating in a Xfd merely to oppose his view, and has made several other hostile (and ridiculous) accusations/comments. As I'm the target, however, I've ignored them, and I'm not an appropriate person to take action about his behavior. I suggest another admin, who has not become a target for Drew, address this situation. KillerChihuahua 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    (ec)The main problem has been with the edits of the Zurich IP 77.58.147.83 (talk · contribs), mentioned in the first part above. All the rest is secondary noise. Mathsci (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    K, checking that. KillerChihuahua 10:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not targetting you. You seem to be targeting me. You always seem to show up when I'm involved in something controversial.Drew Smith What I've done 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    << OK, how about nobody comments here except a neutral outside admin. Drew; you are not neutral, outside or an admin. KillerC; if you don't consider yourself neutral, I wouldn't rise to any of this, just wait for someone uninvolved to look into things. I think that this'll move along much more smoothly if we stop bickering. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm completely neutral. I've also been attacked multiple times by Drew, who I mainly ignore. I have left multiple messages on the IP's talk page and will watch to see what response ensues. KillerChihuahua 10:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK, sorry, misinterpreted, "As I'm the target, however, I've ignored them, and I'm not an appropriate person to take action about his behavior. I suggest another admin," above. Can we mark Resolved then? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    So far as I'm concerned, yes. The IP issue has been addressed, and although I cannot say that situation is resolved, pending reaction/response from the IP, there is nothing more to be done there right now. As the rest of this seems to be bickering and infighting, I suggest we ignore it completely. KillerChihuahua 10:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Does this user do anything other than go round making enemies. Their sarcasm, such as that in the "Legal threat in Highwaymen Motorcycle Club" thread below, is (imo) in direct breach of WP:CIVIL. How have they been getting away with this behaviour for so long? C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Note—this message was actually posted at 11:31 ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ok sorry I didn't see the above comment. C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Who, me? Or Drew? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I was referring to your (TreasuryTag's) comment :) C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Note to impartial administrator: more incivility and this I find highly suspicious. C.U.T.K.D 09:20, 28 M 10:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I am so sorry I removed vandalism from your page. I'll leave it there next time.Drew Smith What I've done 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Seems to me that he may have a point, and one can't beat simple instructions. --WebHamster 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    He warned the IP that threatened YOU, after he reverted the vandalism on your talk page!! This needs to be dropped and everyone sent to their respective corners. --64.85.217.122 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Robert I. Sherman

    Resolved – Article has been deleted. Early closure by Gwen Gale.

    As of this posting, the deletion discussion has seven votes for deletion (including nom) and only one keep (that of the author). Note also that the subject of the article has expressed strong objection to the content of the article, which had been stubbed as a borderline attack piece on a living person. The author persists in restoring the content. There is no biographical information on the subject's life or career outside of these two incidents. As the admin who began the stubbing and opened the AFD, and having already restubbed it once, I feel it inappropriate for me to take any further action here. I do, however, believe the article should be restubbed and protected until the AFD concludes. Further opinions requested. لennavecia 06:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Since my comment on the BLP noticeboard is rather elaborate, let me give a short version here. I am not so much opposing this afd on the basis that I consider Sherman notable as person. I count roughly 1000 hits with search engines for "Robert I. Sherman". What I am strongly opposing is the presumption that the material is ""bordering on an attack page" or that it "it may actually qualify for G10." For previous discussions see here and here.
    All I did was clean up (and later move) an article called Historical persecution by Christians. The old version included a section "20th century" and a subsection "United States", and there was a single sentence: "In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." The remainder of that section was a piece of junk and I could delete it, diff but that sentence appeared to be relevant for Misplaced Pages, only not for this article. So I merged it and later expanded the material, since it turned out to be a difficult issue. And I have been battling about this ever since.No one attempted to show that it simply isn't notable, everybody simply bashed against it on the grounds of wp:blp or wp:verifiability. If this material was unverifiable or a blp violation, I would not have kept it. If it turns out the Sherman is not notable, then I suppose that I will have to merge the material into Freedom of Religion in the United States, unless someone can convincingly argue that it would not be "one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society". And if we have to go through the arguments based on wp:blp or wp:verifiability, so be it. But then, let us do it only once, and properly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The AfD will clearly conclude with deletion. Meanwhile, I think it's not worth the bother to stub and protect; the content is not a clear BLP violation.  Sandstein  12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The subject of the article disagrees, viewing the article as an attack piece. He has approached the situation respectfully and, considering all commenting editors agree that the content should be deleted, it seems to me that it would be prudent to remove the offensive material, which I contend is a violation of our BLP policy. لennavecia 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Possible early closure? There is only one keep. KillerChihuahua 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Legal threat in Highwaymen Motorcycle Club

     Resolved. Indef blocked by Jéské Couriano. C.U.T.K.D 09:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    H.F.F.H (talk · contribs), a self-identified member of the Highwaymen Motorcycle Club, posted a legal threat here. The issue is the phrasing "one-percenter" which to my uninitiated eyes appears to be appropriate (judging from the sources, that is). In any case, a very explicit legal threat. --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'll transfer this to WP:AIV. C.U.T.K.D 07:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Again, brilliant work CUTKD. WP:AIV is for vandalism, not legal threats.Drew Smith What I've done 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) That was un-necessarily sarcastic. What you should say is, "Actually, AIV is only for simple vandalism, this is the right place to deal with legal threats." ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Then Misplaced Pages:LEGAL should be updated to stop sending people to the wrong board :-) Thanks, CUTKD! --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    To be fair, WP:NLT does clearly say at the top, Legal threats should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, yes it does. My post above was an error (and I tried to revert it but was apparently edit conflicted). I misread Drew's post as saying that legal threats should not be reported to ANI, so thought it was criticism of my posting here. Sorry about the confusion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    << Fair enough, don't worry! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies for causing confusion.Drew Smith What I've done 10:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    SPA making personal attacks in summary

    Resolved

    Could some kind admin delete this defamatory accusation from a SPA IP 92.14.248.193 (talk · contribs) currently in melt down on the Death of Baby P article? --WebHamster 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    No matter, already sorted. --WebHamster 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Spoke too soon. Could someone please block the above mentioned IP editor, and delete the defamatory comments in his contrib history. This person's a real cuddly customer! --WebHamster 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indef'd. 31 hours didn't strike me as sufficient, given those edit summaries. Cleaning up talk page diffs, too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    There's a high likelihood that JohnRedwood (talk · contribs) is the IP risen from the dead... worth keeping an eye upon methinks. --WebHamster 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked 92.15.9.8 over threats of violence. This is certainly a charming corner of WP I've stumbled onto....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, but have changed the duration to a finite one per Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths.  Sandstein  13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    31 hours is more than sufficient for this dynamic IP. You'll notice that it was no longer being used by this user after only a few minutes. Please reduce the block length to avoid excessive collateral. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree - the ISP in question (TalkTalk) does not offer static IPs and I doubt a block of anything longer than a week or so will achieve anything other than collateral damage. ~ mazca 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Done, lowered to 24h.  Sandstein  18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    You idiots, unblock the talk page so people can discuss this important case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRedwood (talk • contribs) 13:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    That would seem to answer WebHamster's question. JohnRedwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now also indefblocked.  Sandstein  13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    I also blocked three of JohnRedwood's IP socks yesterday for harassing User:Mw-wsh. We'll likely be dealing with this one for a bit, so any watchlist help on Death of Baby P would be greatly appreciated. — Satori Son 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Historičar and Bosniak fundamentalis PoV pushing at the article Bosnian language

    Historičar and his likely sockpuppet User:Journalist 007 have been edit-warring on the abovementioned article, by simply removing content they feel like is added by "Croat and Serb nationalist", despite being abundantly sourced, and at the same time ignoring the talkpage discussions altogether, where everyone can see that he ("them") has no case at all, by either deliberately milsleading and lying (e.g. claiming that the English version of the B&H constitution which contains the disputed phrasing Bosniac language is "translated from Croatian" despite the fact that there are several cited places where it is claimed otherwise, the Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian versions of the constitution being translated from the English original which was voted on) or engaging in ad hominems against his fellow Wikipedians. He even called "nationalist" users such as DIREKTOR and myself, even though both of us have a pretty strong record of being anti-nationalist (both Croat and Serb, and even Bosnian Muslim) on numerous other issues. Can someone with sysop buttons please warn Historičar to act politely, discuss the things that he doesn't like on the talkpage first, and stop acting as a censor for the information everyone but him is comfortable with? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've blocked Historičar for 24 hours for edit-warring, notified Journalist 007 of WP:ARBMAC and warned them about reverting etc, and reminded DIREKTOR of WP:3RR. I've also fully-protected the article for one week to prevent further edit-warring and encourage all editors to engage on the talk-page. If you want to file a sock report, WP:SSP is thataway ;) Sanctions recorded at ARBMAC. EyeSerene 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    New user indiscriminately reverting my edits

    New user User:Who killed bambi seems to have set up his account just for the purpose of reverting my edits . I suspect this is User:64.19.148.90 who got angry at me for trying to include a NPOV in the article of his pet organization (see Talk:Oorah (organization). Can anything be done to stop him? Jms2000 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think this report is rather premature. The best solution, when someone reverts an edit of yours, is to use a Talk page to discuss the matter (the talk page of the article, or of the other user), remembering to assume good faith and remain polite. The associated content dispute seems perfectly straightforward. The addition of the phrase "antisemitic hate group" is disputed; the solution is to provide a reliable source. Policy is quite clear that the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Isn't "bambi" one of those words frequently used in sock names by a long-time puppeteer? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Bambifan 101Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe not. Although User:HBC NameWatcherBot is programmed to look for "bambi" in usernames for potential association with Bambifan 101, the list of socks doesn't actually include any of that type that I can see. This could be a coincidence. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Missing MOS archives

    Could one of you perhaps be persuaded to put your deletion goggles on and resolve the mystery at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Archives_of_this_page? Vielen Dank,  Skomorokh  15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Found 66 & 67, they weren't capitalized correctly: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of style/Archive 67, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of style/Archive 66. --64.85.220.164 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Also found Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 0 which isn't linked to in the archive box at all. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive (jguk's changes) might be Archive 8 or 9, but so could Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 1, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 2, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 3, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 4, or Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 5; none of those seem to be archived properly. --64.85.211.233 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Block evasion by User:Jeneral28

    Earlier this week, this user was blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the 3RR (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Jeneral28 reported by Aoi (Result: 31 hours for Jeneral28+ip). Since then, the user has evaded their block several times. A helpful administrator, Amalthea, blocked two IPs that were used to evade the block per WP:DUCK, including 147.188.244.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 147.188.244.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since then, the user has evaded the block at least two more times, under the IP 147.188.244.61 and Neptune123456. In the former case, the IP address is very similar to the IP addresses Amalthea blocked earlier today; in the latter case, the user is editing at all the same articles Jeneral28 frequented, and is putting words into discussions where Jeneral28 frequented. For example, see these two diffs: and . User is also on talk pages simply agreeing with whatever Jeneral28 wrote in the past; see , , , and . Finally, I'm not sure exactly what this is, but this template seems to have been automatically added to the user's talk page: 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Neptune123456 indefblocked per WP:DUCK; block on Jeneral28 reset. You may well be right about the IP, but with only two recent contributions I don't think there's enough there to go on yet. If they resume though, please re-report. EyeSerene 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Checkuser on Neptune123456 shows him editing the same IP that Jeneral28 was using, and one other. Fred Talk 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    .61 was autoblocked already anyway.
    He isn't disruptive enough yet to rangeblock the whole University of Birmingham, from where he's editing (147.188.0.0/16). However, if he continues with his disruptive behaviour a mail to their network admin might be a first step. Amalthea 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Heh, a rangeblock would be extreme at the moment ;) Incidentally, Neptune123456 has an unblock request up. EyeSerene 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Guido den Broeder

    User:Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by User:Cool Hand Luke nearly a week ago, with a topic ban in place. His edits since then include a first edit denying any problems (also ), removing quite normal posts as "personal attacks", a claim that he won't edit Misplaced Pages anymore (). He started being disruptive at . He has already twice reverted perfectly normal edits as vandalism; When called upon this, he removed this per WP:SPADE. Finally, he posted a copyright violation, whihc I removed as such.. When I then explained what he had to do to let it stay, he replied with the summary "pay attention pls" that since the speech was given in public, it was now in the public domain...

    This user has been banned before, but has been allowed to return. Since then, he has attacked the ArbCom member who unbanned him and caused all the above problems, all this in less than a week and less than 100 edits. I suggest that we don't waste a huge amount of time on him again but simply reinstate the ban before this starts all over again. Fram (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd like to add that CHL has acted brilliantly during this, first in the unblocking and extension of good faith, and then in addressing the concerns of other editors. This should not reflect badly on him, nor on the unblocking of problem editors with defined limits and a watchman such as CHL. Verbal chat 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The block log says that the user was unblocked by the Arbitration Committee so frankly, they should deal with it if there are issues. Perhaps WP:AE would be a better venue for this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, AE is for the enforcement of specific arbitration remedies, which does not seem to be the issue here.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    WT:AC/N works just as well...I think you understand my point. Should the community really have a big discussion about this if the Committee will again overturn the outcome of said discussion? I really think that ArbCom should be handling the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Just a point, while Arbcom blocks can only be undone by the Arbcom, unblocks by the Arbcom aren't "binding" and new behavior can supercede the unblock, if consensus is there. Any new blocks are just blocks. I've never heard of Arbcom "unblocks" having any special weight relative to their blocks. rootology/equality 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps that's true. Above, I just assumed the opposite. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    For various and good reasons I have removed the discussion in question from GDBs talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have no involvement whatsoever with Guido, other than having initiated the discussion that got him banned. I observed Durova's good-hearted attempt to get him community-unbanned, which appeared to fail in the face of non-full disclosure from the banned party. I've also observed ArbCom's well-meaning trial unban and CHL's exemplary efforts to explain limits on behaviour. My sense of the developments over the last week or so is that GdB is more interested in discussing how many "t"'s you spell limit with than getting on with productive editing. This is a serious concern, to echo WMC's supposed personal attack, "this is all going to end in tears". ArbCom may choose to act, but the community may also choose to override ArbCom and re-instate the ban.

    The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    (after 10+ bwc's) :To clarify: I have no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time. My main interest currently lies in policy development, and occasionally I help out editors with policy questions. I suggest certain users to give me some space, refrain from making accusations related to things that may or may not have happened ages ago, and stop editwarring on my talk page, so that I actually get a fair chance. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Category: