Misplaced Pages

• Endorse as mentor. PiratesmackK has now admitted he meant to do that but thought it was "a joke", so I'll add "bullshitting" to his list of little disruptions. I stopped him from getting blocked when he was pissing around and doing next-to-nothing useful - a second chance is not a second chance to piss around again. I have serious doubts that he's here to contribute usefully - see his Encyclopedia Dramatica efforts, replying to this (remove the *, spamblacklist you see with something (which has now been hidden, odd, but User:Mentifisto will back me up on this) reading along the lines of "lol, I'm just enjoying the drama at the moment". Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - was just here to fuck around. Good riddance. //roux   16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• "to trick a crat' into granting sysop/admin rights"? Diff? I see this which is rollbacking, and neither a sysop or an admin right. I also don't see anything "tricky" about the above. So, provide diffs, and I find it highly questionable that three people responded to this without asking for diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Ottava, I missed it too first time around; the link Pirate actually provided was to Special:MakeSysop/PirateSmackK, and he marked it as

It's not "highly questionable" to look at the contrib log and backtrack over this and other dispute to see a pattern of ongoing disruption. You may want to ask what we based our opinions on rather then question our motives outright, at least give us the chance to explain our opinions before assuming we are commenting in bad faith. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the block log itself. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not even close to obvious. You should have provided this information. You can't just call for an indef block discussion without providing the appropriate diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? He linked to the previous discussion, where Pirate was not blocked in exchanged for supervised editing and not arsing around, and then linked to Pirate arsing around while under said supervision. That's called "diffs". Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not the justification for an indef. The justification was the tricking someone into providing sysop rights without even linking to that. Such a thing is unacceptable and shows a lack of propriety in an indef discussion. Have some more respect for people before you put them on the chopping block. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I just had to give him his ANI notice. Mailer Diablo should really have known better than to start a thread at ANI about someone and not do this. This is really bad practice.Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

He did know, and Mailer told him - Pirate blanked his talkpage. "The justification was the tricking someone into providing sysop rights without even linking to that" - the justification was attempting to trick him, and it was linked. I explained where in the diff you questioned the "trick" was. Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse lack of the original diffs. The "trick" wasn't linked above. I was the first one to post the diff on ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you said that because I brought it here with the view that his block might actually be reduced; quite the opposite of what you might actually think. I actually expect other editors to run through his contribs and make the judgment for themselves. - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, most people took it as if you are supporting the indef and then followed in suit. If you want the block reduced, then put forward the actual situation, analyze it to point out why the situation shows that it is not to the extent that justifies a complete ban, and then hope people see reason. Live, learn, and all of that. Not that anything would probably have changed how this has resulted, as the people have seemed to be very happy to set forth a new standard for indeffing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - That "joke" on EVula's talk page was intolerable – we could have had one of the most disruptive sysops ever if EVula had fallen for it. While I have seen PirateSmackK around, and he has made a few good/insightful edits, he's an all-out net negative in the end. Precisely what Roux said – good riddance. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Unfortunately, there are two words in play: "less" and "clue". Your order may vary. This is a serious project, and this editor is doing his best to go against my belief that "everyone has something to add to Misplaced Pages". Maybe he does, but not in this manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track)
• Endorse All the game players need to be shown the door. rootology/equality 17:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - No steward would have been fooled. It would take you to another page that is clearly marked, and if EVula would have approved it he should have his Steward access removed for not reading things first. Furthermore, he probably wouldn't click on that link to give rollbacks regardless. This is an egregious block for something that isn't even an actual violation. There are far too many mobs at ANI indeffing people without a good reason. This is a disturbing trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean bureaucrat? EVula isn't a steward. SUL 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's right, he made CU and not Steward. I couldn't remember which was which. Either way. Stewards and Crats can both equally use the button (and Founders, if we want to add all three). So yeah, even those lowly Crats wouldn't make that mistake. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, bureaucrats do make mistakes when changing user rights. User:Lar, a steward, has made more than one mistake (see ) and he hasn't lost his steward access. SUL 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Ottava makes a good point, true. Noone would really have given him those rights by just clicking the link, as far as I know, opening a link will not make him a sysop, will it? So EVula would have had to confirm this and if he had, it would have been his fault. Nevertheless, I do thing the block is justified. This user has (as evidenced above) a long history of such behavior and has not shown any signs of learning from previous ANI discussions. As such, there is now no other explanation other than to assume that they are only attempting to disrupt the 'pedia. This cannot be tolerated. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that how Misplaced Pages is turning out now? A series of relatively minor problems and we just shove them into indef and hope they don't come back, when we know that a large majority do come back as sock vandals? Why not put it at a week block? Or something else? Or why don't we try to find him a mentor? Do we solve all of our problems by just pushing them under the carpet now? I am troubled by this recent trend as it has never solved anything in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Have you read the ANI discussions? We did find him a mentor. He was told we wouldn't block him, we'd just supervise his editing and he'd be left alone if he didn't piss about. Result? He pissed about. He's contributed nothing useful apart from a lot of myspacing and some minor AV work. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is strenous and renew my call to at least ban him for a month or two with a reinstatement of mentorship at that time with an understanding that further jokes will end with a community indef ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"He pissed about" If that is what it takes to be indeffed, I can give you a whole series of people who just "piss about", including over 2 dozen people who frequent ANI constantly and many, many admin. Why don't we indef them too based on the above standard? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse > he's dome some really silly things, but trying to fool a crat into sysopping him really takes the biscuit. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Community ban enough violations of WP:DE to exhaust patience. This account has shown that they are out to disrupt the site--Cailil 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You guys are way too serious business. He did not hurt anything and has a good edit record. An indef block is way too harsh in this case. --Zaiger _talkplx 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Good edit record? We're talking about a different editor, yes? One who wasn't under editing sanctions for his godawful standard of editing? Disclosure, Zaiger is Pirate's friend from Encyclopedia Dramatica, where Pirate has been bragging (RE: the last ANI thread) about "enjoying the drama". Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  So I am a sysop on another wiki, what does that have to do with anything on Misplaced Pages? Nothing. It is obvious that you just have personal issues with anyone associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica, which makes you far from partial in this matter. --Zaiger _talkplx 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Its obvious? Based on what? My concern is that you and Pirate associate off-wiki, and indeed that one of the first things he did here was say hi to you. My opinion would not change whether this association was by email, IRC, ED or anywhere else, the fact of the matter is that you're not a neutral party and did not disclose that. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I don't have to be partial, you are the one throwing a temper tantrum at me for not share the same opinion as you. I just said an indef ban is a little harsh for someone asking for sysops. The truth is that piratesmakk and I only know each other because he is a user and I am a sysop at ED, we do not chat, email, twitter, myspace, talk on the phone, or go out for sunday brunch together. Alison said hello to me also, are you going to chimp out on her next? </conversation> --Zaiger _talkplx 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  You don't have to be impartial, but it is nice to disclose it. In the interests of a level playing field, that's what I'm doing. I did not throw a temper tantrum, I was slightly confused because Pirate doesn't have a "good edit record", not at all. He's been here just over a month and he's already had an ANI thread on him for his activities in which he had to undergo supervised editing or be blocked. Respecting the points of view of others is something I believe in, but when that point of view is obviously detached from reality (and influenced by your contact with him, I must assume, because the alternative is that you're completely unaware of the situation). Again, I'm not "throwing a temper tantrum" - you, on the other hand, are accusing me of doing so and having something against ED. And while I don't, it's obviously perfectly acceptable to do so, because "I don't have to be partial" (I assume you mean "impartial" rather than "partial" because "partial" would mean "I don't have to be involved". Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  By the way Zaiger, you do know mr.SmackK from here. He's the one who renamed your userpages to "Pedobear", remember? Apparently "per request in email"... Yintaɳ  14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Echo what Ironholds has to say, plus: what length of block would you suggest, then, Zaiger? </humouring> ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think one or two months is suffieciently suited to the level we wnt to convey without overdoing it.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I agree --Zaiger _talkplx 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Given the fact that PirateS was already on his second chance, what makes you think that he will not continue being disruptive, jokey and lulzey and lovin' da dramahz in a couple of months' time? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oh I apologize, I didn't realize that joking was a bannable offense, someone needs to stop this monster now then. --Zaiger _talkplx 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Joking isn't per se, it all depends on how much of it there is, and how appropriate it is. It's not really "joking" to put make-sysop links on a 'crat's talkpage under false pretences. It's disruptive, particularly after being warned for such "jokes" as adding {{db-faggotry}} to pages. And disruption is bannable, of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

At that point we will allready have the consensus for a community ban. A two month ban is not a brush offable offense, it conveys a very serious message. this is his second his next is the third. 3 strikes and you're out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef, the latest incident is much less serious than some of the previous ones but this was something of a last chance. Did he hurt anything? Well Pedo and Faggot are pretty hurtful insults. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Even though EVula would not have been fooled by that link (see the difference between Special:MakeSysop and Special:UserRights), he has been too disruptive recently. SUL 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse "Indefinite" is just that - and it can be lifted tomorrow or never, and the person who will be responsible for that is the blocked user; if they wish to make a go at having a net positive Misplaced Pages experience then they can make the attempt. For the record I oppose a community ban, since my feeling is that PSK is not acting maliciously (if only because that would entail a quantity of serious application that is otherwise absent from his participation) but for the "lulz". It may be that they will grow up, perhaps even in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse long-term block, but not necessarily an indef right off the bat. Ottava is right, in no reasonable world should any bureaucrat actually click that link without knowing what it does. However, this is not a reasonable world. I'm not saying I would have clicked it, nor am I saying evula may have. Nor am I saying it was a deliberate power play or trick by PirateSmackK. It may just have been for fun, EUI, whatever. However that doesn't make it okay. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It's not MySpace, ED or any other place that we won't mention because of a couple low-numbered rules, where getting tricked or seeing a trap gives you a giggle. As Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, we need to maintain a collegial atmosphere. We cannot tolerate these sorts of shenanigans, and when it becomes clear PirateSmackK can comport himself in a professional manner, PirateSmackK should be readmitted to the community. WP:SO might provide some useful thoughts on how to manage this editor's eventual return. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. He's not here to help build the encyclopedia, and trying to deceive is not okay. Fortunately, EVula knows what he's doing. However, he's caused too much disruption, and WP will irrefutably be better without that disruption. hmwithτ 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• What? Joke links are a reason to ban people now? There may or may not be legitimate reasons to block / ban this particular user, but putting a joke link on the user talk page of someone is not one of them. Sheesh. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MZM. Pirate's done some pretty bizarre things, but joking on a talk page is not in itself bannable. –Juliancolton |  21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment As the editor who initially welcomed Pirate, I thought I should comment. Ottava brings valid points to the table; but, I think we need to give due weight to Ironholds as the mentor as well. It's obvious we're not dealing with WP:NOCLUE here, and considerations of gaming the system has crossed my mind. Perhaps we could revisit the situation after his "long wiki-break" Indef =/= infinate, and I hate to look at permanent community ban issues without consideration to any constructive edits. I'm not sure I understand the intent with his strong desire to have admin. buttons, rollback, etc. I don't want to take anything at prima facia value, and I'd certainly be interested in any perception EVula had on this. Has anyone notified her of this thread? — Ched :  ?  21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to thank everyone here that thinks I'm so stupid as to fall for such a painfully obvious joke. Thanks! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey! You should be honored that I defended your intelligence even though it goes against every fiber of my being. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, that just made this whole fiasco totally worth it in my books. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hopefully you don't think I ever questioned your gray-matter, just thought those closest to the situation can offer the best perspective. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It was just a joke. -download ׀ sign! 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support So is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre or making obscene phone calls. HalfShadow 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Your analogy is a tad strange - one is a life or death matter, the other could be something that someone doesn't get in trouble for or could be sexual harassment, a death threat, etc. Very little parallel. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support 30-day block. — Ched :  ?  23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• While I support a 30 day block in order to provide Pirate the chance to re-evaluate his patterns and goals here, and I think it's time to put a halt to such nonsense, I also strongly oppose a "Ban" per LHvU line of thinking. — Ched :  ?  02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Non-admin Support per LessHeard vanU, and because some "jokes" have serious consequences. Kcowolf (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG oppose That guy is a good editor and he makes a positive contribution to wikipedia, I would support a 24 hour block but that's all I think would be apropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  He's been here a month and already had two ANI threads on him for his editing - that isn't "a good editor makes a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages". Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Greatly oppose Listen, Pirate is a good editor. You may have your feelings hurt Ironholds but don't act like a hypocrite. You can't act like an unbiased user when you're making a hard, biased decision. There are plenty of satirist and comedian esq. users on Misplaced Pages, so stop acting like a tool and get the fuck over your emotions and biased feelings towards Pirate. This is not a vandal we are talking about, so stop treating him like one and slandering the hell out of him. Seriously, you all endorse an indefinite block? You should all be ashamed. With my own entitled opinion, M

  A good editor lasts more than a month without two ANI threads. I can't see how you can accuse me of bias when the diff was discovered by a different user, blocked by another and brought up at ANI by a third, all me. I attempted to support PiratesmackK initially. I don't quite understand where your accusations of bias are coming from. You, on the other hand, are a former vandal and ED user - I note the other users claiming Pirate is a quote "good contributor" are as well. Coincidence? In future, by the way, I advise you to watch your mouth and avoid personal attacks ( stop acting like a tool and get the fuck over your emotions) and learn the correct meaning of the word "slander". Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  "A good editor"? ,,,,,,. Give me a break. Yintaɳ  13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Completely, unreservedly endorse Toddst1's indefinite block — and this comes from somebody who seldom ever speaks out against a fellow editor (or for that matter, person). Pirate has demonstrated nothing but immaturity ever since he started and his presence is wholly disruptive to the encyclopedia, and when he was given the opportunity to be mentored it blew up in everyone's face. That link on EVula's talk page was basically the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. I say be done with it, there's no need to waste time on an editor who never learns. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• On second thought, endorse shortening it to its original length. 96.52.64.82 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, 1 or 2 weeks would be good if it's that serious for you guys. I mean, he may joke around a lot but he's made good contributions. Just so you know, I really don't like Pirate, but an indefinite block is really really over the top. M —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I guess it's sort of obvs but that IP above is mine. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I'm sure the "victim" would've undone the action well before any damage could be done, and is smart enough to hover over a link before clicking it.. Removing him from the community on a permanent basis is extreme, though some punishment is in order for the failed prank. Perhaps a month long block, then whatever probation? That Thing There (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Pattern of disruption, and the way he linked to the rights change with a misleading tag is plain dirty. Maybe he can apply after 6mos or so, but not now and I'd leave as is. Nja 09:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per the history of disruption more than anything else. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. He was just gaming the system and effing about. Sometimes the WP community assumes too much Good Faith for far too long, and this was one of those times. Arguing about the length of the ban/block is pointless IMHO since he's probably back already under a different username anyway. Yintaɳ  12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, disruptive user - that link may or may not be serious but it was still flagrantly stupid considering his previous history of disruption. I doubt that he'll ever become a constructive user. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endores Editors with this short of a history at Misplaced Pages that show this level of poor judgement are probably not a net benefit for the project. Impersonating an admin is not something to be taken lightly, and coupled with a past history of problems, I do not see this user as being interested in improving the encyclopedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. We need editors who will help build an encyclopedia. This editor does not. – Quadell 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If that is your standard, I can provide you a large list of people who don't help build the encyclopedia. There are many people on that list that just edit ANI and do nothing constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Contributing to the smooth running of the place on ANI is constructive, and does help create a climate suitable for building an encyclopedia. There are cleaners who work for Microsoft—while they don't directly work on software engineering, they help in the broad creation of the operating system, and it couldn't be done without their services. PirateS, however, posted silly joke (at best) links whilst under agreement not to mess about. And that had no positive impact, direct or indirect, on the enyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not from what I've seen. If you don't create content or help preserve content, you should have no business at Misplaced Pages in any respect. Those that stay at ANI and spend the majority of there time here only cause drama, inflame situations, and destroy this place. Clean them out first before anyone has the right to say that others should go. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indefblock. We need editors who will build the encyclopedia, and we do not need editors who use it as a playground to prat about in. He has filed an unblock request; on the basis of the obvious consensus here I am going now to decline it. Any admin or above who didagrees, please feel free to revert me. --Anthony.bradbury 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban as indefblock. My dealings with this editor indicate that he has no desire to do anything but disrupt the encyclopedia. There are no attempts to contribute effectively, no attempts to mend his ways, and as far as I see it, no attempts to conform to the community policies and guidelines. I'm not normally one to muck about in ANI, RfA, Arbcom, or any of the internal workings of Misplaced Pages, nor am I a person who lightly picks up a torch and joins the raging mod. But I have no hope for this individual as an editor. In fact, I have some suspicions (no evidence, mind you, certainly nothing to take to checkuser) that Pirate is a sock of a banned user trying to be devious for unknown ends. bahamut0013_deeds 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

has another mentor stepped forward?

Without commenting on the appropriateness of the block/ban, has another mentor stepped forward to offer to work with this user? I get the feeling that Ironhold's offer is no longer in place. Since the user was allowed to continue editing after the ANI discussion with the understanding the user would edit with a mentor's guidance, it seems that any unblock would need to at least fulfill that minimum requirement. –xeno 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that needed? At the moment I'm seeing a lot of endorsements for an indef. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I posted this as more of a prompting to those arguing for his unblocking. A new mentor in place strikes me as a necessary starting point for that argument. –xeno 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha - sorry I misunderstood. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asking for unblock, we're only asking for a block in place of the ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't ask for that, though. Original situation was "its a block". It came to ANI, ANI said "it's a ban". You can't really go "excuse me ANI, could you please change your mind". Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The title also says De-facto ban which means unofficial community ban. And if that is the case then I have to Oppose Community Ban, however I believe we are trying to get a consensus on the appropriateness of the actions because the original was an indef block. The title may have been misnamed and I do believe I am writing in the spririt of this threadspurpse. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

also the thread states "to endorse it as a de-facto community ban (as no other admin willing to unblock) or to shorten/review the block." so I am commenting correctly as to my views on the situation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the majority wants a ban however if we leave it at a lower more manageable remedy just block him, don't ban him so if he does decide to grow up he can return appropriately. I'm probably not the best qualified but I will attempt to mentor him if he ever gets the indef block lifted. I will warn though I am a bit like Ironholds and would do the same thing he's doing now if Pirate did anything similar again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a colorful edit history so I won't be hurt if you guys disagree either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever interacted, so "I'm a bit like Ironholds" doesn't really work. As you say, the majority want a ban, so why bother fixing mentors? The block is an indefinite one - if he is eventually unblocked we can cross that bridge then. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean that as a bad thing, you obviously don't like putting up with crap. I'm the same in that respect. You might want to tone things down a bit though because you are getting pretty worked up here, keep cool it'll all work out on it's own. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see myself as getting "worked up". I don't like obvious ED buddies commenting and trying to portray themselves as neutral parties, but that's another thing all together. My point was that your comments seem a bit premature - there is consensus for a block, and borderline consensus for a ban. As such, establishing a mentor is pointless. Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not see it but the way you are talking to people is a bit ramped up. I think that people are just really annoyed right now and need to step back and reconsider when their head is cleared. I'm not pirates frend never interacted with him either. I just see a whole lot of people that want to sweep someone under the carpet for something trivial, it was serious enough to warrant an extended block but not a Ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you were (sorry if that came across, I meant the ED people). We're not sweeping him under the carpet for something trivial - we're sweeping him under the carpet because he did that something, lied about how and why he did it and did all of that while already on probation, with the threat being "if you mess around while you're on probation, you'll be blocked". Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to state my point that an Indef. Block would do the same thing. I'm only arguing that the community ban is too strenous. Yes his offense was serious enough to warrant a block, but to ban him that is, in my opinion trivial. I personally believe a 2 month block with possible reinstatement is the way to go, I would suggest some requirements such as authoring an article with 7 reliable sources and reinstatment with a mentor. While not cakewalk it's not permemant either and makes the editor demonstrate willingness to work towards this project (and hopefully gain a new respect for what we are trying to achieve). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef ban, but support long-term block. Editor does good work -- he just needs to learn to leave the vandalism out of it. Maybe 3 months? A year probably wouldn't be too long, but I'd like to see a shorter time tried first, with zero tolerance for repeat behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, indef doesn't mean forever... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, but setting a time will give him something to wait for, instead of posting multiple "I've reformed, give me a chance to prove it" messages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EARTH, mentorship isn't even worth discussing without a willing mentor in place. When and if one steps forward, the decision may be amended. Those who wish to seek an alternative to indeffing could use this opportunity to seek a mentor, or volunteer themselves. Durova 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did volunteer my services but would still say that would only be after a month or two block and authoring an article with 5 reliable sources to be readmitted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm. Considering that your account has been active for less than two months, it is likely that the community would prefer a more experienced mentor for this difficult task. Durova 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, y'know, he was under mentorship already and kept fucking around. We are way too lenient here. He very obviously wasn't here to be constructive--we're all still waiting to see all the diffs of constructive behaviour from the chorus of opposers above--and it behooves us to stop mollycoddling people who are merely here to game the system. Move to close this entire thing as resolved. //roux   19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to a compromise: if I write one drama-free article with five reliable sources today, if Roux strikes through one colorful Anglo-Saxon epithet that adds nothing useful to our genteel discourse, then we could all shake hands and mark this resolved? Durova 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Genteel? Apparently we see different versions of Misplaced Pages. I choose my language extremely carefully to ensure I get across the precise meaning I intend. The consensus is for PSK to remain banned, nobody is interested in being a mentor, there's nothing more to do here as far as I can tell. //roux   19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin needs to gain consensus first before considering to unblock

An admin might be considering to unblock a wikihounder without consensus.

The IP has made a number of unblock requests and was denied an unblock and now an admin might possibly be considering to unilaterally unblock the IP who was wikihounded me. The IP intentially reverted my edits numerous times but did not target other editors. It is important for the admin to gain consensus first before unblocking.

The admin thinks this is in part about the co-founder issue. This has nothing to do with the co-founder issue. The IP even reverted my edit at the Larry Sanger page. This is related to chiropractic and not the co-founder issue.

After reading this comment it does seem the IP thinks it is appropriate to wiki-hound me or is someone who, in good faith, is clueless enough to think that looking through my contributions and reverting my edits is appropriate. Wiki-hounding is not acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP clearly won't stop. The IP wants to continue the debate about the co-founder issue. This wikihounding by the IP needs to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think your posts here are helpful, nor is threatening Mangojuice with a block. Admins are chosen to decide when and how to handle such requests amongst other things and should be trusted to do the right thing (as I trust MJ to check with those who declined the request and the admin who blocked the IP). There is no need for admin intervention in a case where an admin just is doing his job. Even if MJ decides to grant the unblock request, the IP can be reblocked at any time if needed. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I informed the admin of the situation. When the IP indicated that the wikihounding won't stop an indef-block is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith QuackGuru - an accusation of wikihounding needs to be fully and properly substantiated. This editor didn't say they'd follow you around reverting every edit you make - if they did then they'd be wikistalking. In fact they were quite honest and said that your areas of interest overlap--Cailil 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the consensus discussion that resulted in the ip's block? Blocks are not usually the result of consensus, but the interpretation by the blocking admin of violation of policy and there is in place the ability to contest blocks both on the grounds of misapplication and also as deprecated (the blockee undertakes to cease the activity/ies that lead to the block). From my review Mangojuice is discussing the basis under which he may consider unblocking - noting the requirement to stop pursuing certain topics and individuals - and the ip is not heeding that advice. I see neither the ip getting the unblock, nor anything wrong with Mangojuice's conduct, but I do see considerable problems in your block warning to Mangojuice; you seem unaware of how Misplaced Pages works to the extent that you do not know that ip's are hardly ever indefinitely blocked. Again, I would ask you to link to the discussion or other process that formed this consensus you speak of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LHVU - "Mangojuice is discussing the basis under which he may consider unblocking" which is thoroughly appropriate - we don't leave IPs blocked indefinitely (see WP:BLOCK). In fact once an editor has undertaken not to violate policy again they can be unblocked. Also what is the consensus you refer to - was there an ANI thread?--Cailil 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree... its always better to give a second chance and be found wrong then to deny a useful contributor for good after a mistake. Lets see what develops. --M 01:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this block is being discussed, I thought I'd get feedback before unblocking. This user was previously blocked for edit warring, including some reverts of QuackGuru; more recently he was reverting across multiple articles regarding whether Jimmy Wales is "founder" or "co-founder" of Misplaced Pages. The user has voluntarily agreed to be placed on general 1RR until the end of June, and at my suggestion has also agreed to limit himself to at most one revert of any of QuackGuru's edits during that same period. I see the concern about Wikistalking but he has been involved in both Chiropractic and Larry Sanger for several weeks and does not appear to have come to the dispute illegitimately to pursue a grudge. If there's a problem here deeper than edit warring, it's partly that QuackGuru refused to repsond to an attempt by the IP to discuss the issue; see here. Comments from other admins? Mangojuice 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out the blocking admin doesn't have an issue with the unblock: --M 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved. Nothing to see here. --Ryan Delaney 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding has continued

The IP has contradicted his previous edit by commenting at the Jimmy Wales talk page about another page I edited and has continued the co-founder debate again by claiming I changed something to "misquote the associated press". The IP is testing the patience of admins to see if it is okay to hound me on one or two pages. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things - the ip is correct in that the Talk:Jimmy Wales page relates to a mainspace BLP article and is therefore not an appropriate venue for discussing policy matters unrelated to improving the article (and, if memory serves, the article notes Jimmy as co-Founder per the sources cited) and you do not appear to have edited Mark Taylor. Many Wikipedians consider Jimbo as co-Founder of Misplaced Pages, many Wikipedian - including Jimmy - consider him the sole founder, and some just go with what the sources say. While the ip would be best served by not interacting with you directly, there appears to be little wrong in what they are doing and again I find considerable confusion and misunderstanding on your part on how this project works. I seriously suggest that you step back from your dispute with the ip, and I will be recommending the ip does the same with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim the IP editor is correct and therefore not an appropriate venue for discussing policy matters unrelated to improving the BLP article but the IP was also discussing another page at the Jimmy Wales talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LHVU, and further please try to assume good faith QuackGuru - this is not wikihounding. Please follow WP:DR and disengage--Cailil 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop claiming it is not wikihounding. The IP editor intentially reverted my edits numerous times but when other editors made the same edit the IP editor did not revert.

I have edited the Mark Taylor and it is cyber stalking. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

QG, you made the same disputed edit to another article. This is not cyberstalking or wikistalking it's the same dispute. Take the advice QG and disengage for a while from making these edits--Cailil 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok for a partial admin to close a RFC on a user despite new input?

User:Gwen Gale is a partial admin when it comes to this. She had unblocked User:Collect . Collect has 106 (as of 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) edits on User talk:Gwen Gale . Gwen Gale had also closed my previous AN/I thread about Collect , I reverted that and that thread got many more answers.

I also reverted her RFC closure but she reverted back , despite new input from a new user

Is this ok? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that she also made some unfounded claims such as "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP" when she closed. I and many other editors would disagree. I dont think it is appropriate for an involved admin to make partial comments like that while closing a RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • THF was a very involved editor. Why wasn't he contacted when the RfC began? I'm involved so I'll keep commentary to a minimum. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)Yes. The RFC/U had run for 6 weeks, which is far longer than is standard. Just before and while it was running, several ANI complaints were raised. And then an RFAR was raised. Surely that is enough process for the year. Additionally, the admin was not "partial" which speaks volumes about raising yet another ANI post (read the restrictions she imposed on me for a start). It is, moreover, uncommon for a non-admin to reverse an admin's closure of an RFC by revert -- if you wished it reopened, ANI was the proper procedure on your part. And it is indeed possibly curious which editors were contacted, and which not. (and it would have been nice had the editor not interpolated added material which makes the "replies" look odd. Thanks!) Collect (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• What's a partial admin? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he's trying to imply that Gwen Gale is somehow involved based on unblocking Collect. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question - without checking with Gwen, I think Phoenix defines partial as "involved"?--VS 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh! I thought it meant somebody with partial admin rights. NM.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, your focussing on Phoenix of9's chosen adjective is reflecting on you. "partial" is a quite proper antonym of "impartial", and has been generally used as such for approximately 600 years, it coming, via the Middle English "parcial", from the Late Latin "partialis". There is a handy dictionary right next door, remember. Whilst it didn't give the etymology in this case (an omission which I have now rectified), it did list the 600-year-old meaning. Please focus upon the substantive issue. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. In this particular context "not impartial" would have been a better chose, since "partial admin" is quite ambiguous. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And checking recent edits would be enough to avoid the obvious yuks at this editor's expense. No matter what, please don't. Flowanda | Talk 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What yuks were we making? To me, "partial" meant only having some of the rights. The idea of partial vs. impartial didn't occur to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why the term "involved" is used rather than "partial", which is an ambiguous term. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I vastly misread the tone and direction of this conversation. My apologies to the editors here for my total (not just partial) lack of manners. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the unblock, the closing of an Incident, and the closing of an RFC may demonstrate a pattern of partiality, or may be simply taking an avid interest. But even if we leave a question of cronyism aside, GG's revert of a revert then remains as a needless act of edit-warring out of admin ego. (Full disclosure: GG once absurdly blocked me for "disruption along with some likelihood of block evasion by, or proxy editing for" a different editor.) 86.44.18.14 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ambos Nogales

The article creator has ownership problems. When I removed a completely unrelated picture the editor accused me of vandalism and falsely claimed I had given no reason for my edit when I had done so in my edit summary and on the article talk page. I would strongly appreciate some additional eyes on the article and someone attempting to explain things to this editor since they clearly are not listening to me. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Er, no. It is you who are not listening to xem. In both the edit to your talk page and the edit to the article's talk page xe is quite clearly asking not about the "unrelated picture", but about your substantive change to the article text, where you removed all mention of German involvement. Yes, novices sometimes bandy about false charges of vandalism, especially if they don't understand the notes below the page edit box and the whole idea of a collaboratively written project that anyone can participate in. Sometimes one has to look past that.

  I also note that the editor appears to have a good point about your not checking your facts thoroughly before wading in. One of the sources that the editor had already cited in support of xyr content is a book available from the Huachuca Museum Society, chapter 7 of which calls the battle a "German-instigated clash" and documents the arrest of Lothar Witzke in Nogales' Central Hotel for being a German spy, before the battle, and chapter 6 of which documents and supports (citing, as its source, page 83 of Edward L.N. Glass' The history of the Tenth Cavalry) all of the "strange white men" content that you removed from the article.

  I recommend doing editors who write content the courtesy of first reading the sources that they cite before wading in with claims of unverifiability and original research. Sources are cited to be read, not to be ignored. I also recommend putting the verifiable content that you have removed back into the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information you have provided. When I came upon the article, the single in-line source was a web page that did not exist. I removed no cited info, in fact I added notations asking for citations to be provided. The article author removed all tags in response. The article creator later added an image that they claimed was of US militia who fought in the battle, but following the image link showed that the picture not of who, where, or when the article creator said it was. I found a weblink to the source you mention and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources. I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help here. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chopper2cube: Suspicious behavior

This user first made this edit to my userpage, and immediately reverted it, as if to get my attention. This is this user's first edit, with the edit summary "COM and I are back in business." I'm finding this behavior suspicious. (See Special:Contributions/Chopper2cube) -download ׀ sign! 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was indef'd and the situation is being discussed on his talk page. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User has asked for a review of my block. Edits remain highly suspicious and I agree that he was trying to attract attention also. I suggest we await review from alternate administrator before continuing this thread.--VS 03:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The user's very first edit was on the page of an indef blocked user, an edit to notate that the user and COM (aka ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs)) are back in business. WP:DUCK anyone? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Either a sock or pretending to be a sock in order to incriminate CENSEI - as another editor did a couple or three weeks ago. Either way, he goes into the washer. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request has now been declined by another administrator.--VS 10:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that when someone trolls like this and targets an editor as this one did me and others, it would be appreciated if those responding wouldn't further their goals by repeating their claims. I have no idea who this editors is or why they included me in their statements. If someone wants to suggest I have some connection with them, please present evidence. Otherwise I would appreciate being left out of it as I can assure everyone concerned I have absolutely nothing to do with this individual and it seems likely they are attempting to disparage me at a time when I am party to an Arbcom proceeding addressing the gross incivility, violations of NPOV, harassment, refactoring, and other policy violations that have been carried out across our Obama articles. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an obvious troll and likely an impostor, for which the proper solution is to turn them in to WP:AIV and get them dispatched ASAP. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chopper2cube and User:HannaGetmix followup

This user made this edit to my talk page; this being its first edit. I have not received any email yet. Quite suspicious in my opinion. -download ׀ sign! 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've turned the second one in to AIV, as I did the first. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, that was "almost too quickly". Are you sure you aren't creating socks like HannaGetmix just so they can accuse you of... wait, that doesn't make any sense. My head hurts! ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you take for a haddock? Sometimes I take an aspirin, sometimes I take a calamel. I'd walk a mile for a calamel. Yesterday was a happy accident of good timing, when I happened to see chopper2cube, either on here or on a user talk page, I forget which now, and I turned him in. As always, it's up to the admins reviewing AIV to determine whether to block or not. P.S. Tonight's sock also now indef'd. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these related to your "fan" (the "I, Bugs, have resigned"-guy), or just random stalkers? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Chopper2cube = (Chopper) + (2 to the 3rd power) = (Axe man) + (8)

2) HANNAGETMIX rearranges to AXEMANNATE

Remove attack post by 68.244.252.222--VS 02:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found those 2 vandals. Make of that what you will. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the above statement 68.244.252.222's only edit? This is all extremely suspicious. -download ׀ sign! 01:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Short block given to IP (likely sock) who placed personal attack at this thread.--VS 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be useful in linking with the other Axmann8 impostors, if anyone cares to look into that. It might finally give us the link back to the original puppetmaster, which is probably someone from January or so. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on Irfan Yusuf

While on RCPatrol I noticed Oncewereradicals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making some very dubious edits to Irfan Yusuf. I reverted and warned, and he left the following comment on my talk page:

I would suggest you contact Irfan Yusuf directly. Misplaced Pages is being used to defame him, and he is filing court proceedings in this matter. Would you like his contact details?

Immediately, I indefinitely blocked him. I have no indication that it's true, but it warrants additional scrutiny, especially since there is a BLP-related content dispute going on with this article. --Ryan Delaney 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I indef-blocked him (seems like the button wasn't actually pressed). I've also watchlisted the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oncewereradicals very likely to be related to this editor with a history of similar behaviour.--VS 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be an ongoing attempt to defame Irfan Yusuf by a single editor on the article page in violation of our BLP guidelines. It's been discussed extensively on the talk page by myself and other editors. Attention to the BLP issues, rather than just blocking the author and/ or his surrogates would, I think, be a good thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have just removed a series of 3 edits amounting to a personal attack from this editor's talk page and re-blocked to disallow self-editing.--VS 05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion requested

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

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Ng, I removed a comment from an AFD that I viewed as a gross personal attack. Stalin --the way you edit he probably is your hero. LOL. I warned the user about personal attacks, he restored the comment, I removed it again and warned again, as I don't believe the comment should have remained visible, particularly when it's served as part of a negative first impression for a new user. Someone else restored it the next time.

The subsequent discussion, which took place on my talk page can be seen here (since removed). He has copy/pasted my comments to his talk page as if I posted them there, and he's added my image to the section. He also refers to me as "sweetie pie". I find the whole thing inappropriate.

That said, unless I'm mistaken and it's good times to tell someone that their editing leads one to think their hero is a totalitarian dictator who caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, it would benefit everyone if someone else made this clear. لennavecia 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a personal attack and didn't belong in the discussion. Removed again with an edit summary to leave it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After all, per WP:CIVIL - "Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. لennavecia 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the usage of LOL didn't really neutralize the whole Stalin thing. And here I thought LOL, along with :P or even ;) really had some greater purpose. Guess not. Law _{type! snype?} 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jennavecia and SarekOfVulcan.  Sandstein  21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia, speaking of outside opinions, could you take a look at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC and see if anyone needs to be warned for approaching the NPA line?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, out of the millions that Stalin had killed very many of them were Nazi's - that is a huge plus in my book. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does 1 Nazi cancel out 1 Polish Army Officer, or even 100 Polish Officers? Does 1 Nazi cancel out 1 Russian political dissenter? No. Seriously flawed and disrespectful argument. I hope it was just an off-the-cuff interjection and not a serious statement. --64.85.223.128 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of the genocide, coupled with the fact that Stalin numbers make Hitler look like a rookie, let's celebrate the fact that some Nazi Political Party members may have been killed. Neither dictator has any redeeming qualities. None. Law _{type! snype?} 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that Uncle Joe was on a par with Hitler, then you need a T34 rolled over your head - Hitler advocated the systematic murder/enslavement of all Slavs (including Poles), as well as Jews, Communists, other "political enemies", and killed almost as many Russian non-combatants as did Stalin in his purges and economic failures. If Stalin was a blood thirsty tyrant (and he was) he was at least an equal opportunity murderer and if you played by his rules you had a chance of advancement through the system; with National Socialism if you were not part of the Master Race then you were either "ubermensch" with a future of slavery or you were removed from the human gene pool. Why do you think Roosevelt and Churchill were able to make Stalin an ally? Because, terrible though he was, he was not the monster that Hitler and his ilk were - and Nazism was a far greater threat to world peace than Communism. Do not patronise me with your prattle regarding the modern revisionist view of Stalin - if not for him there may not be an Eastern Europe that appears so keen to disassociate with their recent history... or at least one with no Slavs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that this is not the appropriate forum for comparing the relative merits of various tyrants? That line of discussion is unlikely to resolve the user conduct problem presented here.  Sandstein  21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I logged off and did something else after that little outburst; an action which was prompted by a few opposes in my recent RecFA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPO The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

WP:RPA "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:RPA and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

WP:REDACT Strike out, strike-through, strike through, etc. To place text in strike-through (HTML: 111, 111, or 111) tags. This is very rarely used in articles, but is relatively common in votes and discussions when a contributor changes his or her opinion. As not to cause confusion, the outdated comments are struck out (like this). The inserted material HTML tag is sometimes used with it to show a replacement for the struck material. Generally, one should strike out only one's own comments. Some editors prefer to simply remove or alter their updated material, though this is discouraged if others have responded to it and their responses would not longer make sense after the change. Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context.--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A personal attack is, essentially, a comment on the contributor, rather than the content. The above remark certainly fits that decription, and I'm glad to see that it has (again) been removed. Skimming the contents of the AfD, I saw a fair bit of incivility from User:Duchamps_comb, but I think that no further admin action is necessary at this time, since Duchamps_comb is by now aware that this is not considered acceptable.

As an aside, I try not to attach too much importance either way to phrases such as LOL. It could mean "do not take this remark seriously / please laugh with me" or "I do not take X seriously / I laugh at X". SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, in reply to Duchamps_comb's post, that no number of guidelines quoted to me will prevent me from removing such statements in the future, nor blocking for repeated offenses from the same user. لennavecia 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Duchamps_comb: WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." Misplaced Pages was improved when Jennavecia removed the disgusting personal attack. So quoting other policies doesn't matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, لennavecia try to quit playing God and aspiring to be Captain Omnipotent .

Template:User DGAF2--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And there we have it. Could someone with the right buttons disinvite Duchamps_comb from future posting? Kthx. //roux   19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There we have what? I was not being uncivil or calling names merely commenting on behavior; stating that I do not care. The way I see it Jennavecia has repeatedly tried to bait me into posting in anger and letting me know/trying to put me in my place or I will be blocked or banned (possibly by her). It goes both ways.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree: whether or not you were engaging in incivility or making personal attacks is something for others to decide. However, I do agree that "it goes both ways". If I see any post that looks like an attempt to bait another user, I'll consider a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone to "quit playing god" or aspiring to be omnipotent is incivil. If you don't care, then don't respond. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips all on being civil. I'll try to keep my ego and my comments to myself. However I do not like how WP allows users to be: curt, snide, condescending, or to use double entendre in a negative way (and still be civil). It seems to breed users that can be covert, passive-aggressive, or just down right pricks/douchs gaming the system. I think users forget to talk to one another; usually it is just at each other (I think). --Duchamps_comb MFA 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and editors have many and sundry takes on what's civil and what's not. We do what we can, the easiest way to skirt these worries throughout a disagreement is, don't comment on the editor, talk only about content and sources. Even mildly snarky remarks online will almost always be taken about three times stronger than how you meant them and brew more kerfluffle, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Meghna Rajshekhar

Respected Sir/Madam-

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meghna_Rajshekhar

User:Thryduulf has nominated this article for deletion. According to this user third party reliable sources are not enough. Media must take follow-up of survivors. This little 13 year old was in almost all print media and TV channels in India at that time. Please confirm this from some Indian who remains in touch of news.

I am seeing articles on criminals like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Philip Abramo, http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:People_convicted_of_murder_by_the_United_States_federal_government

Somehow all these criminals deserve notability but this little 13 year old girl Indian ocean tsunami survivor who was out there in sea clinging to door for two days without food, water. Rescue helicopters didn't spot her 11 times. She was swarmed by snakes on beach. She was all ove in print media and TV channels. But this according to User:Thryduulf, she do not deserve notability. I would like to request him through you to explain how these criminals deserve notability.

If you think that this article Meghna Rajshekhar do not deserve notability, then I request you to straightway delete it.

But this racist attitude towards Indians is completely unacceptable. Petty criminals from USA deserve articles. But no matter how notable Indian is, he/she do not deserve notability.

Shame!

Please, Go ahead and delete that article.

--AbhiJeet (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Politeness to accusations of bias in three sentences, nice! Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, immediate news reports are not good enough to confer "notability" on an event or person. To show notability in this sort of situation you have to show lasting coverage - not just a couple of immediate news reports, coverage of the events for a significant period of time. Eric Harris, Dylan Lkebold, Philip Abramo - significant coverage. We don't include everyone convicted of murder by the US federal government, for example, unless they pass this test. In addition (although it's by the by) I wouldn't describe Columbine as petty crime. In future, please try and keep accusations of racism out of your comments, it is hardly going to turn ANI people into shiny happy sparkle-unicorns. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abhijeet ... please read WP:ONEEVENT carefully before additional comments. As has already been noted, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Please also read carefully WP:N ... you seem to be confusing the order when you say "she does not deserve notability". The person or event must meet notability guidelines before they can be included ... being included does not give notability. I will assume good faith that this was perhaps a linguistic nuance. Nobody here will disagree that this girl's story is "wow, really?!", but just as we don't have articles about everyone on board the Titanic, we're not likely to maintain this article. It's not racism, so please, don't offend the others of us who are of mixed origin by trying the place the race card wrongly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD and deleted the article. This topic could perhaps be dealt with in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake some other, wider article, such as about noted survivor stories or cultural aspects of the disaster. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually the article Sang Dhesian created by me do not meet any notability criterea. Only contributor is me. I fooled new page patrollers by writing that 'Gurdwara' in that village is one of the most famous Gurdwara in India. You should have deleted that article instead of Meghna Rajshekhar.

But IQ of some admins like you, users is far lower to figure out which article well sourced.

You deleted that article without explaining how those criminals deserve notability criteria.

Now, go ahead, use your racist admin power and block my account. AbhiJeet (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of attacking everyone, why don't you try drafting an article about noted survivors and/or cultural aspects of the Indian Ocean earthquake? I think that could be very helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

About Sang Dhesian, you didn't fool anyone, most human settlements, even wee villages and hamlets, are taken as notable on en.Misplaced Pages. Thanks for the contribution. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Tryde

To Whom It May Concern: Recently User:Tryde has been reverting (see ) numerous pages related to the British nobility from individual pages to generic family name genealogy pages (see ) with no notification to last editors. I would very much like to know under whose authorization this user is entitled to do this.

Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In future, perhaps you should discuss it with the user? I note that you gave him ten minutes in which to reply or you would "bring this matter to WP:ANI". That doesn't seem long enough to me personally, and you should also inform him that it is at ANI now. I'm assuming that he's redirecting them because they're articles about non-notable people. Simply being a peer does not make you notable unless you've done something else with your life. From what I've seen he's been redirecting the "X was baron of Y. He had 3 kids, one of whom also became Baron of Y" articles to the article on Baron Y, which is perfectly acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not wait because I am angry and I did not know how long it would take for him to respond. His behavior is outrageous. This is an excerpt from User:Tryde's own talk page from another Wikipedian whose pages User:Tryde redirected without notice or authorization: I can't see that this article meets the notability criteria. I thought it better to redirect it than to propose it for deletion. Any reader interested in the biographical details of this peer should be referred to thepeerage.com or some other reference work on British nobility. Tryde (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This user, whose userpage is completely blank, evidently feels entitled to determine what is and is not notable. That is not how we do thing on Misplaced Pages, to the best of my understanding. He or she should be required to undo every redirect he/she made. And I am going to give the user as much notice that this is now at WP:ANI as he gave to the people whose articles he reverted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? They are against the notability guidelines. AfD is a lot of hassle for pages that are obvious fails - thats why we have CSD, and parts of certain guidelines (such as WP:MUSIC, say) advocating redirects rather than AfDs. Whether or not his userpage is blank is completely unimportant. If you're angry, fine - but come back when you're calm. Being petty, making snide comments about him and going off on one is not going to endear people to you. The guidelines allow for this, so he's not in the wrong. In future you discuss it with him before taking it to ANI, giving him a reasonable period of time to respond. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto-notability here is easy to define. If they had a seat in the Lords, then as representatives of their country they are notable, some Irish peers didn't so that is negociable Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I not be given notice that my edits are discussed here? Tryde (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming/disambiguation

Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been no violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense.

In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux   19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above)

A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland.

The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself.

The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state.

So far the revert war is thus:

• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Daicaregos
• old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Sarah777
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)

(The article history is here.)

There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters.

NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48_'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux   16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Misplaced Pages into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that comment says it all! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:TWINKLE

There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux   16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

(Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit , Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks.  Sandstein  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat.

An IP has expressed the desire to take legal action concerning "wikipedia not allowing free speech." Until It Sleeps 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X4 Editor has been notified. Until It Sleeps 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw that just now. It was explained to the IP that it was legal as only the goverment can't supress freedom of speech. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the IP's talk page. I don't think there's much to worry about unless the IP keeps on about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are helpfull when reporting here, has tha tperson retracted their threat? If not that should be a block uintil they do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

is the original threat, and he has not retracted it as of yet. Until It Sleeps 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) 'ere you go! I don't think (speaking as a non-admin) a block is necessary; I suspect the IP just needed to have a few things explained. I'd agree, though, that if the threat was repeated then they should be blocked until it's retracted. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to retract it. Strongly suggested to be precise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Very likely related to 70.20.235.191 (talk · contribs) and 70.20.242.16 (talk · contribs). Not sure if there was an earlier version prior to yesterday or not. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I can feel my good faith slowly oozing away. "BLOCK ME..... I DARE YA I can just restart my rotur and start again! I WILL SUE" Sometimes I honestly think the best thing is to gently steer the free-speech trolls towards the most expensive lawyer they can find. It won't help with the spelling, but at least they'll learn a wee bit about the US constitution and legal framework. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how often people confuse the right to free speech with the right to use someone else's servers and website as a megaphone. I assume it's just a failure of the educational system. MastCell  16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe his bluff has been called. Blocked for 31 hours by J.delanoy. lifebaka++ 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS reports that all of these IP's are from the exact same location, and their editing patters are very similar. Both 70.20.235.191 and 70.20.242.16 edit Alexius08's talk page, and 70.20.242.16 and 72.81.31.44 edit J.delanoy's talk page, with the former stating that he can simply restart his router and come right back... Until It Sleeps 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess a range-block might be possible here, but what might be worth considering is creating an abuse filter for the phrase "i will sue". Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be more appropriate to create a request down here. Until It Sleeps 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I already rangeblocked one of his nodes, but as he appears to have stopped (?), I don't see the point of more blocks. It is very obvious, at least to me, that this person does not really intend to pursue legal action here, and even if he did, there is no court in the world that would hear his case. J.delanoy_adds 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another IP has made some similar statements . And another has reverted my deletion of the statements Is it the same person, or is this unrelated? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry for inadvertently removing your comment, Dawn //roux   19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<---(undent) 72.81.41.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 6 edits in the past few minutes, restoring the legal threat (or, actually, saying that they have already sued) here, at J.delanoy's talk page and at my talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• With an amazing sense of timing, I created this abuse filter request at exactly the same time that the free speech troll posted this on my talk page. Damn troll must have reset its rutar again... Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No court would hear a case of Misplaced Pages denying freedom of speech. It is safe to completely ignore such legal threats. Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "we'll look into it" thing sounds a lot like what I used to tell the nice people who would call the paper to be sure we knew about the government/alien/Masonic/church/funny cow conspiracy and encourage us to put their information on the front page. "Thanks for letting us know. We'll look into it." *click* Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• And another IP - 72.81.34.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - making the same edits, , , and more. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered going to WP:ABUSE on this range so this can be reported to the ISP? They're all Geolocating to the Delaware Valley by Philadelphia, obviously all under Verizon. MuZemike 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let the legal threat stand. Why exactly waste your time on this?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, has anyone told the IP in no uncertain terms that Misplaced Pages is not Congress? Maybe reduce their ignorance on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and calm him down at the same time. -Jeremy 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has no one understood that the free speech and legal threat stuff here is a Macguffin for this troll. He's just interested in taking up as much of our time as possible and has found a way to keep us chasing him around Misplaced Pages. Don't reason with him. Don't explain anything to him. He isn't really interested in free speech. He just wants to fuck with us. Revert...Block...Ignore him. Set up the range blocks and the abuse filter, and move on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just egging everyone on. Like an Egg Macguffin. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek slaps Bugs with a large WP:Trout for thinking of that line first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At least the uranium ore filled wine bottles in Hitch's Notorious had corks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and disruption on passive smoking: request outside administrative eyes

Can I ask for some outside admin attention to Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? A single-purpose agenda account, SonofFeanor (talk · contribs), has been active there. Having become engaged in an edit war, two new obvious sockpuppets have shown up to support SonofFeanor:

• Pcpoliceman (talk · contribs)
• NappyJohnson (talk · contribs)

There are also some conflict-of-interest issues with the SonofFeanor/sock accounts, but I think those are secondary to the sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and canvassing. Anyhow, I'm involved at the page and would like to request review from an outside admin or two. MastCell  17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there was any doubt, SonofFeanor will "not say that I am not in contact with PCPoliceman or NappyJohnson". So let's call it disruptive (and admitted) meatpuppetry, but I'd still like an end to the madness. MastCell  17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing looks kinda' silly to me. I'm asking them to stop on the article's talk page, and I'll keep an eye on it in case they don't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I agree with MastCell that the new accounts seem somewhat... Fishy, to say the least. SonofFeanor, if you are indeed in contact with these accounts (which seems highly unlikely, as neither you nor either of them have the email option enabled, et cetera), I urge you to explain to them how this appears. It'd be a shame to block potentially constructive editors, eh? Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the page on it here. As it is now, you do look suspicious. But, as long as you are not in fact a sock- or meat-puppet of SonofFeanor, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, this is the textbook definition of meatpuppetry: recruiting an editor to Misplaced Pages specifically to take one's side in an edit-war. MastCell  06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read our article on IRC. It's a completely separate communications system from Misplaced Pages; it's more like an instant messaging chat room. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD needs closing

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

I'm pretty sure this discussion has gone on long enough. It has been 7-days time from since it was opened, and I am pretty sure consensus there is pretty clear. Would someone mind reviewing the AFD and salting the article, as, this I believe is either the third or second time it has been recreated after failing an AFD.— Dædαlus 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept, under condition that if the COI continues to add unreliable sources or appears to be self-promoting anymore than he is already, that the article be deleted without prejudice. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a keep? Blimey... – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Last chance keep. If it continues, just notify me and I'll delete/salt. As I said, the ice is very thin on that one. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you concluded that Mr Wisne meets WP:GNG, but if he does then why would you delete and salt the article if the COI continues? He either is or isn't notable, and that shouldn't be dependent on your opinion of his actions. Delete it now and be done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though I'm trying to assume good faith as much as I can and even saying that the article should be kept, I am not at all impressed by the user's latest contribs while blocked (see Special:Contributions/Andrewwisne). Andrewwisne also comes off his one-week disruption block within the next day. If the user resumes his self-promotion and disruption, I would then consider an indef block. No more Reichstag-climbing. MuZemike 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia page move / Arbcom injunction

Could an uninvolved administrator please undo this pagemove, in accordance with the Arbcom injunction currently in force because of the Macedonia 2 case? Thank you, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Resolute 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we do a page move protect, to assist in enforcing the Arbcom decisions? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not necessary unless there are repeated page-moves. J.delanoy_adds 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further punishment for former admins who lost adminship

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

As we're well aware, I lost my adminship in mid-January because I couldn't deal with the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees fiasco. That was on, or about, January 15. Misplaced Pages is now a much better place now that I'm no longer an admin.

I was also accused of disruptive editing back in mid-April because I was kicking around the idea of nominating something to be a featured list.

Since mid-April, I've done a minimum of editing, and we can all agree that Misplaced Pages is a much better place as a result. Yet I'm continuing to see offsite attacks like this and this that suggest... well, I'm not sure exactly what they're suggesting should happen to me, but I'm sure there's something they'd like to see happen to me, like an indefinite block or ban.

So, can you guys think of a suitable punishment for my past egregious lapses in judgement that have screwed up Misplaced Pages adminship for everyone? It needs to be something appropriate so the people at Misplaced Pages review are satisfied. --Elkman 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't please 'em all. Especially when it comes to WR'ers. Don't feed 'em! –xeno 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would recommend that you ignore that website altogether. It, and any other external sites, are not part of our consensus-building mechanism, and should not influence our work here.  Sandstein  21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not even sure if I'm fit for "consensus-building" or "work" on Misplaced Pages at this point. Why? Because the people at Misplaced Pages Review say so. --Elkman 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The most suitable punishment would be a prohibition from reading WR. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you complaining here about something that happened elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

FYI User:DAFMM

Just coming across a set of unusual edits from this editor, see difs: where he made an article an A-class, claiming to be Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation and campaign to put periods on non-sentence form captions. Can an editor please check some of the dubious claims made?

He's a rather eccentric editor in some senses. His grasp of policy is somewhat...limited, and occasionally he sets off making edits that he thinks are in line with the MOS, but in some cases are directly against it (undoing redlinks to 'tidy up' pages was another). He also seems to dislike it when talkpages don't exist for articles, so he edits something in and then immediately deletes it, as here for example. He has a sockpuppet called User:HandyTips (and had one called User:UniversityofOxford until that was pointed out to him as probably being a bad idea) that suggests he hasn't grasped the use of socks, or subpages, or the utility of wiki's own help pages. He also makes a lot of small edits to articles, to link and unlink terms, make small stylistic or punctuation changes. But I think he acts in good faith most of the time. In this instance I think he recently joined WP:AVIATION, saw a request to review Boeing 777 and did so, not realising that there was a process to go through, not realising that that signing in some sort of semi official capacity was a bad idea, etc. I don't think any administrator action is needed, perhaps just some firm and maybe intensive mentoring. Benea (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and that is why I brought the issue here and thought that rather than an admin, maybe an experienced editor would be the best person to sort out some of the odd submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

I think a couple of users now have started to pick up on his activities. As you're a member of WP:AVIATION perhaps you could help him through how to review things properly (and why perhaps its best not to try to claim specific status in a wikiproject), or give him pointers as to areas he could help out in? I'll keep an eye on the contributions too, but I think he's genuinely keen to learn, even if you do have to reinforce the points sometimes. Maybe we could suggest to him that he consider Misplaced Pages:Mentorship, and direct him to try Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area if he feels so inclined. Benea (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think DAFMM would certainly benefit from wiki-adoption or something similar. You can see from my talk page and his talk page history (he usually deletes comments from his talk page) I have had some interaction with DAFMM, usually concerning minor MOS issues with his edits. He gets a little bit defensive and it often takes several messages to get my point across but I believe his edits are made in good faith and he is keen to help improve wikipedia. He just needs to start making use of wikipedia's help pages and take on board the advice given to him by other editors. BarretBonden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Shnitzled

See this Afd Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deudonic War. There are strong indications that Shnitzled created a hoax article. Now, in the deletion debate he is personally attacking me ,.

There also seems to be a secondary account of this user involved in the deletion debate. UNIU is also attacking me and supports Shnitzled in the debate. Looking at the history of UNIU shows almost no contributions, and all are in connection with Shnitzled. Both users seem to be identical.

Furthermore, Shnitzled also vandalized my user pages and , although he reverted it quickly. Stepopen (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems that he is now stalking me . Stepopen (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Get off it, Supporting a delete nomination is not stalking, just like you did to me...I honestly have no idea who UNIU is, this debate has happened before and the last person to make that very same statement wound up blocked...Those weren't personal attacks, I was being honest with you, life is beter when people are honest. Shnitzled (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now using his IP address to vandalize my user page and to attack me again . Stepopen (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that IP is mine, then I'd leave those accusations right there. Shnitzled (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, this IP is someone else. Stepopen (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardblocked the IP address. Nakon 07:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also blocked Shnitzled for harassment. Nakon 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And more incivil comments on his talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone else explain this besides venting? MuZemike 07:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nakon. Maybe someone should also look into UNIU, who does not seem to be legimate given the edit history which blatantly overlaps with Shnitzled's edit history. I am also wondering what will happen to the hoax article, I frankly do not see that someone who creates hoax article should be allowed on this project. Stepopen (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him as a likely sockpuppet of Schnitzeld. Same edits; account dormant since February, only to come back to make a personal attack on the AfD. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User S._M._Sullivan making a number of suspicious edits to Scientology articles

User:S._M._Sullivan has started nominating Scientology related articles for AFD and raising notabilty issues over clearly notable articles concerning Scientology. I find this highly suspect considering recent events. Ridernyc (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent Arb Case, I also agree this is suspect and a strong warning should be issued (or even a block, the case was quite hard on this behaviour) to curb this. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• On first glance it doesn't look like he has had a chance to respond to the concerns on his talk page. Looks like he's been editing a couple years, and I see prod with discussion, another discussion for a nominated article, a notability tag with discussion, and even some support for a scientology article. I am just an amateur myself but it doesn't look like anything intentionally wrong here. What ArbCom case? ZabMilenko 10:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it strange that he is editing only articles about people who have negative views on Scientology and this behavior started a few days after the CoS was banned for making these type of COI edits. Ridernyc (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the arbcom case I feel even less qualified to answer that than before. That was deep. ZabMilenko 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant remedy is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. From my quick analysis they have a very high percentage of Scientology edits and the unrelated edits are not consequential. I think this warrants a much closer inspection, but would like to ensure that the user is given an opportunity to comment. I will alert the committee to this thread. John Vandenberg 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Review of articles urged and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed. We'll see. -- FayssalF - 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for his comment here. -- FayssalF

- 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that many Scientology articles are among our most abysmal and there's nothing inherently POV about nominating them for deletion. This editor's comments on the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard article are reasonable and well argued. I have frequently been surprised by the depth of cover we have given (sometimes based on distinctly dodgy sources) to relatively obscure people on the fringes of the topic and a good shake up of them would do the encyclopedia no harm. 86.149.58.114 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to direct the single edit IP to my case evidence which demonstrated that the topic of Scientology has nearly four times the rate of good articles and featured articles as the military history project. WP:MILHIST is one of this website's most respected Wikiprojects. This comment posted by one of only two female recipients of the MILHIST project's highest service award; I do not edit the topic of Scientology. Durova 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on this matter is that anyone working on Scientology articles ought to take regular breaks from them, preferably after a day -- unless one is involved in an ongoing conversation. If you're not a Scientologist, you'll need the break; & if you are a Scientologist, then you shouldn't be editting only Scientology articles. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs

Will someone please have a look at the Hey, Slavs article and do something about the chaos? I don't care if everyone including me gets blocked, I'm so sick to my stomach of this petty issue I'd block myself just to have an excuse to get out of this. Pardon the outburst and regards, --DIREKTOR 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has a position on this article may add their name and describe what concerns you at Talk:Hey, Slavs#Informal Mediation, where User:Dottydotdot has offered to help mediate the open issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I... I'm not going to get blocked...? blast! :) Well then the article at least needs protection tout de suite, the edit-warring shall certainly recommence this evening (within four hours, CET). As it does every evening like clockwork. My primary goal with this report was to essentially prevent that. (Do not get me wrong, mediation is also very appreciated.) --DIREKTOR 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

k, thanks a lot. --DIREKTOR 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming redux

Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 yearstimes over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Mita8 for persistent addition of copyright material

User:Mita8 has been repeatedly pasting copyright text verbatim to the Ricardo Bofill article (diffs: , , , , ) despite repeated warnings. The user has also now twice created the Walden 7 article (speedy deleted on both occasions) which was a copyvio copy/paste job related to Ricardo Bofill. --DAJF (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Block may be reduced without consulting me first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse (Impartial Help Needed)

I'm writing to file a complaint that the Administrator known as Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is violating their status as Administrator on Misplaced Pages.

On repeated occassions, I have edited an entry on the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page where other users keep posting that the Knight Rider TV series has been canceled. IN an effort to clarify this problem, I have edited the entry on numerous occasions to reflect that NBC/UNiversal has yet to release a press statement indicating that the series has been canceled. In effect it has not.

Because I had been doing these edits without logging in, Ckatz had blocked my IP Address from editing the page and he's been the one who has been placing this incorrect information into the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page/entry. He keeps posting links to websites that report 'rumors' and 'speculation' and even the Moderators have informed me, on the discussion page for the Knight Rider 2008 TV series page that they can't catch everything and they've actually edited the page a few times.

The incorrect information involves this: On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The series finale aired on March 4, 2009. On May 19, 2009, NBC announced that they would not renew Knight Rider for a second season.

I had replaced the incorrect text with this: On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The season finale aired on March 4, 2009. It hasn't been decided what Universal plans on doing with the series. To date, no official press release has been issued regarding the show from NBC Universal.''

However, the Knight Rider page still contains false and rumored information and Ckatz has personally targeted my edits for this page because of this. I have posted in the discussion page that someone needs to provide a link to any press release from Universal that lists the show as being canceled and, to date, nobody has posted one. Posting links to Entertainment websites aren't official as they don't speak for the studio and none of these sites even posts anything referencing that NBC has officially canceled. They're just reporting that, since it doesn't appear on the broadcast schedule for Fall (September schedule) that the show has been canceled. This merely means that the show is on Hiatus. Studios do this quite frequently. Especially if a new show doesn't do too well and they end up bringing the show back as a mid-season replacement.

Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." When a studio has canceled a TV series, they will release the DVD set that is printed on the cover of the DVD packaging as "the complete series." When NBC canceled Surface, they released the DVD set as "The Complete Series" indicating the series had been canceled. With Knight Rider, NBC has not canceled it otherwise the DVD packaging would read "the complete series" and not "Season 1." (See Links Below)

Knight Rider DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Knight-Rider-Box-Art/11919 Surface DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Surface/5855

Since both sets had the same type of release schedule after the season of each show ended, it just shows that NBC still has hopes for the Knight Rider series as seeing that they are retooling the second season of the series with the return od David Hasselhoff, who appeared in the original series as Michael Knight, the main character.

I would like the abuse of this page to stop and for someone to inform Ckatz of his personal vendetta against my edits of this page.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly - which is considered a reliable source for such matters says it's officially cancelled. I see nothing to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

further - it seems the article already has 4 reliable sources about this matter. we don't actually require an official statement from NBC - those work fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Wolfe426 is likely 68.41.246.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posting from another account since their IP is blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." - that would be what we call original research - looking at a primary source, comparing it with another primary source and asking our readers to come to the same conclusion you have, Wolfe426. We don't do that. ➲ redvers 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't replying from a new account. I was just correcting the information that is inaccurate. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about factual infomration and not rumors or speculation.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add that it was my attempt to post correct information. Isn't that what Misplaced Pages is about? Instead, links are posted that rouse rumors of the show's cancelation and I thought that wasn't allowed?Wolfe426 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources used in the article are what we consider "reliable" - if they say it's cancelled, then that's good enough for us. We don't actually need NBC to confirm it (and in many cases, the TV companies never release such statements, shows just disappear). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my instance on this, Cameron, but if that's the case, then Misplaced Pages is nothing more than "rumors and speculation." And studios always release infomration or press statements saying that a show has been canceled. IN any event, UNiversal's own packaging for the Knight Rider upcoming DVD release indicates that the series isn't canceled.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why I don't take Misplaced Pages seriously and why I've banned members of my own website community from posting links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages.org isn't interested in providing factual information about something and insists on referencing speculation about a subject.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't take wikipedia seriously, there is no big lose for you. Goodbye. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Why nobody trusts Misplaced Pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I just think that Misplaced Pages should make th effort to make that information is as factual as it can be. Ckatz abused his right to the page since the issue had already been resolved by a Moderator, determined that the series had not been officially canceled. If users make the attempt to make sure that the information posted is factual then why highlight the fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't make the effort to make sure that Misplaced Pages entries are correct?

Cameron, you said it yourself that Misplaced Pages doesn't need confirmation. The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to ensure that information is as factual as it can be. This isn't served when users and administrators continue to post misleading and incorrect information.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is factual the statement uses multiple reliable sources. As others have stated move on already. Ridernyc (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple rulings from ArbCom regarding administrators using their powers in content disputes. There has been recent discussion regarding the status of this series at Talk:Knight Rider (2008 TV series). Yes, the IP in question has been involved. Ckatz has been active on the article since April 4, 2009, editing more than a dozen times. He's also been directly involved in the content dispute, but has so far refused to engage in discussion on the talk page. Despite this, Ckatz blocked the IP. ArbCom has made past decisions regarding the use of administrator privileges in content disputes. Quoting from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Administrators, "(administrator) abilities must ... never be used to "win" a content dispute." Further, Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used notes "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Ckatz made a serious error in judgment in using his admin privileges. The IP that was blocked may have been on the wrong side of the content dispute, but that did not give Ckatz leave to act as he did. Ckatz has been an administrator for more than a year. He clearly erred, and he should have known better. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying, Hammersoft. Instead of making a reference that while "many websites report the show as being canceled" that maybe an indicator such as "neither the NBC nor Universal have verified the cancellation of the show" in addition to the other information posted about the show. Wolfe426 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• In a casual review of Ckatz's blocking history, it appears this may not be an isolated case, but that he has at least on a few other occasions used his blocking privileges in content disputes. An RfC regarding Ckatz's conduct may be in order to help clarify to him that this behavior is unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm hoping that some of the other Administrators or High-Level Management can review this issue with Ckatz. While I realize that there may have better ways to go about it, which I have tried a few, Ckatz could have gone about a better way instead of just telling me "to stop editing the page." That's the only message he sent me and it wasn't a polite message. If he had bothered to read the discussion page, he would have realized what the issue was about instead of abusing that right. Considering that he's an Administrator of Misplaced Pages, he should be setting the example instead of just issuing directives or abusing his authority. Ckatz obviously made it personal because there was very little communication except for one message telling me to stop editing. He just didn't act like an Admin.Wolfe426 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

People are edit warring over this? Here's the full NBC fall lineup. No "Knight Rider". The Hollywood Reporter in 2008: "The revival of "Knight Rider" on Sunday night should gladden the hearts of viewers, at least those employed by Ford. For the rest of us, the two-hour film -- really, an elaborate commercial around which bits of story are sprinkled -- was an exercise in prolonged car sickness." With reviews like that, the industry usually prefers to let the show disappear quietly. A press release isn't necessary. --John Nagle (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't whether the series has been canceled. The issue is that an administrator used their admin privs in a content dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

John, that's only speculation and not verifiable by the studio.

Also, it seems that Ckatz has gotten really personal about it on my IP talk page. Here's what he said:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I appealed my IP block one time and he's already warning me against abuse of the unblock? I can see where if I had filed unblock request after unblock request but he warns me after one request? Somebody really needs to reprimand him. He's gotten personal over this.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Slow down Wolfe426. I don't see the diffs you claim Ckatz made. I see a warning template and later a block template . What are we missing here? Diffs please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The unblock language is standard template stuff, he didn't write it. The cancellation news is unlikely to be only speculation, Wolfe426, I think you should think about going with consensus here (do what you please on your own website, since you brought that up). There does seem to be a worry about Ckatz's use of the admin bit in a content dispute, but let's give him a chance to say something about it himself before taking this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with abiding by whatever an impartial Admin determines but I do believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. My main contention is that the edits I committed to the page were accurate regarding the Knight Rider series and I end up getting my IP Address banned from editing with no warnings whatever and without the Admin involved looking at what had transpired in the discussion page.

If Ckatz wants to keep it in that the series has been canceled, then, at least, include some kind of notation that the infomration has not been verified by the studio producing the series. Is that so much to ask?

As far as the warning goes, there was no reason for Ckatz to post that since this was the first time I filed the unblock request. It was a deliberate attempt to intimdate me from filing further unblock requests. This is noit how a Misplaced Pages Admin should be acting. If I had filed multiple requests, I could see the reason for the warning, but he made this an issue.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can find no evidence that Ckatz warned you not to make further unblock requests. Would you please provide a diff showing this? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The only worry I see here is that an admin may have been using the admin bit in a content dispute. Again, let's please wait to hear from Ckatz now. So far as the content goes, there is nothing untowards about saying the studio has not announced any cancellation, but only if you can find a reliable source to confirm this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's attempting to prove a negative. Rather hard to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, it's not proving anything, it's citing a wholly verifiable assertion ("the studio has not announced X."). If the assertion goes into the text without a citation, it can be removed as original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• If an announcement has not been made by NBC how do you cite something that doesn't exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we know NBC hasn't made an announcement? en.wikipedia is not truth, but uncited assertions can be removed. I mean, I know you know about all this, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way: Writer for Variety calls someone she knows at NBC, asks if they've made a cancellation announcement, confirms they have not, publishes a blurb, blurb is cited on en.Misplaced Pages, no more WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, regarding the warning, you can find it here on my IP Talk Page: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe426 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a standard footer for that unblock declined template, which was placed by another administrator, not Ckatz. –xeno 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Xeno. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an impartial observer (I have not worked on the page in question), it seems to me that the only issue for discussion in this topic is: Did the admin violate the rules governing the use of admin tools? Other admins should be able to determine that by looking at the admin's editorial involvement on the page and how the admin used the tools. The particulars of the content disute, other than the admin's editorial involvement if any, should have nothing to do with deciding whether admin tools were used improperly.

As to the content dispute (which, as I say, is not the issue to be decided here), it as obvious that the full situation could be concisely described in the article without saying flat out that the series was or wasn't cancelled; NBC's press releases page would be a WP:RS for the fact, if it is a fact, that NBC did not announce cancellation. For example: According to so and so it was cancelled. The show is not in the lineup for the fall 2009 season. However, NBC has not announced cancellation of the series. Finell (Talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are so many reliable sources that say this series has been canceled, that I agree - the only question is the admin's actions. We shouldn't be wording our articles based upon the hopes of forlorn fans that their show might, possibly, still magically appear in the schedule. -->David Shankbone 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Finell, that's all I'm asking for. Misplaced Pages, at least, should be able to identify in an article or entry, that if a series is affected in some way, to have it included in the entry that something is official and unofficial. While, in this case, many sources suggest that the series has been canceled, that it should also be noted that the studio hasn't officially canceled the series. Ckatz edits for that page suggests that it has been officially canceled. My dispute isn't with the edits but how Ckatz acted. I'll concur with Gwen on the issue on the Admin abuse situation, but I think it's unfair for Ckatz to edit out remarks to the page that NBC hasn't officially canceled the series. Finell's posted remarks about what to add to that page would be sufficient but I know if I were to add that in that Ckatz would simply remove it.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should word the articles to satisfy fans of the show but we should make every attempt to make sure that the entries are as accurate as possible and not misleading.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your premise only works if NBC announces any cancellations. Can you produce a press release by NBC for any series you know is canceled? When I looked at their press releases I saw nothing but the announced schedule. They don't appear to make those kinds of announcements, so WP:RS kicks in, and here, multiple RS are stating its canceled. So, Ckatz appears correct in the issue of the content dispute, and what is being decided is whether he was correct in his use of admin tools. The series is canceled. -->David Shankbone 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David's wording isn't the same as mine, but I'd say we agree. Perhaps another way to put this, Wolfe426, is that uncited assertions can be removed in good faith by any editor (lacking pointyness), even if they're followed by a {{fact}} tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the reasoning behind that Gwen. At the same time, is there any harm is posting for that entry that the cancelation hasn't been confirmed? All I'm saying is that, even if NBC doesn't issue a press release or a statement, that there should be an indicator that because the show hasn't appeared on the Fall/September listings that it doesn't mean that the show has been canceled. NBC had announced earlier this year that they were retooling the show's second season to resemble that of the original series and that David Hasselhoff would be appearing in the second season.

According to their own website, to NBC's own website, as of four weeks ago, NBC has not canceled the show: . The user, cotton777 posted that the studio had not canceled the show yet. This can be taken as meaning that the show is just on a temporary hiatus.Wolfe426 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While the topic may be innocuous, your hope might fall under WP:FRINGE. How long are we supposed to keep it uncertain, when certainty in the sources we rely upon (we are only good as our sources) abounds? Why should Misplaced Pages be the hold-out? How much time do we wait before we decide, 'Okay, it's been canceled' since they don't formerly announce cancellations? Regardless, your turning the thread into a content issue and not an admin issue. Please try to stick to the discussion about the improper use of admin tools, which is the only thing this board will deal with here. This isn't a place for content disputes to be decided. -->David Shankbone 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Users posting to comments sections on entertainment websites are not reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment A fun thing to wake up to, indeed. I'm really irked by some of Hammersoft's unfounded and unvalidated allegations, so I'm going to take a short break to cool down before fully responding, if that is OK. However, I do want to post a few quick points in regards to this so that the discussion can continue:

• • The notice I left on the talk page is the standard block notice; it wasn't in response to the IP, but just part of the standard notification process. The IP posted their comment before I did, hence their confusion.
  • The IP (one and the same as "Wolf426 based on contributions) has been disrupting the page for some time, as seen through their edit history. He/she has acted as a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly reverted several editors (not just me) to retain their POV, removing referenced material in the process. This is not a content dispute, it is disruptive editing bordering on vandalism.
  • It's hardly "personally targeting" the IP if he/she is the only person making the disruptive edits.
  • As an aside, I'd also point out that this sort of behaviour is not isolated; it is very common, following the demise of a series, for devoted SPA fans to refuse to accept the end. I can point out numerous other articles where this has occurred, especially in sci-fi related topics.
  • Statements like what the IP posted on their talk page ("I will continue editing out 'rumors' about the series being cancelled." and "I'll keep editing the same remarks") clearly indicate their attitude towards this matter and the idea of consensus.
  • As far as the alleged "admin" factor, I'm not aware of when we redefined "being part of a content dispute" to mean "reverting the deletion of cited material by an SPA IP". Have I edited this article in the past? Yes, along with thousands of others. Was I an "active editor" on this page? Well, let's look at the actual edits: removing spammed links (as part of a wider series of edits on multiple articles); correcting tense-related errors (as I do on dozens of series articles, especially with regards to the "is"/"was" problem); removing minor vandalism (since it was on my watchlist, along with 6 000 other pages); and dealing with a repeated series of POV reverts and changes by a single-purpose IP. If that makes me an "active editor", then we have a real problem in that most of Misplaced Pages's admins will have to recuse themselves from any of the articles they actually monitor.
    • As an addition to the above, please note that the first time I reverted the IP's edit was on May 22nd, his/her first edit to the article, which involved removing properly cited material.
  • Finally, I'm really bothered by Hammersoft's statements (about content disputes and supposed "abuse" of the bit), especially without citing actual events. I can understand checking edits to see that all is OK, but making broad statements without even the courtesy of discussing it with me first is very annoying. I'll elaborate more about this later, but I really take issue with unfounded accusations about supposed misuse of the bit. (Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I've had enough of this sort of behaviour from a supposed "senior" editor in the MoS dates dispute who has repeatedly made accusations against fellow editors that fall completely flat when one actually looks at the facts.)

Hopefully, this helps with your discussion. I'll keep reading here, and will pop back in later to elaborate further (and hopefully address any concerns that may still exist.) Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:My grandpa used to drive an '88 6000

User:My grandpa used to drive an '88 6000 has shown up, and has a very similar name to User:My sister drives a '98 Sunfire who is a sockpuppet of User:My grandma used to drive a '65 Catalina, and vandalized the same article (Pontiac) as 98 Sunfire did. And performed the same sort of edit, an open letter to Obama.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of my content without explanation or communication

On the page "United States Ambassador to the Holy See," two users have repeatedly deleted my original content without adding anything constructive, indicating their grievance about the material, or communicating with me. The contributors are ADM and PassionoftheDamon. They keep reinstating various versions of the original article, which is itself erroneous. The current version states, "In 2009, the seat of ambassador had remained vacant for several months because of alleged tensions between the Vatican and the White House over the issues of abortion and marriage. Three candidates were mentioned, including Caroline Kennedy and Douglas Kmiec, but they were ultimately not selected because of disagreement on these matters." This version does not state who the third person is, and the supposition that they were not selected because of disagreement on abortion and marriage has been repudiated by the Vatican in a reference they have repeated deleted.

I would like to request that these kinds of destructive edits be blocked.

With my thanks, Patrick Whelan MD Patrick Whelan MD (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You might've tried talking to these users first, which it appears you haven't done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; please discuss on article talk page and/or with the other users first. I don't see any need for admins to get involved here yet. KuyaBriBri 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Krishna Vyas AfD page vandalism

User:Oa012585956 has removed two delete votes from the AfD page. This user and User:Phsozzyosborne appear to be acting in tandem, neither of them with any significant edits outside of this topic. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting secondary admin review, indef block

• Blackknight12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reviewing the contributions of this user for copyright infringement, as he made his second appearance at WP:CP yesterday, with text added months after he was given notice of our policies and a block advisory. (Also worthy of note, he removed the copyvio template blanking pasted text here without comment on May 31]. I blocked him for 72 hours to drive these policies home, but my subsequent investigations are showing that he has a history of this, before and after that advisory, from sources as diverse as the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence (which does not allow modification) and CD baby. So far, I have identified 10 articles into which he has introduced copyright infringement (again, before and after that advisory), including reintroducing part of the copyright infringement for which he was warned in March of this year within days of receiving that warning. He is a native speaker of English and so has no reason not to understand our policy or that caution. Given his reintroduction of some of the same text into that article and his removal of the copyvio template, I do not believe we have reason to trust him to continue to edit with policy. Accordingly, I have blocked him indefinitely pending some plausible showing that he understands and intends to comply with WP:C. I don't believe this is excessive, given the seriousness and severity of copyright concerns.

Since some of his edits (including adding tables and templates) seem constructive, I am requesting additional review.

And while I'm here, please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations#Policy on massive infringers: cleanup and Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright violations#Policy on massive infringers: rehabilitation if you have interest in helping to clarify policy for such situations. Help much appreciated. :/ --Moonriddengirl 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And oops on the inadvertent page transclusion. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not half embarrassing, is it? :D --Moonriddengirl 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought you might be trying to be showing something untowards about all those userboxen but... nah! : D Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether it's willful or just blockheadedness, we need to prevent that particular form of damage until we can engage the editor in meaningful conversation about it. I wouldn't unblock until they display understanding of our copyright policies and willingness to abide by them. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, and indefinite blocks last for precisely as long as there is potential for disruption = endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Class project/meat puppetry/something big on serial killer

I am bringing this here as I'm not exactly sure where to discuss a concern like this. Recently the serial killer article has undergone many drastic and extensive changes by a whole slew of brand new user accounts. The kinds of changes aren't typically changes in punctuation or adding of a see also or so forth that is typical of new users but adding huge sections of new material without discussion. The first example I ran into had obvious WP:OR problems (speculating at the reasons for the alleged differences between U.S. and French serial killers), and when it was clear the account was going to edit war to put it back I filed a WP:3O, an either through that on his/her own another editor came along and agreed and removed it again. Since then, which was not even two days ago, 13 different new user accounts jumped on the article (and occasionally a related article) and made extensive additions that were clearly written up beforehand and just waiting to be added. Some of these may be acceptable edits with some clean up, lots of them simply are not (one of the new sections was largely sourced to an online senior thesis paper by some student, for example). The actions of the accounts and wording of the edit comments at first made me think maybe this was a series of sockpuppets, but now I think it's some group of students somewhere. Some of these accounts were active for one or two edits a months back, and in one a person mentions "Cut words - class project don't be mad I am sorry :(".

I've left notices on the user talk pages asking for clarifications, but the ones I left yesterday have not been responded to yet even though some of them have continued to edit. I also left information about our WP:BRD cycle to hopefully get them talking on the talk page.

While certainly we should encourage new users, and some of these edits will be quite valuable once they are discussed and tweaked (while others will simply not be acceptable), I am concerned about the implications for being able to check new content and dealing with WP:CONSENSUS issues when masses of new accounts make such drastic changes all at once, seemingly as part of some organized outside project. Overall there's some great potential here, but some small scale edit warring already started, and I don't want people to think they can just take over and make changes as some fait accompli without discussion on Misplaced Pages instead of just offsite somewhere.

Surely something like this has happened before and people have suggestions on how to handle this -- or if this somehow hasn't yet we should probably devise some sort of standard response.

Suggestions? Anyone else want to wade in? DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I can't see any that have edited since your warning, to be honest, though that's not really the point - just a small crumb of comfort...! They all seem to have edited in early April (typically one or two edits) and then again between 31 May and today (twice as many edits, roughly). I'd tend to go with the "class project" idea at this stage, at least until anything untoward happens. With that in mind, I do remember similar cases before - but on a larger scale, where it was possible - eventually! - to contact the teacher responsible. I'm not sure that that will necessarily be possible this time, since there seem to be very few edits from each user, but that may change - it's possible that we'll see another flurry of edits from these users in another couple of months?

Anyway, at this stage I'd continue to welcome/warn the editors. Personally, I'll watchlist serial killer - shout if I can do any more.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag and editing on Ruhollah Khomeini

User:Mitso Bel has been undertaking quite a few POV edits lately, including page moves and mergers where there has been no consensus, and which indicate his POV (see History of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Stop Child Executions Campaign). Recently on Ruhollah Khomeini, User:Mitso Bel has been putting a POV tag at the top of the article because in the lead section it states that Khomeini was Time Person of the Year in 1979, and it lists why they chose him; it is not particularly flattering. Mitso thinks Time magazine is inherently POV, since it is American, and America's government did not get along with Khomeini's. He originally put the POV tag on May 19, and then did not return until today, griping the tag was removed while the discussion was still "open". A small edit war over the tag and the reasons has ensued between he and I. Could we get a few more eyes/voices on this "American media is inherently POV against Iran" issue? -->David Shankbone 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He is also removing the reliably-sourced information, and inserting his own from an unreliable source. -->David Shankbone 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Mr Taz

Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding nonsense to the Foundation Day page. Mr Taz believes there are real days called Foundation Day (Great Britain) and Foundation Day (United Kingdom), and has three times created these as redirects to British Day (while there is a proposal to have a "British Day" on May 1, it is one of many proposed dates and there are no sources calling this proposed day "Foundation Day"). After the second time I nominated them for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8, and they were deleted. When he created the redirects again following their second deletion, they were deleted for a third time and protected from being created again. Today he has again added the links to the disambiguation page, for the fifth time overall. And now, to get round the protection of the previous two deleted redirects he has created them at Foundation Day (GB) and Foundation Day (UK). I feel that his persistent disruptive violations of Misplaced Pages is not for things made up one day require administrator intervention. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him to alert him to his erroneous ways since he obviously wasn't heeding the intent or context of the warnings decorating his talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NBeale

I'd appreciate some assistance regarding Nicholas Beale. It was created on April 1, 2007 by Chiinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—a suspected sockpuppet of the article's subject, who edits as NBeale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and who wrote most of the article. It was deleted as non-notable after an AfD on April 30, 2007. NBeale complained that correct procedure hadn't been followed, and a second AfD was held on May 11, 2007. The result was delete again.

The subject posted the article to his userspace at User:NBeale/nclb. Laura H S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with very few edits, moved it back into mainspace on March 24, 2009. I restored it to userspace on March 29.

Today, Sofsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another account with very few edits, moved it into mainspace again. I restored it to userspace and advised Sofsonline and NBeale to go to DRV. NBeale has now moved it back into mainspace. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nicholas_Beale&diff=293996705&oldid=29396177

Some more discussion here from March this year, where Snalwibma, Plumbago and I advise NBeale against recreation.

There's a clear conflict of interest, not only because the subject has written and keeps restoring the article himself, but also because most of the sources were written by him too. SlimVirgin 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article itself goes, I'd say that if you're concerned about notability AfD is the best place to go now. It should've been taken to DRV before it was moved back (and I'll say as much to NBeale), but now that it's in article space there's no point going to DRV just to have DRV say "Go to AfD". Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a speedy WP:CSD#G4 candidate to me, unless there is a valid DRV overturning the previous AfD. I don't see a point in going to AfD just to have the consensus there be to speedy it and take it to DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject has hinted that I have some ulterior motive for wanting it deleted (for the record, I'd never heard of him before March this year), so I can't speedy it myself. SlimVirgin 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{g4}} (and warned NBeale) rather than speedying it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• My concern is if the edits to the article from being userfied to when they were placed back in the mainspace constitutes the "explicit improvement" caveat of CSD#G4 noted above. Is there a notability indicated now that was not apparent when the article was AfD'ed? If not, then G4 speedy would be in order - if not apparent then another AfD seems to be the solution (I am assuming that notability is not obvious otherwise there would be no discussion here). The actions of a couple of accounts who fortuitously "found" this article, after varying spells of not editing at all - but on related topics when they did, and moved it into mainspace may appear suspiciously opportune in their timing, but AGF dictates we consider the content primarily. While not anticipating an AfD, the question is if notability has been established while the content was in userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools

Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here.

During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system.

I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDunc 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux   20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDunc 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDunc 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems.  Sandstein  21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. ] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDunc 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Misplaced Pages has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDunc 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote. –xeno 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's full rationale

Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion.

When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved.

While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions.

Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated:

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles.

Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week.

That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDunc 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr. xaradnaM

Just wanted to report that this SPA created yet another in a long string of articles about an imaginary television programme -- something to do with Martinez and Caldwell. Since I've seen at least three of these go by in the last month, all from different user names, I blocked the user immediately; I know this must be a part of some sockpuppet investigation even though I can't find out exactly where. I'm also very inexperienced in the ways of sockpuppet investigation. Any information or direction that anyone cares to provide would be most welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats from User:Mathsci

I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Misplaced Pages, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Misplaced Pages, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards--TheThankful (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)