Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 30 June 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Death of Michael Jackson part 2

Foregoing archived to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

A contributor created the article Death of Michael Jackson, under the basis that they're expecting future information about a current event. In the talk page, I've already explained about the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy, as well as using other high-profile deaths as examples of precedence. We're recommending that the content is merged with the main Michael Jackson article, rather than building this article up, and then end up merging later on if the death was indeed natural with no foul play involved. groink 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Death of Michael Jackson (stub) above. This isn't really an admin issue, but one of content, and should be worked out on the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Death of Michael Jackson was deleted and salted. Now it's an article, especially after being used as a fork example in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson? Was there a discussion to un-salt? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at here. The admin who unsalted the namespace is sympathetic of the MJ situation. But the reason I think this is an admin-related issue is that, whenever Misplaced Pages policy is bypassed under an assumed special circumstance like this, it should've been discussed somehow. Especially when another admin is the one who is circumventing the policy. Groink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the delete. Groink (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add here for the record that I created the article, but I did not unprotect it. I posted a request on AN/I. And there clearly is a need for such a sub-article, given the length of Michael Jackson, and given that we should follow WP:SUMMARY STYLE. SlimVirgin 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been no discussion other than that tiny bit above. Guess that passes for consensus these days, multiple deletion discussions aside. There's a vigorous merge discussion on the talk page of the unsalted and recreated article; see how that goes, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not even appear to be a Death of Elvis Presley article, and that story was certainly a media sensation - for awhile, at least. I doubt very much there's enough info on the death of MJ to fill an article, even if it turns out he was taking 100 different pills and had 100 different illnesses and that the FBI and CIA and Oliver Stone were somehow involved. Baseball Bugs carrots 07:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to use examples that occurred during Misplaced Pages's lifetime. –xeno 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute your hint that wikipedia suffers from recentism. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most sources do. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not recant-ism, it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who cant, do. Those who can't, recant. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Death of David Carradine? That was totally out of the blue. The death of MJ shouldn't have been such a surprise. Meanwhile, there is nothing officially known about MJ's death yet beyond the fact that it occurred. Maybe Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson would be more appropriate, since it's everyone's reaction that makes it special - as with Elvis. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a modest 32k, David Carradine's article can accomodate for this. Michael's was ~95k pre-death. –xeno 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's the coroner's job to split Carradine :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. Also, MJ is a FA. There is likely to be reisistance to putting as much in the article about the death as some people will want. I think that having a Death article is a good safety valve.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

/me runs off to create Death of Farrah Fawcett and Death of Ed McMahon - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We have Death of John Lennon (but I suppose that was an interesting and unusual death, as assassinations usually are). Dendodge _T\ 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was obviously also out of the blue. Curiously, the article fails to mention the dotted line connecting that assassination to the attempt on Reagan. Supposedly the guy who shot Reagan was devastated by Lennon's death, and that helped to put him over the edge. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, and people wondered what my motivation in locking down the MJ article when the first unconfirmed reports started coming in about a heart attack was - 29 years later and there are still people trying to portray Lennon's murder as "assissination". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan be comparable (death by natural causes, major figure, relatively recent w/in WP's lifetime?) Based on that, this would mean that there would need to be a lot of coverage of his funeral and memorial services, since the actual cause was not significantly noteworthy (assassination is one thing ala JKF or Lennon). As this stuff is yet unknown, and in the case of Reagan given the fellow being a President and all that, it's CRYSTAL to assume there's enough for an article at this point. The only thing that I've seen noteworth on his death includes: false scarcity of his music, the Internet being hit hard when news broke, and people jumping on fake death sites to try to complete the death trifecta (see Jeff Goldblum), and only one of these really deserves a mention. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As Wehwalt suggests, the presence of that article, which is really a violation of wikipedia guidelines, serves a practical purpose, and after the furor dies down it can be trimmed back and re-merged. It wouldn't be the first time. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines? The only one anybody has mentioned, is NOT#NEWS, which they are quite literally interpreting as 'Misplaced Pages does not create articles based on events in the news, period', which is beyond ridiculous. I cannot fathom, when we we so much non-notable dross and crap created on the pedia every day which can never simply be deleted at Afd under NOT#NEWS due to the 'reliable sources - notable' defence, that this global event is the one thing people choose to wake up and enforce a brittannica type standard on. Misplaced Pages has really screwed up this whole episode, from locking the article, from making his bio unreadable due to its woefull lede and 'NPOV' but unreadable chronological format of his article, and now, by inisting on being second best to all credible and non-credible information sources for properly covering the notable events relating to his death. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. This is where the pie-in-sky ideal of "anyone can edit" starts to break down. The fact of so much hemming and hawing over protection levels, while funny to observe, really makes wikipedia look stupid. Above all else, we should try not to make wikipedia look stupid. It only further undermines wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We might as well archive this section. It's obvious that the consensus has been decided on by the folks who are editing the new article, so further discussion is probably moot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this was not allowed to go through the AfD process. A lot of people want to see the "death of" article merged or deleted. --Susan118 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who was behind un-salting the namespace is an administrator. User:Gwen Gale is a fan of Michael Jackson, and took it upon herself, with no AfD or any other discussion. I see it as a total conflict of interest, and abuse of her admin privileges. I didn't want to state this out in my opening statement, but I'm left with no other choice. We can't undo the damage and delete the article now. I would highly recommend that a higher authority look into this issue, and explore to see if the right procedures were followed. In the end, all I want to see is a warning sent to the people involved Groink (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get more traction if you appeared to know what you are talking about; there was a request by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) further up on this page to unsalt the title, and Gwen Gale was the admin who responded. The article was salted at the time of the MJ announcement so editors could not circumvent the protection of the main article to prevent the use of unreliable sources, and had no content - therefore there was no need for discussion to unsalt; reliable sources are now available. If you wish to warn SlimVirgin, you go to it (but it may help if you could give the appearance of knowing what it is you are talking about.) An apology to Gwen Gale may also help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Warn me about what, LessHeard? SlimVirgin 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why it did not go through AfD discussion. There was much discussion on the talk page about the possibility of merging the article, someone archived it as "no consensus", but I would have liked to see that discussion on AfD, where it would have had visibility to others who might not even know the article exists. The article has been expanded, with sources, but it is heavily dependent on quotes and media speculation, and has no real substance. --Susan118 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to go through an AfD. Article clearly warranted by any standard. In fact, I'm quite certain it's going to end up being split up even more: investigation into death, reaction to death, funeral, probate, custody battle, etc. SlimVirgin 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and list it. I've wanted a week-long drama fest for so long, and none of the new admins are obliging by deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo. More seriously, I think in this case, the community has spoken. And if being a fan is a disqualification, well, we better find some admins who live in monasteries. Monasteries with wi-fi, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm a fan, too, and I still don't think we need an article that devotes several paragraphs to statements by his family, and even less relevant people like Jesse Jackson. But not having nominated anything for deletion before, I'm not starting with this one. --Susan118 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is going to exist. The community has IAR and ignored all procedures and decided that one, for better or worse. You can yell at the tide to turn back, but it just ain't gonna. Suggest we close this and move on. There is no need for administrator intervention in this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to invoke WP:IAR as a lot of people here are opposed to it. This rush to create new articles to document current events is getting crazy around here. Death of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's health and appearance...where is the Birth of Michael Jackson article? I see absolutely no need for this to be forked off the main Michael Jackson article. He collapsed, then he died. Who cares what Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson says? This rush to create forks has to stop. Corpx (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice...now I went to archive my talk page and my cut/paste archive got tagged as "possible Michael Jackson vandalism". I should note there is no discussion related to any of the Michael Jackson articles on my talk page; this leads me to believe that I've been labelled a vandal. Guess I disagreed with the wrong person/people? I am highly offended as I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism on Misplaced Pages. I wish I knew (for certain) who did this, as I'd like to open up a separate incident. I would also like to request this removed from the edit history of my archive.--Susan118 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not you, Susan, that's just the Abuse Filter picking something up it doesn't like. That's an automated thing, not a person - don't worry about it. The filter can be cranky sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, don't sweat it. That filter is too wide right now. See the note Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive at the top of –xeno 13:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony and Xeno. Sorry if I seemed overly paranoid, but it looked very odd to me, and it seems there's a lot of secrecy around how the abuse filters work (which I understand there has to be, otherwise people could easily find ways around them). I know they do sometimes flag good edits. I reported it as a false positive at the tag discussion page, so I'm not going to push the issue any further here. Thanks. --Susan118 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Link_on_Jackson.27s_death

Can an admin see to this please? Pyrrhus16 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to split

This entire section has more subsections than ANI does now. It's time to split off this section into it's own sub-page.— Dædαlus 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've archived the first part of the thread, I don't think we need a subpage for an issue that should quiet down fairly quickly. –xeno 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard . The IPs repeatedly post angry rants , blank the article and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae . The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

• an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
• an indefinite topic ban of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) editing BLPs;
• indefinite semi-protection of Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to prevent the ongoing disruption by IP sockpuppets.

I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based , and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:

• The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
• Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
• User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
• The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Misplaced Pages and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.

Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.

Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:

• posting CV instead of bio article
  • logged-in: ; logged-in sock: , IP
• copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
  • logged-in: , IP
• posting complaint rants in article space:
  • logged-in: ; IP:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated - the checkuser request is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.

ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.

I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.

And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Result at AE was an indef block of Darko Trifunovic (block log). — Satori Son 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining this discussion late; however, I'd like to respond to Franamax's point. I for one am aware that the article is woefully incomplete. There's a good bit more that can be added, with proper sourcing. However, I and most of the other main contributors to this article have been somewhat preoccupied by WP:ARBMAC2 and the associated naming debate. I have every intention of returning to this article when time permits. // Chris 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also joining late - I have been dealing with this for years now, Darko had been extended good faith much longer than any other chronic abuser I am aware of. He's repeatedly been told not to do this with the article, and to bring concerns to the article talk page. Which he's done at times, and resulted in a significant reduction in critical content about him, but not a complete whitewash.

His ongoing disruption here was not acceptable. As CU confirmed the anons are really him - we have no reason to AGF anymore, we've proved bad faith engagement after repeatedly giving opportunities to engage within Misplaced Pages policy and plenty of assistance and openminded discussion. I support the indef. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just go on record here as saying that blocking the primary account is not a good idea. That account is currently making quite ham-fisted attempts to "vandalise" one single article - really now, spotting that is a highlight of my wiki-day. We're not at serious risk of damage here. The distributed attacks by IP's, acknowledged by the CU to be unblockable at this minor level of disruption are similarly a small concern. An inadequate article is replaced by a resume for a few minutes. So what? It's fixable, right?

The bigger issue is that we need to either finish the article or dispose of it. We need to occupy the higher ground. I'll help either way, but I'm devoid of resources to research the whole thing. We need someone to step up to the plate and get this resolved. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA?

I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Misplaced Pages-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Endorse check being run. Enigma 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Misplaced Pages's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuice 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuice 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Misplaced Pages to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Misplaced Pages policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Misplaced Pages policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Misplaced Pages policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.

As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Misplaced Pages; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.

For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very username is WP:POINTy. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Misplaced Pages policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Misplaced Pages deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Misplaced Pages's policy so much as to change the content of individual Misplaced Pages articles; the descriptive nature of Misplaced Pages policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Misplaced Pages, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Misplaced Pages. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Misplaced Pages editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all localized disputes are about Misplaced Pages's broader policy. Localized disputes about Misplaced Pages's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Misplaced Pages's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Misplaced Pages policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The account was not created to "liberalize Misplaced Pages's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will request a change in username. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Participating in a discussion about a controversial issue in order to keep one's main account private is a perfectly reasonable thing for an alternate account to do as long as there's no disruption. I don't believe mentioning an already-public name of someone whose name is supposed to be kept secret constitutes disruption: in fact, I am far more concerned that the oversnsitivity being shown here will affect the debate on the issue. And Steve Smith's idea that this was somehow a Misplaced Pages-wide policy discussion is preposterous: no, this is really about this single article, and no one is proposing rewriting policy. That interpretation would have the effect of preventing any legitimate use of alternate accounts where policy is involved, which is basically all article editing when there is any contention at all. Mangojuice 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Including the names of murderers in an article about the murder hardly sounds like free speech absolutism to me, especially when a quick Google search shows several US-based reliable sources ( i.e. Discovery Channel's website ) which mention the name without reservation. I'm finding the reasons given for the block extremely underwhelming. I'm also seeing a contradiction in the arguments claiming this is an inappropriate use of a sock: One one side, some users want to take sensitivity to Canadian law into account in obscuring the names. But on the other side, editors are saying that the user is not contributing from a politically risky part of the world and therefore not a legitimate use of a sock. So which is it? It seems to me we're bending our own rules toward Canadian censorship standards while at the same time claiming Canada isn't repressive enough to allow the use of a sock. I highly doubt we would show the same deference to Iranian law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that permanently unblocking me does not mean we're going to name the killer. That decision will be made on Talk:Richardson family murders. I can see it both ways, but the question here is whether I was violating Misplaced Pages policy, and I think it's clear that I was not. I wish I could go back to 2005 and not use my real name as my username so this wouldn't be an issue. But I promise that if permanently unblocked, I will change the username of my secondary account, change my secondary account's user page, abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, refrain from using the killer's name on Talk:Richardson family murders and only edit Richardson family murders in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies on consensus and dispute resolution. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was holding off in case more feedback comes in, but this is really all we could possibly hope for. I'm lifting the block completely; you are now free to rejoin the discussion. Mangojuice 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Final conclusion about Google hits

In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. My understanding is that Misplaced Pages:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are rightly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Skomorokh  13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why remember when the Internet can remember everything for you?  Skomorokh  04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is the wrong place for this conversation - take it to the essay's talk page if you like/dislike what the essay says/doesn't say. Marking resolved, as there is nothing here to resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love

Things are becoming distinctly unWP:Cool at this article and its talk page. There was a recent afd where the consensus was to keep. I was aware of some heat at the time and wanted to keep half an eye on what was happening to the content but the proliferation of silly section titles in the talk page: Talk:Greek love#Absurd, Talk:Greek love#21:07, Talk:Greek love#21:09 Talk:Greek love#questionable" and Talk:Greek love#Editor admits original research, point of view, and referencing personal letter. etc. and the deletion of large chunks of text in ther article followed by reversion means that I've lost the will to keep up. Could a kind admin be so good as to consider protecting whatever the wrong version happens to be at the time they get there and encourage more constructive use of the talk page, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and whilst there are a lot of edits, there's also a lot of talk page discussion accompanying them. There's some reversion going on, but there's also some constructive editing going on, as well. The problem here appears not to be the article, but the talk page, with edits such as this one and this one, for example. Protecting the article won't address this talk page etiquette problem.

  As for the "silly section titles", at least one actually is not silly. Talk:Greek love#questionable" is, as the section title states, about the use of the word "questionable" in place of other text. Far from being "silly" it seems plainly denotative, and indeed far less problematic than editors using section titles to call each other dishonest.

  You have a talk page etiquette problem. Page protections and blocks are too blunt tools for this. This is especially so given that the page to protect would be the talk page, which would be entirely counterproductive for the writing of the article proper. The talk page is being used. It's even being used extensively. It's just not being used well. The best course of action is to ask for third party editors to step in with quiet words to all parties on user talk pages at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux

User:Max Mux has requested a more public review of his block and ban - in the interests of sorting this all out, I'm willing to comply. In a discussion here (under the heading Abuse of Misplaced Pages:Guidelines) Max was put under a set of restrictions to do with creating articles. This was because of a continued and consistent failure to understand the reliable sources policy, far beyond the point where language problems (Max is a german speaker) could be used as an excuse. After repeated failure to use Reliable Sources, Max was indefinitely blocked and community banned as per the original agreement. This is slightly problematic, since the original agreement prohibited the creation of new pages (even though that wasn't the main problem) but said nothing about the use of Reliable Sources. I expressed slight misgivings at the time, and max has now requested a more public review. The question, then, is twofold: firstly, whether you agree that max's behaviour on top of that expressed in the last thread is such that he deserves an indefinite block, and secondly whether you think this block fell under the community agreement in the last thread. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I remember the discussion, as well as--if memory serves--evidence of shenanigans on de.wiki. To answer your questions: yes and yes. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The reason I went ahead and instated the community ban was because I believed that the spirit of the last discussion was about the inability to understand and follow policy. Yes, he stopped creating articles at a break-neck speed, but then started up again in his userspace. When told to stop creating them willy-nilly, listen to his mentor and fix the ones he already created instead, he dropped them completely and blithely went back to adding unsourced information to various biographies. I think it is clear that at best, Max absolutely cannot understand what's expected of him; at worst, given his participation at de.wiki, he simply has no interest in following policy. Either way, stopping someone from running amok in biographies is prevention at its best. Shell 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the block was deserved, but no, it did not fall under the remit of the discussion regarding a community ban. From a purely technical standpoint he did not violate the restrictions placed on him by the community; that said, it is pretty obvious that Max Mux seems to have a fundamental inability to "follow the rules" so to speak. I do not know whether this inability is intentional or otherwise but the problem is egregious enough that his continued editing here is a net drag on the project. Making the jump in logic to apply a "community ban" for something not directly related may be a large leap indeed and I can see how one would make the case that he should not be considered "banned" per se, but I for one would be unwilling to unblock him either way. Shereth 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

James P. Barker unresolved

This has been here a few days ago clearly not an article for speedy deletion and is still unresolved. I have asked user Manning to restore the page, disscussion and full history but he has not gotten back to me. The speedy deletion was obviously wrong so that the article and history should be fully restored. I am asking you to do it now because it is a mess and people even use the deletion that violates normal procedure as an example in another ongoing afd. There would be also no harm to reopen the Afd for James P. Barker as it was wrongly cut off and let the community have their say on an 3 year old article. I think it would be more harm and wrong if it would be simply redirected without giving the wider community the chance to have their say. Iqinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the AfD was closed incorrectly, the place to discuss this is at deletion review. A number of editors might agree with you on that, and if so the AfD could be relisted. Incidentally, I was the person who mentioned it in the Steven Dale Green AfD, and I was not mentioning it "as an example," but rather making the point that if WP:BLP1E applied to Barker, it should probably apply to Green as well. In any case, deletion review is the place to make your case on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For the deletion review i need access to the article and it's history. So i can make my case that it has been wrongly speedy deleted under A7. Only administrators have access to it now. If you think deletion review is the best way that's ok but i and people need access to the article to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you need access to the article, email me or another administrator and we can send you the most recent revision by email. Once the deletion review is started, the history may be temporarily restored for that purpose. We usually don't restore prior to the DRV being filed. Hersfold 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The result of the previous discussion seemed to be that the article shouldn't be restored and that a bare redirect was the correct outcome, even if the process that reached it was wrong. Is there a specific reason why the full history needs to be restored? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing

Alex contributing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User is coming off a recent block for "Personal attacks or harassment: obscenities in edit summaries, disruptive editing" and this is apparently their way of moving on. I understand the idea of letting users blow off some steam on their own talk page, but this seems to be a bit much after a week.
I don't have time to dig out diffs of the original trouble tonight, but will later if necessary. From what I remember, they're upset over a category being deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• good lord no, "I can only hope he will listen to that admonishment: not to be a faggot." as the capstone to the rest of the homophobic filth--and the day after the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, no less! Pride day for me--is completely unacceptable. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocked. There is absolutely no reason for this guy's continued attacks to be tolerated. --auburnpilot talk 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest talk page protection, no reason to let the user have a soapbox to spread homophobia. -- Darth Mike  04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...along with deleting the talk page per deny recognition. MuZemike 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both done.  Sandstein  15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef and deny. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in article mainspace

I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:Russellfl5, in the article John Russell (Florida politician) and outside. I listed the article for deletion, and actually filed a sock puppet report, thinking that they were the same as User:Baxterword, and I'm still not convinced that they are not the same (the report is at ]). Now, after cleaning up a coding error by Russellfl5 in that SPI, I saw some nasty, nasty things, and to my surprise they had repeated accusations of terrorism (yes, indeed) in the article mainspace, here. I can't rightly tell if I'm being "outed" here or not--I guess not, since the user doesn't seem to understand UTC, but I'm certainly being insulted as an Israel-hating terrorist. Do I need to explain here that my interest, as you'll see from the article history, was to remove trivia? Your attention is appreciated. Russell is aggravating me a little. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Russellf15 is claiming to be John Russell (Florida politician). I removed his rant from the article and left a standard COI warning on his talk page. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After making this edit, one minute after the COI warning, I've indef-blocked the user. It's a bit faster than usual, but this type of harassment isn't indicative of someone who wants to edit constructively. I trust that's not overly controversial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. Somebody might also want to keep an eye on PuddyKat (talk · contribs). The account has the distinct trademarks of a sock/meat puppet. --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block on Mr. Russell; is deserving of an automatic indefinite disruption block. MuZemike 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested CheckUser in that SPI per the likelihood and evidence of further abuse via sockpuppetry. MuZemike 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From the SPI report: Russellfl5 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Baxterword (talk · contribs).  Confirmed PuddyKat (talk · contribs) = Russellfl5 (talk · contribs). (Check done by Nishkid64) Icestorm815 • Talk 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick action. Reporting someone at AN/I does not make me feel real good about myself, but I guess I am glad I did it. I do appreciate, from all of you, your serious consideration, which led to the block and the unmasking of a sock puppet--I wouldn't have thought of that myself. Which is why you guys have the admin job and I correct comma errors! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I received an email message from Russell, accusing me of lack of balls and inviting me to call him and all that: "If you have the BALLS why don't you call me RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL TALK?" (He included his cell number...) I don't know if, after the block, he still has email privileges. Also, I should just ignore this, right? Or should I just call the local newspaper, haha? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Local newspaper would be more satisfying, but ignoring is best -- unless he starts slinging legal threats around, in which case you should let us know again -- you shouldn't have to stand alone for good-faith edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block his ability to send emails, please. MuZemike 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was apparently already done, and the user still was able to send an email. MuZemike 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which account did you receive the email from? User:Russellfl5 has email sending blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, I never thought to check. The email came from his own email account, not through Misplaced Pages. So he had my personal email address already at Monday, June 29, 2009 12:27 AM. No wonder he had my work phone number at 10AM. This is creepy, but as I understand it's been 'handled' already at the sysop level. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted block on PuddyKat to do the same. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Broy7 seems to be an obvious site abuser

User:Broy7 Has been warned twice already by me and refuses to respond or discuss. Numerous examples of blatant removal of material on dozens of articles. Deletes vast sections of articles and gives reasons like "poor grammar" or "bad English." The grammar and English on the page will be fine..........then what they leave of the article they mess it up with grammar errors and bad English on purpose. Unreal the nerve they have.

Constantly removes sourced and pertinent info from numerous pages, even entire sections of articles that are sourced and pertinent, citing "bad English" and "poor grammar," only to then leave a bare bones article, to which they then go through again and purposely put bad grammar and English on what is left of the page. Reverts back any restores of pages and reverts unlimited number of times, usually within an hour or less. If someone adds something new to an article this user works on or has worked on in the past, then within an hour, maybe less, the page will be reverted back. No matter what the add is, how pertinent it is, if it is updating an article, correcting an article, adding a source, whatever........it will be reverted back.

There are it seems in the dozens of articles now in a relatively short period of time that the user is doing this to. Most of them just include taking an article and deleting most info on it and leaving an edit summary like "greatly improved this article that was done so badly", or "fixed the terrible English in this article". Of course, there was no fixing or improving, just deleting of a whole lot of stuff and then purposely messing the English and grammar up. It seems that all articles relating to Lithuania Misplaced Pages project are what the user is targeting, at least for now anyway. If you try to talk to this user and explain about new material being added to a page that was a pertinent update or a source being added and that it should not be reverted back you get no response. You also get no response if you try to inform them of the 3 revert rule. This user is an abuser - one of the worst I have seen yet. I would not put this here lightly, but this user is certainly purposely trying to mess up articles. That is very obvious. This user might even be worse than Downwards. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first few diffs of Broy7's that I reviewed seemed like good edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide us some links to this purported "problem behavior"? I checked out several of the edits and I do not see any obvious issues. Shereth 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They are feuding at Šarūnas Jasikevičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ramūnas Šiškauskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naturally neither one is using the article talk pages, Basketball's first edit to User talk:Broy7 assumes bad faith , and Broy7 has never posted to use own user talk page. Thatcher 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is clearly abusing the site. I told you what they are doing already. I am 100% sure that the site would ban this person permanently if they looked at the pattern of all their edits. Also it seems that this might be the same user as User:Downwards, one of the most notorious site abusers ever.--Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding edit war on Syrian/Egyptian articles

Hey. I wasn't really sure where to post this since it's been growing in the past few days, so if it's in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll take it elsewhere.

Basically I became involved in this issue as a third opinion to settle a dispute. Two editors have been going back and forth on Asmahan and articles related to that one about whether she was Syrian, Egyptian, or Syrian-Egyptian, or some combination involving Lebanon as well. Turns out that one of the editors was battling on the page as an anon IP before he registered as Arab Cowboy. Either way, this issue has been going on for nearly two months and resulted in an admin fully protecting the page. The editing has recently spilled over into other articles.

The reason I wasn't sure as to where to post this is because it touches so many different issues. It largely looks like one user being a tendentious edit warrior, but maybe not. And it is a content dispute, but after two months of issues, I don't really get the sense that this one editor is going to respect any sort of consensus that comes out of an RfC. The main discussion I've been involved with is at Talk:Asmahan. But I'm really not sure how to proceed from here, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, just as a follow-up, the two editors are Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"She was born on a ship heading from Greece to Lebanon." In other words, she was born in international waters -- which is going to complicate even a civil discussion of the matter. Aiyaiyai. Annyong, my advice is to get the parties to supply reliable sources which show that this is a point of contention beyond Misplaced Pages's little world; if they exist, use what they say. If none are forthcoming -- that is, except for these two, no one actually argues over her nationality -- then use Occam's razor & go with the simplest statement, such as she was Egyptian citizenship of Lebanese (or Syrian) parents -- or simply have the article state she did most of her shows in Egypt. (Even better, use what the reliable secondary sources say.) But getting a pair like these to accept that Misplaced Pages's not going to print The Truth -- only statement of what notable people think is The Truth -- will require a lot of patience & tact. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts

Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.

I noticed on his userpage () that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Misplaced Pages rules.

Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.

Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.

The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Misplaced Pages purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.

This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat of WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Halfacanyon_accusing_me_of_POV-pushing.2C_lying.2C_etc... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Misplaced Pages rules as stated above? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. Hans Adler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon

For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Misplaced Pages quickly! ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If Halfacanyon walks like a duck, then quacks like a duck... duck-billed platypus? IronDuke 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His addition of this smartarsed edit and immediate removal is ... well ... interesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)

re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Misplaced Pages-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(This understandably to be read as a re to the previous section #Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts. Due to the disruptive edit by seicer, inserting a new sectiontitle out-of-chron, out-of-place, it might read illogic). -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Misplaced Pages, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Misplaced Pages - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCell  21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuice 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.

Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgin 05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Misplaced Pages/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgin 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Halfacanyon appears to be  Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Kingweenie and Richard Perry

Would like further instruction on how to properly handle this matter. I'm unsure whether this is a copyright violation, a conflict of interest, or a BLP issue, or all three. User keeps removing the tags I placed at Richard Perry and states he has "tried many times to contact Misplaced Pages about the various changes that need to be done but we get no replies". -- œ 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem user on 112.201.*.* range

I've noted that several users from the 112.201.*.* range have been vandalizing several articles, especially on articles and related pages connecting to Filipina singer Regine Velasquez. I'm thinking that vandal who used those IP address is also the vandal who originally used 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and you may find that some of the pages vandalized by this user are being vandalized by the vandals on 112.201.*.* range.

The following are the ones from which the user vandalized the articles. The vandal also says the opposite of what he did on the edit summary:

• 112.201.24.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.71.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.100.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.12.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.43.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.58.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.48.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.85.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

What can be done against this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is probably your best bet, given the limited range of articles he/she hits. Tan | 39 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are for the articles hit. But they're numerous, and the user seems to be range-hopping. Is a rangeblock also possible? Also, can I list the all of the articles hit? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of time that this user has been editing, and that 65,000+ IPs would be affected by an effective rangeblock, I don't see a rangeblock as a possibility. Regarding what to list at RFPP, I would start with perhaps the three most "popular" targets, and add the rest as they are vandalized. Note: I have not looked into any pagehistory at all to determine the scope of the alleged vandalism; that will be up for the addressing admin at RFPP. Tan | 39 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They're all within 112.201.0.0/17 if that narrows things down any better (but only down to around 32 000 IP addresses, unfortunately). MuZemike 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming that the lower and upper IP addresses above define the "limits". I would say it's a good possibility 112.201.11.xxx pops up, etc. Blocking the whole 112.201.xxx.xxx range seems to me to be the only effective block; but it's a moot point - as you said, 32K IPs is still probably unacceptable collateral damage. Tan | 39 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am personally not involved in developing the articles, as I am personally not a huge fan of Velasquez. Also, it seems that most of the vandal's edits are reverted by MS. But still, I will keep an eye on the articles vandalized by the user for future reporting. I brought this up because the this vandal's MO is almost the same as the one on 202.138.180.35, as well as many other IPs (some at the 124.104.16.0/21 range) that vandalized the related articles. (Considering 202.138.180.35 hasn't been used since last January because of the block imposed on that address, it seems the vandal has now found a new bunch of IPs to vandalize from.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence - Lancashire, England

I recently deleted some threats of violence from an article. In the past, I have simply deleted such edits and not taken any further action. In this case, however, it does not appear to be the typical schoolchild type threat - the threats are very specific in terms of named targets and place where they are employed. If there are any editors willing and able to make an appropriate report to local authorities in the area of Lancashire, England, please contact me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for the police station at Thurnham Street, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 1YB, which covers the Lower Lune Valley area, is +44 1524 63333. Callers within the U.K. can also use 0845 1 25 35 45, of course. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone local could assist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll make the international call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a credible threat really; just moronic vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving / renaming entries

I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Misplaced Pages's rules:

I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Misplaced Pages administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Misplaced Pages now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Misplaced Pages. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A hatnote at the actually notable Wirtland article seems more than generous. — Satori Son 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the others - seems fair to me. This is called disambiguation. Orderinchaos 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all answers, which are helpful indeed in understanding Misplaced Pages's approach. Though I still believe the "more notable"/"less notable" judging lacks measurability and objectiveness, I don't have any further questions or suggestions. Again, thanks and happy editing to all. Witizen (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Two IP editors reverting each other, possible inaccurate edit summaries

IP editors 70.112.199.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 86.158.237.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are reverting each others' edits to a wide variety of pages. I specifically noticed them putting multiple sockpuppet templates on each others' talk pages. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now add 86.151.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after 86.158.237.39 was blocked. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, two banned users... 70.112 is Hkelkar and 86.158 is Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we don't ever report long-term abusers like these two to their ISPs citing breach of TOS? With most ISPs that is cause for losing access. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory it is, and people have done so in past cases, but there's not a very good track record of this actually working when the ISP gets contacted by a random person with no official status on the website affected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't we have Cary (second choice) or Mike do it? This sort of long-term abuse is detrimental to the entire project, and I suspect something on WMF letterhead coming from the legal counsel to one of the largest websites in the world would make them sit up and take some notice. Fill the appropriate CU information into a form letter and send it off. → ROUX ₪ 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Two reasons that the Foundation does not pursue these problems more aggressively. One, it could be seen as undermining WMF's section 230 immunity, under which individual editors and not the WMF are responsible for content and management of the site. Two, if an ISP ever refused, the WMF would either have to launch a legal offensive that would cost a considerable fraction of the budget (for being the 8th or whatever biggest website in the world, WMF is run on the ultra-cheap) or admit to being a paper tiger. Besides, if the WMF ever did decide to man up and take on a problem editor, these two are way down on my list of targets. Thatcher 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd just like to add that it would be bad PR to do this-- headlines would argue that Misplaced Pages vandals are so out of control we are resorting to legal action. We need to show that we can take care of this sort of thing "in house". ⟳ausa کui 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further intervention required?

I'm not sure what policy is regarding vandal IP edits in relation to FBI alerts, but should this edit be reported somewhere? ponyo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report it. Even if it isn't credible on its face it's still a threat against a state official and should be reported to the appropriate investigative body. -Jeremy 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, but being from Canada I'm wondering what the best way to go about it would be? ponyo (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Call or e-mail the US Secret Service, as per this page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. This is just cheap-ass vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over a cleanup tag

DocKino (talk · contribs) is continually reverting my addition of a cleanup tag to Film noir. I've explained the issue on the talk page but he is reverting with summaries that have devolved to "It's been removed. Accept it." I didn't want to make a federal case out of this but he has chosen to revert war rather than discuss... rather than trying to get him blocked I thought I'd bring it here, where hopefully someone can tell him the best course of action might be to actually address the considerable issues with the article, rather than angle to prevent people from putting the appropriate cleanup tags on. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is probably the most accurate use of {{essay}} I have ever seen, FWIW. → ROUX ₪ 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to try 3O first, and if that's not successful try WQA. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers... sorry if I was abrupt in coming here. I will remember WP:3O next time (although I always hope there won't be a "next time"). --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account, AgoINAgo

] (talk · contribs) claims that they picked up the account name and password from a website. —LOL /_C 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account - seemed to be a bit of trolling as well. Thanks for the report, LOL. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm "Thanks for the report, LOL" - your account name makes it particularly hard to sound sincere! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.189.122.208

I've block this IP address indef due to someone creating numerous talk pages with no articles; obvious vandlaism. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP, I've set the expiry to 2 weeks. No prejudice for reblocking if they re-offend after that, but we should not block IPs indefinitely. Please see Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses & break your habit of blocking IPs indefinitely. –xeno 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

cheers. =) –xeno 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• My first legitimate use of Special:Nuke. Very special. ;-) It seems to be a repeat vandal who has also used the IPs 70.234.105.193, 70.142.52.40, 70.128.106.25, and 70.234.150.190. They all appear to belong to AT&T's DSL service in Tulsa, Oklahoma. --auburnpilot talk 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair: Edit war ahead?

Hi, I improved the article greatly (well, forward it is). Since a few hours User:Jalapenos do exist is swamping the newly created section with weasel, fact, hih, fv templates. Since I edited seriously three times to delete a bunch of his templates, and in the end he puts in more. Also: the article is in an AFD here, probably related userpolitics? Anyway, I feel an abuse of my good faith. Any advice? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit summary sounds like a challenge about edit-wars ... not good. Yes, a lot of the words in the article are weasel words. I expect that the article will be rightly deleted shortly, based on the current state of the AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the advice was asked into improving the article, and how to react to an editor adding 25 huh-like templates to a section. Editing and improving is allowed during AFD. Especially since the section involved is a serious argument for a keep. Do you really mean I could frustrate an other AFD by behaving like the editor? Further, I don't think it is a good idea that you advise me here while voting delete on the same article. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend then either allowing the valid templates where they belong, or remove the weasel words and unreferenced facts. My !vote to delete has nothing to do with the templates, but the notability of the subject matter. You've been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know these things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Long enough to know? Sounds like you don't trust my question here. Anyway, you're invited to re-read the article, weigh the well-referenced new section (even now), and reconsider your vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout International Editions

We have taken great care to update the International Edition section of the Wipeout (2008 Game Show) page located at Wipeout_(2008_game_show). The section accurately lists all the international versions of the show. An unregistered user from the following IP address User talk:83.85.168.35 has added numerous countries that do not air Wipeout. They have engaged in an edit war and done this appx. 20 times. If you look at their TALK page they have been warned and blocked but they continue to add the countries without any reference or backup. All of the current countries include information about hosts, networks, etc. They are simply adding the name of a country with no information or backup. "MattMDK (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)"

...and the IP user has a fairly nice block history from this article. They just came off another last week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Concern at DRV

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 29 has five seven successive nominations from a new user who's (alarmingly) called "TheGriefer", and I'm having trouble assuming good faith where he's concerned. Might these be disruptive nominations? Outside views would be welcome.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blizzocked as a sock of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• All DRV's opened by this editor are now closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf and Eckstasy

• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eckstasy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After inadvertently stepping on a landmine by nominating List of quote databases for deletion, I've been barraged with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, off-wiki harassment, and veiled (on-wiki) bragging of denial-of-service attacks, mostly initiated by Tothwolf (talk · contribs) and Eckstasy (talk · contribs). Please see the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of quote databases. I'm not sure where to go with this... sorry for not detailing all the grisly details, but a quick read of the AfD (and advice) would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Eckstasy, apparently dissatisfied with the AFD result, is now gathering "evidence" (presumably with which to harass me later). No comment on the irony that he's archiving an AFD debate, which exists ad infinitum in the proper namespace already... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Tothwolf specifically, while the discussion was heated...I don't see anything that would require administrator attention here, unless you can substantiate your claim of off-wiki harassment. The discussion with Eckstasy was also heated, but again, I don't see a need for admin intervention at this time. While I don't condone some of the things that were said, I would also note that the discussion was not helped by your accusation that the AfD was canvassed. Your presumption that the second link provided will be used to "harass" you later is a strong claim and an assumption of bad faith. Harassment is an incredibly strong term, I might add, and such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. In short, no action is needed at the moment, unless there is evidence that harassment is occurring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That article got archived there for a reason, not to harass anyone. And as for off-wiki stuff, it has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages whatsoever. Seeing you posting this in the noticeboard, sadly made me come out with even more stuff. if anyone read, they would gather what this is about. Eckstasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has harassed and caused drama in multiple articles he's had disagreements in. he has a COI in irc-related articles because he's a developer for a well-known IRC application, so he takes the articles very personally. he also is a regular on wiki's IRC, so expect him to canvas his IRC friends for help/support. good luck getting anything done with this uncivil harasser. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Danras

I was cleaning up categories and ran across several articles created by Danras (talk · contribs). I am a bit concerned that most of his edits are creating/maintaining very poorly sourced BLPs like Dennis Dechaine and populating categories like Category:People convicted of murdering victims who were later found alive with articles that read more like the National Enquirer than any encyclopedia I've ever read. If it were one or two articles, I wouldn't be as concerned, but this appears to be a pattern of editing dating back to 2006 that has gone unnoticed as much of his editing appears to be in a walled garden of orphan criminal articles. MBisanz 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at some of these articles, none of them contains any references, but they are all about people who are long dead. Doesn't seem like a BLP panic to me yet, but I'm still digging through his contribs. ⟳ausa کui 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Dennis Dechaine and Robert Diaz are still living. I haven't done a complete audit, but it looks like at least half of his new articles are about living people. MBisanz 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I haven't looked through all these articles but I think there are definitely problems with Butler and Yelder which seems to plagiarise Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

• The Misplaced Pages article states without citing a source: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack and then thrown into the Alabama River."

• Northwestern states: "The remains allegedly were put into a sack, which Louise and George threw into the Alabama River"

• Misplaced Pages: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• Northwestern: "The children then admitted that they had fabricated the story, at the behest of a man who had a grievance against George. It was never explained why they also had implicated Louise, or why she had confessed."

• WP: "Less than a week after sentencing, Topsy was discovered alive and well, and residing less than twenty miles away."
• NW: Less than a week later, Topsy was discovered alive, well, and residing less than twenty miles away,

Center on Wrongful Convictions gives permission to "reprint, quote, or ost on other web sites with appropriate attribution" but it's not really clear if the commercial aspects of Wp are acceptable and the WP article only refers to the Center on Wrongful article as an "external link" and not as a reference or source and doesn't credit any of the parts copied or clearly derived from their article. Sarah 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this might be a broader problem. Nicholas Yarris also seems to be a problem which seems to plagiarise www.deathpenaltyinfo.org and www.victimsofthestate.org. Examples:

• Misplaced Pages: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and he endured days of regular beatings and torture."
• deathpenaltyinfo: "Police leaked to other inmates that Yarris was a snitch, and Yarris endured days of regular beatings and torture."

• WP: "In an effort to save himself, he asked police what would happen if he had participated in the crime, but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."
• DPI: "In an effort to save himself, Yarris asked what would happen if he had participated in the crime but was not the murderer. The beatings stopped, and Yarris was charged with capital murder."

• WP:"A fellow inmate made a deal with the DA and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and reduced sentencing."
• DPI: "A fellow inmate made a deal with the D.A. and began exchanging false information about Yarris in exchange for conjugal visits and a reduced sentence."

• WP: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."
• DPI: "This inmate became one of the few witnesses to testify against Yarris at trial."

• WP: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her. Yarris' blood type also happened to be among the 25% of the population that matched the actual perpetrator's blood type."
• victimsofthestate.org: "Yarris' alleged motive was that he was angry with his ex-girlfriend, and the victim allegedly looked like her...Yarris shared this blood type along with 15% of the population. "

This material was in the original version posted by Danras . Sarah 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't keep lifting out comparisons as this is quite clearly an extensive problem but Robert Diaz, particular the "Crimes" section is heavily copied from victimsofthestate.org. If User:Danras is the original author of any of this material (and looking further I've realised that is possible for some but I don't think all) he needs to verify this to OTRS and confirm permissions and he still needs to be able source the material. Posting slabs of material that is copied from other sources without explanation and which isn't written in an encyclopedic tone or from a NPOV and is unverifiable isn't acceptable. Sarah 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah--this is beyond unacceptable. I don't have time as of yet to help cull through them (ah, the joy of working nights), but we're definitely looking at a major, major copyvio/plagiarism problem here. I'm blocking this user indefinitely until he can come up with a really good explanation for his behavior. Can't be too harsh when dealing with copyright issues ... Blueboy96 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Blueboy and Sarah. Good catch. Durova 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom

This user is bothering me. I'm a fairly new user here and I'm sure that many of their edits to Ally Mcbeal related articles are vandalism. I've tried to respond in a friendly and helpful manner. Can anyone summon up the patience to read through the relevant talk pages on our accounts and do some sifting? I appreciate that I am making this harder by not really knowing what to do in this situation. Alaphent (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs (links to the edits that you think are vandalistic)? RPOD's been around for a while, and I've always found him/her to be productive, though that doesn't automatically mean that you're wrong. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. I know I'm asking for quite a lot here, but do you think you could read our relevant talk pages and look at recent edit contributions. That isn't to say I don't want to learn what to do in a case such as this. Alaphent (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Alaphent is referring to his interactions with RedPenOfDoom on his talk page. Tiptoety 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a sample diff - Ally McBeal diff. It seems there is a dispute about whether the minor characters get their own article page or not. There is a relevant discussion here. I think this is merely a content disagreement and can be resolved on the talk page. My opinion is that it all looks in good faith to me. Nothing on the Alaphent's talk page seems overly objectionable, except possibly the use of the term "fancruft". Manning (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mansourramis

I'm a new admin and was hoping to get a second opinion on the edits by Mansourramis on Charm School with Ricki Lake‎. Basically, this user is ignoring all warnings and continues to add unsourced future information. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of being an admin :-) (BTW - It's not too late to change your mind!) Am looking over it now. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK as far as I see it, much of this information seems to be casting an opinion about who will win the contest. If so, this is not really WP:CRYSTAL, this is actually WP:VANDAL. Can you confirm my interpretation? Manning (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, my opinion was that it could be classified as both. I had asked for a second opinion at AIV, but they declined stating that it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well either way, I think you've been as patient as you need to be. I will commence with a 24 hour block. Let me know if you need any further action via my talk page. You've handled it well thus far IMHO. Manning (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin that declined at WP:AIV, I only note that I didn't deny that this could be vandalism. I only noted that the "quick glance" check did not show that it was simple vandalism of the type which could easily be dealt with at WP:AIV. This wasn't some kid inserting swear words into articles, and it was unclear, without considerable explanation and/or investigation, what was wrong with this users edits. I have no problem with a finding that this ended up being vandalism, but complex cases like this are generally hard for a process like WP:AIV to handle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Agreed and don't worry about it. All's well that ends well. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wasn't very clear when I asked at AIV. No worries. Plastikspork (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock wash please

Hi, we've got a new sock at Barack Obama -

The same editor who operated

• CrazyEd20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)
• CrazyEd30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indeffed as sock)

Recently created:

• Not An Ed Puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (please block!)

...whose only real activity is blanking the talk pages of the other two socks and vandalizing Barack Obama with the same claim of losing his job because of Obama.

No point going through the trouble of a sockpuppet report - this is WP:DUCK. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, good. Thanks Bongwarrior and Jayron32. There's no block notice and I forgot to check the block log. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding this...

//* Sysop decrier/detector (rights group displayer), version 
//Originally from http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js
importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

...to your monobook.js will display usergroup(s) of the user at their user and talkpages, as well as if they are currently blocked. → ROUX ₪ 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick Astley Hoax push

Looks like /b/ is at it again at Rick Astley. Wouldn't hurt to have a few extra eyes reverting the inevitable crap. OhNoitsJamie 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watched. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

I'm on board as well. Potential trouble-making due to this post. . Manning (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it keeps up we might want to fully protect it. It's currently at semi, but a bunch of sleeper socks seem to be coming out to insert the hoax info. I don't have time to dig into this now as I'm going offline, but it likely would not hurt to indef block some or all of those accounts. It's entirely possible they're controlled by the same person (though some might also make legit contributions, I haven't checked). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a full protect is worth it. There has been no constructive edits made since June 9 so we're not interfering with anyone's work.Manning (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan

I wish to report this user for using warnings in an invalid manner to try and stop me from making perfectly reasonable alterations to the article Bill Verna. I warned him to stop putting warnings on my page without discussing the matter at hand, but he insists on doing so even after the warning I gave him about it. It would appear that he does not understand how what he is doing is in any way wrong and he needs to be pulled into line on the matter. I consider his behaviour to be uncivil, but because he is using warning templates incorrectly I felt it would be better to report the matter here instead of going over to the Wikiquette area. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note. I am unable to revert his edits without violating WP:3RR. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're removing cited information from the article. That is generally well worth issuing a warning. Are you claiming that the source does not exist or does not say what User:GaryColemanFan says it does? → ROUX ₪ 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the source can not be verified, and he has not properly cited it (no author of the published work for example). The fact that he has not discussed it - preferring to arbitrarily issue warnings first - is the reason why I brought this issue here. Discussion should take place first, shouldn't it? TaintedZebra (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed discussion should take place first... so where did you discuss with him your concerns about the sourcing? His warnings to you are entirely accurate. Can you explain why it's unverifiable? → ROUX ₪ 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't at first. That's the whole point. He went straight to the warnings without discussing the issue. It's unverifiable because the magazine he uses is not notable and could be nothing more than a local newsletter for all we know. This can't be confirmed or denied. I looked for it and I couldn't find any reference to it except in the Bill Verna article. So it is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I also previously mentioned his failure to provide an author, which would be needed for a source that is not online. Online of course an author would not be needed. I don't believe the warnings were justified at all. It was like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is applied to articles, not sources. That something doesn't exist online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source; I certainly have many books the text of which doesn't appear online. As for shooting first and asking questions later.. you brought it up on the talkpage eight minutes before coming here. → ROUX ₪ 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The magazine being not notable means it fails WP:RS. And a magazine is not the same as a book. And just for your information on the chronology of events (off the top of my head) I went to the article's talk page after I warned him on his talk page, but before he stuck the latest warning on my talk page. It was that warning that caused me to come here because he had clearly ignored the warning on his talk page (which was informal - I did not use a template) and I assume he also ignored the article's talk page which would have been the explanation for the eight minutes. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of violations of 3RR, is recruiting someone else to make the third revert any different than doing it yourself? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So.. you asked him to do it because...?→ ROUX ₪ 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, the very definition of meatpuppetry. At a minimum, against WP:CANVASS. MuZemike 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not and I resent the accusation. The information GCF was providing was not within WP rules so it had to be removed and I couldn't do it because of WP:3RR. People have been asked to this before now so I see no difference in it. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the article has been provided to TaintedZebra, as requested. I believe that this makes the lack of an author a moot point. The verifiability has should also be cleared up, as the article states what I said it did. I am requesting, therefore, that the sourced information be re-added to the article. The content has since been removed by an editor who claimed that it violated a neutrality policy. Because I am not claiming that Verna was "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world" but rather than he was described in those terms, I do not believe that this violates NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The link only uses the magazine as a source for the statement. Now we would need to find if the link I was provided with actually fulfils WP:RS by itself. If it doesn't then it kills the magazine citation by default. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• A source failing the notability guidelines does not mean it isn't reliable. Most of the law texts I use would fail the notability guidelines, because they don't have any third-party coverage. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't reliable sources. To equate notability with reliability is incorrect. A source not passing WP:N should not lead to removal unless there are actual reasons to call its reliability into question. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Abidreh again

This tendentious user was let off an indefinite block, and again he is adding unsourced information or information sourced to homemade youtube videos. Despite a talk page message, he continues to say it is up to me to prove that his video is a valid source, which it clearly is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation and keeps on violating undue, eg see Talk:Younis Khan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned properly for 3RR. He does it again, someone can wack him with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AIV after more warring. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest and support a community ban then. Let off an indef and comes back for more? Lets not give him a third chance if he's chosen to throw away the second. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Another case of an editor who simply does not understand this site's policies. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a community review

I've recently stumbled upon Nableezy (talk · contribs) a few times too many to my liking where he reverts me automatically and, many times, makes clear mistakes on top of bias and civility issues.

The most recent account included three times changing the meaning of the source in a time span of 10 hours.

• - Bell reported that "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, said ... "everyone has a tragedy, about executions they saw"
• , - first-hand accounts of massacres was scarce. One such example was
  • Source (Stewart Bell, "What happened at Jenin?", National Post, April 15, 2002) says: The lack of solid information has fuelled the rumour mill. A grocery store owner near Jenin spoke in a hushed voice about seeing ... Asked to elaborate, he declined ... When a National Post reporter inspected the truck, it contained not bodies but apples and other food and supplies for the troops.
• Here's a link to the source (scroll down) - I have validated the source and can email an original copy to anyone interested.

My main concern here is that Nableezy is (a) confusing the project with a battlefield, where he requires explanations that the text is already biased in his favor to let go of accusations that others allow "just the one that fits the narrative of liking", and (b) that this conduct is spilling over into articles in a damaging manner where the sources don't even matter to him.

I noticed Nableezy was blocked recently for edit warring on another Israel-Palestinian related article but I haven't seen any warning/notice given in regards to to Final decision of the WP:ARBPIA.

With respect, Jaakobou 08:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a mountain out of a molehill. He appears to be arguing not over what the source says but he thinks that extraneous information like troops listening to Allanis Morrisette and whispering isn't necessary. I'd add that while his tone may not have been overly civil on the talk page, you are experienced enough to know that 'crying wolf' often escales rather than deflates tensions. If he tries to engage in comments about the editors and not the edits, just ignore that part of his comment or remind him that it is best if the argument focuses on the edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Narson,

Its not as bad as the previous edits but with yet another edit -- "collaborators" are everywhere removed as "needless information" -- Nableezy is misrepresenting the testimony 4 edits in a row.

With respect, Jaakobou 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

happy now? Nableezy (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And please show how I have "misrepresented the testimony" or is that uncanny ability to say others actions are sinister and improper without the slightest bit of evidence rearing its ugly head? Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Its an improvement, sure, but he also said they were everywhere which seems quite germane to the quote. I believe you should, out of true good faith, revert this portion of the text back to its previous version. If you fix this and promise to stop reverting me on sight (try suggesting changes on talk maybe?), then I'd be happy to close this "review request". Fair enough?

Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. where did the "and rumors were abundant" text go? Jaakobou 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) add diff 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Last things first, we dont need to quote everything the source says, this is an encyclopedia and superlatives are not needed. I dont care about withdrawing your "community review", if others feel my behavior is improper I would welcome the critique. I am not reverting you on sight, so that isnt a problem. I think the current text is fine, so no I will not revert it back to your favored version. And about the narrative of your liking. You removed multiple times from the references and notes section an answer by Erekat but left a direct question to him out of fear of inflating "Erekat apologetics/further propaganda". When you cut out the answer to a question but keep the question you are in fact promoting your favored narrative without any response. It is not a personal attack to say that, and I would hope you can see some mistakes in your actions and attempt to resolve them. Also, I asked an admin to notify me of the ARBPIA decision (any admin here who reads this feel free), so that shouldnt bother you anymore either. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

Changing the article body 4 times - 3 of them to something not said in the cited source - and then making further edits which removes highly relevant text is not a great way of helping the project and collaborate with fellow editors.

As a side note I add that the rumor mill is clearly relevant and not something to be dismissed with "we dont need to quote everything the source says".

With respect, Jaakobou 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond again unless you can show what I changed that was not said in the cited source. Your proclamations dont mean much to me so I will not spend my time arguing with you unless you can actually show what I did. Bye, Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Trouble

Sockpuppet Investigations probably would've been a better place to put this but the socking seems to be so obvious that I don't think a CheckUser report is needed. The Borusmat socks User talk:Borusmat5 and User talk:Borusmat4 have both made unconstructive edits within minutes of each other in particular attacking the article Biscuit. I don't know how many socks there are or what they'll do next but I think this needs intervention.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking as clearly abusive socks, though it does not appear the main account is blocked at the moment. ⇒SWATJester 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also preemptively blocked Borusmat2; was a vandalism only account last used several months ago.⇒SWATJester 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka

Anyone have any idea what's going on with this category?? (See , .) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's an ongoing CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22#Category:Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

COI vandalism

The article The Art of Dying (Cashis album) was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2009. Approx. 4 hours later, user:Rikanatti removed the AfD notice without comment. The artist who did the album, Cashis, has an article that lists his manager as Rikanatti. The same user has also removed a WP:SPS tag from the article on Cashis a couple of times, despite the fact that the article relies heavily on SPS's. Normally I'd put this on the COI noticeboard, but given that the user is intentionally sabotaging the AfD process, I thought it was better to place it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll relist it so it can go the full 7 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the nominator aware as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AntiObama.jpg

Is File:AntiObama.jpg and associated userboxes considered acceptable? Seems dodgy to me. Where should I have reported this? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IFD (now WP:FFD) probably? WP:MFD for the userbox(es), obviously. –xeno 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a borderline G10? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Baird (Canadian politician) BLP issue

Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian

• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian (diff)

How to utterly destroy Misplaced Pages, Idea needed initiated by Peter Damian at Misplaced Pages Review

User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked (diff)

There's a lengthy thread on WT:RFA here. I considered an unblock pending community review but decided against it as Peter has not requested it and I couldn't reach Law as the blocking admin, so I'm just going to throw it up and see where it lands. Also, I will be pretty much out of touch for the next two days and it wouldn't be right to take an admin action and then be unavailable to discuss it. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It could have been communicated better but it's a fine block. It's a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Misplaced Pages - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned/blocked. If Peter wants to walk the whole thing back, fine. But otherwise...RxS (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more bothered about the way it was done, in the middle of a discussion, it smacks of cowboy adminship to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block. R. Baley (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the end result of a block. Considering that he called for wikipedia to be destroyed then tried to put it into action (however unlikely it was to succeed) a block to prevent disruption is justified, at least until Peter Damian retracts the threat and pledges not to intentionally disrupt or try to destroy wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Was a ban from participating in RfAs ever considered, or would something of that nature require ArbCom or similar? Tarc (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The general conclusion was that we can't ban people from RFA because it leads to a "slippery slope" of what is/is not acceptable as a vote, and that since his disruptive edits were outside AN/I as well it wouldn't cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whose conclusion was that? And b'crats can certainly discount ppl who routinely post "oppose" with no reason except to make a point, they've done it before. KillerChihuahua 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Prevents disruption and the attempted "destruction" of en-wiki. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Wehwalt. Yet another fine example of a power-crazy admin gone berserk, just 'cos he can. And any other administrators who agree with this block are just as guilty as Law is. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Guess I'm "guilty" then. Last I heard, accounts here aren't meant for projects to "destroy Misplaced Pages." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Had any attempt been made to "destroy Misplaced Pages" your argument may at least have had some some semblance of credibility. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) What project? No such project has been started. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a straightforward call to gather others and do harm. Blocks are meant to protect the project from harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See my post below about internet stalking and punishing here for what happens elsewhere, also, then this is a preventative block? Because I see no harm or disruption from Damien. KillerChihuahua 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please answer the question: To What project do you refer? Please provide a link to the project here on Misplaced Pages which Damien started. KillerChihuahua 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Overreaction much? He called (offwiki) for others (many of whom are banned trolls, the rest of whom aren't going to play) to "consistently vote against" all Rfas. Simple enough to ban him from Rfa, or discuss other options. He's hardly going to destroy Misplaced Pages with that petty gesture. Just make a note on the B'crat noticeboard that he's acting a little like Boothy and be done. KillerChihuahua 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As was said at WT:RFA, Peter's efforts to destroy Misplaced Pages have much the same likelihood of success as Pinky and the Brain's efforts at world domination from their lab cage.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly like Pinky and the Brain but without the catchy theme song. KillerChihuahua 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is quite unlike the DougsTech incident in that Peter creates content. It is, however, similar in that he was blocked unilaterally at the tail end of an WT:RFA discussion for reasons asserted to be unrelated to the alleged disruption at RFA. The similar block of DougsTech was overturned. It's surprising a single vote and off-site thread kicked up so much dust and perhaps speaks to our proclivity to happily feed trolls at our dinner table. His Nietzsche-esque goal to destroy Misplaced Pages and create something better in his place smacks of tilting at windmills and he can be safely ignored. Nevertheless it is a good faith (if misguided and ill-advised) attempt to create something better. The block should probably be overturned as there will be less drama all-around. –xeno 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question Where is the on-wiki statement that he is attempting to destroy Misplaced Pages? All I see is him trying to reform RFA. Direct links to diffs onwiki of his threats would be nice. Or are we now blocking people for what they say offwiki? I have some names to submit... Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the only on-wiki copies of his threats have been posted by people other than PD. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block It's not right to in the middle of a discussion about how to handle the situation. Since his vote on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2 Peter Damian's edits were confined to improving the Nannette Streicher article and more importantly discussing his vote at WT:RfA. If he was serious about trying to bring down wikipedia, why didn't he vote in the other RfAs that were open at the same time as Cerantor's? Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I find the application of a block in the absense of any on-wiki disruption to be disturbing. Are we really going to begin holding users accountable for what is said in other places on the internet? If a few baseless !votes at RFA are a blockable offense, then a whole slew of "per so-and-so" !voters had best brace themselves for the banhammer. This is silly. Shereth 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was off-wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I find the block less than appropriate. Shereth 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression we tried to avoid punishing people here for what they say elsewhere. Are we now internet stalkers and paranoid conspiracy theorists? I must have missed that memo. KillerChihuahua 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I find it very difficult to believe it was just one RFA, he produced the off-wiki statement including the plan to vote against all RFAs early on the 24 May June then soon aferwards opposed 6 RFAs within 7 minutes. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In breach of which policy exactly? Would you be equally arguing in favour of a block if he'd supported six RfAs within 7 minutes? Somehow I doubt it, even though it's plainly evident that the real way to destroy wikipedia is to promote as many poor administrators as quickly as possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• If someone had made a threat to try and destroy wikipedia using any kind of plan beforehand (supporting or opposing RFAs)then I would certainly support preventing them by block if necessary. When someone has made a threat to disrupt wikipedia follow through on one point of that plan then I do not see how we can trust they will not implement the other parts of their plan such as point 4 - subtle vandalism. Is someone is willing to pledge to check every mainspace edit and the sources they are based on to ensure this is not happening? However if consensus is against the block then so be it. Davewild (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Where was this threat made? What disruption has occurred? Again I state, this is a preventative block based on off-wiki commentary, on a site I might add where people routinely blow off steam and complain about Misplaced Pages to no effect at all here. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

These bold blocks never cease to amaze me. Why not simply bring this to ANI first, saying "I think this calls for a long term block or ban, what do we all think?" Then wait an hour or so, and if consensus for a block develops, then enforce it; if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be blocking. Imposing an indef block after a tendentious WT:RFA discussion that had come to no conclusion whatsoever is just a bad idea. I'm not arguing for or against a block of Damian in general, just saying that this was ill-advised (predictably so), and that the objections above demonstrate why. If you expect a block to possibly be controversial (as Law must have), then maybe you should start a discussion about it instead of doing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• oppose block At least for now. So far, all Peter is doing is opposing all RfAs. If he intends to destroy Misplaced Pages by that method while continuing to produce good content then let him. Letting him be unblocked and continue his tilting at windmills will result in more productive content than the reverse. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and Peter's actions do still provide a net benefit. If he decides to destroy Misplaced Pages using an actually disruptive technique we can deal with that then. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose block: What policy was violated in his off-Wiki comment to "consistently vote against" all RFAs? Topic ban him from a RFA if you must, but an indef block for such a comical gesture is a bit far. Do you really think that "consistently vot(ing) against" RFAs will really lead to WP's downfall? seicer | talk | contribs 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (3x) Oppose block. Agree with Shereth. Off-wiki activity should not be reason for a block. We cannot block people for doing what they like on other websites, that's what they are perfectly allowed to do. We block them if and only if they disrupt Misplaced Pages itself with their editing. Peter Damian did not do so and as such, blocking him was certainly incorrect. No matter what one might think about his !vote at one single RFA, he has not behaved in any way that warrants a block. If he does do so, we can still block him but as long as he does not break any rules here, we cannot block him and have to deal with it another way. I prefer WP:DENY personally. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's my understanding that things like Peter's sockpuppet category were disposed of under the assumption that he would be leaving peacefully. If he has returned, it's time to re-evaluate his past "contributions" to the project. As far as I'm aware, this includes sockpuppeting extensively, being banned, trolling on his user talk page with retirement banners, trolling at RFA, and trolling with an Editor's Association or whatever. I'm all for second chances, but this one seems to be used up. I'm not sure the people opposing the block here are getting the full picture. (And if anyone can locate that category, I'd be much obliged. I can't find it anywhere.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm all fine with discussing a block first but here we are talking about a block done for incorrect reasons before taking time to consult the community about it. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose this block and still support a block after discussion for other reasons. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm, fair enough. Though it seems to be a bit color of the bikeshed to me. :-) Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Could not agree more. This discussion regard this block. Please don't muddy the waters with general discussion. KillerChihuahua 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hold on. That's a bit too far. Not checking the right checkbox on form 12W-A is a reason to put on blinders? That's a bit extreme. The block summary may not be descriptive enough, but that isn't a reason to forego a discussion regarding the blocked user. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks supporting the block know that ArbCom unbanned User:Thekohser the other day, right? That's a pretty good indication that off-wiki posturing isn't really blockable. I can see the motivation behind the block and that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better to get some consensus first. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It is very likely Peter Damian would be unblocked soon, and I think that should be handled by admins unrelated to Misplaced Pages Review that has caused this dispute that has wasted everyone's time.-Caspian blue 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the blocking admin would do that, and I have asked for that action on Law's talk page. There's a strong sentiment above (including from multiple admins) that this block was not good as enacted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• endorse block, since we don't really need this kind of WP:SOAPBOXing going on. However, I would support a full unblock if he retracted his published desire to bring harm to the project. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Aisha

Gnosisquest has been causing trouble at the highly controversial article on Aisha for many months now, and I'm about at my wits end. I'm afraid admin action may be needed. Gnosisquest is a single-purpose account whose edits have been almost entirely confined to adding apologetic material to this one article, and arguing about it on the talk page. His material is in my opinion very poorly sourced and inappropriate for such a controversial subject, and his edit warring, revert warring, and use of sock/meatpuppets led me to protect the article back in April. This protection was lifted in May on the understanding that he would utilize the talk page. Since then he has resumed editing the page in the same tendentious manner, adding and reverting his material back in despite lack of consensus on the talk page. He's asked for comment WikiProject Islam, but found no support, and he requested a 3rd opinion, but didn't get the answer he wanted. In spite of this, he proceeded to make this edit, which plagiarised the source, and then revert-warred it back twice more in spite of several warnings about the plagiarism and TEND issues Today, I saw that he's started engaging in CANVASSING, though admittedly in a more nuanced way than than the canvassing I asked him to stop some days ago. I don't see this problem getting any better. At this stage I think his edits have gotten disruptive to the point that a community article ban may be in order--Cúchullain /c 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DoctorBenwayMD

• DoctorBenwayMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - copyright violations, 3RR violations, censorship, etc. Has received several warnings. —BMRR (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards