Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 18 August 2010

• 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)

• 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

User:Themastertree

I'm concerned here primarily with the volume of edits to ethnically controversial topics. Some of them clearly appear to be copyediting, but others are content changes that might be sensitive. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the region to judge the changes on their merits, but I'm troubled by the pattern and the lack of edit summaries in a controversial area. Triona (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone familiar with the areas this user is editing in please take a close look at the contributions. Also, there has been no response to attempts to communicate via the user's talk page, including several warnings left by RC patrollers. Triona (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Islamism (conspiracy theory) (AfD discussion)
• Suppression towards Islam (AfD discussion)

The above two articles, created by this editor, have been nominated for deletion. Greater Afghanistan requires some serious work to provide it with much-needed context. Whose idea, exactly? Those who didn't accept the Durand Line? Uncle G (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are continuing to create loads of spurious OR articles. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As well as Islamism (conspiracy theory) (AfD discussion) and Transitional Ethnic groups (AfD discussion). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the rest of their contributions, they aren't that great, but there's nothing that sets alarm bells ringing. There was some more original research and Pashtun POV-pushing, but in some cases they did make use of decent sources. I've tidied their contributions up, but more eyes to skim them through might be a good idea in case I missed anything. Fences&Windows 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetman trying to frame me, starting edit wars and engaging in personal attacks

On the 6th of August, I was reading about Zoroastrianism and noticed that there were instances of CE/BCE in the article, which were obviously conflicting with the introduction etc, which had BC/AD. In the spirit of helpfulness, I fixed the consistency issue. A few days later, I discovered that User:Wetman had changed the entire article to CE/BCE and tried to justify it by falsely accusing me of doing the reverse. He then started a discussion on the talk page, which was primarily a personal attack against me and an attempt to intimidate all the other editors out of reverting his vandalism. See here.

In the meantime, I was reading about the Epic Cycle and noticed exactly the same kind of issues here. I fixed the BC/BCE inconsistency in the article Epic Cycle and added "AD" to "tenth century" in the article about Venetus A. Venetus A is a little-known work, written in the 10th century AD about something that happened in the 12th century BC (i.e. the Trojan War), so it would seem logical to specify that Venetus A came from the 10th century AD and not the 10th century BC, as might be assumed.

As it turned out, User:Wetman followed me to those pages and undid my helpful contributions, again with personal attacks and false accusations of breaking the WP:ERA rule. See: 1st disruption in Epic Cycle 2nd disruption in Epic Cycle] 3rd disruption in Epic Cycle 4th disruption of Epic Cycle 1st disruption of Venetus A 2nd disruption of Venetus A

Back on Talk:Zoroastrianism, I responded to User:Wetman's personal attack but was followed by User:Warrior4321 falsely accusing me of starting the trouble and even repeating it on my talk page.

I know it's only a minor detail, but while writing this summary, I noticed that I was mistaken about the number of inconsistencies that I fixed in the article Zoroastrianism. It was a genuine mistake; I had forgotten how many there were since the week before last, when I fixed the article.

I am absolutely disgusted and appalled that User:Wetman and User:Warrior4321 would break the rules to frame an innocent, helpful contributor like myself, all for a pathetic attempt at hijacking a few obscure articles. I normally only make the odd contribution to the encyclopaedia when I'm not busy, but this bullying by two established users has been very stressful and disheartening. (Huey45 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

One of those "BC/AD" warriors: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); see also Misplaced Pages:Eras #BC/AD versus BCE/CE reading list. This tiresome cultural bullying generally seems to push changes to BC/AD not the other way: nevertheless, simply put, either is offensive, and I keep an eye out for such infractions of courtesy and collegiality. As for "spirit of helpfulness": a repeat offender: see Zoroastrianism edit "so that now the newer sections match the introduction etc", this Epic Cycle edit "to match the rest of the article", this Little Iliad edit "Date: spelling" These are articles on my watchlist: I detected the consistent program on the part of this user and repaired the damage.

Anyone interested should read User talk:Wetman#Disruptive edits in the last few days for this user's insults, intentional mischaracterizations and threats, unlike anything else on my talkpage— to which I have not responded, as they carry no information only bad attitude. What more can I say? --Wetman (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I find that if one doesn't want the boomerang to return and smack one hard on the forehead, one has to throw it less powerfully than you are throwing it here. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Uncle G. I hadn't read those, or I would have been even crosser.--Wetman (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I also note several articles where Huey45 entered AD at least once where there had been nothing before. Given his other edits, this may have been to keep them on the AD side of WP:ERA. Not against our guidelines, but still not exactly being impartial. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
      • By the way, I've just noticed this repeated revert at Epic Cycle, with the intentionally inflammatory and factual incorrect edit summary "Undid vandalism 378999651 by Wetman (talk) which re-introduced inconsistencies and is in direct violation of WP:ERA" I will not characterize this behavior, but many of you can imagine...--Wetman (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G, what is your point? I already said that User:Wetman started the personal attacks. I see you looked through a lot of material; you should have noticed this straight away. Am I suddenly an evil trouble-maker just for having self respect? User talk:Preciseaccuracy is entirely irrelevant anyway; User:Preciseaccuracy started a dispute related to an article about dodgy art salesmen.

The facts are simply:

• The article Zoroastrianism had conflicting occurrences of both BC/AD and CE/BCE when I read it for the first time.
• I made it consistent by replacing the CE/BCE terms with AD/BC.
• A few days later, User:Wetman felt like changing the entire article to CE/BCE (which is in direct violation of WP:ERA) then abused me and falsely accused me of starting trouble.
• The exact same thing happened in the article Epic Cycle.
• I responded to the personal attacks.
• User:Wetman kept going.
• I came here.

End of story. (Huey45 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

Yes, reading the diffs, it is easy to see what actually happened.--Wetman (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to save everyone some work, looking at the article before Huey45 came in, there was only one instance of BC (because the title of the 6th century article says 6th century BC), no instances of AD, and EVERYTHING else was BCE/CE. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45 accuses me of asking him to cross out his personal attacks, claiming I am "just as bad as this disgraceful liar" (note the personal attack in that quote as well), when he has blatantly made personal attacks against another editor. I don't see why he's so disgusted by my actions, I only asked him to stop the personal attacks. It's also ironic how he asks me to read everything before getting involved and "shooting my mouth off", when he replaced a few BCE/CE with BC/AD by just seeing one inconsistency. warrior4321 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why Huey45 should not receive a substantial block for his disruptive behaviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, Blocks are preventive not punitive. And Huey45 is a new editor who should be helped not punished.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The account Huey45 was registered on 5 October 2006 and has 954 edits. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not new, and doesn't respond well when warned, eg see the section on copyvio here . But maybe just a topic ban for 3 months on adding or changing BC/AD/BCE/CE? The business about trying to make an article consistent by making several changes instead of just one isn't acceptable (and an excuse I've seen before), Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that. That would have the preventative effect. Heiro 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a short block after all, then a ban. We've got which isn't exactly civil, where he reverts 2 edits from 2 editors from his talk page, calling them vandalism, where he accuses an editor of trying to sneak something through.

And ironically, after accusing someone of trying to sneak something through by not leaving an edit summary, we have where his edit summary is "Undid grammatical error 378892865 by Wetman". Now Huery5 did indeed change an and' to a 'so', but he also changed a BCE to BC.. That's not as bad as which has the edit summary 'spelling' - and changes BCE to BC. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And an anti-American attack here with the edit summary " Verification needed for dubious claim that serial commas are standard practice. Perhaps it is in the U.S., along with dumbed-down spelling, but not elsewhere." (I always say Americans removed the Frenchification of words and went back to an earlier spelling..l.)Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

View the posts at Template talk:Trojan War which record the discussion of a group of responsible editors who came up with a template that would not "appear" to impose a BC/AD convention on established texts. The posts also demonstrate the characteristic behavior of User:Huey45 that falls under the category of a deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. This is the same user who accused me of "trolling" Misplaced Pages!--Wetman (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should take a look at the rest of Huey45's contributions. Harassing other users appears to be a main interest of his... -- Imladros (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in harassing anyone; I'm an innocent victim of circumstance and of User:Wetman. The article Zoroastrianism was indeed inconsistent and you admitted that yourselves. Maybe there was only one BC/AD, maybe there were more; I don't even know. BC/AD is what I saw in the introduction, so it should be fairly safe to assume that's how the rest should be. After all, the introduction would have more attention paid to it than any other section.

If User:Wetman's previous insistence that I started the trouble wasn't a clear enough indication of his lying, deceitful style, now all of you can see that he's dragging up old, unrelated non-issues, which are only a small fraction of my nearly 1,000 helpful contributions to the encyclopaedia. You all admitted that the article was inconsistent and that I made it consistent; I've done nothing wrong. It was User:Wetman who hijacked the articles Zoroastrianism, Epic Cycle and Venetus A and User:Wetman again who started the personal attacks. He is trying to squirm his way out of trouble yet again in exactly the same manner as before; by accusing me. (Huey45 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I just noticed that now User:Paul_August is also falsely accusing me of starting the dispute and even re-instated User:Wetman's controversial changes to the article, despite knowing and admitting that the issue remained unresolved. Isn't this against the rules? User:Wetman has been continuing the personal attacks, including here, where he calls me a "troublesome user probably on his way out". It is absolutely outrageous to see this trouble-maker trying to use personal attacks, intimidation, bullying and even ganging up with other users to subvert the proper rules and processes. I am the only one doing the right thing, yet all of User:Wetman's buddies are insistent on framing me as the starter of trouble. (Huey45 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I haven't made any accusations. Why do you say that? Let me quote what I said on the talk page: "I've restored the article to a consistent (I hope) usage of the BCE/CE date era convention, which as far as I've been able to determine has been the norm for most of the history of this article, for the last few years (that's also, by the way, how the article started out). Let's please not make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here on the talk page, thanks." And now you have undone my edit and a third editor has undone yours. I'm willing to assume that your original edit which took an article with 20 uses of the BCE/CE date era convention and one use of the BC/AD and made it "consistent" by changing the 20 uses of BCE/CE to BC/AC, was made in good faith. But now you are editing against the consensus of at least four other editors, I ask you please to stop. Paul August ☎ 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those old, unrelated examples dragged up by User:Wetman and his friends are nonsense anyway; I did nothing wrong in any of those circumstances. The claim about commas did need verification; the guy who emptied out the Metamorphoses article did leave an incomprehensible edit summary and was rude to me; the guy in the Privateer article left no edit summary and I couldn't even find what he changed (so I didn't know whether it was legit); and User:Preciseaccuracy has even been banned for her sock-puppet edit war over an anti-Israli conspiracy theory. (Huey45 (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Just so everyone knows, Huey45 is continuing to outright lie in his edit summaries. Huey45 is the only one actively favoring CE/BCE, he knows there are at least 4 editors in the article actively favoring BCE/CE, he knows the article favored BCE/CE before except in one link to another article, he knows that we're watching him for disruptive editing and dishonest edit summaries, but he continues to do it. Considering this, and per WP:SPADE, I'm going to state my belief now that he is editing in bad faith. If someone wants me to assume good faith here, please show me where he has been giving us any reason to. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Huey45 first edit to Zoroastrianism was made innocently enough. But I think now he feels under attack and is reacting defensively. However that may be though, to continue to now insist on his version of the article is wholly inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said on my talk page just now. Whether there are 4 of them, 5 of them or more should make no difference; Misplaced Pages works on consensus, not majority. Besides, those people are ganging up against me for no legitimate reason and claiming they want to restore the article to its former state when really they're reinstating the controversial edit by User:Wetman that started the whole dispute.

I don't know how many instances of CE/BCE there were or how many there were of AD/BC; it was a long article and I noticed the inconsistency in the first 30 seconds or so. I just pressed Ctrl + F and quickly went through the article, making them match up. I was certainly not out to cause trouble, as those unscrupulous editors would suggest. I am a victim of circumstance and a victim of bullying.(Huey45 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

And now you've reverted to your version of the article again. No, a simple majority does not necessarily constitute consensus, but neither does a consensus need to be unanimous. In this case there is the previous apparent consensus which can be inferred from the status quo of the article over it's history (which as I've stated above has, so far as I can tell, been for using the BCE/CE date era convention, as well as the current opposition of at least four other editors — with no one in support – for your version of the article. Your first edit may have been innocent, and perhaps you've been, to some extent, ill-treated. But that is no justification for your now continuing to insist on your version of the article against apparent editorial consensus. You may not, as you say, have been "out to cause trouble", but you are making trouble now. I ask you again to please stop. Further I'd advise you to read WP:EDITWAR, if you persist in insisting you may end up being blocked. Paul August ☎ 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention it earlier, but User:Wetman's insistence that I'm determined to push a POV is a complete fabrication as well. I only like to make small edits these days, after a string of annoying disputes. This involves spelling, grammar and correct abbreviations. Almost all of my recent edits fall into those 3 categories. If anyone is trying to push a POV with CE/BCE, it's the editor who tried to sneak his changes through by framing me.(Huey45 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You got the ball rolling here, you're the only one that's objecting to Wetman's edit, everyone has been able to point out where your edit is going against the grain and is disruptive, it is your edit that was controversial. Honestly, calling Wetman's edit controverstial is like saying "he started it when he hit me back!" And while consensus isn't majority determined, it's not determined by edit-warring and filibustering, it is not voided by you disagreeing with everyone else. That you are the only one pushing for BC/AD means that consensus is still BCE/CE.

Also, saying you didn't see what the consensus appeared to be before changing everything is an admission of incompetence, which is a sign you need to back down.

Wetman was restoring the article to what it was before, and making the 1 change necessary to make the article consistant. 1 change. You changed the entire article except for 1 instance. You made the more drastic change, you are the one that has been outright lying in your edit summaries, you are the one that's sneaking around. Quit it, you're only making yourself look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I never once lied and I never did anything else wrong either. You are a lying scumbag and you are totally misrepresenting the facts. You are a complete disgrace. You don't even know what "consensus" means. Your only involvement in this issue consists of your repeated attempts to ram through the changes in violation of WP:3RR without even reading the talk page the first time, let alone reaching consensus (again, you should find out what this word means), yet now you act high and mighty here, starting a personal attack right in front of the administrators, for all to see. Who is making himself look bad?(Huey45 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Huey, take some advice from a disinterested party - no matter how valid your edits may be, you're only hurting yourself with your consistent engagement in personal attacks. "Lying scumbag"? Really? If you want your opinions to be respected, please try showing some respect for the opinions of others. Doniago (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing other users' comments from the article Talk page isn't especially going to help your case either, not in the least because it's against policy unless you have very good reason for doing so. Doniago (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson has now made in excess of eight (yes, 8) personal attacks;

here here here here here here here and the one above. He's even worse than User:Wetman. I would hope that the administrators would act upon such a disgusting and appalling disregard for civility, politeness, truth and of course the rules. (Huey45 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You've never lied? That's another lie, along with false accusations (I've only reverted you twice today so I haven't violated 3rr, my revert does not go against the MoS, pointing out a sham edit summary is not a personal attack per WP:SPADE, I never edited your user page), Lying edit summary (your edit is what started the dispute, your edit was the first mass change), more lies (Wetman's edit did not go against WP:ERA) (another example of misrepresenting WP:ERA, and another, which also lies about personal attacks you made, and another lie about personal attacks you made when you say that Warrior4321 falsely accused you of personal attacks), lying about making personal attacks (you did make them, and then continued to make them against those who pointed them out), further lying about personal attacks you made, more lying about personal attacks you made, and another lying edit summary. Honestly, how stupid do you think we are? Or are you just incapable of examining your own behavior? If so, you leave until you get help, man. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I merely responded to personal attacks and false accusations from the troublemakers, including yourself. I started no personal attacks against anyone; wherever I was even slightly rude to anyone, it was after they had done worse to me. That's just a simple matter of self respect. What you said about the 3RR rule is totally wrong anyway; the level 1 and 2 templates are both for circumstances where the user is engaging in an edit war but hasn't reached 3 reversions. Therefore the level 2 template was indeed correct. Similarly, I was right and User:Doniago was wrong about the personal attack on the page Talk:Zoroastrianism; the rules specifically say in WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.". Both of you keep insisting that you know the rules when clearly you don't. (Huey45 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I have been following this discussion since it was started by User:Huey45 and it has become clear that the same user is editing in a very disruptive manner. Huey45, consider this the only warning you will receive from me: You are violating a number of policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:DE. If you can not or will not understand that and do not cease such behavior forthwith, you will be blocked without further warning. —DoRD (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this message before I blocked Huey45 for 12 hours. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you just ran out of rope before I did. Good block. —DoRD (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While the apology is welcome, I doubt anyone will argue that it was necessary. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to the continued personal attacks on his talk page, I have extended Huey45's block to indefinite and have warned him that continued personal attacks will cause his talk page privileges to be revoked. —DoRD (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given not just his personal attacks, but his - misleading is really almost to mild a word -- edit summaries, I still think a topic ban from adding, removing, or moving BC/BCE/AD/BC in articles should be imposed if he is unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If this account is to be unblocked in future, unblocking should be made on the basis of a thorough survey of his previous edits, leaving aside his present furious reaction and denials at being caught. I doubt that a survey will show that the encyclopedia will ever be improved by User:Huey45's presence, but I am certainly not the one to make any further comment in this case.--Wetman (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on User:Huey45 ever since this comment was made two months ago. Huey45 does make positive contributions, especially when the editor corrects grammar mistakes. However, the editor appears to dislike being warned or others reversing its edits. The editor's reaction and behaviour are outlined above. The editor also appears to dislike American English, and I suspect this causes problems and conflict with American English editors. This issue was addressed in 2007.  Davtra  23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing off-topic, insulting commentary from an AfD

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Art student scam

Mbz1 apparently does not like the way this AfD is trending, posting a comment denigrating those in favor of keeping it by labeling this and other articles as "Misplaced Pages's hall of shame of smearing Israel". This is trolling, and I called it as such in my attempt to remove it. It had nothing to do with the discussion of the article at hand, all it serves is to incite other editors in Israeli-Palestinian topic area, and this is an area that certainly doesn't need more fanning of the flames. Another editor attempted to remove this was well, but was reverted yet again.

I'd also note the reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which effectively turns Mbz1's screed into a thinly-veiled charge of antisemitism against other editors as well.

This needs a more authoritative hand to step in and remove the offending passage and caution this user against using AfDs for personal soapboxes and attacking other editors. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's comment on AfD

Mbz1 first made this comment on the AfD for Art student scam, which is clearly not appropriate and is skimming the line of NPA, as it can easily be construed as an attack on anyone who voted Keep in the AfD. Tarc then reverted the comment, with the edit summary of "rv: trolling. AfDs are to discuss whether or not to keep/delete/etc the article in question, not to make general, critical commentary of the subject area, or to disparage other editors".

Mbz1 then reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism, bring it to an/i, but do not touch other people comments", calling Tarc's revert vandalism, when NPA is quite clear in a user's capability to revert things that can be considered a personal attack.

Tarc reverted it back, edit summary of "re-read WP:NPA at your leisure".

Again, Mbz1 reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism", again calling something vandalism that clearly wasn't.

I then stepped in to revert it, with the edit summary of "This is definitely NPA".

Then, Mbz1 reverted it back again, for the third time, but re-phrased the comment this time, removing some of the NPA, but still keeping a comment that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Mbz1 then left this comment on my talk page. I'm not quite sure on what he means about trying to "hide the unwanted truth".

I will now go inform the other involved users about this discussion and leave this up to the community to discuss. Silverseren 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we made it at the same time. I'm changing mine to a level 3 header under Tarc's. Silverseren 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Mbz1 removed our notification of this ANI discussion on his talk page, with the edit summary "who cares". So, we did notify him. Silverseren 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The number of Ad Hominems and accusations of smearing and conspiracy theory at that AfD is really disrupting the discussion, I believe. It seems a significant number of people who have made very reasoned explanations for voting "keep" have been denigrated as supporting conspiracy theories and it seems a group of editors are attempting to sway the AfD by now implying antisemitism and cabalistic smear. This very much has a chiling effect on the discussion as nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism. These Ad Hominems need to stop and the discussion must be allowed to continue on the merits of the article itself, with WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NPOV in mind. I strongly believe that this will end up at ArbCom at some point, and probably the sooner the better. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What i'm worried about is what the state of the article will fall into after the AfD, as that group of editors still has strict control of the talk page. Silverseren 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment I do not believe that the comment I made falls under any definition of of a personal attack, but even, if it did, according to this the complete removal of the comment was unwarranted and that's why I called the removal of it vandalism. Although I still do not believe my comment was a PA I rephrased it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It was correctly removed regardless of NPA, because it was utterly irrelevant to the deletion discussion whilst attempting to influence other editors. The AfD is not there for you to attack other editors or soapbox about Misplaced Pages content. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was not " attempting to influence other editors". The deletion request is going to be closed today or tomorrow, kind of to late to influence something. It was rather my conclusion (for the record only) about deletion request for an attacking and insulting article. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just found this on RomaC's talkpage, who is one of the users involved in trying to make the Art student scam article better. Silverseren 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand why you voted to keep the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Care to detail your understanding of why Silver seren voted to keep? Unomi (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction placed by Lar (talk · contribs) here. The restriction applies to all pages, not just articles, and Mbz1's last unblock was apparently contingent upon a promise not to edit-war anymore. That promise, and the 1RR, appear to have been broken in this case. I don't think this falls under a "blatant vandalism" exception. That said, if the AfD has more or less run its course and Mbz1 has edited their comment into a slightly more acceptable form, then a block would probably be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell  18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell, as I explained, I did consider removal of my comment to be a blatant vandalism. If you believe otherwise, please do block me. I should not have violated my 1RR not under any circumstances. except vandalism. The block will not be punitive it will be deserved, but once again I believe the comment was not PA, and removal of it was vandalism. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, bit is there a substantive difference between version 1 and version 2? I don't see how the slight rewording changed the tone or intent. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal topic ban Mbz1 for Art student scam

Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel

Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original topic ban, her first unsuccessful appeal, and second unsuccessful appeal. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good, at this point the editor seems to have established an inability to refrain from charging that other editors are anti-semitic when operating in this general topic area.

• Support as proposer. Unomi (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Info Four days ago while being blocked Unomi, the user, who proposed the ban called me "psychotic bitch".--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • How is that relevant? It's an ad hominem attack. This discussion is about you, not Unomi. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Info : Just in the last few weeks I wrote those articles: The Holocaust's Arab Heroes Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship all with the only purpose to promote the peace in Middle East. Do you really want to ban me on those articles?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Info Except the articles I counted, and that were started by me I hardly, practically never, edit any articles concerning Israel and/or I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as Mbz1 has been one of the most prolific content creators on Israel related topics, which clearly outweigh any of this nonsense. However, support banning certain editors who spend a disproportionate time on ANI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• A rather large amount of her edits to the area would fall under POV pushing, she consistently manages to downplay information that she holds personal disagreements with. And a number of the articles that she did create started off as coatracks, see fx Maimonides Synagogue and Robert Kennedy in Palestine along with the accompanying hook. On the Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib she went as far as trying to filibuster the DYK by removing it from the queue, due to a pertinent quote by the leader of Al-Aqsa stating that they blessed the organ donation to Israelis - an incredibly poignant quote imo and one which was in there during the AfD and scrutiny by a number of editors. Unomi (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why now, after few months of knowing how unfair, and how biased unomi is I am still getting surprised by every unfair and biased comment by him, like the one above for example. Here are the articles I started. 3/4 of them have absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict, yet unomi selects three from those 50+ articles, and greatly misrepresents the stories even about those ones. Unbelievable!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are trying to kid here Mbz1. Yes, you have created a number of articles that are not in the I/P area, and I think that you do your most constructive work under those conditions. However look at where you spend your time - 8 out of your top 10 edited talkpages relate directly to the Israel - Arab conflict. I am not misrepresenting anything that I am aware, if you feel differently please point to specifics. I think it is great that you contribute to wikipedia outside of I/P - I am just concerned with your engagement within the I/P area. Unomi (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG. I write articles in my sandboxes, and then transfer them to main space User:Mbz1/article3 ; User:Mbz1/article ; User:Mbz1/article2 (see history for all of those). Of course how whould you know. You've never written an article yourself. Besides when was the last time I edit the articles you're talking about? Could you please just try to be fair, just once in a while. I am getting more and more convinced that Wikipeia will be much better off without you--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you need to calm down and stop it with the personal attacks and incivility, and discuss specific grievances objectively, and with diffs. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that being "prolific" is meaningless, if they are prolifically arguing with other users and trashing articles. Calling what is happening here "nonsense" doesn't make it so. And as far as users who "spend a disproportionate time on ANI", that's to be expected on a topic where advocacy groups are running a deliberate campaign to rewrite history with a pro-Israel bias, on top of the already high level of insanity that nationalism and religious zealotry are associated with. I think that, for this topic, editors working through ANI should not be banned, but commended for working through the appropriate channels, rather than getting into edit wars and arguments. This is not to say that I support or oppose a ban on Mbz1 -- I don't know enough about the issue. I'm just saying that, being "prolific" is irrelevant, that calling something nonsense doesn't mean anything, and that ANI seems like a better option than most other solutions for this particular topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Brewcrewer. A long-term valuable contributor, and the problems raised are not sufficient to justify a topic ban. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Mbz1 is a productive editor, but I think she she needs to control her emotions better. I oppose a topic ban at this time, with the hope she cuts back on the disruptive comments, which may sometimes border on personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, but probable support - I note this user's strenuous efforts to get another user topic-banned, so perhaps "what's good for the goose...", as they say. Users who cannot conduct themselves maturely when dealing with a sensitive/controversial topic should find a new area of interest, and no amount of productive editing should be allowed to mitigate bad behavior. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I sure made "strenuous efforts" to topic ban a single article account, whose "contributions" are listed here (not by me BTW).Comparing my contributions to her contributions only show how biased you really are. BTW not only you are biased here. I am 100% sure, that, if I did only 20% of what "the other user" have done, I would have been banned from wikipedia for good.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Info here's an example of the extremely civil Tarc's language in response to my comment on his talk page: "Srsly, grow the fuck up. You're a POV-warring, partisan hack."--Mbz1 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  And I stand by that comment 100%. You came to my page whining, and I told you, your wiki-buddies and your wiki-opponents off. The I-P topic area is a poisoned cesspool, created and perpetuated by people like you with your comment in the AfD today. As long as the battleground is populated with warriors, it will continue to be a cesspool. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons stated by the above opposers, who are the broad majority at the moment. This may well be worth closing early, as it clearly doesn't have support (other than Tarc's "probable" support based on his suggestion that raising consideration of a topic ban qualifies one for a topic ban ... which I for one don't find very convincing).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Mbz1 is a productive content contributor in this area of articles. A topic ban in this case will cause harm only to the encyclopedia, which must come first, unless in the most extreme circumstances. This were not proven, and aren't even close. However, maybe a ban on Unomi from suggesting various bans being inflicted upon Mbz1 is in order. Broccoli (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And then suggest one for you for suggesting one on him for suggesting one on her? Ect, ect. Silverseren 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm glad I stayed away from that AfD after I commented. Mbz1 takes content that might reflect negatively on Israel extremely personally - she even had the gall to imply on my talk page that I'm a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the Israelis had foreknowledge of 9/11 - but even that doesn't make me think we should ban her from all Israel-related articles. I do think she needs to calm down and stop suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites. Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

" I do think she needs to calm down..." Agreed. I also think it is more than(edit: not necessarily) "suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites". There is some harsh language. This is both sometimes a response to and sometimes mirrored by other editors. Regardless of who started it and who is worse it is clear that some chilling out is needed. Not saying there needs to be any ban, it is all MbZ1s fault, or that some level of discord is unfortunately expected. Just try to tone it down, Mbz1.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cptnono, I am afraid I cannot "tone it down" at "suspecting everyone of being raging anti-semites" simply because I have never ever, never ever, never ever said something that was even close to that. So I hope you'd agree that I really cannot tone down something that I have never said.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. I meant the other language that is some time a little pointed such as the recent message to RomaC. Although I agree with the sentiment, it could have been worded more tactfully. It is hypocritical for me to say anything because I have been a raging dickhead to people but since there is so much scruitiny it would be best if we tried a little harder.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done .--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the best. Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, although toned down responses on both sides would be a fresh and desirable outcome...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because someone doesn't like the way an AFD goes, and makes a comment to that effect, doesn't a problem editor make. Now lets close and move on please.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have time to research the details of recent incidents. But I can relate that I've had two interactions with mbz1 on Israel-related issues, and in both cases, mbz1 was very irrational, incivil, and disruptive. I recall that, eventually, I was able to get the well-sourced, neutral material inserted into the articles, but it took way too much effort. I can't really say "support" at the moment, but I would say that if mbz1 continues what appears to be a long-term, combative approach to editing, then a block/ban may be appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Of all the looney ANIs I've seen, I think this one tops the cake. The ANI is baseless and without merit. The person who should be sanctioned is the proposer of this rediculous ANI. Also, Unomi's reference to mbz1 as a "psychotic bitch" is a horrible personal attack and there should be no place in Misplaced Pages for that sort of abuse.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this vote ought to be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Request I am tired from responding to ungrounded, no differences provided accusations (I forgot, when last time I had a "pleasure" to be "irrational, incivil, and disruptive" to a single purpose account Noleander, who right now concentrates his efforts on such article as Racism in Israel )I will not respond those accusations any more. But here's my request to a closing admin: I hope I am not topic banned (it will be more than unfair, if I am), but if I am I need a few more hours (maybe a day or two) to finish an article I am working on now.I believe that delay will not make a big difference. That article is not going to create any problems. Let's say it is my last wish before being executed ☺☺☺ Please do allow me to finish the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If you don't like "responding to accusations", Mbz1, then maybe you should quite making them. In the above post I count at least one accusation (against User: Noleander). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Reading through this, I can't escape the impression that this is little more than a personal grudge. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this proposal will pass, nonetheless, please note that in April the user was topic banned for 3 months due to her calling other editors antisemitic when faced with opposition, and now she indulges in the same behavior. Yes, me and Mbz1 are unlikely to be Best Friends Forever, but that shouldn't detract from the issues at hand. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if she's been topic-banned before for the same behavior and hasn't learned her lesson, then I don't see why we should give her a pass the second time around. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this I can't help but feel that Mbz1 has some serious civility and drama issues and the net benefit is extremely questionable.--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I see some of the same names I have come across in other discussions related to Israel/Jews and in each discussion those editors have always been with opinions and positions that add content of a variety that is most definitely POV against Israel/Jews. I am trying my best to give AGF about their motives, sure maybe they do it to "balance" articles. But the point is this AN/I thread from the beginning and now this topic ban is a typical attempt to ban an editor who is pro-Israel/Jews. It was attempted against me at one time with the comment made against me "you are Jewish so you have a COI and shouldnt edit Jewish articles". Anytime someone rightly points out that certain editors are constantly only interested in putting in anti-Jewish material to an extreme and keeping out anything "good" then they are hounded and pushed until they slip up and then accused just like Mbz1 is right now. Lets stand up and say no more.Camelbinky (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I consider myself morally stung by your indirect comment that only I would know is directed at me? Silverseren 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the above comment by Camelbinky is a veiled personal attack and a blatant AGF violation as well. It should probably be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The edit to the AfD was ill-considered, and Mbz1 needs to be aware that making (however vague) accusations of anti-semitism against other editors (per the reference to Resolution 3379) is a particularly bad idea, but a topic ban isn't needed purely for this error. (Edit: Changing to "weak" because I didn't realise Mbz1 had been topic banned before for similar antics.) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read my initial comment and I could not find anything that even remotely looks as accusation of "anti-semitism", not even anything that looks close to it. I said the article has a stong anti-Israeli bias, and it is. Maybe I used a strong language, but there was nothing about antisemitism in my comment. So, I will appreciate if you either clarify your comment, or remove it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment insinuates that people who voted "Keep" on this AfD had the same motivations as those who voted for Res.3379 - which was widely seen as anti-Semitic. If that's not what you meant, you should have redacted it when you were called on it; since you haven't I can only assume that was your meaning. So no, I won't be removing that comment. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you clarification. When I linked to the resolution I considered it to be an Anti-Israeli resolution, but not anti-Semitic. Now I see where you're coming from, and I believe that resolution could be called an anti-Semitic resolution. I assure you I was far from accusing all users, who voted to keep the article of being anti-Semites. I would have redacted that link now, but AfD is closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough; however in future I'd still recommend not making comments in AfDs that comment on the contributor rather than the content. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. You are right on that one. I just realized an interesting point you made about the the resolution being anti-Semitic (and once again, when I linked to it I considered it to be an Anti-Israeli only). That resolution "determine that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". Misplaced Pages has articles Racism in Israel, and Israel and the apartheid analogy that apparently is going to be renamed to Israel and apartheid (who needs that stupid "analogy" anyway? Right?)So? No,I'd better stop here. Once again you are right about commenting on the contributions versus contributors. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, support blocking Unomi for WP:NPA and disruption. Basket of Puppies
  • Mbz1 is the one who has been violating NPA. The above vote should probably be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose When I looked at it, admittedly quite some time ago, the student art scam article had problems, to the say the least. Maybe some temporary disengagement from all concerned would be the best at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mbz1 is a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia and should continue her good work. User:Tarc should be sanctioned for both removing her comment from the AfD page, and for filing this ridiculous report, along with User:Unomi who suggests here to ban his colleague with no good reason. There was no accusation of Antisemitism in Mbz's comment, and it represents her legitimate opinion on an article that, IMO, will finally be deleted or dramatically rewritten. This distasteful technique to use the admin boards to get rid of opponents or contributors you don't like, or to gain the upper hand in disputes, shouldn't continue without appropriate admin reaction. We are not at war here, and the combative conduct of some people here is highly disruptive to the goals of this project. Noon (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So you don't want people to use the admin boards to get rid of people that you don't like, yet in your previous sentence you use the admin board to suggest sanctions on people? That's not contradictory at all, then. Meanwhile, the conversation between myself and Mbz1 above explains why their comments at the AfD might have been seen as accusing people of Anti-Semitism. I think this probably needs to be closed now, as Mbz1 seems aware of the problem, and it's generating more heat than light now. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't a proposed "ban" againt Mbz (as Noon seems to think) but rather a topic ban. That, and the obviously contradictory nature of Noon's stance, as Black Kite pointed out, makes me believe Noon's vote should be discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. User:Mbz1 has been putting a lot of effort into cleaning up the article Art Student Scam. It sounds like a bunch of other users was misbehaving. (Huey45 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
• Comment So far I have not commented here, since Mbz reacts to my edits like a bull to a red rag. However, having just deleted part of this edit, I must add that Mbz appears to be seeking martyrdom. Egregious personal attacks (some of which have been directed at me) are bad enough; but linking these attacks to extra-Misplaced Pages material in order to speculate about the identity and motivations of an editor is absolutely unacceptable. For this edit alone, even if she escapes sanction for the other allegations here, Mbz deserves a serious sanction. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as usually user:RolandR misrepresented the facts. He just removed the part of my comment with the edit summary " Removing "outing" comments". The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. More than that: so called outing was discussed here, and user:Sandstein gave user:JRHammond advise what to do about this. The user never followed up on the admin's advise, but I'm going to AGF, and say you,rolandr, did not know about all of that. Of course there was neither outing not attack in my comment at AE. @rolandr, I assure you I do not react at your edits "like a bull to a red rag". I have absolutely different feeling towards your edits, remember I told you about that somewhere in April I guess. Nothing has changed ever since. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has indeed been on the user's talk page for some time, and he lodged a complaint about this outing. Sandstein, while declining to take action on this, did describe it as "probably in violation of WP:OUTING". I was not aware of this until a few minutes ago; but Mbz was involved in the discussion about this, and clearly was aware. So she confirms that, despite the protests of the editor involved, and despite a caution by an admin, she continues to post a link to an article allegedly by JRHammond. There is no excuse for this; it is both outing and harassment. RolandR (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just drop it, do not misrepresent Sandstein's comments. The "outing" has been displayed at the user:JRHammond talk page for quite some time. The user never bothered to ask to oversight it. It is still there, at least it was a few hours ago. I consider your continuing postings here as harassment. Stop it, and stop it now!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Info I am going to add that for the record the info to show the real face of User:RolandR. Here's a talk page of the user, who used language like that: "When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you ... behaving like an totalitarian asshole?" "Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit?" "Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole!" So what self described as having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he gives him so called The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't make heads or tails of this comment, actually. If you're trying to "expose" or "show the real face" of other editors, you are violating WP: NPA. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I provided only very few differences to introduce my accusers. There are many more of the same. I am proud to be accused by those users. If those users supported me, then it would have meant that there's something wrong with my behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Making ad hominem attacks is not good form, and likely won't help your case. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a waste of everyone's time and Unomi should be sanctioned for this frivolous report instead. --Shuki (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding to Shuki's comment, Unomi should also be sanctioned for calling mbz1 a "psychotic bitch", a clear violation of WP:NPA--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should be sanctioned for suggesting a punitive block? I mean since we're just tossing them around here apparently. Unomi must not have earned enough credits to be uncivil. But NPA standards that's 4 days old and stale. Blocks are preventative not punitive so unless you can show an on-going pattern of Unomi being uncivil since making that comment, you're not preventing anything.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! psychotic bitch is totally unacceptable and it takes some balls to make such a comment in the midst of all this. If you look above, I gave Mbz1 a little bit of a hard time for her harsh comments and I think it is only appropriate that editors make it clear to Unomi that that is not cool. Four or five days does not make it OK. Don't know if a block is necessary but disregarding it is out of the question.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was an inappropriate response to Mbz1 dancing on my grave as it were - Mbz1 signaled her satisfaction that I was blocked for something unrelated to any past disagreements she and I might have had - I kneejerked. I have made it clear to Mbz1 that my response was inappropriate - she indicated that she didn't really care about my response but found it a convenient 'defense' to bring up here at ANI, that exchange is here. Unomi (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not care about that language coming from you (how one could expect something different anyway?) although I believe you should not have been unblocked, neither after the PA linked to above nor after that "Please consider suicide, kthx". What I was surprised about that after all of that you came here with your proposal to ban me! One could have thought that after all of that, you'll stop wikihounding me, but, no, here you are again. You are really something.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuki's vote should probably be discounted. Falsely accusing other editors of anti-Semitism is a huge violation of WP: NPA, and reporting such behavior is hardly "frivolous". Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment you know at this point I think we almost have a consensus to be able to add that language to WP:CIVIL that we've all been wanting. Maybe someone can draw up the "How many good contrib per rude comment" cheat sheet and finally make it public.--Crossmr (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment May I please ask somebody to archive that thread one way or another? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice try. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Mbz1's personal attack on RolandR above (under the heading "Info"). Trying to cast aspersions on other users, as Mbz1 did, has no place on Misplaced Pages, and if she can't edit Israel-related articles without resorting to such rhetoric, she absolutely should be banned from editing them. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request review: User:Mario1987

Mario1987 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

This user was blocked for being a serial creator of copyright violations back in October of last year. It seems there were also some sockpuppetry issues. They are asking to be unblocked, and as they were blocked as a result of a discussion here I am bringing their request here for discussion: Their full unblock request reasoning follows. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all i would like to say hello to eveyone and i would like to congratulate you for doing a very good job with this project. In these past 10 months since i've been blocked i realised that i was a jerk and what i did was wrong and such behaviour is considered offensive to other contributors and is not tolerable. Yes i've been foolish and many times desperate regarding my contributions, and more specifically the amount of my contributions, trying to impress god knows who with many good/bad articles and DYK nominations. I don't know maybe it was a personal ambition to be as high as possible in the lists regarding user by edit count or by DYK nominations or was it simply madness!? Nonetheless i believe that during this time when i was inactive (with a few hickups at the beginning of the year) i was able to put my thoughts in order and release my mind from these "ambitions" and personal faults. I know that my previous block was lifted as a friendly gesture and a sign of good faith but i blew it and i would like to appologise to all those people that believed in me and got dissappointed by my actions. So in conclusion i would like to ask you for another chance to be a contributor to this wonderful project and i hope that your decision will be favorable for everyone. Thank you very much for your time. Mario1987 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The "good article" comment reminds me of what the banned user "ItsLassieTime" supposedly used as a self-motivator for creating endless socks and contentiousness. You could try unblocking this guy, but be ready to bring the hammer down swiftly if he returns to his old ways. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could probably see a case here for a limited return under strict mentorship...perhaps sandboxing changes and having them checked for copyright-propriety and approved by a mentor before being put into mainspace. Something like the conditional unblock of MisterWiki (of course, this really hinges upon a willing mentor stepping forward). –xeno 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. It's been almost a year. I say we give them a 2nd chance, but keep a close eye on them for the first month or two. -- œ 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Please note I have just re-targeted that redirect from WP:Standard offer to Template:2nd chance since it didn't make sense (standard offer is usually more like a 6th or 7th chance =). Feel free to revise your comment accordingly. –xeno 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with xeno here; the user's request was polite enough and they have accepted fault, but since copyright violations are pretty serious, I would only endorse an unblock with some sort of probation/mentorship like the measures proposed by xeno. GiftigerWunsch 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Provided this is not ItsLassieTime, I support giving another chance to Mario1987. –MuZemike 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would be happy to go for an unrestricted unblock with close observation. To me this is a fairly textbook WP:OFFER unblock from a user who acted, to a degree, in good faith but in an extremely misguided and disruptive way. I would personally lean towards giving another chance here. ~ mazca 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with it, if they start being disruptive then it shouldn't be hard to show them the door again. -- Atama頭 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Has this user edited on other projects in the meantime? Salvio 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I saw that one users want to know if i made contributions to other projects and i would like to say that i have a few on the Romanian Wiki here. Mario1987 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Note this response to the question was placed on their talk page with a {{helpme}}, asking for it to be copied over, which I've done.  Chzz  ►  08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank you both. However, almost all of their 'tribs ere made before the block here on en.wiki; before supporting this unblock, I'd like to see that this user understands the reasons why they were blocked and that they have learnt from their errors. Therefore, I'll be glad to support after this user can show us a good track record on a sister project. Salvio 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unsure - Whilst the user seems genuinely sorry for having been disruptive, and whilst a very long time has passed since he was blocked, I am wary of the prospect that he may unintentionally (through incompetence) again violate our copyright policies if unblocked. Has some kind of re-education taken place, or were the violations that led to the block committed knowingly?

  I too would like to see the user enter into mentorship, with the understanding being that his freedom to edit would be withdrawn if problems again arose. On balance, I cannot support nor oppose without further thought—which renders this comment useless, I guess, but there may be food for thought in here somewhere. Also, I would thank Mario1987 for expressing an interest in returning to the project; we are always looking for more editors. AGK 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the user was not only blocked but community banned for massive copyright violations. If there's some evidence he edited productively at a sister project and will agree to mentorship then I may be willing to change my mind. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose until he demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. This is his second ban for copyvios, I don't think much will change if he is given a third chance. MER-C 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. This seems to be a case where "forgive and forget" should apply. I think close mentoring is in order, including making sure they understand copyright policy. Triona (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I'm not really confident that an unblock is wise. The unblock request does not address in any way the reason for the block, i.e., serial copyright violations. But if an admin wants to closely monitor and thereby take responsibility for Mario1987's contributions, I'm fine with an unblock.  Sandstein  05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As well as trying to get out of the block or a ban he needs to at least understand the policies on not only copyvios but sockpuppetry too. Minimac (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As everyone above has already said, the unblock request doesn't directly address the issues for which he is banned (copyvios and potential sockpuppetry) and they need to demonstrate a solid understanding of these two policies. elektrikSHOOS 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support- This user seems to be sincere, remorseful over the way they've behaved, and says they're more than happy to be mentored, so I think letting them return would be a good idea. If Mario acts up again he can be blocked again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I am always for giving the editors a second chance. If the offense will repeat, the user always could be blocked again. Maybe the user will benefit from having a mentor, and of course there should not be any socks--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - User has not addressed the actual issues which led to his original block, are there has been socking. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support giving another chance, to be monitored by mentor, with the full understanding that a ban doesn't have to be that far away, if he screws up. Cheers, Lindsay 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose until such a time as the blocked user posts a detailed explanation in regards to why he was blocked, what policy caused him to be blocked, and how he intends not to engage in the same behaviors that got him blocked in the first place. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per those asking why the blocked user does not attempt to explain the core issues of socking and copyvios, which are pretty darn major. Instead I see a lot of hand-wringing about edit count and DYK's. Apology etc. is meaningless if it fails to addess the big-ticket reasons for block, and the blocking admin himself says he's not convinced it is wise, which to me is the final nail. Mentorship is too little, too late. Jusdafax 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment and Question: some of the supports have said something about a mentor, but it's not clear to me that any editor has offered to mentor the user. Is there anyone who is willing and able to mentor the user? Also, if no editor is, would this affect support/oppose in this discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If nobody comes forth in this discussion he has indicated he is willing to enter the adopt a user program. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the same... might be a good place to seek a mentor though. –xeno 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. One FL and two GAs and a block that was instated more than 9 months ago. I think we should give him a second chance. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• In response to the requests for a more detailed explanation of thy he was blocked he has posted the following statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. First of all i believe i was indefinitely blocked in October because of massive copyright violations regarding many pictures i uploaded to the project from a wide range of fields and places and claimed that they were made by me which obviously wasn't true. The only pictures made by myself were the ones from a HP Photosmart M537 digital camera, the other ones were from various websites, forums and other online places. My second problem was related to sockpuppets or as one user called it in the past operating a sock farm :). I admit i created many socks in the intent of helping me with various FPC's and other content. Another reason why i created socks is to evade my block because i simply couldn't realise in my mind that a ban is intended to stop a user from contributing poor referenced articles or stop disruptive behaviour. I can say that i was addicted to contributing almost anything to Misplaced Pages and since the ban stops you from doing just that i tried to evade it by all means without thinking and without realizing the consequences involved. These were my actions in the past for whom i don't have any excuse and for whom i deeply appologise and i hope that i detailed enough for you all. The rest is up o you. Have i nice day/night. Mario1987 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support With a mentor to keep a close eye, and zero-tolerance for future copyvio/sock issues. The Rhymesmith (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Has a willing mentor stepped forward? –xeno 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Everyone are worth a second/final chance, whether they've been previously banned or not, as long as they haven't recently been sockpuppeting since the block. The latest (and current) block occurred 10 months ago. I think a new chance is justified. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock -- he appears to have received clue in the interim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Signature of User:Sennen goroshi

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

Userpage and signature changed. No further discussion required. –xeno 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Signature of User:Sennen goroshi contains offensive word in Korean, so Chugun requested him to remove the word. The problematic word is "또라이", which is often used to humble ones who are crazy/mad or who are intellectually retarded. He is avoiding the point in reply to Chugun's request.

WP:SIG#Purpose_of_signatures says that "Having an uncivil signature is strongly discouraged." I thik he is complete going against the guideline. Approptiate sanction is needed to make him remove the offensive word. Best regards. Kwj2772 (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion has apparently moved to his talk page. elektrikSHOOS 07:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Given that the user's reason for wanting the word in his signature is simply that it "looks cool" to have Japanese and Korean there, I would suggest he simply replaces the offending word with a more innocuous one. I don't understand Korean so I can't assess how "uncivil" the word might be, but clearly if another user has sufficient concerns with it to take it to AN/I, it's not appropriate to be used in a signature, especially not as it could be easily replaced with another Korean word. GiftigerWunsch 07:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The literal translation is, unsurprisingly, "crazy". My grasp of Korean is tenuous at best, so I can't say whether this can be used in a context like the English "go crazy" (as in, "you want to talk? Go crazy") or not. Generally though, this seems to be a rather... superficial "teacher, teacher, look what Billy did!" complaint. Honestly now, are there not more pressing matters to attend to? Badger Drink (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Crazy is a pretty big insult in Korean compared to how it can be casually said in English. In English we might say "You're crazy" just as a playful casual comment. Saying the same thing in Korean can be quite insulting and even saying it to one of them in English will often offend them until you explain it's used differently in English. However, this is hardly an isolated incident. This user has been reported here for being disruptive in one form or another several times. You can see some extensive inappropriate behaviour from him here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen_goroshi_Caspian_Blue including some inappropriate jokes along the lines of this. and more here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Request_for_block_of_Sennen_Goroshi. I renew my suggestion that this user should be blocked because he's obviously here to disrupt and not build a community. I would also take Chugun at his word. He's a native Korean. If he says it is insulting, it probably is.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to be even a little bit insulting in the signature, and using other languages than English to get around it should not be accepted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If someone is signing xyrself as "Sennen goroshi, raving nutter", who, exactly, is being insulted? Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The issue isn't with an individual being the target of the insult, Uncle G, it's that clearly some individuals find the word to be inherently disruptive as it is an offensive word in korean. While we don't have a specific policy against using profanity as long as it's not used to attack editors, we do have a policy preventing profanity or other disruptive content being placed in a username or signature. The signature, then, isn't so close to "Sennen goroshi, raving nutter", as it is to "Sennen goroshi, fuck". GiftigerWunsch 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The issue is the insult as far as OpenFuture is concerned, above. Hence the question. And it's the same question as would be if xe were signing xyrself "Sennen goroshi, fucking nutter". Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what the problem would be with that signature, either. All said, the problem is that being called crazy is offensive to Koreans. Calling oneself crazy is voluntary, and if someone else takes offense, I'm afraid that's their problem. That said, given the issues with translation, it's easy to misinterpret the .sig as calling the reader crazy, which is a problem. I'd hope SG would be willing to change that voluntarily, given the misunderstandings that can cause. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes it is, especially since Korean doesn't require a subject or even an object, and often adjectives just thrown out there are assumed to be about the person most likely to be said to. For example simply saying "Smart" would mean that you think the other person is smart since it would be rather conceited of you to just call yourself smart (unless there was a contextual reason for it). Simply tossing out "Crazy Fucker" (which is roughly close to what this might translate to) with no other context might indicate he's calling someone that, since it would be unlikely that he'd refer to himself as such. But Sennen Goroshi obviously knows this. This isn't a word you just pick at random to add to your signature and it just more in a long history of disruption by this user. If he doesn't change it, I'd suggest an admin change it and give him a long block to review our policies and think about things.--Crossmr (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• (outdent) Actually, while we're at it, you should probably change the Japanese, too--for those not familiar, it is pronounced kancho, which, while not offensive (in that it's not a bad word you call someone), it is about a practice that many might consider, um, unpleasant, and thus not appropriate for a signature. I'm not exactly clear how strict WP:USERNAME is, though, so I'm willing to be overruled on this.Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with the sentiments above, that having "fucking nutter" in a signature would not be disruptive; whether self-referential or otherwise, it's unnecessary and inappropriate to have profanity in a signature since it has clear potential to cause disruption; it's fairly clear that this word wasn't just randomly chosen because it "looks cool", it was designed to be provocative. Well, fun's over. Misplaced Pages is a serious project and using foreign languages to circumvent disruptive username/signature policies isn't acceptable. GiftigerWunsch 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If it was an explicit term, or directed at anyone (on or off wikipedia) then I might be tempted to remove it. As for the Japanese in my sig, it refers directly to my username. I don't see anything wrong with my sig, I just see some editors getting annoyed with my contribution to an AFD http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Multiple users fluent in korean appear to have stated that it is a korean profanity. As such, it should be disallowed. GiftigerWunsch 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it has been translated as "crazy" I have also seen it translated (by a native speaker) as "nuts" - while I am unlikely to turn up at work tomorrow and call my boss "crazy", I don't consider it to be profanity. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, read the above. Calling someone crazy in English is a playful jab and rarely harmful, but in Korea it's highly insulting. Therefore, your signature is considered disruptive. I don't really see a need to bang in this point any further. elektrikSHOOS 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I have previously stated, if the term was directed at someone, I might see the problem - it isn't and I don't. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Direct translations do not capture the meaning of a word or phrase, and the direct translation of a korean profanity being relatively innocuous in english is completely irrelevant; the fact that your only reason for wanting the word in your signature is that it "looks cool" and you are refusing to change it to any other word despite the fact that multiple individuals have stated that it is profanity and against signature policy speaks volumes. It has become clear that the word is a profanity in korean, you have refused to change it regardless, and personally I would therefore support a block until you reconsider. GiftigerWunsch 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You have one question to answer. Think carefully about your answer, because people with the ability to revoke your editing privileges are reading. It has been pointed out to you that your signature, to native speakers, reads the equivalent of "Sennen Goroshi, up the arse fucking nutter!". Any person signing xyrself as this in all innocence, because the words "looked cool", would change xyr signature in a flash once xe became aware of how it actually read. Now that you are aware of how your signature reads, are you going to continue to use this as your signature? Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • On principal, no I won't change my signature. It isn't directed at anyone, and it is not profanity. I also question the motives of those who have complained about it, seeing that the complaints followed an AFD relating to a controversial Korean related article. hmmmmm "up the arse fucking nutter!" would be an amazing signature, but I assume that would result in another ANI discussion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Slightly take issue with Uncle G there but for all good reasons: Sennen's signature is not the equivalent of saying "Sennen Goroshi, up the arse fucking nutter!" - there is no equivalent translation because the insult/profanity is based on the cultural connotations of the word. If I were to say Tom Cruise is gay - am I insulting him? No, I'm merely saying that he's a happy person. The word has different connotations depending on the usage, which can be difficult to explain to non-English speakers, especially when dealing with a different alphabet and lexicon. The term causes offence to the native language speakers, that much has been established, so it should surely be removed? The reasons for keeping it seem the literary equivalent of, well, just being awkward for the sake of it. a_man_alone (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the point Uncle G was trying to make, and certainly the point I've tried to make, is that using this korean word in a signature is exactly as offensive as including the word "fuck" in a signature. Obviously the word "crazy" wouldn't be inappropriate, the english word "crazy" is not a profanity. But the fact that the only direct translation of the korean word is "crazy", doesn't mean that the korean word isn't itself a profanity, and policy dictates that profanities are inappropriate regardless of language. GiftigerWunsch 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it's not quite the equivalent, because I didn't translate what "Sennen Goroshi" itself means. Since we've wandered below into a discussion of what account names mean in other languages, I point out what "sennen goroshi" itself denotes (as clearly referenced). So this signature reads the equivalent of "Two fingers up the arse, up the arse fucking nutter!" if we're going to look at all of it. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal

Given the above comment, I'm proposing a short block for Sennen goroshi. The editor has proverbially spat in the face of numerous editors who have expressed concern over their signature and refuses to change it. Since it is clear that the signature is disruptive and should be removed, and they refuse to, a block may be necessary until the user understands the seriousness of this issue. elektrikSHOOS 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. It seems you beat me to it; I would suggest that the block be indefinite, however; i.e. until the user understands policy and agrees to abide by it, and change his signature to exclude profanity. GiftigerWunsch 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I think blocking someone for a signature that may or may not be slightly offensive ie. "crazy" and therefore preventing them from contributing to Misplaced Pages is about as counter-productive as I can imagine. That would be similar to me dealing with a cockroach infestation by nuking the entire planet. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As I've stated above, translating the word as "crazy" is clearly inaccurate. The word is a korean profanity, and whether or not the direct translation into english is also a profanity is completely missing the point. GiftigerWunsch 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK indef block me for a signature. Nice move. Lose a 3yr editor with 1000s of edits over a signature? Are you joking? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Conversely, you could lose privileges at a place you've made 1000s of edits at over a signature. Are you joking? AniMate 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If people are willing to indef block me for a signature (which may or may not be offensive) then I would have to reconsider if I want to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. At the moment, I have faith in Misplaced Pages and the people that make the decisions, this current discussion is testing my faith. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Is it really that difficult for you to admit that your signature might be offensive to others (Korean users) and change it yourself? Silverseren 20:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) Frankly if you think you can bully us into allowing you to break policy despite the fact that several users find your signature offensive, you are overestimating your own worth to the project. If you would rather discontinue editing rather than abide by policy and change a signature which is clearly offensive to many korean people, in a way which would have almost no bearing on the appearance of your signature, then so be it. GiftigerWunsch 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As sad as it is to lose a productive editor, it's worse to allow an intentionally disruptive editor to continue to defy the community's request. I'd rather that Sennen Goroshi modify the signature to comply with our guideline, but anyone who would be this unnecessarily belligerent isn't likely to collaborate well with other editors anyway. -- Atama頭 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking over this editor's block log, this topic ban, and other issues in this editor's history, I feel much less reservation about supporting this block. This has been a troublesome editor for a long time. -- Atama頭 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The fact is, users have expressed offense at the signature. If reasoning for its use is truly "it looks cool", the user should have no problem with being asked to change it. In reading the user's responses, s/he appears to be willfully being offensive, for no discernible reason.  Chickenmonkey  20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to bully anyone, I am not changing it on principal and I am not interested in editing somewhere that would indef block me for not changing a signature. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What principles do you possibly have toward your signature? And how could they be so important that you wouldn't break them since other people are offended at your signature and are asking you to change it? Silverseren 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The signature's offensiveness has been explained, but apparently the markup Sennen goroshi uses to identify himself here is more important than continuing to edit here. When things like signatures and those dopey practical joke new message bars become more important than harmonious editing, it's time for an enforced break until one can edit and exist here harmoniously. AniMate 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is a community; all editors should try to keep the editing environment as harmonious as possible; this entails accepting to modify one's signature if other people can be reasonably offended by it... Salvio 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but I see none of the usual societal taboos involved here (e.g. racism, anti-semitism, profanity, obscenity, etc.) that would raise the signature to "offensive". This discussion seems a bit overboard and I would strongly oppose a block simply for someone calling himself a moron in his sig. Ronnotel (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Please note that an editor felt the need to edit my sig, which I had altered slightly to illustrate my point. I had included a self-referential, derogatory word that begins with the letter "R"
  • Except in Korean the word is much stronger than moron. I imagine it's similar to going to the Korean Misplaced Pages and having the word bitch in you signature. You can say that it just means female dog, but the real meaning is obvious. AniMate 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The principal is that I take great offence is being threatened with an indef block over something so unimportant. I am annoyed about the time being spent discussing such an unimportant issue, time that could be spent productively. I am annoyed that you would consider an indef block for something you cannot confirm to be profane. I am happy to continue editing Misplaced Pages in a productive manner, but due to my principals and my pride, I will not change my signature, neither will I beg for any block to be lifted. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Evidently the several Korean-speaking editors who have stated explicitly that it is profane isn't considered "confirmed to be profane"... Sigh. elektrikSHOOS 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't think I see "several Korean-speaking editors who have stated explicitly that it is profane" in the discussion above. If there are then please forgive me and I might be willing to change my mind. Ronnotel (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same, I am looking on this discussion, and on my talk page - and doing a little uncitable (yahoo answers) research, and I can't find anything to say it is profane. My understand is that it is about as offensive as "baka" in Japanese, an insult if directed towards someone, but just as a word, pretty harmless. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From the google search that i've been doing, it seems to be a Korean swear word. It does not mean "baka", which means "stupid". It's closer equivalent in English would be something like "asshole". Silverseren 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Kwj2772, the nominator, along with Crossmr. And then Qwyrxian pointed out the problems with the Japanese. Silverseren 21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

and none of the above stated it was profanity. Oh and Qwyrxian is a non-native speaker living in Japan, so he is about as qualified to comment on Japanese profanity as I am. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver, can you give me a source? If it translates as asshole, I will remove it. All the research I have done, showed me that it meant "stupid person" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

About the same sense as retard in terms of offensiveness would you say? Ronnotel (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, the problem is some users have found it offensive. I don't care what the literal translation is, that some users have found this offensive is enough for you to remove it. If you say "hell" somewhere, most users would be fine with it, since it's not really considered that bad a profanity. But if a user comes to your talk page and asks you to not use that language the correct response is not to say you think it looks pretty cool, or don't think it's offensive (it's not really yourself we're worrying about offending here, after all), it is to simple apologise and not say it again, there's no need to after all. How hard is it to say "sorry, I wouldn't want to offend anyone" (which I sincerely hope you don't want to) and remove it, at the cost of looking a little less "cool". Remember your signature isn't for looking cool either, it's for identifying you. - Kingpin (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, stronger than "retard" I've seen Koreans get pretty offended at being called crazy in any language.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of offensiveness, perhaps - as for the exact meaning, there are numerous uncitable sources that go from "fool" to "dumbass" to "stupid kid" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support: He should be blocked indefinitely, with unblocking contingent on changing his signature to something else. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. I assumed we were discussing an indefinite block only until he changed the signature. AniMate 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe people misunderstand me and my motives. I edit wikipedia, because there are some articles that I think I can improve and care about. I'm not here to offend people or spend my time caring if people are offended or not. I will not personally attack other editors, but if my language or tone is offensive, then that is not my concern. I have used profanity in edit summaries and talk pages ie. "are you fucking joking?" and while some people might taken offence, that is not a concern of mine. There are several editors who have various nationalistic usernames that offend me, but I spend my time looking at their edits and not their names. If someone can convince me that it is profanity, then I will remove it, I will not however remove it due to a threat of an indef block, sorry I have pride and I while I will abide by the rules, I will not get bullied into changing my signature. If that means I am unable to edit Misplaced Pages again, I will miss it, but so be it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree: so be it. If you won't accept wikipedia policies, and you won't acknowledge the clear consensus that the word is profanity and accept the community request to remove it, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for you. The block is not a threat, it's a means to prevent continued damage to the project by allowing an offensive signature to be permitted. GiftigerWunsch 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, how can there be consensus regarding profanity? It is either profane or it isn't - consensus has nothing to do with it. I find it strange that when users requested that you change your glaring, annoying signature you ignored them, but you are so offended by mine, when you can't even read it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A single user requested that I change it; consensus determined that my signature is per-policy and need not be changed. I decided to provide the user with a means of toning down my signature in his personal CSS as a gesture of good faith. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFF. End of completely irrelevant side-discussion. GiftigerWunsch 22:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As for consensus regarding profanity, I find it rather arrogant that you're claiming that your opinion overrides consensus; it doesn't. GiftigerWunsch 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'd say that if it was something in English that, when translated, was extremely offensive, I'd say in that case "too bad". But this user is going out of his way to pick a specific Korean word that is extremely offensive to Koreans. This is like putting swastikas in your sig on the Hebrew wikipedia; sure, someone could claim that he's just a Hindu displaying their ancient symbols or whatnot, but everyone with a shred of common sense can tell that that person is being a colossal dick. Srsly, change the sig and smarten up. You are deliberately going out of your way to be, essentially, a troll. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the irony in someone being so upset that I would offend someone, that they have to call me a dick. I'm not trolling at all, I've just had enough of people caring far more about lame things such as my signature, than they do about edits and articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support If it's offensive, (and it seems to be at least inappropriate, at least as far as my admittedly quick search goes) then a block until it is changed seems to be the best choice. Sodam Yat (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support There is far more to block this user for than just his signature as I pointed out above. I speak some Korean, and I live with a native Korean. The word is offensive. Is it profanity? Well it's not quite on the level with their version of "Fuck" which seems to be quite a bit stronger here again than in English, but it's pretty close from the reactions I've seen. I don't know if Korean has a 7 dirty words list like we do in English. The fact that he continually wants to fight it instead of change it in the face of all this opposition speaks volumes as well.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- in my experience, if people want to get offended over things then it is very hard to stop them. Calling this sig offensive is a stretch, because firstly you need to decide you want to see it in a disparaging way and then you need to decide to assume it's directed at you. In other words, this is not like Sennen unambiguously making personal attacks. People need to go out of their way to read offense into this and that's their problem, not Sennen's. If I were to change my signature to "Reyk- colossal shithead" would I call down the punitive wrath of the Thought Police? Reyk _YO! 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  The word is strongly offensive in Korean. No one is going out of their way to imagine that. This is just another in a long line of disruptive behaviour from him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • If an editor uses a strong curse word in reference to himself or to nobody in particular, what business does anyone else have in going "I'm offended! I'm offended!"? None whatsoever. Reyk _YO! 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    • There is no indication that he's using it directed towards himself and since the only people who can read it speak Korean and he edits contentious japanese/korean articles and is japanese himself, it isn't hard to figure out who it is directed at. His explanation that he wanted it there because it looks cool is extremely disingenuous since he refuses to change it. He could change it to another innocuous word, and since he won't it tells us that he didn't choose it just because it "looks cool".--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

      • I think you're missing the key point here Reyk, it's in his signature. He is intentionally leaving profanity everytime he writes to a talk page, and that is unacceptable per WP:DE and WP:SIG. Why should anyone have to tolerate profanity being used with every message the user makes? GiftigerWunsch 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

        Also in answer to your question, if you changed your signature to include "the colossal shithead", you should expect an AN/I to be filed, yes. GiftigerWunsch 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        • I get where you're coming from, but I just don't feel that this rises to the level of a blockable offense. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        (ec)I disagree with you. That would be like asserting that, for example, GiftigerWunsch's user name is offensive because it means "Poisonous wish" in German. And therefore GW must have some kind of weird grudge against German people. Why else would he wish to poison them? After all, only people who understand German would know what it means and there's no indication he's using it in reference to himself. See how easy it is to manufacture offense when you really, really want to? I don't know anything about Sennen Goroshi's behaviour prior to this ANI case or if any of it have been blockable offenses but, in my opinion, this is not. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        • That was a pretty abstract comparison, given that my username makes no reference at all to German people, and that my user page partly explains my choice in username (albeit not very well). We're not talking about some elaborate contrived way in which the signature could be perceived as offensive. We're talking about the use of profanity in a signature, and that is quite simply disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftiger wunsch (talk • contribs)

          I disagree with Reyk, "Poisonous wish" is entirely different level at all. Sennen goroshi included a direct insult to Korean-native users in his signature. That obstructs normal and constructive discussions with Korean-native users. I wonder who want to discuss normally with someone who includes an insulting word in signature. Nobody want that. Because of that, indefinite block till he change his signature is needed. Best regards. Kwj2772 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

          I'm not really asserting anything though. Those were his own words. He originally claimed he wanted it there because it "looked cool". If he just wanted any random Korean in his signature because it looked cool. He could have picked any innocuous word. He should have also had absolutely no problem with changing it since he was asserting he didn't pick the word for a specific purpose. If that were really true, why not just change it to anything else? 고양이 or 고구려, 또또로 all of which would have the same "coolness" factor without being disruptive. Why then turn around and put an offensive flag on your user page? It is quite apparent that he is trying to antagonize editors of other nationalities as Sandstein summarized below.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification: Just to be clear, I'm not asserting that kancho is profanity; as the article itself point out, in Japan it's almost always considered a harmless prank. I was merely pointing out that the Japanese part was not a value-neutral word either, and, when added to the Korean meaning (which I know nothing about other than what I've read here), implies negative things overall. I express no opinion on whether or not SG should be blocked, as I've been involved with him in the past in quite contentious ways and thus don't think I can make a neutral claim on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is this for real? loosen up people. This seems like a play I'm all too familiar with. As far as I'm concerned, WP:NOTCENSORED is far more important to me than WP:SIG, and I've learned in life that people will say things that you don't like. Besides, no one can quite agree how "offensive" the actual term is, or how offended Korean people would actually get. I've met several Koreans, and none of them ever got their shorts in a knot if I said, "Are you fucking crazy?" or some variation thereof. Come on, we've got an actual encyclopedia to write here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Oh, just for fun, The Blade of the Northern Lights (あなた話すべきだ)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED refers to content, not user conduct; however, WP:CIVIL is a good one to check out.  Chickenmonkey  03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, I know WP:CIVIL, and I'm amazed at how toxic it can be at times; like right now. I'm much more worried about being able to freely speak my mind than being told I'm "retarded" or the equivalent thereof. I'm 20, I don't get all unwound over insults (and I personally don't find this signature even remotely insulting, offensive, or anything; perspective of a roundeye here) over the Internet, and anyone who does really needs to examine themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think it was needed, but I did state that the comment was not directed at other editors - hence my slight modification. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! is 또라이 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

oh and not that it is important, but since it was brought up, I'm not Japanese. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! is 또라이 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef

The discussion above establishes that Korean contributors find the signature of Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) offensive because it contains an offensive word in Korean. This is disruptive, but Sennen goroshi refuses to change the signature. Also, Sennen goroshi appears to be engaged in disputes involving issues of relevance to Japan and Korea; he had until recently a "This user lives in Japan" on his user page () and has now changed his user page to an image of the Rising Sun Flag; according to the article, "this flag is often considered offensive in countries which were victims of Japanese aggression, particularly China and Korea, where it is considered as a symbol of Japanese militarism and imperialism." In view of this I cannot help but conclude that it is the general aim of Sennen goroshi to provoke and offend Korean contributors; this is a misuse of Misplaced Pages as a nationalist battlefield which is prohibited. In reaction, I am indefinitely blocking Sennen goroshi until they agree to remove all non-Latin text from their signature and the image from their user page. (Normally of course non-Latin text may be used in signatures, but in this case it is necessary that all users be able to understand Sennen goroshi's signature so as to prevent a reoccurrence of this episode).  Sandstein  05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this and I would oppose any rush to unblock him. It is quite obvious he has been trying to game the system in various ways, as well as has a long term history of disruptive editing over all. The block log isn't good, and I linked to two more recent issues above, but there are more. He has been antagonizing Korean editors repeatedly (caspian blue and just in general with his signature and image on his page). I think far more is required than simply agreeing to change his signature and remove an image from his user page before he is fit to rejoin the community. He has been at odds with it for a very long time.--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Sandstein (talk · contribs) in prohibiting the use of Rising Sun Flag. The flag is the official ensign of Japan Ground Self-Defense Force and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Even if people in some countries consider it offensive, the use of the flag in Misplaced Pages should not be prohibited. Please read Palestinian flag#Ban. The Palestinian flag is banned by Israel. Then should the use of flag in Misplaced Pages be prohibited? Such a prohibition is extremely offensive to those countries. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The flag as such is not offensive and may be used on user pages. It may not be used in a disruptive manner, however, as in this case, where it is part of a pattern of disruptive conduct. If Sennen goroshi has indeed no intention to misuse Misplaced Pages as a nationalist battleground, he will not object to removing it.  Sandstein  07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed he had changed his username to this flag and suspected that it was designed to be WP:POINTy, but since I wasn't aware of the connotations of the flag I didn't feel like making this discussion even more convoluted. In any case I don't know if the block should be until he also agrees to remove this flag from his userpage, but there is very clear consensus above that he should remain blocked until he removes the offending korean profanity from his signature, so if there is a "rush to unblock", the unblocking admin is ignoring consensus. GiftigerWunsch 07:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect Phoenix. He changed it to the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army. While similar, they are not identical. His is the centered version, not the off-set version. As a Japanese editor I'm sure he knows the difference and the implications. Even the actual maritime defense force one would be offensive given his current behaviour, but he didn't even go that route.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether the flag is the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army or Rising Sun Flag. Are you insisting the use of the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army should be prohibited? There is no such consensus in Misplaced Pages. Moreover please see this diff carefully, he just removed all but the flag (last line). He never added the flag at the last edit. How disruptive the user may be, prohibition of the official flag (regardless of current or past) is not tolerated. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be prohibited for use by an editor who has a proven history of attacking and harassing editors of other nations. Lot's of things on wikipedia aren't prohibited unless done disruptively. He's been disruptive for years. The flag hasn't been there for years. Adding non-english text to a signature isn't prohibited. Do it disruptively, suddenly you're not allowed. Random editor using a flag on their page is fine. An editor who has a history of attacking editors who can be offended by that flag? Different story. This user has a history of disruptive interactions with Korean editors both his signature and flag picture are offensive to Koreans. It isn't coincidence. And yes, he removed all but the flag, to put extra focus on the flag and draw attention to it. Making an offensive flag the centerpiece of his user page, knowingly doing so when he knows there are editors taking offense to his signature.--Crossmr (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here; no, there's no problem with using a flag on your user page. If it's a potentially offensive flag, then that's unfortunate but something other editors would have to live with. But this wouldn't be the first time than an editor blocked/banned by the community has been given additional sanctions due to that user's behaviour, and I don't think it's an unreasonable term of unblock that an editor who seems to be intentionally attacking korean users to needs to remove an image from his userpage which further provokes the same group (i.e. koreans). This is something which should probably be addressed by the community, however; there is consensus that the user should remain blocked until he changes the offensive term in his signature, but I think the community should decide whether the other conditions are appropriate or not: should he be required to remove all the non-latin characters from his signature, and should he be required to remove the flag from his userpage? GiftigerWunsch 09:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, Palestinian flag is offensive to Israeli people, and Israeli flag is offensive to Palestinian people. Such a dispute should not be brought to ANI here. For people in some country, either Flag of Japan, Rising Sun Flag or the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army is offensive. We should not treat these flags similarly to the Korean word 또라이. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not completely with the flag, it is with it being used disruptively which he's doing. If someone wants to put the Palestinian flag on their page, that's fine. If someone is constantly picking fights with isreali editors, putting insulting hebrew in their signature and then plastering the palestinian flag on their user page, it has then become part of their battleground edits. In this case it is no longer acceptable for them to that because it is being used disruptively.--Crossmr (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thoroughly endorse Sandstein's actions as this has now entered the phase of pure drama for drama's sake. Spartaz 10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed, good block. Disclaimer: I am Chinese. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz (talk · contribs), Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs). Please refrain from the disruptive edit. The prohibition of the official flag has never been discussed throughout of this discussion.　―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to hear how expressing support for an admin action amounts to "disruptive edit". Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed. Your responses are bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is very few problems with the usage of any images on wikipedia, the problem lies in how they're used. It was being used disruptively by an editor with a LONG history of disruption in this area.--Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a nonsense. Blocking for posting a flag on the talk page is assuming bad faith which is totally unacceptable. I may post the unofficial flag of the Red Army but many Polish nationalists will see this as a personal attack. That is why I completely disagree with Sandstein's actions. The same applies to a bigoted disussion over the signature. Even if the user is weird in a non-agressive way but his contributions are positive, then blocking is a net negative for Misplaced Pages. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the net negative theory. I don't care if an editor has a bazillion "productive" edits. If they aren't listening to the community over something like a signature or even thier user page, which are not the focus of the project, this is not a trade off. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly. This user has a very extensive history of disruptive behaviour targeted at this group of behaviours. He wasn't blocked for posting a flag per se. He was blocked for continuing his disruptive behaviour in one of many forms. He's been extremely aggressive. Look at his block log, his interaction ban, and his other harassing attacking behaviour on editors of that group. Even if he agreed to remove those things, I don't think he has any business being unblocked.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. This isn't about a flag, which came into play late, this is about a signature that might be offensive( don't have a clue, nor do I care), and the following refusal to change it over some pride issue. It seems that consensus formed that it was offensive, so all the user needed to do was modify it and we all move on. But the user has dug his heels in over this, why? I had some "stuff" on my page that was questioned, so I removed it. End of story. We are here to contribute to this project in a community/civil like fashion. If enough voices chime in, just deal with it and move on. Please change signature and unblock. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I said t above, and I'll say it again. It's the digging his heels in that belies his motives. He flat out claimed he put the text there because he thought it was "cool" but when asked to change it, he refused. If this were an editor without any history we might assume good faith, but we'd still ask them to change it ( and they probably would). But given his history and the fact that he refuses to change the text to anything else or remove it, it tells us that he didn't choose it just because it looked "cool". It was a bold faced lie and anyone who is going to sit there and try to lie to us like that just doesn't deserve to be here.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have declined unblock as the request only addresses the issue of the Korean text. Spartaz 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Sennen goroshi has now agreed to remove all 3 items subject to further discussion with Sandstein over the flag and the Japanese text. Agreeing to remove the source of the problem while continuing to discuss their options seems reasonable to me and I think this is sufficient to match the conditions from unblock but I'd like to wait an hour in case there are any disagreements/objections. OK? Spartaz 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sig now fixed and the flag is down so ready for unblock at 16.35 UTC... Spartaz 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user with this message: "You are unblocked per your agreement to remove the non-Latin content from your signature and the flag image from your user page. Be advised that you have used up all your chances, as far as I am concerned; any continued misuse of Misplaced Pages as a nationalist battlefield may result in an indefinite block without further warning. I will consider any use of non-Latin text in your signature, or images related to past conflicts involving Japan (such as the Rising Sun Flag) on your user page as such misuse, except if you ask for community input about such content on WP:CCN before using such content, and if no other editor objects to that content during the discussion."  Sandstein  15:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I entirely support that. While you stated his final chance in the unblock acceptance, you didn't really get his acknowledgment of that before unblocking. I note that you don't speak japanese and he claims he's going to discuss adding japanese text with you in an e-mail. I'd suggesting running it by editors who are fluent in Japanese, and preferably not just japanese editors, say a korean or chinese editor who is also fluent, before approving it. I'm also disheartened by his unblock request. After years of blocks and countless battleground issues, he's only "starting to worry" now. For me the obvious flat-out lying should have been any last chance this user would have gotten.--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the unblock, I would really appreciate it, if someone could comment on the Japanese text that I had on my signature - while I can see the possibility for offence with the flag and the Korean, I didn't really understand why the Japanese text would cause any problems, comments please. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Is this related to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or have you come to collect your WP:BOOMARANG ? Off2riorob (talk)

You know, it's called assume good faith, not WP:PROVEBEYONDALLREASONABLEDOUBTTOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERSYOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH, although the more I'm around here the more I think it should just be moved to the latter. I, for one, didn't have any objections to either the Japanese or Korean text, and that hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are, and were, clearly in the minority. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, great, users not knowing Japanese judging on Japanese-language sig. Sigh. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, users that have been disruptive and indef blocked wanting to repeat the issue, sigh, big sigh. Personally imo he is disruptive and will be again, his coming here with this request is an example of that, and that is my good faith opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Artem Karimov, if you are referring to me, I know enough to know what ｶﾝﾁｮｰ is. It's pretty basic in Japanese culture (think of a "wedgie" in English), and my professor teaches us all sorts of fun neologisms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually I was referring to those who wanted blood for the odd word in sig. :) Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured; it's kind of amazing how worked up people get. For all people know,　お兄さん　could mean "murderer". Now, I know what it means, but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people here don't. お兄さん｜The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, me coming here with a request is an example of me trying to find out exactly what I should be doing to avoid this kind of problem in the future, I didn't see any problem with the Japanese, but the blocking admin did, so what better place to clarify exactly what is ok and what is not, than ANI? In addition to that, I can really understand how an editor with a blemish free block history, might look at my interesting block history and come to the conclusion that I am a disruptive, repeat offender - and then I looked at your eight blocks in the last 18months, and disregarded everything you said regarding me being a disruptive editor. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not willing to be dragged any further into a non-productive argument. I will respond to anything relevant to my signature, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time with silly arguments. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bless, is it all my fault? You have been badly treated and you have had to climb down and say sorry, and that is a disgrace in some parts of the world, you were adamant you would not do this and not do that and yet you have apologized, that is so sweet and refreshing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not quite appropriate here. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, big sigh, yawn. I am so so sorry about any perceived sarcasm you may have noticed, please allow me to apologize, my family are also sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Epeefleche

User:Epeefleche created the page Soho Properties. I, and other users, have removed some attacks he included in the page, including an attempt to slander one of the company's executives by saying that his uncle, leader of the Arab League of nations, supported Hamas, as well as linking to Jihad Watch, a notorious anti-Islam site. He has reverted on sight, and now accused me of vandalism and threatened me with blocking, even though it is clearly not vandalism but a content dispute. He has almade no attempt to address the issues, despite the notice at the top of my talk page 'that I will remove standardised warning templates, feel free however to discuss the underlying issues with me.'.

His is aggressive, destructive behaviour. Could someone please address? Sumbuddi (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the external link and attempt to smear-by-association removed in this are clearly in violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Consequently their removal is not subject to the three-revert-rule and restoration ought to draw preventative sanctions. CIreland (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the concur; probably should have taken it to the BLP noticeboard. I watch listed the article & will post an entry there for more input on the content issues. --Errant Tmorton166 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche didn't appear to have been notified of this discussion - so I went ahead and told him --Errant Tmorton166 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

he was:

User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Scanning Epeefleche's recent edits they do appear to be pushing a certain POV. --Errant Tmorton166 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I'm wondering if the "Nour Mousa" link to "Amr Moussa" (also in the Park 51 article) is even accurate. The surnames are not the same, and while the claim has been propagated across numerous anti-Park 51 blogs, it seems to stem from this article , which has been noted as a desperate hatchet job. Is this in fact a reliable source? Sumbuddi (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits linked to here concern me greatly, I don't know the editor in question but there is no question even from a cursory glance that the intend is to create a POV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Curious that nobody notified me until a friendly non-involved editor. About to head to a meeting shortly. Shall we discuss here or on the BLPN? As to Off2, I imagine people here are familiar enough with him and his block history that I don't have to detail my personal experiences with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Apart from me having to defend BLP articles from some of your previous POV attacks you have no history with me at all. You will also notice that this thread is about you not me, this pattern of POV is an issue and has been at other articles previously. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Uh, Epeefleche, you were notified within a minute of this being posted here, by the same editor who initiated this thread. TFOWR 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I completely missed that (because of the subsequent section header). Entirely my fault :) WP:TROUT as required. --Errant Tmorton166 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear up the confusion on the notification issue, so everyone understands it. Tmorton left me notice of this ANI, helpfully, saying he did not know why I had not been notified. He and I were not aware I was notified--because my "notification" was embedded as an unsigned stray sentence within a DYK notice that I had been given ... making it somewhat easy to miss.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just a BLPN issue, I posted here primarily because you are assuming bad faith in a content dispute and accusing me of vandalism, which was clearly inappropriate. We might have different opinions, but that doesn't make me - or you - a vandal, and it's not constructive for you to say so, as you did here.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call it when you use procedural means like this ANI page to try to stop editors from editing? Look at this comment: "User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims." Okay, I say Epeefleche should no longer "add any content about any living Muslims." Then those seeking to use Misplaced Pages to WP:SOAPBOX can write glowing articles about any topic they wish and we all can stop wasting our time on the ANI page to shut people up. Epeefleche, these people or people like them don't stop coming after you, I have observed over time. I had a group promoting MMfA come after me recently, on the ANI too, so I can understand what you are going through. My point involves the tactic being used to silence Epeefleche, not the underlying content being whatever it is. Folks, if Epeefleche is not perfect or is making POV edits, then improve Misplaced Pages by making better edits or using the Talk page, don't just use the ANI to try to escalate to get others to stop someone from making edits you do not like and have not properly addressed in Talk. This page is not to be used as a means to pressure others. This is Misplaced Pages, not OneViewPointOpedia. Someone please close this ANI and everyone please get back to work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it should be closed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point that Epeefleche should be allowed to continue attacking living people because if he didn't others would write glowing articles is amusing indeed. No one is trying to silence, let him write good articles about french town and cities but stop him attacking living people that he has a strong POV against and that he repeatedly inserts into wikipedia articles, this then creates edit wars as people remove the BLP violations and then user Epeefleche throws warnings at them and calls them vandals and threatens them with blocks, this is what the report here is about. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't seen enough evidence of repeated POV-pushing or personal attacks to warrant a topic ban, but I do agree that the examples discussed in this thread are unacceptable. Opening a thread to prevent a user editing disruptively, making potentially libellous attacks in mainspace, and pushing their point of view is not the same as trying to "silence" a user because of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. GiftigerWunsch 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims." Sounds like an attempt to silence someone to me. I know, I recently lived through such an effort that went on for weeks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

No, you have this wrong. Epeefleeche was using this article as his soapbox, which I don't have a problem with of itself, because other users can edit and remove his biases.

What is unacceptable is trying to silence me by threatening a block and accusing me of vandalism for repeating edits already made by two different other users with edit summaries explaining exactly what the objection was. That is not vandalism, and it's bizarre to be defending him on a 'free speech' basis, when 'free speech' is exactly what he was trying to deny me. Other users might be silenced by similar tactics, I'm addressing this here, not so much because I'm concerned about his content biases, but because I don't think his edit war tactics are acceptable. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, I'm not trying to be trouble. It's just that the edit you gave as evidence of being called a vandal, I just don't see how that edit evidences your being called a vandal, neither do I see it in the history comment. To me it looks like a standard warning used repeatedly on the Talk pages of a multitude of editors. What am I missing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you seemed to be suggesting that several of us are trying to "silence" this user; as I said above, I don't see enough evidence of POV-pushing and disruptive editing in this topic to warrant a topic ban, and unless I've overlooked someone, Off2riorob is the only user in support of such action. I understand what you're getting at and agree that a topic ban is too extreme unless the user proves that he is unable to edit constructively to this topic, but effectively suggesting that the community is witch-hunting when we're actually responding to some fairly serious policy violations, isn't especially constructive. GiftigerWunsch 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Standing back and looking at the big picture, however, this editor has procedural action after procedural action brought against him. At some point it's time to notice a pattern. I was merely noting a pattern. Sure, on an individual page, it's no biggie. But in general, there is a clear pattern. While this AN/I has been going on, Epeefleche got another warning on his page for, get this, violating a 1RR, and I noticed no notice of the unusual 1RR on that page. Why didn't someone just give him a heads up instead of giving him another warning on his talk page? The effort to topic ban Epeefleche in the immediate effort was merely what set in motion in my mind that Epeefleche is someone who is challenged constantly for essentially being an effective editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, four issues:

• Epeefleche, please don't refer to good faith edits as vandalism.
• There was a misunderstanding about ANI notification. It happens, we all realise that, that's a non-issue.
• If there's an ongoing problem in terms of Epeefleche and POV - no one's offered any evidence beyond this one incident.
• This particular incident should probably be punted to WP:BLPN.

TFOWR 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This discussion can serve as a warning to Epeefleche not to refer to others' edits as vandalism when they are actually a matter of content dispute. The content dispute itself can be handled on the BLP noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a big fan of BLP, and if I erred I'm happy to understand precisely how I did so and to certainly make every effort to not do so in the future. Perhaps it will be helpful if I analyse, ignoring the noise and the ad hominem attacks, what I understand to be the main issue. And what my thinking was.

The primary focus of editors who see an issue here appears to be on the bolded language in the following edit: "Mousa is the nephew of Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, who was the first major Arab leader to go to Gaza and affirm support for Hamas, in mid-June 2010, after the Gaza blockade-running incident. That language was properly referenced to a RS. It appeared in a paragraph in an RS article about the subject of the article -- Soho House -- which said

... an Egyptian property developer, Sharif El-Gamal... is chief executive officer of Soho Properties, Inc., a commercial real estate investment firm he founded in 2003. His partner is Nour Mousa, another guiding figure in the Ground Zero mosque effort and the nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League. Amr Moussa was the first major Arab leader to go to Gaza and affirm support for Hamas, in mid-June, after the recent blockade-running assault.

I didn't see this as a BLP violation. Let me explain why.

1. it was sourced to an RS.
2. it accurately represented what the RS said.
3. the subject of the discussion in the RS article itself was SoHo House.
4. while I gather some here view the Gaza matter as negative (and a "tarring"), it is by no means clear that that connection is negative. To the contrary, much of the world would certainly view that connection as a positive (there was definitely an outpouring of positive response in favor of Gaza after the incident).
5. even if it were negative, we do routinely report even negative information on wikipedia.
6. it is one thing if an editor himself makes a connection relating to Soho House--it is quite another if an RS does so, and we simply reflect it. Which is what I sought to do here. Nothing more.
7. as to whether it is notable, or relevant, enough to reflect (is that even proper fodder for an AN/I discussion?), I take as a guide what the RSs think is notable. This is likewise our objective guiding light in our article notability discussions. It allows us to avoid personal subjective POV. Otherwise, an editor could simply be driven by his personal subject POV, and claim that anything he doesn't like is not notable, even if the RSs report it.
8. the article and the reference relate to SoHo House and its connections. Soho House is not a BLP, so I'm not even clear that this is a BLP issue. But that is beside the point, given my above comments.
9. I didn't see there as being a need to report who specifically the source was of the statement, but if it were felt that that would have improved matters, I would certainly have had no objection.

I don't know if that helps understand my thinking. But I was simply trying to reflect what an RS said when discussing the company, sought to do so accurately, and didn't apprehend a violation of any sort. I do find it somewhat surprising that someone would think this editing dispute ANI-worthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of what could be considered BLP violation is inserting unsourced and/or poorly sourced info about living person. It is clearly not the case here. I believe the thread ought to be closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd greatly prefer WP:BLPN to look at it - even if it's just to close it. Not so much to consider Epeefleche and possible BLP-vios, but to consider the article. I think the mention of Hamas is WP:UNDUE, but I'm by no means a BLP person. This is about protecting a living person, not about assigning blame. TFOWR 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, sorry. I have actually posted it over there. It looks like myself, Off2riorob and maybe one or two other names I recognise from the BLP noticeboard pretty much concur it is undue/non-notable per various BLP policy (and wider article criteria). There is also discussion on the users talk page - support closing this and moving any further needed discussion to BLP/N and article talk --Errant Tmorton166 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR--That's fine; personally, I don't think anything significant is lost -- even though what was said in the article is precisely supported by the RS -- if we were to trim out the words "for Hamas". The content is still substantively the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I note this accusation: …an attempt to slander one of the company's executives by saying that his uncle, leader of the Arab League of nations, supported Hamas, as well as linking to Jihad Watch, a notorious anti-Islam site. It is impossible to slander the executive (malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report) by stating what is believed to be true about a relative of the executive. I’m quite sure Misplaced Pages does not have a policy to burry information like 9/11 on notorious individuals like Osama bin Laden just because Osama might be a second-cousin three-times-removed to the ex-sister-in-law of Jimbo. If Epeefleche is incorrect that the Arab League leader supported Hamas, then challenge him to produce a proper citation buttressing the information. If he has truly edit warred, warn him. If both editors have truly edit warred, warn them both. If this is just another edit dispute, mark it resolved and tell the editors to stay away from each other for 48 hours. Greg L (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not really worth arguing it out; but it could be slander by association. i.e. raising an undue point unrelated to the article to associate the company/individuals with those views. What the uncle did is not related to the company or owners (it is related to the uncles biography) and, so, raising it becomes problematic --Errant Tmorton166 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in an exercise in semantics. The sentence is designed to link Soho Properties, which hitherto has dealt in uncontroversial office buildings, to Hamas, and specifically one of its living executives, to a US-desginated terrorist organisation. Whether or not that should properly be called 'slander', 'slur' or something else is irrelevant to the fact that it's an attack sentence.

Also I'm not quite sure why you are comparing Amr Moussa, a regular old Egyptian politician with Osama Bin Laden, the world's most notorious Islamist mass murderer and international terrorist. It is reasonable to describe Osama Bin Laden, if you had to in one sentence, 'as the perpetrator of 9/11', but it's not reasonable to describe Moussa simply as 'a Hamas supporter' on the basis of an official visit to Gaza. Clearly that description is grossly distorted and only someone who feels 'bin Laden' is the most apt comparator with a moderate senior Arab diplomat could feel otherwise.

Nobody wants to delete the fact (if it is true, and I'm not convinced, given that the names aren't even spelled the same) that Mousa is nephew of Moussa, but describing him as a Hamas supporter is bizarre; you might as well say 'Mousa is nephew of Moussa, a popular Egyptian politician, who in 2005 was petitioned to run for president.'Sumbuddi (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:John howard.jpg

I moved File:John howard.jpg (log) from en.wikipedia to Commons some years ago. It has now been tagged as "no source". Could an administrator check if the original file page here contained more information about its source? Thanks, --Kjetil_r 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original source was given as http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jul1997/970627-D-2987S-028.jpg CIreland (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tracked down the current location of the photo and added it to the commons image.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, guys. --Kjetil_r 11:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez again

As documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, we've still got long-term, ongoing behavioral problems by multiple editors at Hugo Chávez, unresolved by previous dispute resolution, and not likely to be resolved via dispute resolution because of the ever-changing cast of new characters, who don't learn policy or guidelines but fill up the talk page with debate, not typically based on reliable sources. In the last go-round, I supplied a long (and unfinished) set of high quality sources that had been routinely cleansed from the article, with repeat claims of "corporate media bias" on the article talk page.

We have edit warring, POV edits, deletion of tags, personal attacks, personalizing disputes on talk, removal of well-cited text, battleground, ownership-- the works. In particular, see personal attacks and others at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Disruptive editing at Hugo Chavez.

I do not believe further dispute resolution is likely to resolve the recurring issues at that article, as the cast of characters defending the POV article constantly changes (with the exception of a few regular, long-term contributors, who have improved somewhat). I am hopeful that independent admins will weigh in and oversee the article and the personalization, and suggest that 1RR be instated to encourage talk page collaboration and help stabilize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree 1RR is usually unhelpful in my experience. TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1RR? No way. That too easily becomes just a tricksy way for people to catch each other out. And the page hasn't even been protected recently, which is a far more likely step to encourage collaboration and thoughtful rewriting. Rd232 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Protection would be an alternative, but then I couldn't continue cleaning up citations that were just messed up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure you can, if a subpage draft is used to re-develop the article. Rd232 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • In the current battleground, it's unlikely sandbox will get anywhere. Also, article protection prevents all editors from improving the article, while 1RR targets disruptive editors, which might help stop the bleeding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has compiled a long list of op-eds in The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, reports from right-wing think tanks, articles and books from U.S. conservative publishers and reports from the U.S. State Department which present views that she believes the article should represent in order for it to be neutral. I have continually asked her to provide peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press, but she apparently cannot find anything there that represents these "neutral" views. She has also tagged the article as POV while failing to provide an explanation of what changes should be made. However, I do not see disruptive editing and would like to see examples provided. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding the representation and due weight to all mainstream views; if you believe The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC and many others are "op-eds" and not reliable sources, I suggest you raise the issue at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, the article is being cited to sources with a known partisan bias, while mainstream sources are systematically removed. Also, by all means, please provide an example of where I cite any op-ed piece, and please note that the article POV has been well documented more than once, and is supported by numerous editors-- tags should not be removed while a POV dispute exists. It is curious that you disclaim all mainstream sources as "right wing think tanks" and request "peer reviewed" sources, while Mark Weisbrot (who co-wrote the Oliver Stone "documentary" on Chavez), Center for Economic and Policy Research, Venezuelan gov't sources, self-published sources, and Venezuelanalysis.com are used to cite the article. Of course, the personal attacks and talk page personalization are separate matters, warranting attention; the extreme personal attacks and misrepresentation of my editing is ongoing, as demonstrated in your post above. It is also curious that you ask for examples of disruptive editing, including extreme personal attacks: did you read the numerous samples I linked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks against SandyGeorgia have occurred above in TFD's post, or to my knowledge anywhere before. There have been comments about your editing and disruption, but that is your behaviour, not you as a person. In any case, so what if Weisbrot was one of the writers on that documentary? Many of your sources come from papers and publications which supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. So I dont get it. That documentary (have you actually seen it) is a lot less positive to Chavez than some your sources are negative to him.ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How would your characterize:

1. "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years,"
2. "stop being a hypocrite"
3. "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there,"  ?

How would you characterize the scores of diffs on that page of talk page personalization of issues and WP:BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am against 1RR on this article. I think the current level of protection is fine. ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I involved here? (User:Wittsun)

Wittsun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is under a topic ban covering all race, politics or religious subject. The ban was tweaked to include all Misplaced Pages namespaces on 22 July (see his talkpage). However, an article that he created is under AfD, and so of course he received the standard template inviting his comments on the AfD.

Whilst I am sure he is aware that this was a violation of his topic ban, he did go ahead and comment on the AfD (whilst making an attack on other editors). Given the auto-AfD message, however, I have not imposed a block on this occasion. However, it's now occurred to me that I previously !voted on the AfD, and with an opposing view to Wittsun's. Therefore, it could be suggested that I am involved, and any admin is welcome to unstrike, remove, edit or otherwise revert my edits, and my message to Wittsun on his talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any editor could have taken the same action you did and it would have been OK - I would have probably taken the alternative action of removing his comment as: (1) there were no responses to it, (2) it's not going to be a fully enforced vio (by blocking), and (3) the edit should not have been made in the discussion (that is, it was prompted by a couple of mistakes, from a generous good faith perspective anyway, so that might be the best step in reversing the effect of those mistakes). But that's just my view, and obviously, I can understand why a more cautious approach could be adopted. As for any involvement, I'd say it does not extend beyond this particular AfD. (There would have been a concern if you imposed a block in this situation, but that's not an issue here.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Apprpriate use of the admin remit. I reviewed BK's comments to the AfD, and note they deal entirely with the nomination as relating to the subject and not to article creator - therefore I consider BK is uninvolved in regard to acting in relation to Wittsun's violation of his topic ban. The determination that the violation was not deliberate by BK speaks of a commendable degree of AGF, since I note that Wittsun's common response to notification of sanctions and restrictions is to indicate incomprehension - upon that evidence I would have blocked the editor for their transgression. In all, I think Black Kite acted in an exemplary manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with Ncmvocalist that removal rather than striking would be the better choice as, from a general standpoint, I'm of the mind that only the writer should be striking comments, lest they be misrepresented. I've done this, and marked resolved. –xeno 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to place a permanent block on certain IP ranges

As a lot of users might know, I was the target of a particularly nasty vandal attack on Saturday by User:BoxingWear among other socks. This individual was previously banned by Jimbo under the username "George Reeves Person" or something like that.

This individual has engaged in serial attacks against a number of editors, including Jimbo, for several years. The little bit of information gleaned on him suggests that he is either homeless or partially so; he almost certainly suffers from mental illness. He edits out of a public library system and on occasion, box stores and two colleges in his general area. It is my understanding that he's engaged in harassment via telephone; he neglected to turn off the caller ID on one call and the number rendered back to a church in the same area. A call to the church confirmed the man's illness and the fact they try and protect him.

I've blocked four of his ranges for one year here at WP and for five years on Eflightwiki.com. All of these ranges have a long history of abuse, almost certainly from this same person.

The ranges are:

• 64.44.24.0/24
• 66.2.70.0/24
• 66.99.2.0/24
• 66.99.1.0/24

This person is now following me to other wikis on which I use the same username. He was particularly nasty at Eflightwiki.com until I was granted sysop rights. He's now attacked me at Simple English; I have no sysop rights there, but an admin here who does is closely monitoring my pages there.

Under these rather unusual circumstances, I wish to propose that all of these ranges and any subsequent range be blocked permanently for the personal safety of this site's users. This person is likely to be criminally insane and we owe it to our volunteers to insure their safety while editing Misplaced Pages and other wiki sites. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the person is editing from public terminals, it would be in Misplaced Pages's not best interest not to range-block as that would also negatively affect a lot of potential positive contributors. I can understand your nasty feud with a sockmaster (I've had a few run-ins myself) but a rangeblock of publicly accessible computers is not the solution. elektrikSHOOS 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Elektrik; permanently blocking several IP ranges is likely to cause more harm than good. GiftigerWunsch 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Though there's practically no recent activity on the first three ranges that isn't vandalism or non-useful, and not a huge amount on the fourth either. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought of this later. A better solution might be to contact the owners of the IP addresses in question and see if these places can bar access to this individual, as it appears that xe is not using the computers productively. elektrikSHOOS 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that kind of approach generally hasn't worked out so well in the past, although it is worth a try. We routinely block ips that are causing disruption despite the fact that other productive users might be using them. I think what is scaring folks here is the word "permanent." How about we start off with a year or two and see if that curbs the problem, if this guy comes back even once from any of these ranges we can re-instate the block for another year or two. I fully support the idea that harsher measures need to be taken against the most unhinged and obsessed trolls, they suck way too much time away from the various projects. Given the dearth of positive contribs from these ranges the potential collateral damage is minimal, and the potential of diverting this troll is worth it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the severe abuse that the editor in question has engaged in here and elsewhere, I'd strongly agree with Beeblebrox - a long rangeblock makes a lot of sense here to cut the damage substantially. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support such a proposal, but I'd prefer it if the block was anon-only, so as not to block well-meaning contributors who might wish to use those computers to edit Misplaced Pages (and, if an anon needs an account, they can ask one to WP:ACC). Salvio 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More background for PMDrive1061's complaint may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BoxingWear/Archive. I notice that PMDrive has renewed the rangeblock (anon-only) on all four addresses for one year. I support this, except for the first address, which I suggest that he should double-check. The address he listed above is not the one that he blocked. (The 24 and 44 are reversed). He actually blocked 64.24.44.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) whose contributions seem rather innocuous. The matter appears serious to me, and there is reason to take strong action. There is nothing magic about public terminals that should prevent them from being blocked anon-only if serious abuse is coming from them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'll correct that right away. I now have a list of all his known IPs and I'm going to take the initiative nd block all for one year. Anon-only might not do any good since he actually creates sockpuppet accounts more often than not. This individual impersonated me with a YouTube account...and I'm told that was nothing compared to stunts he's pulled. He has engaged in e-mail bombing, incessant crank telephone calls and has managed to create bogus death threats from his victim to himself. Apparently, he's done this pretty well since users have lost IP access as a result. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a delightful individual who lives a rich and rewarding life. I support the block for a year given the circumstances; I was concerned that it may cause a deal of harm discouraging other users from editing, but it struck me that when I first started editing, I was in a large IP range which had been blocked because of some ISPs blocking the Virgin killer article, but I wasn't discouraged from creating an account by e-mailing the foundation. If we can afford to block entire ISPs on such an issue, I think this user's actions more than warrant the proposed action. GiftigerWunsch 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse

I'm a volunteer at a church outreach center. We have computers available for the public to use. We try to be careful about how they're used. We've installed filtering software so users can't use the computers for abusive purposes. Three weeks ago one of our computer users told me that someone (Centpacrr) had placed an abusive notice on our Misplaced Pages page. I tried to remove it and restore what was there before, but Centpacrr kept putting it back

He kept insisting that we were placing a "false tag" on our page and said we were "identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true." I didn't understand why he was doing that. We ARE an organization. I read the Misplaced Pages help page on vandalism and it said if someone is vandalizing your page to put this: { {SharedIP|Name of owner} } on it. I did that and Centpacrr only got more abusive.

He said that "The ONLY edits on Misplaced Pages made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user." I didn't understand what he was talking about. All we tried to do was fix our page. We didn't make any edits at all. We've never been blocked that I know of. The vandalism help page said that if nothing else worked to file a vandalism report. So I did. Then this other Misplaced Pages person (Jamie) comes along and accuses me of filing "spurious "vandalism" reports on the noticeboard." I tried to explain to Jamie that Centpacrr kept putting lies on our page, saying that we aree not an organization, when we are.

It seems to me that posting lies on someone's page is vandalism, and I didn't understand why WE were the ones being accused of vandalism. Jamie's response was some computer gobbledygook that I didn't understand, and he insisted that we prove that we were an organization. Well, I have no idea how to do that. All I can say is that we ARE a church. We provide a service to the community with our outreach center, and it has computers for teens to use for homework and for adults to use for job hunting and other things. If one of our users abuses the computers they are no longer welcome at our center.

So far we've been very lucky. Things only went from bad to worse. When I tried to explain things to Jamie, he brusquely responded that "there's nothing further to discuss." He refused to explain to me what I could do to stop Centpacrr from posting lies on our page. So I continued to erase Centpacrr's vandalism. Then he wrote "Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN." I had no idea what AN was, so I had no idea how to respond. I just removed his lies again. Finally, I just posted the Beatitudes on our page. It's a beautiful piece with advice that I thought might be helpful in the situation. Centpacrr posted again, this time accusing us of all sorts of things.

Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that "the text immediately below which is not mine either." Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord. And Centpacrr's comment was placed so that it desecrated those words. The next thing I know Jamie posts a notice on our page that accuses us of "vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons." AND he removed the Beatitudes. There was no way for me to put them back because Jamie had blocked us from editing Misplaced Pages. Well, our two weeks is up now. I talked with one of our young people here about the situation and he told me I should file a complaint. So that's what I'm doing.

This whole thing has been a nightmare. We've been accused of doing things that we don't understand and know nothing about. It seems like anyone on Misplaced Pages can just post lies about anyone else and they're automatically believed. We have done nothing wrong. We have not vandalized anything. We've only tried to tell the truth on our page. And when we tried to get someone to explain to us what was going on, we only got gruff, insulting replies. We want an apology from Centpacrr for his untruthful accusations and his obnoxious attitude. we also want an apology from Jamie for his rude behavior and all the awful accusations he made. By now there are probably places all over Misplaced Pages where nasty things have been said about us. We want those all removed too.

Thank you for listening. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we were 64.252.0.159. I guess someone has changed our identity somehow. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your IP address has changed should tell you something; you don't have a fixed IP. You are assigned an IP from a pool that is shared by other subscribers who use the same service. You don't own the talk page for whatever IP address you happen to be using. We tag IP talk pages when vandalism arises from them and in some cases mark who the IP is registered to (which in this case is obviously not a single entity, but an ISP. If you want a fixed identify on Misplaced Pages, you need to create an account. OhNoitsJamie 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. We never engaged in any vandalism. There was no reason for you to block us. There is also no reason for us to create an account because many different people use our computers. If any of those people want to create an account, they can. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that you specifically are vandalizing Misplaced Pages. Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use. If there is too much vandalism on that one IP address it may be blocked. This is the downside of editing as an IP rather than a logged-in user. If I choose to edit without logging in I am using any number of IP addresses that are being used by others using the same internet service. If I happen to being using an IP address that is currently blocked, even though it has nothing to do with me, I may not be able to edit Misplaced Pages at that time. So people using your computers may at times be unable to edit Misplaced Pages unless they create an account. But the vandalism warnings don't address your organization directly but an IP address that you sometimes are assigned. I don't know of any way around this. But the talk page of an IP address that you sometimes have really doesn't belong to you and the warnings placed there should be left in place to let potential editors know of any blocks and how to edit using a blocked IP. freshacconci talktalk 16:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I can see why you would want to block an IP address that engaged in vandalism, but I clicked on the "contribs" link for 64.252.0.159 below, and looked at the contributions, and I didn't see any vandalism.64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this at the moment, but for the next person: —DoRD (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• 64.252.0.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 64.252.140.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Hi 64.252. This looks like a simple case of miscommunication. The fact is, you are coming to us via an internet address that isn't owned by you or your association, but by SBC Communications (aka AT&T). Many of our editors are overworked, and it's easy to throw around the acronyms and "wikispeak" we're used to without thinking that new users may not be familiar with it. This can be easily resolved, however: which church are you from and where is it located? – ClockworkSoul 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer at this church-sponsored outreach center, but I'm not a member of the church or an administrator in the center. I'm just a volunteer who comes in every now and then. The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Misplaced Pages. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to respect the church's authority here and not get into trouble with the church or the center (which is why I tried to remove Centpacrr's abusive comments in the first place). I think you're right about this being a case of miscommunication. Centpacrr and Jamie both seemed to have a mindset that couldn't be changed, no matter what I said. And I certainly didn't understand the thing about the "fixed IP." (I still don't.) The notice about the IP address that Jamie put on the page seems OK - it seems like some sort of standardized notice. The one by Centpacrr was downright abusive. The block really threw me for a loop, though, and I still don't understand it. I still think an apology from both of those people is in order because they didn't even try to understand the situation. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. As far as I can tell, the IP has never edited any church page - can you tell us what page it is that you were editing? --Smashville 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute started when the person who was assigned to the IP at the time put up a notice saying that the IP was registered to a single organization. Centpacrr removed the notice as the WHOIS record made it clear that the IP was from a pool and not registered to an "organization." The user would not accept this explanation and became disruptive (attempting to assert false ownership over the talk page, leading to a temporary block on that IP. OhNoitsJamie 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamie, did you consider the possibility that the person you were talking to didn't understand the explanation you were giving them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• My take is that this was an absolutely pointless edit war over a tag on a talk page. I don't see a right and and a wrong here. However, the folks at the church do need to understand that they are in an ip pool, they might get messages or be blocked because of something someone else using one of the same ips did, and they do not own and cannot lay claim to the addresses or talk pages. That being said I'm still looking for the vandalism that led to the block in the history of these two ips. Where is it exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They still don't understand it, so I give up. OhNoitsJamie 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamie blocked them for 'edit warring' over the page template. I think he's right, they still don't understand.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As we all know, the only exception to WP:EDITWAR is the reversion of vandalism. WHOIS and ISP tags are not al listed exception to WP:BLANKING. As this was an edit war I don't see why both users weren't blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think because Centerparc was removing the tag as incorrect, not re-adding it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff that caused the problem. While I can't see what's wrong with the edit (it just seems to exchange two paras), Centerparcc was convinced it was a sock of User:Filmcracker. He must have put a notice on the talkpage, because the next edit is the church volunteer trying to add an organisation template to the page . After that it was all downhill - Centerparc thinks he's dealing with an obnoxious sock, Jamie thinks he's dealing with an edit warrior sock, and the church volunteer can't work out what's happening, unwisely keeps going, and gets blocked for two weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that explains it well. (Except that Centpacrr didn't put a standardized notice on the page, he repeatedly put his own: "This IP resolves as being a Dynamic IP registered to SBC Internet Services in New Britain, CT, not a static IP registered to an organization. DO NOT place a false tag on this page identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true. The ONLY edits on Misplaced Pages made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user. Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN.") 64.252.140.128 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it. I suppose that leaves everyone with the question of "what now, and where do we go from here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A two week block for a first-time edit warrior, where the more experienced User:Centpacrr who behaved at least as badly, gets away scot free, and the ip is left a very generic block message that does not clearly explain why they were blocked. Nobody acted particularly well in this incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of the OP doing anything that can't be explained by confusion and/or exasperation (@64.252.140.12 - OP stands for "original poster", in this case you), and no attempt seems to have been made to alleviate this. The experienced editors should have known better than to assume bad faith. I don't think the OP was at fault in any way, and that a simple apology isn't too much to ask for. – ClockworkSoul 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  If the experienced editors had evidence/were convinced they were dealing with a sock, should they be WP:AGF? I am not sure what they were basing their "sock" conclusions on. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

0.159 made only one edit that led to the sock accusation. The edit does not appear to be vandalism so I don't know what prompted the allegation. I presume Centpacrr was being beset by Filmcracker, so just assumed the next edit was a sock of his. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can speak from experience that this is an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, the core of our assume good faith policy is to ensure that due diligence be taken before such accusations are made, and hopefully dampen the very human tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. – ClockworkSoul 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The user that started this thread, 64.252.140.128, is an IP sockpuppet of a known Long-term Abuser, wikistalker, and disruptive editor who was banned from editing by the community as User:Techwriter2B and other socks (See: Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/Techwriter2B) for his/her misconduct on Misplaced Pages going back more than three years. He/she has been stalking me personally since early May. He/she also DID NOT advise me of the existance of this thread which is another violation of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow down there, Centpacrr. Let's take a step back and assume for a moment that 64.252 really is an innocent bystander caught in anti-vandalism crossfire. Would you expect them to know the intricacies of WP policies and procedures? Also, I'm not certain, but I think this practice is just good etiquette. Please correct me if I'm wrong. – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No this is NOT an innocent who is not familiar with WP. I personally have been dealing with this disruptive user for four months (and other editors for more than three years) and know his/her techniques, writing style, "tall tales", and other practices VERY WELL. You will find them all described in detail on the LTA page for this user who was banned from editing by the community last month. He/she has started many threads such as this one over time about me and many other editors whom he/she has stalked using exactly this same language and technique of pretending to be a innocent, inexperienced, good faith editor who has been abused by others and "seeking the help" of editors who are not familiar with his/her fantastic fabrications. (You will also notice that when asked to identify the "church" or "organization" at which he/she was a "volunteer" as before he/she refused to do so because, it seems pretty clear, there is no such church or organization. This user (as User:Techwriter2B) has also attacked my contributions with which he/she "did not agree" by pretending to be a "writing student" commenting on the Stephen Ambrose page as a "school assignment" with a disingenuous screed which was quickly removed by an admin and resulted his/her community ban from editing Misplaced Pages.) Please READ THE RECORD. Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've looked over the LTA page, and it makes a solid case against Techwriter2B, but I still haven't seen anything that implicated the OP as being TW2B, except for having the misfortune of using an AT&T-registered address in Connecticut. You may very well be right, but I don't think it's wise to bring out the ban hammer until some vandalism actually occurs (since it so often leads to long-winded discussions such as these). WP:AGF isn't based on soft-headed idealism: it's WP policy because it has practical consequences. – ClockworkSoul 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B. 81.145.247.239 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also here and here for further evidence as to exactly who this IP is a sockpuppet of. His/her record of disruption to the WP is both legion and unambiguous. Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept your accusations, (personally not convinced yet) why did you even bother edit warring over a template on a talk page if you really believe that? Why not report at WP:SPI or contact an admin familiar with this case? Ever heard of deny recognition, do not feed the troll, or revert, block, ignore? These are much better approaches in such a situation. Edit warring never solves anything, especially if you believe the person you are warring with is a block evading troll. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you show that the OP isn't just a person who also happens to be editing from the same general geographic location? No vandalism was actually performed by the account, after all. – ClockworkSoul 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I'm not sure I'm seeing this at all. You list under habitual behaviour "pretending to be a church", but the ONLY example you give is this one. So it isn't habitual behaviour at all. There's no evidence anywhere that this is your disruptive stalker other than being an ATT customer in Connecticut (not in Stratford according to WHOIS). Is there more somewhere? I note you had Filmcracker blocked for editing an article that one of the stalker victims edited, even though he/she was making productive edits, on the grounds that they were building up an alibi - since when did we start doing that? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now I really don't understand something here. When freshacconci explained the IP address thing (above) he said, "Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use." I thought that meant that since we now have a new IP address someone else now has our old one. And if our IP address changed in the past, someone had 64.252.0.159 before we did. Am I wrong about that? If that's the case, then how can you tell who is engaging in the vandalism or whatever Centpacrr is complaining about? I looked at the edits made from 64.252.0.159, and I don't see any problems. How can Centpacrr claim that those edits were made by someone else? This makes no sense at all. I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I have been forced to deal with this disruptive wikistalker since May and know his/her techniques, writing style, practices, etc VERY WELL. (The posting immediately above is a perfect example.) Look at the many Wikilinks on the LTA page and you will see that this is the same individual who has wasted hundreds of hours or my and many other editors' time with his/her disruptive editing. There is just no doubt about it AT ALL. None. Centpacrr (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you have failed to convince anyone here of that I would say there is considerable doubt. I also don't see how you are being "forced" to deal with them, why you chose to edit war over the tag, and why you did not contact an admin familiar with this or file at SPI when you believed you found another sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to deal with this user because he/she stalked and vandalized many articles on which I was a major contributor. (They are listed on the LTA page.) The issue of the false organization tag is only a very minor issue in the whole picture and was resolved quickly by an admin (whom the IP again complains about above). Once it was resolved I did not bring it up again, it was the IP user who did so by opening this thread. The admins who earlier blocked and banned this user have been notified of this thread and I will leave it up to them deal with the current issue. Centpacrr (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have time to read through all the intricacies of this thread right now, but it’s clear to me that this user is the same individual as Techwriter2B, Filmcracker, etc. He has a long history of mostly using anonymous IPs to post (only occasionally using a registered ID – e.g. only one posting occurred under the Techwriter2B username). All the IPs localize not just to CT, but to the general vicinity of Stratford CT. A bunch of his (i.e. this banned user’s) prior edits were made from 64.252.*.* (he’s been using this IP range for two or three years). The IP which was blocked by Ohnoitsjamie, 64.252.0.159, was used to edit The High and the Mighty (film), in conjunction with his Filmcracker account, as part of a pattern of wikistalking of Centpacrr. He also has a long history of professing complete innocence, denying identity with his previous socks, and claiming that some terrible mistake was made. When specific information is required/requested he goes vague (e.g. “The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Misplaced Pages.”). If you’ve dealt with him for a while, you’ll see that the tone, syntax, nature of his pleas, etc. closely matches with his posting above. The following is classic Techwriter2B: “Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that ‘the text immediately below which is not mine either.’ Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord.” He also has a long history of making frequent complaints at forums (such as this one), often claiming to be a victim of abuse by other editors. Everything here fits his long-term general pattern. Eurytemora (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Any actual evidence of this. Because I can't see it in the links I've been presented with so far. Instead I'm seeing things like a genuine problem (admittedly raised by a forum shopper and eventually agreed not to be serious) with a COI concerning Centpacrr, I'm seeing this Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see , ). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Misplaced Pages over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See ) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) - those edits don't actually seem to be against consensus .There is nothing connecting the 12 series to Techwriter2BMisplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/12.76.155.54. All these may be the disruptive sock of one person, but I'm concerned about the quality of evidence being presented. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the contributions of the accounts on the LTA page. After further review, this is seriously ducky and both IPs need to be blocked for a far longer period. All of the accounts including the OP have made edits to Stephen Ambrose related pages. One of them has harassed Centpacrr before. This one claimed to be a public computer and did not want talkpage messages left (much as this one has). Here's another one that removed the WHOIS notice from their talkpage, claiming ownership. Here one claims that the IP address is shared with his "staff" which is doing the vandalism. This one calls Centpacrr a crackpot and also makes a very similar edit to The High and Mighty as our current guest did. --Smashville 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Smashville is correct. Everyone involved with him long-term recognizes that it’s the same guy. Even regarding the 12.76 series SPI – note that a 64.252.*.* IP (specifically, 64.252.28.1) was used to try to forge an admin signature to terminate the investigation. SarekOfVulcan gave an indef block to Techwriter2B since it was clear that he was the same individual as the anonymous IP editor. This has all been discussed to death previously. It seems that every time he pops back up we go through it again (now, he’s even a banned user, and it’s still happening).Eurytemora (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dude. Just go create an account. It's not that hard, and it will solve the problems you're complaining about here. Case closed. Bye. SnottyWong 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Good spot, but no further action needed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have removed the rights since he hasn't abused them specifically, but it's not really a big deal; I don't see swarms of users protesting the action either. With his recent behaviour, I'm not confident he would use the tools correctly, and in any case I have no objection to him requesting reinstatement of the reviewer/rollback rights if he gets his act together. That would be at the discretion of an admin as usual. GiftigerWunsch 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – warned by Rjanag

Unresolved – I've blocked GPW, review is invited. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Users and underlying IP range blocked. –MuZemike 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For interested admins (and observers), I'd like to call to attention this guy's talk page: User talk:Vrghs jacob. It seems that he has a pattern of disrupting articles with subtle vandalism and hiding the disruption with edit comments like "update" and marking them as minor.

Resolved – Indef blocked for a beyond-the-pale PA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – article deleted and salted.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards