Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:40, 16 February 2006

• 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 admin 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

George Steinbrenner - defamation

Drtjumper has posted defamatory vandalism on the George Steinbrenner article. I reverted his changes and he has been banned indefinitely, but someone may want to actually delete the edit, particularly considering the subject. Kafziel 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin taking it upon himself to veto IFD results and delete images himself

User:Wgfinley is going around making snap decisions on what constitutes fair use himself and removing and deleting images outright that he disagrees with, even ones that he unsuccessfully put through IFD and were kept because they did meet fair use guidelines. See User talk:Wgfinley for some discussion, where a number of users inclusing an admin on the IFD project all tried to talk to him without success. He is ingoring comments from people trying to explain the concept to him, treating anyone questioning his actions as "uncivil" behavior" and refusing to undo his deletions. Can we please get this person to stop playing cowboy and enforcing his own ideas of rules on the project?

Furthermore, we are seeing more and more cases where admins are just doing whatever the heck they want because they want to and not following any policy or listening to otehr editors or admins... It'd be nice if other admins and ArbCom members would actually stand up and show that this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. This is becoming more and more like the Wild West here, with people who are in the worst position to be making decisions going ahead and doing them and daring everyone else to do anything about it. DreamGuy 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately images can't be undeleted, which makes this sort of behaviour even more unacceptable. It certainly seems clear that Wgfinley has drifted into behaviour outside his remit as an admin. I've left him a message pointing this out, and asking him to put images through the appropriate channels in future. We're all human, and can all act over-hastily on occasion, but should try not to make a habit of it, as the discussions on his Talk page indicate that he is.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Given that the Foundation's lawyer has recently explicitly said that on en: admins should delete if in doubt (on foundation-l) — and that he refers you to what the Foundation's lawyer has said — I suspect it's possible he's right and you're not, and legal exposure is not really something that's up for a vote or straw poll. Don't let me hold you back, though - David Gerard 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Legaly any claim of fair use is in doubt until it has been through the courts. Since this is not the case with any[REDACTED] images we would have to delete every fair use image in order to follow that directive.Geni 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the discussion on User talk:Wgfinley referred to above, you will see examples such as AP photos being claimed "fair use" when the copyright holder has expressed actual pissed-offness about us claiming that, and that the Foundation would rather not do that unnecessarily. But again, don't let me talking about the case at hand hold you back from going from specific to general and back to a different specific as if it's related to what I said (strike undue snappiness) - David Gerard 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen every abuse of fair use you can think of. I know how bad things are. I was just pointing out the legal advice is pretty useless. Personaly I would have orphan the image (since it isn't fair use in this case). Re-educate anyone who objected and then wait for the normal deletion of orphan fairuse images to take place.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about me snapping at you like that - David Gerard 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Geni. Jtkiefer ---- 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tempting as killing every fairuse image would be I can think of a few narrow areas in which they are legit.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

edit-conflict It looks like one of our articles about a porn star was using a DVD cover as an illustration of her, rather than to identify the film in question. We probably shouldn't do that. We certainly shouldn't vote on WP:IFD to allow that. As far as I can tell, the only interesting things here are why User:Wgfinley deleted this image and not the thousands of other images used in precisely the same wrong way, and why anyone is making a fuss about the deletion of an image of a DVD cover, which is surely replacable if we ever have a legitimate use of it. Jkelly 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that one set of complaints about the deletions is plainly inappropriate. This set of disputed deletions (example at Image_talk:Adele_Stevens.jpg) required the insertion of linkspam -- not simply a copyright credit -- as a condition for image use, and essentially required Misplaced Pages to accept advertising links. It's hard to see how any responsible editor would not have deleted all such images on sight, given the copyright holder's position. Monicasdude 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy that removal of fair-use images from articles where they're not used fairly is good parctice. I'm also happy that sometimes images are claimed to be fair use when they're not. I'm not happy about three points, though.

1. David Gerard seems to be saying that, because in some of the cases discussed on Wgfinley's Talk page he was in the right, therefore he's beyond criticism, full stop. That's such an obvious logical fallacy that I can't believe that he meant it, but I'm unsure what he did mean.
2. The existence of the image on Misplaced Pages can't be fair use or non-fair use in itself, because it's not being used. Fair use applies to the use being made of an image. If I up-load an image in preparation for genuinely fair use in an article, is Wgfinley entitled to leap in before I can go further and delete it on the grounds that it's not fair use yet, because it's not linked to an article?
3. Kim Bruning has followed my comment at User talk:Wgfinley by saying essentially that I'm wrong, and asking to talk privately about the matter because it's "political". OK, ignoring the last bit of characteristic ostentatious cloak and dagger stuff, his reason is that Misplaced Pages policy is: "if in doubt, zap it". Are we really supposed to accept that any admin can delete an image because of a feeling of doubt, even when a group of other editors have discussed the issue and decided that the image is OK? When did admins gain these god-like powers of discrimination, and why was I left out?

   I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, elsewhere I have been stating that I may well have to concede that you are correct. Kim Bruning 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oh, a fourth point. We're supposed to put up with sarcastic attacks from one of the finger-waggers because we go against what some nameless faceless lawyer said on some forum of which many of us aren't members? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

not nameless, not faceless. --BradPatrick 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use is a key part of fair use. You've got a week to get the image into an article (probably longer becuase it will take a while for people to find it).Geni 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine: we put a tag on the image, let the up-loader know, and after a week the image can be deleted if no objection is raised or consensus reached. We don't take a quick look and delete, especially after an IfD has been held and passed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wether or not an image listed as fair uses has been in an article for a week is an objective criteria. There are no posible objections that can be made.Geni 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we would get a lot further here if some of the inflammatory tones could be avoided, I won't cite chapter and verse, it's pretty obvious and there's major contributor on my user page already. I have explanations on what I did on each of these pages. Why did I delete them out of process? Because the process is broke. IFD is a broken, it's a cesspool of stuff that sits there and gets deleted. If someone has a gripe about their image they post it there and their image is spared because the vast majority of images on IFD have little or no input. That's not a good sign of community support, it's a sign of indifference.

Frankly, I don't know why copyvio isn't a speedy category and it should be. But, I'll admit it, I saw the email on Foundation and I chose to make a stand with those images -- two were as blatant copyvios as they come, had no fair use rationale provided, were link spam and incorrectly tagged several time before Fair Use was the fallback option. The other I was making a point that these images are frequently being abused and, as frequently happens, someone goes to fix the abuse only to get reverted. I removed the image being abused.

The two other images, again, blatant obvious copyvios and should be framed as examples of such -- I have yet to hear any argument here that states these images are not copyvios, just that what I did was out of process. So, what's more important, the process or the fact that copyvios get removed and protect Misplaced Pages from exposure to litigation? If the answer is that avoiding litigation is more important than great, let's do something about fixing the process. I don't wish to set a precedent that any admin can delete such images on site (although I think two of these are incredibly obvious), I was trying to correct something that's broken. --Wgfinley 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't like IFD? That ok we have WP:CP instead. Want to speedy copvios? You can CSD A8.Geni 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I considered that but since A8 applies to articles I didn't think that would work. The problem with WP:CP is that there's not much image traffic there, everything seems to go to IFD. Maybe that's a correction that would work here but the page is usually in need of admin attention. If you look at the very top of WP:CP right now you'll see what drew my attention to this in the first place. --Wgfinley 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then start putting together a consensus for A8 to be expanded beyond the article space. WP:CP deals with images quite frequently.Geni 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I wonder if it would be helpful to prominently place a disclaimer like the following:

If your contribution to Misplaced Pages is material under a non-free license, and you claim that it is "fair use", please accept that it may be removed or even permanently deleted at any time for reasons that may appear capricious or nonsensical to you, and that you may never receive a compelling explanation.

If we are really moving to a "If in doubt, delete" position on copyright infringements defended by a "fair use" claim, we can't rely either upon a somewhat difficult-to-parse remark on a mailing list very few editors read, nor upon WP:OWN, nor upon the diplomatic or consensus-building skills of those people who are volunteering to deal with image policy, nor upon every logged-in user understanding WP:FU. This issue has been generating an enormous amount of ill-will. We should invest the time in thinking about a way to reduce the level of antagonism. Jkelly 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a warning sounds good to me. It might stem the flood of non-free images. --Carnildo 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would generally be in favour of a warning something like that. I think that the problem is that a lot of users don't really understand copyright law. Even experienced users don't always know when something is fair use (fair use is a very tricky concept) or in the public domain. A lot of users don't really understand that Misplaced Pages is a free encyclopedia, and that copyvios are a major risk to that idea. I think that we definitely need to emphasise more the importance of copyright compliance to the project. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be expanded upon at WP:OWN. That guideline should probably mention contributions not even vaguely owned by the contributor in the first place. Jkelly 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating CSD

I have been bold and updated CSD I5 to reflect the new policies that the Foundation apparently wants. I know David Gerard thinks that process killed his puppy dog, but maybe next time he could take the 3 minutes it takes him to think up witty barbs of well-meaning editors and admins and update the policy or talk pages, instead. Nandesuka 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Speedy Deletion overrides all else again eh? specifically Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, and Misplaced Pages:Fair use today, I see :-)

This is in fact the official CSD "owners'" position, see: , where the explicit statement was removed as rejected.

Ah well, good luck getting it to stick by the way. I hope it works, because that will save me some sleepless nights. Thanks. :-) Kim Bruning 13:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled it. The current version is fine since all it requires you to do is orphan the image then wait for a week. Patience is an important traint in an admin. Even in it's current version it is still far more liberal than A8.Geni 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to wait for a week to delete copyvios. --Ryan Delaney 16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, policies describe what it is that we do. It is clear that there is a Foundation mandate to delete images for which bogus fair use claims are made. Given that, it should be in the policy. Nandesuka 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of mistakes that have been made (will people please remeber that mirrors exist) I think it is reasonable to have to wait a week. Remeber A8 exists for obvious cases.Geni 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Having trouble blocking a user?

I don't know why this is, but there is a vandal who I have attempted to block completely, yet they seem to still be able to edit quite often. If you look at User talk:Odin of Valhalla, it lists all of the IPs this user uses, all of which have indefinite blocks on them at this point. And yet, even today the user seems to have been able to go through and vandalize the same page again (they insist on inserting erroneous and out of date information into List of countries with nuclear weapons, despite having been talked to about this for a number of weeks now and given about a thousand warnings). What gives? Am I doing something wrong here with the blocking? Why are they are able to still edit pages? --Fastfission 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, 69.218.202.201 (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely on 9 Feb 2006 but was able to vandalize up a storm on 10 Feb 2006. --Fastfission 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  The shortest active block takes precedence and overrides all longer ones. (You also should almost never indef block an IP: knock them out for 1 month, 3 months or something, but not forever.) -Splash 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should really only block an IP for 24 hours. Secretlondon 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's an open proxy, of course, which can be blocked indefinitely. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've converted most of those IP blocks to a month, I hadn't realized that they shouldn't be blocked indef but I can see why. So, is the answer here to my general question: I should "unblock" the other blocks and then "re-block" with the one I really want? --Fastfission 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't block a range of IP addresses for a month as per policy because of the collateral damage. 24 hours please. Secretlondon 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't a range, it is a set of a few addresses this one fellow seems to use, and nobody else seems to use. Two of them in particular seem to be his primary IP and it seems relatively fixed (at least one is a public terminal at a library, a few of the others are probably things of this nature). The fellow returns every day to vandalize and does little else, and I think the IPs that look static could easily be justified as blocked for over 24 hours, though I'm happy with reducing the blocks in the other cases (though again without any evidence of collateral damage I'm hard pressed to see it as a bigger problem than a repeat vandalizer, but I digress). In any event, my main question is still unanswered about the technical nature of it, not the policy of it. --Fastfission 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy on IP blocks is clear - I am really politely asking you to stick to it - or I will have no choice to revert you. Secretlondon 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There are always choices. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the tech aspect in this instance either: there was an expired (24 hr) block from 4 Feb, then several indef/1 month blocks on 10/11 Feb starting at 01:20 on 10 Feb. No unblocking or shorter blocks logged until 19:10 on 11 Feb, yet a bunch of contributions from the IP in the intervening period. What gives? Rd232 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Forking Underway

Not sure where to broach this issue. If this isn't the correct place, please let me know.

The naked short selling page was semi-protected after vandalism. Users were requested to go to the talk page before making any changes.

Recently, a disgruntled user and others have engaged in POV Forking by creating an article entitled Failure to Deliver Stock. This article has not yet been Wikified, but can be located, via external link, here. One of the principal authors of this article is User:Bobobrien, who is Bob O'Brien, head of the coalition against naked short selling (NCANS).

This article combs out one aspect of the naked shorting controversy and builds an entire article around it. Most of this article is a discussion of naked short-selling from the point of view of the anti-shorting camp. It is a textbook case of POV Forking, if ever there was one. --Mantanmoreland 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention fairly horrendously written. What is all that Pro, Con clutter? If this is not a POV fork it is at least a mangled article. One puppy's opinion. Nom it for deletion, POV fork. KillerChihuahua 22:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because this is essentially a duplicate naked short selling page, substituting "FTD" for "naked short selling" and skewing the whole thing from an anti-shorting perspective.

I think this is such an egregious copycat that it might be a candidate for speedy deletion. However, since it has not been wikified, it has no internal link and I am not sure the mechanics of proposing for either type of deletion.--Mantanmoreland 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

List on Afd, stating that it is a POV fork of naked short selling. Btw, the NSS article is better, but the FTD title is better, IMHO. KillerChihuahua 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Muhamed (All contribs)

Can someone please process/sort this rather problematic user. --Cool Cat 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's report

1. Category:Kurdistan tagging.
   • Problematic edit summaries and edits (appears numerous times): "Removing Pro Türkish-Mongolian propaganda" while adding Category:Kurdistan at random articles.
   • The only "real" response I got to my inqueries regarding the mass taging of articles was "Bozmongols do not have in Wikipedi to searches!!!! I mean you". I am not sure what that supposed to mean, I do not think it was intended to enligten me.
   • My attempts to comunicate with him ultimately resulted with: "ach siktir Lan" . As my language skills in Turkish are less than perfect, I asked the meaning of "ach siktir Lan". I am told "siktir Lan" translates to "Fuck off" in Turkish although people are puzzled on the meaning of "ach".
2. User uploaded Image:IraqiKurdistan DeFacto.jpg with randomly drawn borders with random red markings also supposively locates him. (I seriously doubt image is GNU compatible).
   • Also modified Iraqi Kurdistan including his image over the rather standard[REDACTED] one.
   • This is the same image as de:Bild:Die derzeitige Demarkationslinie Kurdische Autonome Region.jpg, which has more details on copyright status. The GFDL claim may well be valid. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
     • The de one was probably uploaded by the same user, though. So it doesn't really answer anything except that he/she probably speaks German. --Fastfission 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
       • Well, the German image description says it was created using public domain map sources. See the links in the license box. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. My RFA (Trolling?)
   • Voted oppose (which alone is fine as everyone entitled to their opinion) with "I please you Pleas, Cool Cat is an Turkish Nationalis is not got Administrator"
   • And the posted a simmilar "comment" on following pages: Misplaced Pages talk:Esperanza , User talk:Aranda56 , User talk:Dynamo ace
   • German User talk:Banes , User talk:Dmn
4. User:MARMOT?
   • Conviniant apperance of MARMOT sockpuppet (User:Austim boy ) implies user may be a MARMOT sock... However my checkuser request has so far been unanswred and hence this is mere speculation at this stage.

   --Cool Cat 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is presumable the same user as de:Benutzer:Muhamed, who seems to be a perfectly legitimate contributor on the German Misplaced Pages. Their English doesn't seem too good, which may partially explain the communication difficulties here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to conclude that they're the same user, may I ask? 86.133.53.58 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that a) they have the same username, b) they edit similar articles, c) they have uploaded the same images, d) they have similar user pages, e) they both claim to be Kurdish, and e) they both write fluent German (and not so fluent English). Either they're the same user, or the one here is a very good imposter. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Skull 'n' Femurs sockpuppeting again

Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) is at it again, this time as Darth Dalek (talk · contribs). I blocked him for 72 hours this time and left a "Stop it." message on his talk page. Here's to better behaviour in future - David Gerard 23:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O dispute

I've recently been cleaning out the backlog at WP:3O. It finally got cleared a couple days ago. I noticed a new entry in there today, gave my 3rd Opinion and deleted it from the log, clearing the list. One of the two users did not agree with my intervention, saying that I was not neutral, as I had been in a dispute with that user before, and called them a vandal. The user reverted my deletion of the listing on WP:3O, and disputed my actual opinion that I gave. As I'm now a party to the dispute, there are now more than precisely two people involved, and thus the listing does not meet the guidelines for listing on WP:3O: specifically

"This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people. If more are involved, try convincing—or coming to a compromise with—the other people. If that fails, try other Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures."

and

"If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it from the list below (regardless of whether you listed it in the first place). If you provide a third opinion in any disagreement below, please remove it from the list."

I cannot continue removing the listing without violating the 3 revert rule. Furthermore, I'm very upset with this users conduct. I was trying to help out, and I was treated with bad faith, and personally attacked. My wikistress level is very high right now from all this. I'm requesting that an adminstrator delete the listing at WP:3O, and furthermore come in as a mediator over the actual dispute on the page itself (Talk:Crime against humanity.) ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is the first time I have ever heard of WP:3O. --Golbez 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I found out about it by accident while looking through the backlog template. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I thought it was some sort of oblique reference to C-3PO. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:PistolPower

Abusive taunts on several talk pages including mine. Wyss 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And mine, and User talk:Ashibaka's too. AnAn 03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

and, the worst one of all (which I deleted), . There are many more. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all vios, but that last one is... way beyond any open-minded stretch of acceptability. Wyss 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours for his absolutely blatant incivility. Jtkiefer ---- 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As per a request from another editor who has been helping PistolPower I have reduced the block to 31 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 07:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kengineer (talk • contribs)

As I recall from a few incidents during hurricane katrina,[REDACTED] *might* have a block-on-sight policy for blantent white supremacists, somebody look into this--152.163.100.65 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a block on sight semi-policy for vandals who vandalize high-traffic pages with racist crap; being a white supremacist (if he is) is not in itself a blockable offense. Any more than being a pedophile is. *chuckle* --Golbez 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is that funny?--152.163.100.65 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, a recent wheel war over some templates. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. (I actually think someone should create Misplaced Pages:Lamest wheel wars ever to discuss this and other admin-level conflicts. --Blu Aardvark | 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Make it a category. As time goes on, it appears it will fill to the brim... Tomer 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Request Urgent Help

Note: This post was archived a few hours after it was posted on Feb 11. I have just now copied and pasted it here, complete with the original date and time stamp. The other posts in Archive 72 have no activity since Feb. 4 or 5. Is this the way archiving works? S Scott 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

User 209.215.39.5 has this page attacking the Shiloh Shepherd (Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd & Rare Breed Questions) and now attacking on the actually Shiloh Shepherd talk pages. This user is also known as Wolfin_42 (Special:Contributions/209.215.39.5, Talk:Shiloh Shepherd & Rare Breed Questions) (also signed post as Lisa Trendler) posted a message on Shiloh Shepherd Dog Talk Page revealing personal information of other editors and numerous personal attacks on them. While it is understood that this editor has a personal vendetta, it is felt that the revert by Dixen is a different matter.

Edit was rv’d by ShenandoahShilohs for violation of Wiki WP:PA and WP:Harrassment policy.

Post was rv’d back by editor Dixen with comment “too late to get self-righteous now”.

Dixen has never previously posted on Shiloh Shepherd talk page/article. I checked Dixen’s other contrbs and found the majority have been made to article “Joomla” Special:Contributions/Dixen .

Found administrator Jareth to be common and frequent mediator/administrator/contributor for both Joomla and Shiloh Shepherd and to have previously communicated with Dixen.

Please note: And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page or heck, poke me and I'll answer. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC User talk:Dixen

Please note: "re:Hey" on Jareth's talk page: Jareth: "One of my major mediation feats was completely behind the scenes - when Joomla! split off of Mambo, someone thought Misplaced Pages needed an entry on the new CMS. I did a lot of coaching..." (User talk:NSLE/Archive A#Archive 3)

Please see: Jareth's Request for Admin: "One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality."

Please note, Admin Jareth recently resigned as mediator on Shiloh article, due to conflicts/controversy with other Shiloh editors, and is involved in RFA against them. WP:RfAR We find this coincidence, extremely concerning.

Please consider block/ban of users 209.215.39.5(aka Wolfin42). Please perform check user for User talk:Dixen and User:Jareth. Please monitor Shiloh Shepherd Dog article/talk page for further WP:PA, WP:Harrassment, and and hostile reverts. Please take any/all other necessary actions as warranted.

Thank you. |||Miles.D.|||

Jareth has now posted to my talk page MilesD. that this Admin Incident Board request for a user:check of Jareth and Dixen is "For the record, you're accusing my husband and I of being sockpuppets -- if you'd like, I can provide my phone number so you can personally verify." In referring to what she has written, I am assuming she is revealing "Dixen" to be her husband's Wiki account, since we had no idea who "Dixen" might be when we filed this Incident report. If this is the case and her husband's account (Dixen) was used to revert back a post with edit summary "too late to get self-righteous now", which contains numerous PAs and the revealing of Personal Info about an editor, this is really troubling. Also, the fact that this request was "archived" within hours of it being posted and before other admins had a chance to review or comment about it, is also troubling. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I smell sockpuppetry afoot; other admins, beware. MilesD originally added this comment, but it was edited wantonly by ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) (, , ). Then after Crypticbot (talk · contribs) archived the page, it was S Scott (talk · contribs) who restored this message. () I smell a rat. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am hardly a sockpuppet. MilesD asked me to help fix the internal links as the way it was done were not working. While doing so, I was asked to clarify some wording. I am an interested and concerned party in this notice as the post that was written by User 209.215.39.5, and then revert back by Dixen revealed personal information about me. ShenandoahShilohs 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you really should clarify this. It's not good to edit others' comments without explaining why. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and will be more careful.ShenandoahShilohs 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, would it be possible then for you and other admins to look into our request for assistance with this situation we have brought to this incident board? Perhaps you may find some other reasons to "smell a rat". Further investigation on your part would be most appreciated. Thanx much. |||Miles.D.||| 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any wrong-doing; partners in relationships often have vast differences in behaviour (compare arbitrator Mindspillage (talk · contribs) and her partner, Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)). It wouldn't be surprising if Dixen was in the wrong and Jareth had nothing to do with his actions. Your initial post is also lacking a lot of context, which makes it very difficult to probe. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The questions don't involve "partners" opinions. The questions involve 1) a user "209.215.39.5", who posted the personal info about another user (definite evidence of Wiki wrong-doing), which has never been revealed by that targeted user on Wiki nor on his/her kennel website. 2)After removal, this post was rv'd in its entirety (including personal info) by a user (Dixen) who h

as never posted to this talk page/article before. This editor's (Dixen's) only "tie" to this talk page/article is then revealed by the very administrator (Jareth), who is heavily and controversially involved in this talk page/article, and is the initiator of an RFA against other editors (including one whose personal info was revealed in the post), as being her "husband". 3)then, when removed again for violation of WP:Harrassment, that administrator (Jareth) refactors it, claiming no personal info was included and no personal attacks against editors are included. Please review:

So, a post involving and revealing PA's/Personal Info about editors is rv'd/refactored twice, once by an editor (Dixen), who has never in any way posted/contributed before to this talk page/article and who Jareth has now identified as her "husband" and then once by an administrator (Jareth) who is pursuing an RFA she has filed against some of the very editors targeted by this post. It should also be noted that it appears the original poster 209.215.39.5 was neither warned nor blocked by admin Jareth for this post and the serious Wiki violation it committed with its WP:PA/WP:Harrassment content and this personal information is still visible for everyone to read in history.

If you see no potential problems or violations here, I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. Thanx much. |||Miles.D.||| 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, either. My contributions indicate my participation in the Shiloh Shepherd discussion since late Dec., '05. My apologies for the confusion. It's confusing to us, too. MilesD. was puzzled about why their message disappeared from this page only a few hours after it was posted. I found it in the most recent archive and put it back on this page, since this is an urgent matter, and Administrators had so little time to respond before it was archived. Regards, S Scott 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

The participants in this dispute seem to be all involved in sustained disputes regarding the breeding and marketing of Shiloh Shepherds. They know each other by name already. Use of first names on the talk page of the article is of minimal significance. When and if the Arbitration Commitee hears this case I will almost certainly advocate that no one involved in the current controversy over the breeding and selling of Shiloh Shepards should be allowed to edit the article. Your quarrels belong elsewhere, not here, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Fred Bauder 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Background information

I have every reason to believe that MilesD., S Scott, and ShenandoahShilohs are not sockpuppets. They have three very different email addresses. They are not meatpuppets either. Meatpuppets are new editors who are asked to be involved in a dispute to provide a false consensus. These have all been ongoing editors of the article in dispute. The ArbCom has accepted this case. Robert McClenon 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clients: Please do not quarrel here while keeping me out of the loop. You asked me to advocate for you before the ArbCom. I am trying to do that. If you must request emergency action, the ArbCom can issue temporary injunctions. It is disruptive to be arguing the same behavior both here and in arbitration. Robert McClenon 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

There seems to have been lots of editing lately on his article, with entire sections having been taken out, and redone, possibly from copyvio content, or something. It seems like there's been lots of unsupervised editing lately, but I don't know enough about him to really tell if the edits in the past ~5-10 days seem legitimate. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Designatedhitter

I would like all of his contributions to be deleted, as they involve slandering me. I've blocked him indefinitley (sp?), but I would not like the contributions there. Sceptre 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean removing them from the history, there's no reason to do that. It's just slander. Now, if it were personal information, then that would be a case, but just blank/delete them and move on. --Golbez 11:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo has made it pretty clear that it's preferable to delete libelous material from page histories, particularly if the aggrieved party wishes it to be done. · Katefan0/poll 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... after looking at the contribs, it seems more like juvenile vandalism than anything else. · Katefan0/poll 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. Admins needs to simply ignote this kind of sillyness. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Libel makes it quite clear: It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history. However, I haven't read the contributions to see if they actually are slanderous. --Aaron 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the contributions, all two of them. There is neither libel nor slander involved. One is childish vandalism on the George P. Bush page, the other is mildly insulting on Sceptre's user page. No need to act, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 16:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with no need to act - also should not have been given indefinite ban - with 2 contributions probably shouldn't even have been given 24 hours. Secretlondon 17:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, a permanent block was quite an overreaction. I would expect admins to be mature enough to being insulted by trolls without getting bent out of shape about it. Friday (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I deleted his/her user page, so some of the edits are not visible. BrokenSegue 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any further action needs to be taken, but I do agree with the indefinite ban: seeing the user page that was deleted (I initially just blanked it, but I fully support its deletion), there was no possible way to assume good faith, it was a whole lot less 'mildly insulting' than the rest of those contributions. --JoanneB 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:My Cat Made Me Do It

I indefinitely blocked My_Cat_Made_Me_Do_It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a vandalism-only account (both the account name and the first edit are references to a recent slashdot article). Since it's a rather strong block for someone with a single warning, I would like for other admins to take a look. --cesarb 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero non-vandalizing contributions; mostly inserting goatse links. If they want to reform, it would reasonably seem to be to their benefit to do it under another name anyway. Shouldn't you say something on their talk page about the block, though? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if their cat made them get blocked as well. Jtkiefer ---- 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jskinner003 and James Skinner

User:Jskinner003 is adding himself to the above article (about a military figure), also added his website to David Davies (politician), David Davis, Monmouth School, Conservatism, David Cameron and Conservative Party (UK). Reverted all on first occurance, however user continues to add himself to James Skinner, I'm a bit unsure of the situation and concerned about 3RR. It seems that contributions by User:86.128.119.112, User:86.128.114.210 and User:86.128.175.213 are the same individual. I'm quite happy to continue dealing myself but would appreciate some guidance. Many thanks Ian3055 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is quite amusing. I also attend Monmouth School. Point him my way if you want to. I have just removed him from James Skinner. Sam Korn 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Request to block User:209.215.39.5

Can someone please block 209.215.39.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It has been previously warned for vandalism, and more recently posted a personal attack. This is related to the Shiloh Shepherd Dog dispute, which is an ArbCom case, but this address appears to have made no good-faith edits. Robert McClenon 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert, without an ongoing vandalism issue (i.e. continuous vandalism), blocking this IP probably wouldn't be a good idea, since it resolves to BellSouth and is likely dynamic. · Katefan0/poll 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for opinion on my block

I was blocked a few days ago for 3RR violation. The admin who blocked me was directly involved in the disagreement. I was removing a statement that I believed to be a personal attack. --It was a comment about how certain groups of people would have trouble getting into heaven.

If you have time to look into this, I would be grateful.

• Block log:
• Article history:
• My talk page: Block Comments

Thanks,--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to look into the situation. I see that you were removing another person's comments from a talk page. You violated the 3RR. An admin came along and restored the comments of another user that you removed - this does not make him involved in the disagreement. I agree with the admin's actions and would have also applied a block in the circumstances. My advice to you is to learn from the situation and never break the 3RR again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is rather harsh. I want to know if that comment was a personal attack, and if so, if I was right in removing it. Also, I have heard many times from administrators that reverting in a revert war you are mediating constitutes being involved! How can I "learn from the situation" when I still have questions? I don't appreciate being treated like dirt... I don't want to know how wrong, I was, I need to know why you "agree with the admins actions." Please don't lash out at me. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The comment was far from a personal attack, and you shouldn't be going around removing other peoples' comments anyway. Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks is an extremely disputed guideline, only generally acceptable in the most egregious of circumstances (one in which there would be no doubt about whether something was or was not a "personal attack.") · Katefan0/poll 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if I came across harsh. Sometimes my straight talking comes across more abruptly than i intend it too. Please beleive me - I was not lashing out.

I agree with the admin because removing other's comments is always considered controversial. That's not to say that you should never do it. I've done it myself many times. However you should do it very carefully. Revert warring over removing someone elses comments is very dodgy. Revert warring with an admin as well as the person who wrote the comments is disruptive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are free from the block now, so that's good. I don't think she means that as an attack; it's just rather impersonal because she may answer a lot of such questions. I'm sorry you feel hurt by the situation, but try to learn and let go of it. If someone is there strictly to mediate, they are not really involved. I have to admit I haven't read it all. But just shrug it off, and know that you've likely learned things here that will make you stronger and more prepared when you meet such situations in the future. Good luck. --DanielCD 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be disruptive. Thank you for your comments--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

My first rouge action. I've deleted the redirect despite it not being a speedy deletion candidate. I've also (slightly more provocativly) protected it against recreation

• First AfD
• Deletion review
• Second pseudo-afd

Verifiability and neutral point of view are not negotiable, and the article exists in a location where it can happily stay until these problems are corrected. Cross-namespace redirects are allowed if they are "useful" and this one is not.

brenneman 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the outcome of the deletion review (c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse) was noted at User_talk:R._fiend#Deletion_review and not contested by User:R. fiend, prior to the relisting as per Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. -- User:Docu

Please put this up for deletion at MfD, rather than speedying it. I had restored the redirect after finding two different users who had been searching for its current location (after seeing the AfD result) but hadn't found it. Usefulness includes having existing external links to the page, which this years-old list certainly has. Verifying or neutralizing statements about what is or is not unusual or list-worth is a recurring problem, and not a reason to move article content into another namespace; that's not what namespaces are for. +sj + 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They'll just have to get used to the new URL. Jeez, typing 11 more characters is hardly going to kill anyone. FCYTravis 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally at Brenneman's journey to the dark side*--Sean Black 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOIOUPN anyone?Geni 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Analogdemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users have added clearly inappropriate content to their user pages in imitation of SPUI (talk · contribs). It is clear that as a project we aren't going to permit this sort of material on user pages; c.f. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. I have removed the material in question and left notes on talk pages and have been reverted and accused of vandalism in both cases. I believe at a minimum these user pages should be protected but would support additional measures as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. If we ignore them they will get board.Geni 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an upside to escalating this. Actioning their userpages only draws further attention and perpetuates this cycle. I'm pretty sure that, if left alone, it'd dissipate. User:Adrian/zap2.js 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Threats from Amorrow/Emact/Fplay/whatever name he's using now

, . User:Zoe| 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributor on Irritable Bowel Syndrome article that is using personal attacks and threats

We need some help in dealing with a a new contributor on the Irritable bowel syndrome article. I have been called a nazi, having bias and being a vandal because their contribution was reverted even though I explained why the insertion was being reverted in the edit note. There was some discussion about this, much of it pure fabrication in the character assassination of myself, and now they have added threats to not revert their addition to the article or else. Can you please assist in how to deal with this. Ibsgroup 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of known sockpuppet User:Brian Brockmeyer

User:Brian Brockmeyer, User:Flavius Aetius and two IPs were checkuser'ed as sockpuppets of User:Almeidaisgod; all accounts have been used to POV push/edit war and evade 3RR's on similar articles (Ken Mehlman and University of Miami in particular). checkuser After noticing that User:Brian Brockmeyer had begun removing the sockpuppet notices on his userpage (aided by User:Juicedpalmeiro, who perhaps needs to be checkuser'ed as well), I added the sock tags back and asked him not to remove them unless he wants to use that account permanently and ditch the others. The response was: JuicedPalmeiro again removed the tags (replacing them with a barnstar) and Brian Brockmeyer left a message on my talk page calling me a cunt. His userpage is now protected with the sock tags intact, and I have blocked the Brian Brockmeyer account for a week for edit warring to scrub the sock tags and for his unsavory comment about me. I leave this here for other administrators to review, since the attack was made against me. · Katefan0/poll 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lopperz

I blocked Lopperz (talk · contribs) because of edits to the now-deleted "article" U suck, which read:

I will keep writing nonsense, if u want[REDACTED] to be saved then maybe u should stop the war in iraq.

u have 48 hours to decide, the fate of[REDACTED] rests wit u guys now

hahahahahahahhahahah...ahahhahahha....ahahahhah.hahah.ehh, not funny

Via email, Lopperz claims that his/her account was hacked and they have now changed the password. I have unblocked the account. Please keep an eye out. User:Zoe| 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell unblocked

I have unblocked Brainhell (talk · contribs), upon request received via info-en. A review of the circumstances of the block, conducted by myself and Antandrus could find no reason for Lucky 6.9's original accusations of personal attack, and the response by Lucky 6.9, including three blocks of Brainhell appears to me to have been disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. The parties are being notified. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without a discussion with the original blocking admin is inappropriate, and has led to Lucky 6.9 having left the project since you took the side of a harasser over a well-respected admin. User:Zoe| 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that an unblock without discussion with the blocker is automatically inappropriate. Sure, as a general rule, discussion is good. But it's up to the blocker to make the reasons for the block clear. If people looked for reasons for the block and were unable to find them, unblocking is not unreasonable. Blocking should not be done lightly, and it should be well-justified so others can easily see why it was done. Friday (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

false vandalism charges

I have been blocked for apparent repeated vandalism, but I have never vandalized a page. How does something like this happen? What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave troll (talk • contribs)

There's nothing in the block log for you, so you do not appear to be blocked--and if you are able to post here, you can't be blocked. What exactly is the problem? Antandrus (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an autoblock or a rolling IP block; those often prevent editors from editing the main article namespace while allowing them to edit the other namespaces. As to why, I have no clue, but I've seen it happen enough to think of it first when I see something like this. Essjay 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tactik and Tactik's IP erasing comments

As evidenced below, Tactik and his IP have been erasing my comments on pages, and in some cases creatively editing other user's comments to be less critical. Also, User:Muzboz User:Tobler1 and User:Andy hoffman have all been recently created and their only edits have been to vote in a poll in support of tactik, a poll in which Tactik himself has openly voted twice (once with registered, and once with IP). Clearly these are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

User:Tactik Erasing my comments: Tactic's IP erasing my comment at the bottom (as part of "cleaning up"):

Knowledge management

Dmezei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that removing citations to his own publications means that we can no longer use "his" text in this article. He tells me that if I try to use "his" text, I will be blocked for violating his copyright. Knowing how seriously we take copyright, I think you'd better know about it. And you might want to check whether his edits constitute vandalism, and whether he's violated WP:3RR. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 18:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

< defuse defuse defuse > I would like to try and calm Dme

zei down a bit, and would like to take a long look at the edits and references now deleted. I have some moderate familiarity with KM. Though I don't think you're in the wrong, JzG, it might help if you left him alone for a bit while I take a look. < / defuse defuse defuse > Georgewilliamherbert 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should have spotted this before, you are of course entirely right. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Troll

I just recently removed a slanderous comment from an article talkpage , and I am bothered by this user's comments on his user and talkpage as well. However, I decided to assume good faith and leave a welcome and small warning regarding this; I'm requesting an administator keep an eye on his contributions and dealings with[REDACTED] just to be on the safe side. -Zero 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm... looking at his user page gives that impression too. Your warning was tactful: nice work. Anyway, I'll be happy to do my part keeping my eyes on him. Thanks for the heads up. – ClockworkSoul 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He seems to have not-so-fuzzy-feelings towards User:MegamanZero. Perhaps he is yet another "Wikiterrorist" incarnation? – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never crossed these users before. Why do they hate me...? -Zero 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kikodawgzz

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

This user has recently uploaded a number of images that have been "gleaned" from various USENET postings. Because these sort of postings have absolutely have no copyright information whatsoever, I am seriously considering speedy deleting them as blatant copyvios. Comments? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, unknown copyright is not any different from copyrighted. – ClockworkSoul 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The other problem is that this user has been removing a few "no source" tags on images that (s)he has uploaded without giving any reason . Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I notice that he has also been adding source tags to images that he doesn't have the right to add them to (GNU tags, for example, to images that he claims to have taken from some USENET post). He needs to be warned sternly but fairly that this is inappropriate. If he does not or cannot shape up, a block is in order. Can somebody with a more thorough understanding of our IP policies than I do it? – ClockworkSoul 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • He's been blanking his talk page of warnings about the images. I support speedy deleting them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• "You may fire when ready, Gridley." --Carnildo 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images have been added to Kingstonjr (talk · contribs)'s non-worksafe gallery at User:Kingstonjr. Jkelly 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• He seems to be heading in the right direction. Most of the images that I check seem to have valid tags. Of course, I haven't done an exhaustive check, but he'll adapt in time, I think. – ClockworkSoul 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

KAJ/Johnski

I blocked KAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock/meatpuppet of Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has emailed me a couple of times asking me to reconsider. I mention it here so someone can review my decision if they want to. Tom Harrison 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Goatse vandal

A vandal has been creating new accounts rapidly and changing links to goatse.ca, as well as other vandalism. He has edited many warning/welcome/etc templates. He uses deceptive edit summaries like "rv vandalism" (while adding vandalism). IMO any account with this pattern should be blocked indefinitely on sight. Quarl 2006-02-14 00:13Z

• Indeed it should, if it appears that it was created for the sole reason of vandalizing. – ClockworkSoul 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Indef-banned 10 of them so far, see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#goatse_xlink_vandal. —Quarl 2006-02-14 13:23Z
    • I have to chuckle a bit... all of his account names are somehow cat related (Meow1, Meow2, Clinton's Pet, Alley cat), but right in the middle is this one: ChineseChef. Yes, I know it's wrong, but I had to chuckle out loud a bit. – ClockworkSoul 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

• User:Hall Monitor has taken it upon himself to undelete Brian Peppers despite the fact that a deletion review found no grounds to do so, and in fact was closed with a decision to delete and salt the earth. This repeated undeletion is simply designed to vote over and over and over and over again until someone gets the result they want, which is patently a manipulation of policy and an abuse of process. FCYTravis 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there was no consensus to delete this article (which was speedy deleted outside the bounds of process). In light of recent discoveries, namely that there are a group of rogue individuals who are misrepresenting themselves as members of the Peppers family and trying to poison information related to him on the internet, I felt bound to bring this to WP:AFD in an attempt to achieve consensus. We do not delete articles when there is no consensus, not the other way around, please let this sixth nomination take its course. Best regards, Hall Monitor 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  In the interest of transparency, the renomination is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination). Hall Monitor 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've redeleted the article and closed the afd. Split and repetitive discussions are harmful, and if there is consensus to undelete then we can do so. - brenneman 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hi Aaron, can you give a diff or a link to this previously agreed upon status quo? Thanks! Arkon 04:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good call, poor reason. This page should die because it's about an insignificant person and there has been a complaint. Pure and simple. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem, if I understand it correctly, is that the person who sent the complaint to UC was a hoaxer, so it sadlay isn't as simple as that. Titoxd 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree with both of the above, I'd like to make it clear that I acted only to restore the previously agreed upon status quo and not out of an attempt to enforce my personal opinon. - brenneman 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to be unaware of the evidence that UC's correspondent misrepresented him/herself. Might someone kindly provide a diff, please? Regards ENCEPHALON 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is at least on confirmed attempt to impersonate a family memeber that conincides with the timeframe of the email to UC (cheack through this list note the cronology and be prepared to wait a bit on the last one). There is a clear parth from that attempt to wikipedia. Other than that there are very few logical ways to find the article.Geni 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Geni. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't clear to me whether the complaint was genuine or not. I've shared my reservations about it since I acted upon it. I have asked the author of the complaint to substantiate their identity and they have not yet done so to my satisfaction. Whether or not the complaint is genuine, the fact remains that the content once again at Brian Peppers is an unlawful invasion of privacy even if factual. I have forwarded the original emails and a summary of the matter to the board for legal review, since a community consensus to delete appears elusive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, UC. I'm aware of assertions that a spate of emails have been sent to several individuals by persons dishonestly claiming to be related to Mr. Peppers, but had no knowledge of any evidence concerning the reliability of your correspondent. I share your view on the matter of the article itself. ENCEPHALON 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? Another page censored on an editwarrior's say-so? And the discussion closed down by the editwarriors? Why are we even bothering to pretend that we're a community that discusses things? Grace Note 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And what is the goal of this community? According to Jimbo, it's to educate. What educational value does the article have? --Nlu (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the massive, massive deletion review discussion? That discussion terminated and the article was not restored. If you wish to restore the article, then begin another discussion, on WP:DRV or here on ANI. Don't expect that a unilateral undeletion and after-the-fact "discussion" is going to be supported. FCYTravis 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, god forbid that you should support discussion. Grace Note 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wanted to open up another discussion about whether something should be undeleted, I'd be fine with that. FCYTravis 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an AfD. It didn't form a consensus to delete, so you guys acted unilaterally, "fucked process" and killed the article. You want the discussion in DRV so that you can ignore that you had no consensus to delete and can't get one, but when we discussed it in DRV, there was a fairly even split. The presumption is to keep, not delete articles. Well, I mean Misplaced Pages's presumption is. Clearly, YMMV. Grace Note 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is much that I agree with in both your opinions (ie. your's & Travis'). The purpose of Deletion Review is to review decisions about the status of a page with an eye to ensuring that the preceding xFD discussion on that page arrived at a decision consistent with article policy. The threshold for re-examining an issue at the relevant xFD is deliberately set very low, so that any fair objection held by a reasonable number of people has an excellent chance of being acted on: even if just 50% of participants feel that the original decision was in some way inappropriate, the close is stayed and the page sent back to xFD for re-examination. In the Brian Peppers review, 22 users asked for a relist; however, 27 didn't—hence Aaron's close. Nevertheless, I understand your view, and indeed agree with you that claiming a delete consensus in this case is certainly out of the question: it simply doesn't exist. The article ended up at the Review not because it had been been deleted following a consensus, but because someone disagreed with UC's speedy deletion of the page over legal concerns. I happen to share that legal concern, and I think the page should not stay on WP, but I would not say that there is a consensus for the article's deletion. The corollary of course is that I think legal questions should not be decided via xFD style discussions; the day that we send copyright infringements and other legal concerns to an xFD style discussion for a decision is the day WP will be in deep shit. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What "legal concern"? Why wouldn't that "concern" apply to other people who don't want articles about themselves on the wiki? Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how "there's an AfD" is a great reason for keeping it, but that somehow wasn't a great reason for not having it the last four times it was deleted, so it kept getting re-created. Or is it only the re-creation of articles which can go against consensus? Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You know with this recent upsurge in sopport for out of policy deletion perhaps it is time to reopen the schools issue.Geni 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from deleting schools on your own say-so whenever you choose, bar your own conscience. That's what the deletion policy now seems to be. Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete this out of process. The last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted. Despite the facts that this decision may have been wrong and I agreed with it, I would have acted in the same way had I felt the opposite. One person doesn't get to decide for everyone.
brenneman 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• What process did you follow again? It seems like we're making up the rules as we go along here, can you please cite something so we can all be aware of what the new deletion policies are? From what I read, there was a near consensus to keep the article during the fifth AFD (with 2:1 in favor of keeping), it was deleted due to a hoax, then brought to WP:DRV where it was split down the middle with no consensus either way. IMHO, Hall Monitor did the right thing by reposting it to AFD in an attempt to establish a true consensus. Show me right now where "the last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted.", because I'm just not seeing it. Silensor 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I think we have a serious problem if an admin thinks that a 33% vote is a consensus to rid us of an article he personally doesn't like. Grace Note 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As I said on the deletion review and the 6th AFD, no one here is an attorney. (Please correct me if you are, you might be able to provide some insight.) I am strongly opposed to a page deletion based upon legal discussions with a Misplaced Pages editor. Any lawyer worth his/her J.D. would NEVER contact a random editor directly and demand that changes to be made to Misplaced Pages, they would contact Jimbo Wales or the board directly. Unless someone here is intimately familiar enough with the law to back up any claims of wrong-doing, and based on the lack of anyone citing exact statutes being broken I would say no one involved does; please don't play lawyer. It is a very dangerous game to play. If UninvitedCompany would have referred the person(s) sending the email to the appropriate channels, then s/he would not have been taken in by what are most likely hoaxsters. The page should be restored until word from the board says otherwise. —A 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, the email wasn't sent to me in particular. It was sent to info-en@wikimedia.org, which is the appropriate channel for such requests. I'm part of the group that answers the mail sent there, which is why I acted upon the request. There isn't enough attorney time available for a legal review of every controversey and so we're encouraged to try to deal with such emails ourselves. We average about one email a day that raises a legal issue with an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Might I humbly suggest that this particular incident merits a little of that attorney time? Although I'm not sure what they can say as this was most likely a hoax email. Perhaps they could clarify some of the "libel" concerns raised on DR. Turnstep 13:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Attorney here, as requested. Although I am not licensed in Ohio where this gentleman is located, I can tell you that there is a better than fair chance that any suit would be brought in federal court under its diversity jurisdiction and this could be brought in any number of states. One person wrote in the last AfD that "No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense." I pointed out to the writer that "having fun at his expense" is typically rephrased in the legal community as "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Let's look at what a sympathetic jury might think: Here's a guy convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a brief jail term, with literally tens of thousands of others who have been convicted of worse. Unlike most of those tens of thousands of others, he has a Misplaced Pages article. Why? Because he looks like a freak. One exhibit I would be sure to enter would be the above-referenced AfD discussion where the real reason for why there is a Misplaced Pages article: "No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense."

This gentleman is famous because he's a freak. He looks bizarre, something over which he has absolutely no control. And he is on a sex offender registry which, as mentioned in the AfD, has disclaimers up the proverbiall wazoo about not using or trusting the information.

Let me be blunt: if someone burns this guy's house down, I would not hesitate to sue Misplaced Pages. Jtmichcock 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an (apparently) common misconception that anyone thinks he should have a Misplaced Pages article based on his appearance. The only reason people believe he should have a Misplaced Pages article is because he is the subject of a notable internet meme. If it were a perfectly regular looking person as the subject of the meme, we would feel the same way. Also, for the record, he lives in a nursing home, not a house. ;) VegaDark 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that everyone who has participated on both sides have acted in good faith, the issue boils down to the fact that the two sides on this issue have different ideas of what should be included in Misplaced Pages, as there is no policy on internet memes. I think we need a policy on this before the issue will be settled. VegaDark 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see good faith in this. I see a lot of rules-lawyering and weak excuses for deleting a disturbing, but factual article on a notable person. But I agree with you on the need for a policy on Internet memes. There are articles on Misplaced Pages about people of much less "fame" than Brian Peppers, and it's revolting how certain individuals including Jim Wales, have attempted to delete articles on the false premise that a subject is not notble when they are (as was the case in the Ashida Kim article AfD). That's explicit bad faith as far as I'm concerned. --Phrost 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this unhealthy obsession with deleting and undeleting sex offenders? As far as I can see, it was deleted for a bad reason, but DRV decided not to relist it anyway. Surely that's their call to make? Is there a WP:DRVRV? Apparently not, in which case this should surely be the end of the matter, for better or for worse. --Malthusian (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, the point is that there was clearly no consensus to keep or delete the article. In cases like this, the default is normally to keep the article (with a no consensus result on the AfD). I don't see why the unilateral actions of a single admin should, in this case, change the default no consensus result to "keep deleted". --Ashenai 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Because - and please correct me if I'm getting the chronology out of order here - the last forum to consider the case was WP:DRV, and there was sufficient consensus there to keep it deleted. Fine, so it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. But that's not what DRV considered; DRV considered whether it was worth recreating the article and sending it back to AfD. They decided not to, and that decision is of the sort they are there to make. Who do you want to overturn their decision? It certainly can't be sent back to AfD because DRV reviews decisions made by AfD (and others), not vice versa. And hopefully not an admin acting unilaterally. Only person I can think of who has the authority to overturn the DRV consensus is Jimbo, and I can't imagine he'd want to spend time on this. --Malthusian(talk) 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers is not "sex offenders" he's just some poor schmuck with a congenital deformity whose picture gave puerile amusement to those with more time than compassion. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Purely in the interests of accuracy, I have to ppint out that the picture in question is displayed here. If someone would like to explain how someone gets an honorary entry on Ohio's "Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification", and how come snopes got it so wrong (Mikkelson, Barbara & David P. "Who's a Pepper?" at Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.) please elucidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider a hypothetical controversial article. 50 people want it deleted, and 40 people don't. The AfD would close with no consensus (keep) (yes, I know Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Imagine that both the pro and con people had good arguments for keeping/deleting the article).

Now, let's say that there's an admin among the 50 people wanting it deleted, who feels frustrated by the no consensus (keep) result. So he deletes the article. It is subsequentlz listed on WP:DRV. Predictably, 50 people that wanted it deleted in the first place want to keep it deleted, and the 40 people who wanted it to remain argue for undeleting it. The debate is closed with endorse deletion.

Do you not feel that this is a perversion of process? Despite the fact that no one changed their minds, the actions of one admin changed the entire fate of the article. I believe this is unacceptable, and I fail to see how anyone could feel that this is an equitable way of doing things. --Ashenai 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'd researched the issue you would know that he was convicted of a technical offence following inappropriate contact with his nurse/carer. You would also know that the first four AfDs resulted in delete, so the insistence on process is a tad hollow, what with it having been re-created against consensus several times already. So we come back to the fundamental principle: do no harm. A disabled man living in a nursing home is not a public figure, poses little or no threat to the wider community and frankly we would not even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the fact that the poor bastard was born with a congenital deformity. I'd like to hope that one day we can achieve consensus to extend WP:NOT to include "Misplaced Pages is not a freak show". Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The first four AFDs are irrelevent, as the article was completely rewritten after the fourth. The rewrite was then renominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5 which, as you know, resulted in no consensus with 42 keeps and 22 deletes. Hall Monitor 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should never have been speedied... Speedy deletion for recreation is for identical "cut & paste" restarts, not for rewrites or we'd have to speedy half the 'pedia. The article as deleted established notability and had references (which is more than I can say for 40% of the 'pedia). The fact that it was deleted under false pretenses means it should never have needed to go through DRV it should have simply been undeleted. DRV also came to the wrong conclusion since it TOO was hoaxed. There is no allen peppers, and as such Hall Monitor's actions were completely reasonable, Undelete it and re-afd it... Aaron should never have speedy closed the AFD. I say undelete it, re-afd (that would be #7 I think?) and let it run its due process.  ALKIVAR™ 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Account of the events related to Brian Peppers

The following is my an account of the events related to the Brian Peppers article:

1. (May 23, 2005) Anonymous contributor submits a zero-content article containg nothing but a JPEG image from www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us, qualifying for speedy deletion. The article is appropriately deleted within minutes.
2. (Jun 9, 2005) A combination attack-page and borderline Snopes copyvio is submitted. Article is deleted at VFD.
3. (Dec 17, 2005) After several more attack-pages, consisting of little more than "Crazed sex offender who has his own beat!" are deleted, User:Aleron235 takes the time to write a neutrally toned article complete with sources.
4. (Dec 18, 2005) User:FCYTravis takes the initiative to delete Aleron235's article, protect the page, and put the {{deletedpage}} template in its place.
5. (Dec 18, 2005) User:Tony Sidaway undeletes the article and replaces it with another article stub.
6. (Dec 18, 2005) User:Nlu renominates the rewritten article for the fifth time at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5. With 42 keeps and 22 deletes (66% keep), the AFD is closed by User:Mailer Diablo as no consensus.
7. (Feb 6, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany speedy-deletes the article, citing a belief that the content is in violation of privacy laws, and an email sent to info-en@wikimedia.org by someone purporting to be a family member. The authenticity of the email was unclear.
8. (Feb 7, 2006) User:Crotalus horridus brings the matter before Misplaced Pages:Deletion review for reconsideration.
9. (Feb 13, 2006) User:Aaron Brenneman closes the review, with 25 endorsing deletion, 22 requesting undeletion, and 2 neutrally-phrased suggestions.
10. (Feb 13, 2006) As no consensus was reached at deletion review (25/22/2), and in light of the discovery that bogus takedown requests related to Brian Peppers have been made elsewhere, it was clear that we were misguided and a recount was in order, so I renominated the article again, for the sixth time, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination) in an effort to finally achieve consensus.
11. (Feb 13, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany refers the matter to the Wikimedia board, citing legal concerns with the recreated content.
12. (Feb 13, 2006) In the midst of the renomination at AFD, the AFD was closed and the article was redeleted by User:FCYTravis, the same person who deleted Aleron235's rewrite on Dec 18, 2005. I undeleted it (twice) and politely requested on his talk page that he let the AFD take its course so that we could gain a clear consensus, one that was not tainted by misinformation such as we had in the original deletion review. In turn, he personally attacked me on my talk page.
13. (Feb 14, 2006) User:Aaron Brenneman re-deleted the article once again, closed the 6th AFD discussion, citing the lack of consensus to restore the article on deletion review. Again, this review was tainted.
14. And here we are now... Hall Monitor 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
15. (Feb 14, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany receives additional information confirming the authenticity of the email requesting article takedown.

There's been so much basketball played with this article I haven't been able to find the current place to vote on it. Where the hell is it now? --DanielCD 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, there is no place to vote on it. My suggestion is to re-open the sixth AFD and relist it tomorrow so we can put this matter to rest. Hall Monitor 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's do that, and do it all by the book so we can get on to other things. --DanielCD 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Phrost 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The last valid discussion was a Keep Deleted on DRV. Reopening an AfD is rules lawyering. User:Zoe| 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, that is simply not true. There was no consensus achieved on DRV. Hall Monitor 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's do this and get it over with, one way or another--lawfully. --Ashenai 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on some new information, I am reasonably satisfied that the takedown request is genuine at this time. That is to say, I'm as satisfied as I could be without confirmation via a phone call to a listed number or snail mail sent to a published address, or similar measures. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From ]:

3. If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands.

So this changes the debate to wether a famliy member requesting an article be removed should be good enough reason to remove it or not. VegaDark 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of voting for everything... but on what grounds are people saying that the DRV vote was unclear? +sj + 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They are saying that the article originally had a 67% keep on AfD, where the rules say keep if there is no consensus. Someone circumvented that process, forcing it to be brought to DRV, where you only need 51% to have a decision made, apparently. The article would still be on Misplaced Pages if it had gone through due process, as 51% delete isn't good enough to get an article deleted on AfD (the actual vote was 25-22-2 in DRV, a similar vote in AfD would have resulted in the article being kept via no consensus). VegaDark 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's just have a vote to drop it and move on. I vote to dropt it and let sleeping dogs lie. Why wake it up again?

More seriously, if there's still this much debate, it's obviously not a settled issue, so the matter needs to be tended to in one way or another. Either make a vote to drop it, or re-open the AfD. --DanielCD 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should reopen the AfD. I strongly support the deletion of the article but I think the article was deleted before a consensus was reached. --Yamla 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Re-open the AFD and let it run its course.  ALKIVAR™ 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, re-open the AFD and let it run its course. Silensor 17:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, re-open the AfD. --Myles Long 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Based on some new information, I am reasonably satisfied that the takedown request is genuine at this time" do you not understand? This is not subject to a "vote." If you disagree with Uninvited Co.'s decision, take it to the mailing list or the ArbCom or the board. FCYTravis 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main point was that people are still slinging words over this. Perhaps a better question would be, what's it going to take to get everyone to let it go? But then again, people still have concerns that likely need addressing. Perhaps another forum would be better for the continued discussion, which seems likely to continue in spite of any ruling/decision/vote. I don't really care, I'm just trying to help out, and will shut up if you guys think this isn't helpful. Such active discussion obviously says some unfinished business remains whether we like it or not, and if it was speedied into deletion in the face of such discussion, it should be reopened. --DanielCD 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

I am being harrassed by three editors (two are admin). Harrassment includes (repeated) targeted personal attacks, threats (to disrupt work on Misplaced Pages) and posting of personal information (regardless of correct/incorrectness) by FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch. Part of Jim's offence might be from ignorance of the policy more than intentional flouting of it, while FM is an admin whose commentary and choice of wording indicates intentional action which continued even after I pointed out he was violating policy. Furthermore, in what appears to be a tagteam effort of targeted personal attacks, Guettarda is repeatedly trolling my user talk page even after I asked for it to stop. agapetos_angel 03:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence in posting false statement about me, refusal to retract them, and attacking edit summaries are unacceptable. It isn't harrassment to insist that you retract these false allegations, and it isn't harrassment to remind you that attacks in edit summaries are not acceptable either. You have been blocked three times in two weeks for 3rr violations on an article which policy and arbcomm precident say you should not be editing. You denied that you were editing articles to which you had a close personal connection. All FM did was present evidence to you showing the connection. While it is generally unacceptable to "out" an editor, this has to be balanced by a need to enforce policy and arbcomm precident and protect the integrity of the project. Your constant playing to the gallery and refactoring of your talk page to preserve your attacks but not the context and rebuttals do nothing to build credibility. Guettarda 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't harrassment when people are trying to get you to follow the rules. agapetos_angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught in a lie today; she is a party with a very intimate real-world involvement to the topics of Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in_Genesis. Agapetos_angel tried to pull a fast one on all of us here by heavily editing these articles, often violating WP:NPOV, WP:CON and then WP:3RR, all while very publicly denying she had any relationship or involvement to the topics.

I'd suspected she was an involved party 2 weeks ago and so I warned her that as a matter of policy and arbcomm precedent editors who are personally involved in a topic generally should not edit on those topics. She'd implied time and again that she wasn't an involved party and instead accused others of misdeeds. Per WP:AGF I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Today I found incontrovertible evidence indicating that she is indeed a very involved party and had intentionally deceived us. That evidence consists of an internet post to an alumni group in which agapetos_angel reveals her real-world identity as the wife of one of the parties detailed in the articles in question. Anyone who wishes to see that evidence can google it up just as I did. Being that involved in a topic as well as a constant source of disruption means that agapetos angel is precluded from editing on these topics by policy and arbcomm precedent. If she hadn't been so blatantly pov and disruptive she'd likely been able to argue an exception here, but her multiple 3RR vios and NPA vios against Guettarda, taken with the intentional deceit implicit in her hiding her relationship to Jonathan Sarfati are all the evidence we need that she cannot participate neutrally on these topics. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I too have had problems with FeloniousMonk in the past, but that Xe basically left me alone after Xe was confronted about it pickelbarrel 06:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've only ever commented to you twice and blocked you once . In actuality you haven't heard from me since because you stopped posting abusive comments on others talk pages. Either way, I'm glad you're following the rules now. FeloniousMonk 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inadmissable evidence gathered outside of wikipedia. No such preclusion exists. Kim Bruning 06:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a preclusion does indeed exist. Arbcomm has made a number of findings and rulings that editors should not participate on topics in which they are personally involved. Here's two off the top of my head: There's also WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing which are analogous. FeloniousMonk 06:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When FM 'ask for credible third-party published sources', in every instance I supplied them, so WP:BLP#Malicious_editing does not apply. Furthermore, this filing is about continued harrassment, of which the defence that the evidence might or might not be true is invalid . agapetos_angel 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court of law; claiming that evidence might not be admissible is laughable. I'm not personally so enthusiastic about just banning people from editing articles about things they are involved in, but if you do so, and you introduce NPOV problem, and lie about who you are when queried... I don't know if that's what happened here, but if the case can be made, you're asking for admin action by doing all that. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah no sorry, but basically we don't go around asking what people have been doing outside wikipedia. We look at what they've done on[REDACTED] itself. Also, if this goes to arbitration, none of what FeloniousMonk has said will hold much weight. Kim Bruning 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What you appear to be saying then is that deceit, a pretense to NPOV, and clear conflict of interest are acceptable on Misplaced Pages, but that pointing out either is somehow "bad"? If that is the case, how can any anyone accept the "assume good faith" mantra as being of any value other than as gaudy, yet useless, window dressing? I don't know, maybe my ethical standards are higher than those of some other editors, as I would never edit an article in which I had a personal vested interest. I might make comments on the talk page, or point out my concerns to an admin, but that's about it.

Additionally, in a way, noting that what FM did is "bad" while turning a blind eye at AA's behaviour is akin to Witness A's testimony at a robbery trial being thrown out because he/she had to have gone trough a red light in order to have been a witness to the robbery.

One final note: I posted no personal info on AA -- I copied something from the AiG talk page on Misplaced Pages (in error it turns out, as I missed the quotations marks) to the Sarfati talk page. Since cross-referencing appears to be an acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages I see no problem with what I did (other than that I owe AA an apology for misreading the info). Jim62sch 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, it was more than a simple cut and paste cross ref to take the Armstrong quote and post on a different article that I am an AiG employee. A mistake is a mistake, but this is only the latest in a pattern of similar false statements you have made, including the one on the 3RR (that even the 3RR admin, who is not sympathetic to me at all, agreed was false). This is a continuing pattern but I will accept your apology, conditionally. I did said that I thought it was more 'ignorance of the policy more than intentional flouting of it'. So if we can agree that we disagree on most things, but you can stop this harassment from here on out, I then consider the matter dropped with you. agapetos_angel 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, do you really want to go down the false statements path? I have quite a formidable audit trail showing that I was unaware that I had posted a quote by someone else. Second, I admitted I made a mistake re the chess/science bit. And the admin noted that it was in error, to you to get over it, that you were still in violation with 3RR, and to become a valuable contributor. However, saying that I am harassing you, is, I think, quite incorrect. I'm not sure what your definition of harassment is, but obviously we disagree on the definitions. Jim62sch 13:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah no sorry, but basically we don't go around asking what people have been doing outside wikipedia. We look at what they've done on[REDACTED] itself. Such as, possibly, editing WP articles about themselves, or people they work for, or with? Isn't there a RfC out about the US Congress doing that? And isn't Sarfatti blocked right now for doing that?

This is a case where, external reality of identity may matter in WP policy terms. Whether evidence collected is sufficient to establish external reality to people's satisfactions is a different question, but the answer to the questions does matter in this case, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert 10:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review thisagapetos_angel 10:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So... Are you, or are you not, Sherry Sarfati, Agapetos angel? Georgewilliamherbert 10:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask don't tell. You don't need to answer that. Kim Bruning 11:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please take care of this. Thank you. agapetos_angel 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know she're Australian, her first name is Sherry, and she is very concerned about the article of fundamentalist, having been trying to whitewash his reputation for being really quite nasty, and seems to know quite a lot about where he plays chess. Are you saying that then http://bartowhighschool.com/alum/newgetinfo.shtml?1984SherryKloska is a coincidence? There's another "agapetos angel" in Australia, called Sherry, who's married name is Sarfati?

And before we get into quoting policy, this is relevant because the arbcom will be along shortly, and you are not anonymous on the web. I do note agapetos angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to quote "verifiability" problems to whitewash Sarfati's article. All this information has been researched, from you leaking information about yourself. It's in the public domain. — Dunc|☺ 11:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to suggest a STOP. A back off, from all sides, to allow this to calm down. If there is evidence that Agapetos angel is editing an article that she has a direct interest in then there might be a reason to have her real name on wiki. In general I am strongly against any such outing. But I think it would be wise to gather the evidence for that, and maybe even show it to an arbitrator (or other neutral party) to assess. If Agapetos angel is introducing problems into the article, then there may even be a case for arbitration. But at the moment, this is just escalating this situation and causing a feeling of harassment. So I really think there should be a break in this. the wiki won't fall over in the mean time I promise (server disasters aside) -- sannse (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sannse, the issue was raised in a gentle, non-confrontational manner in the past. She denied any connection. She has also been disruptive - she has been blocked at least 3 times for 3rr violations on that page. While I am all for not disclosing people's identities, Agapetos angel has ignored all other attempts to get her to conform to policy. She shouldn't be editing these articles. We have rules that say that people can't edit articles that they are too close to. If we are not allowed to disclose someone's identity in a case the violates WP:AUTO, then the rules might was well not exist. While these rules can be relaxed or ignored when an editor is editing in a non-disruptive fashion, that isn't the case here.

WP:AUTO says "Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself." The Min Zhu case operated under the principle that "Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view...Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with." The same principles apply here. If an editor denies that they are connected with an issue in this manner, and that editor is editing disruptively, there is no way to press the issue but to divulge information of this sort. This is not an ambush of an otherwise good editor - this is a disruptive editors who insists on the right to edit articles to which she is overly closely connected. Guettarda 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept all that, and that's why I said that it might be appropriate in that situation. What I saw as an outsider coming across the situation for the first time was an escalating situation where a break on both sides seems wise. Let me emphasise - that's both sides. So I'm asking Agapetos angel to back off and stop editing the article as well, not just for those adding her name to stop doing so. I admit that issues of identity are one of my bugbears, so I'm not neutral on the issue, but I think that any outing needs to be done with great care. That's why I'm suggesting another, neutral, administrator or arbitrator looks at the situation. It may be that this has got to the stage where she needs to be blocked from editing at all -- sannse (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, is the issue that AA wants to add material, or remove it? I'm thinking that if everyone sticks rigidly to the policies (NOR, NPOV, and V), that would go a long way to resolving the issues. Could AA be asked to draw up a list, perhaps on a subpage, of the specific material she disagrees with, or believes needs to be added? She should be as specific as possible, as in "I want to remove this sentence, and add this one, for these reasons, and here are my sources." Would that help, if she agreed to do it? SlimVirgin 15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SV, thanks! Essentially, AA wants to do both. It's rather complex -- I guess a long painful stroll through the history and talk page would be necessary to get the full scope of the problems.

I'd rather not answer for anyone else on your proposal, but I would note that a statement agreeing to abide by consensus would be a good addition to the proposal. Jim62sch 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion SlimVirgin -- sannse (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment that I do not view AA's edits as always favoring Jonathon Sarfati and the Answers in Genesis organization.

I have been involved in a long dispute with AA on the Answers in Genesis article. Ironically, AA was arguing a position critical of AiG and I was arguing a side more favorable towards them. Although our dispute became heated at times, AA never resorted to attacking me or other editors. Before any judgments are made regarding her editing of the Jonathon Sarfati article, I believe it would only be fair to look into the changes she attempted to make and determine if those edits were violations of policies. DennisF 19:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My experience has been the opposite -- and I'd have to look at that of which you speak to see if maybe she's playing devil's advocate. (Also, a position critical of AiG is not the same as a position critical of Mr. Sarfati. In any case, I'm sure this will be resolved in due time. Jim62sch 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, one example of what you are asking is the most recent. This example is not about 'adding or removing', but rather about pre-exisiting phrasing that FM removed from what he continually called the 'consensus version'. Since FM's statement was 'This phrase will be removed pending supporting cites', and I had provided cites far above and beyond what Misplaced Pages indicates is neccessary ('It is this fact-checking process that Misplaced Pages is not in a position to provide'), I put that phrase back in as part of an edit. FM reported me (again) for a 3RR.
• As a side note, it keeps being mentioned that I was 3RR'd three times, but it is not mentioned that it all centers around blockings and reportings from this group of admins/editors. Duncharris, involved in reverting my edits three times (conflict of interest), blocked me himself the first time. When I complained, an admin told me there was nothing that he could do because the block had expired and to file a RfC. When the RfC was basically ignored, I filed a RfM that was denied because both parties didn't agree to mediate. The other two were filings of 3RR were at the request of FM, and I still maintain (and can support with evidence) that these were invalidly applied. When I complained of unfair treatment based on false claims (some now retracted), I was basically told to get over it. So the three invalid 3RRs are used as a weapon. I've tried every avenue that I could find to get assistance, including asking an admin to please iRfC (he could not be shown biased towards me because he was on the 'opposite' side of the dispute on AiG, telling me that my edits were basically too negative) which was basically ignored , filing a wikiquette, etc. This last disruptive harassment attack immediately followed a request for calm.
• Regarding positive v negative, a section which would have been viewed more 'negative', JoshuaZ asked for 'thoughts' on adding something about 'Sarfati's comparisons of various people to Nazis'. To this I commented that 'it might be valid to find more information and tie it into his Jewish background', and asked a week later if Joshua found 'any more on this'. This bears mention here because it shows that, if properly formatted (no weasel words; which was my original complaint on the Scientist subsection), I would not have been adverse to adding the information. The matter, though, appears to have been dropped again.
• This is not about changes from WP:CON (the multiple edits FM made that change that version supports that there is a lack of WP:CON), nor about NPOV because I have consistantly maintained that all sides be shown on disputed issues (neg and pos) in this article (as well as the AiG). This is about a 'my way or the highway' attitude that is prevailing when it is shown that the points made were invalid, or refuted. Instead of calm discussion or 'admitting the point', he and others violated WP:Harassment repeatedly. You said, SV, 'I'm thinking that if everyone sticks rigidly to the policies (NOR, NPOV, and V), that would go a long way to resolving the issues.' I would point out that this was exactly how this began. I asked for a section in the article to meet WP:V, or be removed until such time it does meet it because the person is living. That section, while debated, still does not meet WP:V
• Lastly, sannse, you said 'causing a feeling of harassment'. I just wanted to comment that this isn't about 'feelings' but rather about clearcut violations of that policy. There was by no means a 'gentle, non-confrontational manner in the past', which included posting the location of my IP (my software deleted cookies; I corrected the IP entry to read my user name and FM used a link to that to try to discredit me). Where is a line drawn to stop harrassment of personal attacks, etc. from attacking contributor rather than discussing content? If someone takes the time to review my participation, history will show how I continually tried to bring points to consensus in Talk with compromises away from the points I had made. But message boxes, continued WP:H violations, spamming other articles with these same accusations, were used against contributor rather than working with me to make the article meet policy and correct sourcing. Even now, regardless of the 'stop' that was called, violations are continuing. FM has even added back in an accusation that Jim has admitted was an error. So I am not 'allowed' to halt these violations, but they are permitted to continue unheeded? agapetos_angel 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the "most recent" example: yes, AA has proven that they are "real articles", but not, unless I missed it, that they were peer-reviewed articles, and that was the real issue.

The notes from the iRfC Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati#iRfC_suggestions were not ignored, in fact I agreed with AA.

Finally, the real issue here is that AA has a very real conflict of interrest regarding Sarfati (even her negative AiG comments seem more driven by the inequities of compensation between AiG AUS and AiG US), and thus should not be editing either article, hence SlimVirgin's proposal and my caveat. Jim62sch 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jim, I do think you missed it. Check the links regarding the journals again. agapetos_angel 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll go look, but if I'm being dense you might have to be more specific as to what I should be looking for. Jim62sch 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, found it (Ευρηκα): "Type of peer review -- This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process." Not the most stringent requirement I've ever seen, but I suppose acceptable. NOTE: while this may resolve the one issue, the COI problem is by far the more acute issue. Jim62sch 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, I've set up a subpage at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute, which I'm willing to use as described if that would help to end the dispute. Let me know if you'd like to give it a try. If you do, please be very specific i.e. give me the actual sentences you would like to add, with the sources; and quote the sentences you'd like to see removed, with your reasons. But if you'd rather not take this route, no worries; it's just a suggestion. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SV, as the article is not static, which version did you want me to comment on, or just comments in general? The main dispute would not really be addressed, though (I think), by outlining add/remove sections, but by pushing an adherence to policies like WP:H and WP:V. May I ask why is this being considered a fair avenue in light of the subject of the report? This report, regardless of what it is being degenerated into, is about WP:H. So how will moving to another talk page solve the problem of harassment? All that seems to serve is to satisfy what I see as the main objective of the attacks, to remove anyone (by any means, including policy violations) that can show sources which prove that certain POV bias is being shown in the constant reverts of this group. And the suggestion you made, even though I know understand it was with the best intent, seems to be aiming what amounts to punishment in the wrong direction. I'm not saying I won't respond, but I'd like to discuss it with you further beforehand. agapetos_angel 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to fail to mention that the actual talk is still falling into the tabloid pits. Can someone please address that talk should be about article talk, not continuing harassment after a stop is requested. agapetos_angel 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If I can make a possible suggestion: Agapetos has not been a bad editor per se. Many of her suggestions have seemed to be reasonable and on point. Furthermore, she has made suggestions critical of AiG on that page. Therefore, I think we can continue working with her, keeping in mind her strong connection to Jonathan Sarfati, we may be able to get some good editing done. The real annoyance here is not her edits, which by and large have been reasonable, but her failure to disclose who she was when asked and pointed to the relevant wiki policies about not editing things that one was a party in. Such behavior, combined with the behavior of 220.*, is highly disturbing. Slightly related, I should have this weekend the new sections about ad hominems from Sarfati and possibly another version of the Scientist section. I still have hope that a consensus version can be reached that includes Sherry's approval. JoshuaZ 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with these continuing privacy-violating speculations which are against the harrassment policy. An important reason is that speculation does not equal incontrovertible evidence as FM claimed. The Amazon profile shows that the reviewer has a completely different initial after the name. Looking at the website that Joshua posted, it seems there might have actually been an intent to deceive.

Checking the cache of website shows completely different information than clicking the link does now. That means that the information has recently been changed. The method of submission seems to be a webform, and it is quite possible that this webform was used to manufacture evidence.220.245.180.133 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with bullying and harassment. Once a few start it, bandwagoning tends to follow and graffiti multiplies. agapetos_angel 10:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: first of all, while it is conceivable that the web reviewer is a different person, given the similarities it seems to be highly suspicious. Second, just who are you accusing of deception? If you think I modified the amazon accoun, then come and say so. We dont' need insinuations. Third of all, accusing someone of modifying that webpage seems to be a clear case of projection by previously deceptive parties and in any case is distracting from the real issue at hand which is the overwhelming evidence that Agapetos is an involved party. Also, one more related note- very early in this dispute, when I was unconvinced that Agapetos was involved in AiG and/or Sarfati, she thanked me on my talk page: , that is she, thanked me for saying something she knew was incorrect, rather than just come out and admit it. That seems to be pretty close to trying to make someone a part of her deception. I am quickly losing patience with both Agapetos and 220.* JoshuaZ 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, I really think you misread because I see no insinuation that you changed anything. The only tie to your name that I see is that you posted a link in the Talk to FM's supposedly 'incontrovertible evidence', which has proven to be nothing of the sort. 220.* correctly pointed out that submission is via a fill-in-the-blanks web form. My point was that the nature of harassment caused others to not examine the supposed evidence completely for themselves, and people jumped on the bandwagon, making the harassment escalate. The 'overwhelming evidence' to which you refer is (1) a mistake by Jim that he has now retracted, (2) a link that is able to be altered by a form where email submission is listed 'optional', and (3) an Amazon account of an American with a different initial after the last name (and hero worship of famous people is common). You are losing patience? Try being the object of a smear and harassment campaign because people disagree with you.

The so-called evidence that the ones who are harassing have presented has now been shown to be retracted, easily manipulated, and/or unrelated. I kindly suggest that the WP:H violations be addressed with the admin who are causing these disruptions in three articles. I'm done arguing this point over and over with the others (not directed at you personally, please don't misunderstand). It's been shown the so-called evidence is fallacious garbage. It can be documented how this group has been harassing me (and continue to do so, now with others) over three articles. I've lost whatever good will I had to try to keep fighting this point over and over again. I'm going back to editing. agapetos_angel 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)(23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but the school webpage by itself seems to be pretty strong evidence, even if the others are in fact incorrect. Am I to understand that you are claiming that you are not in fact Jonathan Sarfati's wife Sherry? JoshuaZ 22:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, I suggest you give the subpage idea a try. The important thing is to concentrate only on content. Please forget who may or may not have done something you feel is harassment, and stick only to the issues you want to add to, or remove from, the article, providing sources if you want to add material, and reasons if you want to remove any. Again, the page is at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute. Note that it's not a question of trying to get you off the regular talk page by opening up another one, but rather, it's an attempt to sort out the issues you care about on a talk page devoted to those issues, to make sure it gets done properly and quickly. Joshua, if everyone sticks to our editing policies, it probably doesn't matter who they are. SlimVirgin 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Does someone really need to connect every dot here? The high school submission was cached by Google on 25 Jan to a different name. This recent change makes the evidence suspect on its own. Additionally, the submission form is accessible from the web where anyone can add any information. The name on the cached version matches the last initial as the Amazon reviewer and that matches multiple Americans. One with the same name ' 'and' ' same middle initial is here and here. Maybe because Sarfati is famous, and has spoken several times in creation conferences in America, he has groupies in America. Maybe the so-called evidence was manufactured. Regardless, the fact remains that the only thing strong about this evidence is its foul stench. Continued violations of NPA constitute harassment.

Sarfati has a stepchild. So connecting the dots, his wife had the earlier name Dennard from the first marriage and someone updated the webpage for the new last name. JoshuaZ 01:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And all this is a disgraceful distraction to avoid the subject of this report being addressed; instead it denigrates the victim who reported it? Meanwhile, wikirules requiring verifiability and forbidding weasel words are violated because of this sidetracking to personalities. It's even worse when admins are guilty of these violations and resort to blocking opponents and other bullying as they have done. 220.245.180.133 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a distraction, it is an explanation for the behavior, namely that we have evidence that she is an involved party. Now, let's be explicit here. Are you accusing someone of deliberately modifying the webpage to show the new last name of Sarfati? JoshuaZ 01:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

It seems to me that SPUI, banned for ten days, is still using his talk page to fan the flames of the pedophilia userbox dispute. He has reproduced the userbox on his talk page yet again. I have removed this and I recommend that the page be protected yet again to stop his unwelcome trolling. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you having some sort of vendetta against SPUI? Instead of trying further to upset a well-regarded content contributor, perhaps you might be better advised to beg him to come back? Grace Note 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I't neither polite nor truthful to suggest that I'm engaged in a vendetta. I like SPUI, I think his road edits are great. But he's trolling and that isn't permitted here, and he knows that. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a question, Tony, not a suggestion. Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well regarded by whom? User:Zoe| 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is the best option, this hurts other people who want to contact him more than it hurts him. He's going on Misplaced Pages:Probation, per tha Arb decision. Each time he reproduces the userbox, inform him that he'll be blocked an additional day each time. Log it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Once he sees that his ban length is entirely within his control, I think he'll get the point. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what makes me ask the question, because it's far from reasonable to continue blocking someone for something so negligible. It certainly doesn't help. Why not just leave it and him be and allow it all to blow over? Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not negligible. The userbox war is a real problem, and it's not going to go away until everybody (SPUI included) stops pouring petrol on the flames and gets down to discussing a workable consensus. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it should be a minimum of 24 hours for each offense. Because it's to the point where he's just trolling, and I'm personally getting sick and tired of it. He's a great contributor, there's no question about that. But if he can't be even slightly civil about this whole thing, then it's time to question our reasons for letting him be here in the first place. Editing is a privilege, not a right. Ral315 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 24.69.14.159 personal attacks

Abusive comments by 24.69.14.159 (talk · contribs)

• Diff

This person has been abusive in the past using other IP addresses and usernames:

• 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs)
• Jim Heller (talk · contribs)

User has verbally abused me in the past see:

I cannot ban him as I am involved in editing that article. Can another admin take a look. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Another instance of personal attacks. See diff . I request a temporary block as per WP:NPA

The abuse continues. Diff: .

• • Hmmm...seems to have left...perhaps. Give him a warning of WP:NPA, and I'll block his IPs if he continues. He is more argumentative than a regular troll through...and the personal attacks are not as bad as "automatic block" ones I've seen before. Notify him of WP:Civility and tell him to calm down.Voice of All 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are already two {{NPA}} notices on his talk page. In any case, it seems that he has gone. I will keep these diffs handy if he ever trolls again. Thank you for checking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

General Medical Council

Request civility block of 217.207.116.154 (talk · contribs) for civility violations on Talk:General Medical Council. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Further provocative edits. Would be honoured to block that troll, but I am the main disputant. Could someone please have a look. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. · Katefan0/poll 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:InTheHouse

I've blocked this one as a WoW sockpuppet. Made me strongly suspicious for just so happening to choose WoW's VIP page as a redirect target for SPUI's talk page. But because it's not the standard page move thing, I thought others might want to review what I did. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Zogu blocked indefinitely

Zogu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trolling or near-trolling to push what it considers an Albanian POV. The fun bit is, it seems to use nothing but open proxies and compromised zombie PCs to post through. I've blocked it indefinitely as an account quite definitely up to no conceivable good. Other account names following the same pattern would be most welcome.

I'm also going through the assorted IPs the account has used trying to work out WTF variety of open proxy or compromised boxes it's using. I don't know if Zogu's operator will be slowed down for even a moment, but it may help reduce the general noise level.

(Anyone with a lot of experience tracking this crap, please leave a note on my talk page or /msg me in IRC (DavidGerard on Freenode); I'm usually AFK but I do check what notes people have left me.) - David Gerard 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer socks on Freemasonry

Humanun Genus (talk · contribs) had the same edit pattern as Lightbringer and - woohoo! - edited only using open proxies. Blocked. Please keep me up to date on my talk page, he's making a very useful open proxy canary ;-)

By the way, a fantastically useful page for checking suspicious IPs: http://rbls.org/ - goes to a bunch of RBLs and checks the status of the IP on them. Please don't use this to block with unless you know very well what the reports mean - and why several red entries don't mean anything we care about (things like 'blocked sender', which means home dynamic IPs you don't want to accept email directly from). But if you do know about RBLs and their history, you'll like this - David Gerard 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Paulo Fontaine

Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, as usual, started adding nonsense again (, , ). Since this account semes to exist solely to play silly buggers and previous blocks have not changed that, have indef-blocked the account. We only have so much time to spend cleaning up after idiots. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a UK university account. If it comes back, note it here and I'll have a word with the university network admin - we've had some success in dealing with such cases in a conclusive manner - David Gerard 07:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason commons sucks

Shizhao (talk · contribs), an chinese admin on Commons and Meta who has limited English skills (self-declared: en-1), has been deleting images on Commons and removing links to them on the English Misplaced Pages (see log at Commons, contributions here). I suspect that most of these deletions are correct to the extent that they remove fair use content from Commons, which doesn't allow fair use. Unfortunately, they also remove images (like the FedEx Logo!) where a prefectly reasonable case for fair use could have been made here, if only the images had been uploaded locally.

Could someone with a greater understanding of Commons talk to him/them about checking whether fair use content is actually being used here before deleting, and if so, move it over here first. I would presume that if someone is going to the trouble of removing the links here, that it would not be too much greater a burden to look at whether those items should have been preserved as fair use here. Dragons flight 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is something to bring up on Commons. I'm an admin there but woefully inactive, so I'll look at it. I just left him a comment. --Golbez 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And removed it - this should be handled on Commons, not here. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And I see no reason why the snark against Commons is needed. This is not "another" reason Commons sucks, unless you know of several others. This isn't even one reason Commons sucks. Maybe if uploaders had read the copyright guidelines before uploading images not allowed there, we wouldn't have this problem. --Golbez 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you actually like a list? I've had my own rights and work abused by the poor integration between Commons and Misplaced Pages, and honestly believe we would be better off if all images were managed locally. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love a list. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. If anything, User:Shizhao should receive a warm "thank-you" for taking the bother to clean up on another project by removing the dead links. The idea that a Commons admin should be forced to take responsibility for uploading copyright infringements on en: and assert that they are "fair use" strikes me as absurd. Remember, the uploader is taking personal responsibility for those copyright-infringements and is personally defending them as fair use. No one should have that demanded of them. Jkelly 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If a valid fair use rationale is provided at Commons, it should be copied here. We shouldn't permanently delete usable content just because someone couldn't figure out the right place to put the notice. Also, I have noticed several cases where Shizhao deleted links to images even though a local copy of the image already existed. In other words he didn't bother to check that a legitimate copy of the image already existed on EN before removing the link. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the implied sentiment that there are other unaddressed concerns regarding the use of commons as an image repository for en:, I do not believe that this particular issue is anything other than the fault of the original uploader of fair-use material to commons. Commons doesn't permit fair use, and it is never the responsibility of the deleting admin to find alternate hosting for material that isn't permitted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

100% agreed with UC. Admins who clean up things like this get given far too much crap. If you're uploading fair use images, it is your responsibility to do it correctly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Phone number vandalism. Personal info?

Today, I interrupted a vandal (69.174.229.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) who was posting what appears to be a North Carolina-based phone number in articles. I'm thinking that this might be considered personal information: should it be purged form the histories of the affected articles? – ClockworkSoul 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. User:Zoe| 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina? North Carolina or North Carolina ? 68.39.174.238 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question, but I think that it was just North Carolina. I have no way of knowing for sure, though, and he only vandalized a handful of pages before I blocked him. – ClockworkSoul 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please block User:204.128.70.65

User:204.128.70.65 have been vandalising articles. Could someone block this user from editing at Misplaced Pages. --Abögarp 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears he had stopped about a half hour ago, but I thought it might be wise to block him anyway. Afterall, he may have just been taking a break from typing "penises" so many times. Wow, "penises", that's funny. – ClockworkSoul 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do use WP:AIV the next time. Thanks! :) Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:164.58.145.60

164.58.145.60 has been continually vandalizing Misplaced Pages articles, especially (repeatedly) Classen SAS. It is also very probable that this is a sockpuppet of Ncurses. --juli. 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert McChesney Site Vandalism

User Adkinsjm, having been warned once, continues to vandalize the Robert McChesney site, posting non-neutral flaming political commentary (i.e., calling Noam Chomsky a 'hater of America'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewelch7 (talk • contribs)

"Site?" User:Zoe| 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Robert McChesney

You mean the page? Or is he asking people to do something to someone's website? --DanielCD 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He means the article. I removed one quote, as the source is Lipmagazine.com. As it's fairly inflamatory and accusatory, I think a stronger source than this is merited. I left an offer to assist in finding new sources. If the critic is interested, he's got the ball in his court. But I don't think Lipservice.com is a reliable source. --DanielCD 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76 harassing Gibnews

Ismael76 (talk · contribs) just posted the following on Talk:Gibraltar :

I am convinced that Gibraltarian and Gibnews are the same person. Not only is it statistically probable, but they express the same paranoid behaviour, view points and disregard for facts, majority view and consensus. Any difference in style is clearly a good cop/bad cop strategy. I vote for Gibnews' Overseas British nationality be revoked and he be exiled to the island of Perejil where he will follow a national indoctrination program and learn to be a good Spaniard.

Now, I, like any "unbiased" user, do not buy a single bit of this nonsense (their edit histories will show that they are in fact different people). However, I believe the last sentence constitutes an unacceptable threat that violates WP:NPA. I believe something has to be done about this. --TML1988 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the history so there may be more to this than I've seen but that last sentance reads like a joke to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's MUCH MORE SERIOUS than what you think. Please take another look at it. I also believe that Ismael76 is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:HAR. --TML1988 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

End of WiC attacks

I am User:Misplaced Pages is Communism. I started vandalizing on April 10, 2005 and have continued my vandalism over a long time. However I noticed that i was falling as a vandal, and that I could not become the most persistent vandal, because WoW and the NCV have both become more prolific vandals. I have been impersonated numerous times and am now deciding to apologize and stop, and never vandalize again,

Sincerely,

Misplaced Pages is Communism (editing as User:Alvam so that I won't get blocked)

• Well, I, for one, am pleased to hear that. You would, of course, understand if there's a bit of healthy skepticism on the part of the administration here. Over time, we've developed what may be described as unpleasant feelings towards persistent vandals, such as the one you claim to be (you impersonated me, I think, 6 times). In fact, though I choose not to do it myself, it's very likely that you'll find yourself blocked anyway. That being said, I appreciate your decision to cease your vandalism, even if it only because you've come to the conclusion that you cannot be the #1 vandal. – ClockworkSoul 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to discussors, see also Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism in progress/Wikipedia is Communism#Update. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor Violating Probation for Disruptive Editing

Just over a week after was closed, user Benjamin Gatti authored Clean safe nuclear energy, which is disruptive editing at its finest. We need three administrators to concur in this, and decide what is appropriate. Simesa 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin so that would be 1. I am not involved in this particular article and the arbcom decision makes no mention of involvement of the admin involved. Just wanted to add that I am pretty sure that he deliberately made that article to test his probation. Most definitely violates it. Here is the specific part of the decision that he has violated and here is the remedy. --Woohookitty 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. I really thought maybe all that stuff was done. I'd support a week block for disruption, as per his probation. On a side note, there's nothing in the arbcom ruling that says an uninvolved admin. · Katefan0/poll 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was recused from that case, but just to clarify, it is uninvolved admins implicitly, just as any administrative action should ideally be taken by an uninvolved admin. I think Misplaced Pages:Probation clarifies this. Also, to be clear, there is only one uninvolved admin needed to ban from an article or talk page where he is deemed disruptive (probation), and three for any more serious measures of your own devising, including a ban (general probation). He's on both probation and general probation. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, wait. So if I understand you correctly, you mean "uninvolved" as in "has never had a dispute with this person?" If that's the test, I can never meet it, clearly. But I've had absolutely no involvement in the article in question. Can you clarify this for me? · Katefan0/poll 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved means not involved in a current dispute with the user. It doesn't automatically count if you've previously had a dispute but not currently. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. The article is going to be deleted, so blocking from the article would not be much of a message. So we need 3 uninvolved admins. So. Help! :) --Woohookitty 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I uninvolved? I just early-closed the AfD because there was simply no chance it was ever going to close in anything other than delete, and we don't need diatribes in the main space. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved; this is the first time I've even looked at any edits by Benjamin Gatti, as far as I can recall. Clean safe nuclear energy is an aggressively POV piece at its core; that appears to be exactly the sort of editing the ArbCom ruling is trying to discourage. I support either a one week block or a one week ban from all nuclear energy topics, enforceable by block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (I'm pretty certain I'm univolved with this one).Geni 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is duplicated with the notice on the WP:AN, so can someone just make that a link here and copy the comments over? This doesn't appear worth a block yet, but repeating similar actions would. The one week ban from all nuclear topics wouldn't be a bad idea though, and that makes three by the way, as I'm univolved with the current nuclear dispute, though for full disclosure, I have disputed with the user in the past for similar behavior of his and commented a bit in the arbcom decision based on that. - Taxman 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record. I proposed the subject because I was continuously struck by those four words, and I felt they deserved to be fully understood. You're welcome to interpret as you like, but I find it unnecessary to suggest that I was "testing" the Arbcom stampede-to-judgement. The article quite probably could use balance; but I fail to see how the simple creating of an article refencing a fairly important Presidential phrase is itself expressive of a point of view. I think it was not agressively POV, while certainly it includes only a single perspective. There was no reverting other perspectives for example and such would be a critical element of aggressive POV editing. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was so obviously POV that your claims not to be able to see that are hard to believe to say the least. There wasn't any effort to edit it because it was so obviously useless. Don't bother trying similar stunts. If you have useful, researched material to help improve articles please stick to that and save everyone the headache. Do reallize though that everyone knows your game and is tired of it. - Taxman 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually emailed Ben to ask him for an explanation because I'm just baffled. Probation means no more benefit of the doubt. You just can't jump over the line like that. I mean, it was as POV as these things get. You said "to announce plans to pump yet more deficit-funded tax dollars into the still unprofitable nuclear energy industry" in the article. --Woohookitty 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin

Lou franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated Societal attitudes towards homosexuality for AfD, and in the ensuing discussion has begun making homophobic personal attacks on those voting to keep the article. Is explicitly suggesting a vast homosexual conspiracy is keeping his POV "corrections" supressed. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Need comment on Flemming Rose insertions.

Don't really know where to go, so this might not really be the right place. Sorry for that if it is not. Catstail (talk · contribs), Kembali (talk · contribs) and a few anonymous ips 60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs), 60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs) and 64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs) (which may or may not be the same person) continue to insert un-sourced and un-verifiable information on the Flemming Rose page several times a day over the last week. Flemming Rose is the one who published the cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I’m simple asking for them to source it. They don’t so I remove it, and they insert it again. We are in a deadlock it seems. Catstail has also started a strange moving around on the talk page, for no apparent reason. Can someone come by and take a look, maybe give a little help? Twthmoses 09:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull 'n' Femurs blocked indefinitely

Skull_'n'_Femurs (talk · contribs) has been systematically removing information from Freemasonry under his own name and that of several sockpuppets. He's just posted a rant to Talk:Freemasonry wherein he considers it his Masonic duty to remove good and referenced information from the article. That's nice for him (and helpful of him to state it blunty), but it makes it my Wikipedian administrator duty to block him from editing indefinitely, unless and until he learns what's appropriate behaviour here.

This is quite separate from Lightbringer (talk · contribs), who keeps coming back with sock after sock (see above) ...

I've locked User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs so he can't remove the notice of his intent to vandalise, as he has routinely been removing warnings - David Gerard 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DG, I do admire your work, I just wanted to point out that it is very likely that several other editors are associated with S&F's IP &/or IP range. Perhaps a block on his Userpage & of him on Freemasonry (I'm pretty sure you can do the latter too) would be good? On the flipside, I do know he's been a little off lately, but historically he's an excellent editor. There's a lot of shenanigans going on there right now, so I dunno what'd be best. Just some thoughts. Grye 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The socks were making the same sort of edits from the same IP (not range) at similar times - it's very consistent. His behaviour in consistently removing the many warnings about his behaviour doesn't speak to his good faith. He can contact me if he cares to come up with an explanation that doesn't sound like sockpuppeteer snake oil. In any case, systematically removing referenced content because he thinks it should be kept secret is unacceptable. (And I'm sure there's a proverb about horses, barn doors and bolts.) - David Gerard 14:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I may be completely wrong. That's why I posted this here :-) It's not possible to block a single user from a single page, unfortunately - David Gerard 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:IanDavies evading ban

User:84.9.210.195 and User:84.9.211.38 are sockpuppets of banned user User:IanDavies being used to repeatedly revert pages. See Special:Contributions/84.9.210.195 and Special:Contributions/84.9.211.38 Owain (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tracking Andrew Morrow (banned user:Pinktulip)

Is there a central page where this fellow is getting tracked? His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong ISP complaint, if not actual legal action - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.Geni 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We could start a subpage of one of his User pages, such as User:Amorrow/incidents. User:Zoe| 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Only thing that comes close is the Template:Pinktulip. · Katefan0/poll 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be creating a vandalism in progress page soon on this. --Sunfazer (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dussst may be banned user User:Bourbons3

I put this up for a sockpuppet check, but the circumstantial evidence may provide enough for preliminary action. Bourbon3 was blocked for copyright violations on 15 January 2006, and his response was "**You've just lost a valuable editor to the Userbox project, JACKASS - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» . Dusst first edited on 16 January 2006, and his second edit was to add himself to the Userbox project. Also note the format of his current signature: • | Đܧ§§Ť | • . I don't want him to think I'm targeting him because I oppose his opinions on userboxes, but I came across this today. Maybe there's some sort of logical explanation for the coincidences? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep its the same user... still uploading stuff as "Self edited on Adobe Photoshop" or "Edited in MS Paint" and using that as grounds to make PD stuff that clearly isnt. see Image:Barking Abbey school badge.jpg (not PD), Image:Sir Alan Sugar.JPG (Screenshot), Image:Jason Dawe.JPG (not PD), Image:Random_Event_Pillory2_crop.jpg (Screenshot), the guy clearly did not learn from his last block and persists in uploading copyvio.  ALKIVAR™ 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone and reblocked this user indefinately for 2 reasons 1) repeated copyvio after being warned. 2) block avoidance, this user was already indef blocked for repeated copyright violations. If anyone has a problem with the length of this block, I will not fight a reduction.  ALKIVAR™ 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Rbj

Hi all, I've blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) for a week, for his continued personal attacks against Karmafist (talk · contribs), such as this edit, where he says, among other things, "this is an admin who should never have been conceived in the first place". He's been blocked in the past for making personal attacks against Karmafist which is why I chose a week as the duration. See also the message I left on his talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye, Talk:Anarchism, and Template:AnarchismDildo

I've blocked Hogeye (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for personal attacks on Talk:Anarchism (among other places) and disruption. He has re-created {{AnarchismDildo}} after I deleted it as an obviously inflammatory and divisive template. android79 17:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these days he is going to end up blocked indefinitely.Voice of All 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A pretty obvious sockpuppet DildoDaggins (talk · contribs) then re-created it again. Time to salt the earth. android79 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Anotherblogger and his threats against Misplaced Pages

All -- Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) (who is likely this blogger) is frustrated because several editors on Perverted-Justice.com (myself included) have rejected his attempts to add his rather juvenile blog to the PJ article as an external link. He has announced that the article WILL contain the link, and basically gave an ultimatum about what might happen if it doesn't stay added ("Don't be stupid. Sites such as Misplaced Pages tend to be vulnerable to DDOS and other unfortunate such incidents, when its administration makes stupid censorship moves. Make the smart choice and cease from censoring the truth. As has been stated before, the revisions will be made from various IP blocks and sources, so essentially your options are limited.") I'd block him myself for these kinds of threats against Misplaced Pages, but am involved in the dispute over the link. I'd appreciate someone else evaluating his behavior in general and this threat in particular. · Katefan0/poll 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Anotherblogger (talk · contribs)? Seems disruptive enough for a block, though I'm not sure how much good it'll do. --W(t) 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Username is actually Anotherblogger (talk · contribs). I recommend an indef-ban, as threats of a DDOS automatically end any consensus-building conversation, just as legal threats do. Jkelly 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Thanks for fixing that. Here's another lovely one . · Katefan0/poll 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Account indef-blocked by both User:Friday and myself. Jkelly 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robot32 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Robot32 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the first two page moves are legitimate. Compromised account? --cesarb 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but considering the number of edits, it could just as well be an account created for this purpose, that was used a little and then left to age. --W(t) 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 and threats of a lawsuit

I was contacted by User:Karrmann in regards to personal attacks against him over content disputes regarding the article Yugo which I protected after a request for page protection was filed. User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 based on these edits:, and was quite busy insulting Karrmann about his age , , and then started making legal threats: and I blocked him for 24 hours an he then continued the legal threats on his talk page:, , , and when confronted by Karrmann (who claims to be 13 years old):. I'm thinking of a permanent banning, or at the least a longer block...any objections?--MONGO 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And all just so he could spam a link to his garage or something. --Malthusian (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My God, this guy's not a spammer, he's... well, to make a pretense of staying within WP:NPA I'll content myself with 'insane' instead of various other words that came to mind. --Malthusian (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This user demonstrates incivility and continues to make legal threats. I suggest an indefinite block with "Please inform us when your legal case has completed its course, so that we may remove this block". That should give a clear 'stop it if you want to continue to be here' flavour. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've given him threatban and an indefinite block. This stuff is just unacceptable. If he pleads for an unblock, we can let him back. — Gareth Hughes 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--MONGO 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have now also indef banned User:71.115.103.149 as this IP was not blocked previously and they are the same individual.--MONGO 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture use of block and debating style: "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"

I was recently blocked by User:Freakofnurture. Where percentages were in digits ('26') not words ('twenty six'), I changed the percent and per cent to the symbolic form %. Unfortunately User:Freakofnurture blocked me and said I should delete the space character that remained between the digit and the symbol. Eventually he said Please provide some source for the use of a space or I will block you for a greater duration'. You will see other phrases from him/her like "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"

I am no prude but I the issue was hardly worth swearing about, particularly since I had said that I would use his/her personal preference as he/she wanted. It would have been bad if we both started swearing. I even started a debate at the Manual of style to see if there is a 'correct' answer, but I really think that User:Freakofnurture should have done that. Somehow I have ended up the position of applying his personal style preference and acting as his/her agent on the talk page. See the discussion we had at:

• User_talk:Bobblewik#User:Freakofnurture_block_over_Bobblewik_edits_of_percentages

Are blocking powers really intended to be used like that? bobblewik 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know what the MOS says, but newspaper style is to use the numeral and spell out percent, always. As in 3 percent; 12 percent; 100 percent. · Katefan0/poll 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He could have probably used a little more tact in his responses though.

In such cases, it's probably best to go ahead and yield, re-read the policy, then get a third opinion if it's that important to you. It gives me a headache to see conflicts over such things anyway, as they should be plain in the MOS. --DanielCD 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Percent has always been spelled out in every encyclopedia article I can recall ever reading; further, a search for "percent" at the Britannica website yields more than 6,000 pages (including this first result, with numericals) while a search for "%" yields none. In radio news writing, I can say from experience that we always write out "percent" while only numbers ten and under are written out. (And, yes, more tact is preferable.) RadioKirk talk to me 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about radio, but AP style is to always use the numeral with percent regardless of quantity; that ten-and-under rule only applies with non-percentage number references. · Katefan0/poll 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, AP (personal prejudice). My Chicago Manual (15th Edition) says in section 9.19 (page 384):

Percentages are always given in numerals. in humanistic copy the word percent is used; in scientific and statistical copy, or in humanistic copy that includes numerous percentage figures, the symbol % is more appropriate...Note also that no space appears between the numeral and the symbol %. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the response seems uncivil and disproportionate. Was the rationale for the block that Bobblewik was using a bot? (Although it's really beside the point in this case, I don't exactly think the MoS and bobblewik have plucked this idea from thin air: "%" for figures, "percent" or "per cent" for words. That is what I've seen in style guides. As for the space, who is to say? Proper typography would probably put a half-space in front of a percentage sign or a unit, but that is not possible in Misplaced Pages.) –Joke 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways, but it probably needs to be spelled out. I'd think it really wouldn't be that important as long as it's consistent with the rest of the same article. But definitely not worth fighting over. Be aware when these small things come up and irritate you, because if you have little experience here, and are that picky, it can get rough. Just try to be aware and use it as a learning experience. --DanielCD 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, as a rule of thumb, when you are dealing with an admin who is being rough, get a third opinion. These trivial things can be sorted out quickly if a third party gives a fresh perspective.

Man it's hard to type on this page without getting an edit conflict! --DanielCD 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel slightly responsible for Bobblewik bringing this here. Apologies if I have been stirring things when I should have let them lie.

On the substantive question, having read WP:BOT and its talk page again a short while ago, I can understand why Bobblewik may have been blocked in the first place, if he was making fast edits using AWB. I think there may have been some mis-communication in the subsequent exchanges in User talk:Bobblewik; however, matters of style (short of disruption or making a WP:POINT) are not, in my book, grounds for blocking. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a firestorm.

1. When I questioned bobblewik's edits, he offered only the following response:

   I answered that question further up this page at the section titled Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch. I hope that helps. Thanks. bobblewik 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Then he continued to perform the same edits at a bot-like speed, as if to ignore me altogether. I questioned him again, stating that I had read the section above, followed the links to the manual of style page, and found this:

   The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

3. So I once again asked him why he was putting a space between the number and the percent sign. He responded by merely copying and pasting another portion of his talk page as if that was adequate explanation and as if I he thought I hadn't read it already.
4. Thus I blocked him for one hour, hoping that he would focus attention on his talk page long enough to give an adequate response, and also hoping that would be long enough.
5. If the edits in question were being performed from a separate bot account, as he has been previously asked to do, I would have blocked only the bot, and not bobblewik himself.
6. I don't believe any of the various formats are actually incorrect, thus his accusation that I blocked him to enforce my preferred style is deceptive.
7. I have never seen anybody besides him put a space between a number and a percent sign. I asked several individuals via IRC and nobody indicated use of that style.
8. He should not be making bot-speed edits from his main account.
9. I should not have sworn at him, but he caused greater frustration than I have experienced since mid-december.
10. WP:BOT#Current policy on running bots states: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator didn't say they would do, messing up articles or editing too rapidly."

    Despite being a non-bot account, I believe bobblewik met these criteria for intents and purposes.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:20, Feb. 15, 2006

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)" says that "The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol." This is for units of measurement, which it could be argued does apply to percentages, but equally might not. Under the percentages section it does not mention the use of a space. violet/riga (t) 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything violet/riga says and everything Freakofnurture says – other than 8 and 10 – seem perfectly sensible to me. –Joke 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it can be seen that there is by no means consensus for placing a space before a percentage sign, and so it should not be done by a bot. Sam Korn 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is, it seems, a good case to be made for changing "7 percent" or "7 per cent" to either one of "7%" or "7 %". So it seems perfectly reasonable to do that automatically. I don't think bobblewik was changing "7%" to "7 %". –Joke 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems much more reasonable. All the same, controversial bot (or something resembling a bot) edits are still to be avoided. I think it has been shown that this change falls into that category. Sam Korn 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Joke. Let us be clear. I did not put the space before a percentage symbol. I did not add any or remove any. I was not dealing with the space issue at all. I merely changed the word into a symbol. As far as consensus, is concerned, there was none either way. It is a binary choice. I am not a mind reader and should not be blocked for not implementing somebody else's preference.

I do not regard this as a big complaint. I have made my point and perhaps that is all I wanted. I think User:Freakofnurture was genuinely mistaken. But incorrect assumptions are not an excuse for a misuse of power. The powerful have a greater responsibility to check before acting. I merely raised it here because of kind feedback from Atlant and ALoan. I am grateful to them. Visibility of actions by a peer group is often enough incentive to behave well. As to the style guidance itself, please feel free to join in the discussion I started on the talk page of the MoS. bobblewik 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a miscommunication on one hand, and an admin that was a little trigger-happy, though likely still acting in good faith. I suggest the parties involved discuss the miscommunication and try to look forward, as the alternative is to keep making discussion comments instead of doing real work/editing. My advice: Decide if there's a conflict to be pursued, which only the complaining party really can decide. Hopefully, they'll just accept the faults of communication as blame, and try to work together to solve the problem. Then they can perhaps serve as authorities if it comes up again somewhere. But it's ya'll's choice, to fight or edit. This is just my words, take 'em or leave 'em. --DanielCD 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the choice, I would prefer to edit. However I would also prefer that bobblewik didn't change formats that, as clarified by RadioKirk and others, are equally acceptable. The use of the space is what first upset me, but it was his discourteous lack of response, and continuing to make the same edits which convinced me to block, and I might add that mine was the mildest block he has ever received (see ). It was not intended to punish, but rather to overcome his apparent unwillingness to discuss the concerns I raised. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:06, Feb. 15, 2006

I would like to add that Freakofnurture has stated on my userpage that he likes to break the rules of adminship. User:Lapinmies/List_of_admins_that_have_violated_the_rules. Lapinmies 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Amit jain online unresponsive to warnings

In trying to stem the flow of un-licensed images onto[REDACTED] I found User:Amit jain online uploading a reasonably large number of un-licensed images. He will not respond to my messages and has continued to upload images after multiple warnings. Could an admin have a word to him please about the seriousness of disregarding[REDACTED] policy, thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the moment; I've warned him and directed him to Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. If he continues, we'll have to block. Essjay 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content (userboxes)

I posted this message on Djr xi's talk page; I think it provides enough information that I don't need to elaborate further.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ) 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. Well I had the substituted version on my page and so did the user you quote above. I had no idea the original template had even been deleted - most users subst their pages to avoid the nonsense of templates being speedily deleted. As long as they are subst'd then feel free to do what you want. Deano (Talk) 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-automatically substituted a broken userbox on the user's page in the previous edit. I assumed it was your intention to replace all instances of the deleted template with a subpage template; I apologize if that was not so. // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

This has been restored and deleted again and the afd re-opened. I've left a note on Alkivar's talk page telling him that I think this was a poorly considered course of action, and told him that I am bringing it here.

In the (admittedly unlikely event) that it turns out that it was in fact a family member who requested this be taken down and the foundation agrees, the screaming of "ADMIN ABUSE" will now echo even louder. In the event that this was a hoax and the article is kept, do we doubt that next time something gets deleted by a close margin the "restore by brute force and take by to AfD" method won't get used again?

Can we set a precedent by social pressure and trout slapping that use of the accepted venues (namely here and DRV) are to be used, and that venue shopping is disruptive?

brenneman 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what he said, but I certainly agree!

More seriously, the quickest route to laying this to rest is probably best. I agree with brenneman. Why are people so concerned? That procedure was not followed? --DanielCD 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Its funny you have no problems with the AFD consensus to keep getting shopped to DRV where simple majority rules. Yet when it gets moved back ... OH DEAR GOD VENUE SHOPPING! ... seriously dude get a grip. You'll note i never voted on this... Hell I WANT IT DELETED... I cant be any clearer than that. HOWEVER I want an ironclad unarguable decision that deletion is correct so that we can simply say "you've had your due process... you lost" to future recreations.  ALKIVAR™ 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats to Aaron btw.  ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing is, at this point it's not a matter for a "vote" on any XfD/DRV venue. It has been deleted by a trustworthy administrator on the grounds of a potential legal issue. Regardless of any decision on DRV, I believe the venue for appeal for those who do not believe there is a legal issue is now to either the ArbCom or Jimbo/the Foundation Board. That's the only ironclad unarguable decision you're going to get at this point. FCYTravis 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then again, people could just agree to let it go, and try not to let over-speedy deletions happen again in the future. It's not a necessary law of nature that it has to go through AfD again. The world isn't going to explode. --DanielCD 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When something was deleted useing a method I once suggested a jokely bit of rule lawyering no. The problem is the venue shopping started before the thing was deleted. "restore by brute force" doesn't appear to be happening.Geni 23:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing the ongoing afd

In the event that this newest AfD is allowed to continue, we'd certainly like to avoid a snap close at five days plus five seconds by someone partisan. The thought of another pass through DRV and the potential of another AfD after that is too awful to bear. Suggestions on how to close this would be welcome, and I'll place a note in html comments at the top of the page referring to this. - brenneman 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If a partisan admin closes something early without agreement, there should be a penalty. --DanielCD 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We could put a comment (warning) at the top of the article. Like, User:some_admin (whoever, as long as they're not a party to the dispute) has promised to close this article between (time when it closes) and (24 hours later). Please leave it until he/she gets to it. I am totally clueless on this dispute... I feel I should offer, but I'm afraid reading the votes might take all day. moink 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a lot of this going on lately. If something's in AfD, and people are still not satisfied, there are no grounds whatsoever to close it early. A consensus is not reached if people are still unwilling to close the AfD. These kind of actions just go overlooked, and that's what the problem is. These rules exist just to keep this kind of thing from happening, and it's the admin who closed the damn thing early who broke the rules. And before anyone gets their panties in a wad, know that I say this not knowing who it was. --DanielCD 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What should likely happen is this admin's actions should be reviewed by impartial parties, meaning admins or higher who don't know him. --DanielCD 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a case where an otherwise useful article should be permitted to die quietly. It does not reflect well on Misplaced Pages that, after an apparently genuine request is acted on, the silliness starts, quibbling about rules and process and all kinds of pointless nonsense. Let it die. No debate needed, it's just a routine deletion done as a courtesy from OTRS. If this silly nonsense continues to happen, I guarantee that the board will be confirmed in its longheld belief that something serious needs to be done about our deletion process. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many genuine requests are received about many pages, such as Ashida Kim, Daniel Brandt, etc. If we act on some cases, but don't act on others, that means that each case needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Unless Jimbo steps in, that implies a debate. -- Curps 05:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CatherineWest (talk • contribs)

Could someone take a look at this. New user, registered yesterday and with about 10 edits seems to have gone on a spree of marking userboxes for speedy deletion. I reverted those with the invalid reason of being "commercial", but now she's moved on to "divisive" (on admittedly controversial templates). I'd like to assume good faith, but this could just be a troll who knows exactly what buttons to press to cause controversy. the wub "?!" 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have quietened down. the wub "?!" 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

She continued this, so I have blocked her for 24 hours for disrupting Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion. —Guanaco 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This user seems to have a sizable amount of knowledge regarding Misplaced Pages policy and process for a "newcomer." Would a CheckUser be out of the question? -- Hinotori 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked unfairly

Yesterday I had been in a content dispute with Dbiv and without a warning someone listed me for 3RR. I had been unaware that I had broken the rule as there were various disputes, so I immediately stopped editing there. I showed that Dbiv had broken the same rule. Admin Tom harrison warned both of us and NSLE tried to mediate. However, Dbiv went on to revert two more times in the following hours when other users reinserted what he did not like. I complained and we both got blocked, I seven hours after my last revert. Can you imagine in a soccer game two guys in a conflict get yellow cards, and when one of them goes on with foul play BOTH get the red one? I think that is unfair adminship. The admin who blocked us did not reply to my email complaint although he was online and responded to Dbiv who threatened him. NSLE gave me the advise to report this here. Get-back-world-respect 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both users are now annoyed with me, I must not have acted too unfairly. Tom Harrison 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's always a good sign. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:38, Feb. 16, 2006

Wow, administrators proud to make mischief. Perfect presupposition for serving one's duty. Get-back-world-respect 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is mischief. Stopping an edit war can end friendships, but at least it stops the mischief. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:08, Feb. 16, 2006

That depends on the circumstances. Admins' actions are not law. --DanielCD 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this "buddy" system of overlooking such things and dismissing them with cute comments should be put unters messer. And if both users are seeing an injustice, to assume that it was not "too unfair" for that reason that is crass to the point of insult. --DanielCD 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the silliest explanations I've ever read. Both users being annoyed at you is a sign that you haven't been more unfair to one than the other, but it is, by no means, a reflection that you've been fair to both parties. Hypothetically speaking, if I were an admin and decided to indefinitely block two edit warriors for all eternity, hell yes they'd be both annoyed at me, and hell yes it'd be unfair. I'm not bothering to address the actual dispute, but someone needed to point out that that is not "always a good sign." Yeesh. -- Hinotori 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As both of the blocked editors violated the WP:3rr rule, and both were blocked, there is nothing unfair going on here. The fact that one admin gave a warning instead of blocking should not stop another admin from blocking both of them. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv unblocked himself - that's not supposed to happen, even if he feels the block was wrong. NSLE _(T+C) 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As if we didn't have enough problems.Geni 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think that when someone comes into this forum to ask for clarity, they should be given consideration and assistance no matter how wrong they are/were, not mocking comments. It makes the admins look like dicks. That's my only point here.

As to Dbiv unblocking himself, that was definitely not the right thing to do. --DanielCD 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed no one redid it. I was all set to until I realized that this was from yesterday. You don't unblock yourself. PERIOD. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage Tom Harrison to demonstrate for everyone's benefit what the four reverts were that Dbiv made. I'm not disputing his actions, but the 3RR report seemed confused and included diffs which were definitely not reverts. Note that I'm not condoning Dbiv unblocking himself by questioing the original block. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dbiv removes 'kicking while forced to the ground' 15:40, 14 February 2006

• ditto 12:43, 14 February 2006

• ditto 10:53, 14 February 2006

• again 10:46, 14 February 2006 - and here I stopped counting. Tom Harrison 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting side note to this, please view GBWR's user and talk page histories. Deleting warnings, blocks, and then trying to speedily delete your own page to hide the evidence is fun for everyone! ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Or he could be just leaving in disgust and wanting to wipe away his existance here. Assume good faith and all that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm reapplying the block, for the principle that one shpuld not unblock himself/herself. For sysops who feel that the 3rr block is not justified, please feel free to unblock David. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I am editing this piece while not logged in. I am a very bad boy and must be punished. But as it is the middle of the night for both Geni and Mailer Diablo it seems the only way of raising general attention. The 3RR block was blatantly unjust because my edits to Current Events were not (apart from one) reverts. They were all different versions of trying to get a compromise. Check the edits and you will see this for yourself. This new interpretation of 3RR that each individual sentence counts is bizarre and never before seen, and in my last edit to that page at 21:37 I included "kicking" in a plural so it's not even true. If the 3RR is acting to prevent attempts at compromise, then it's certainly not helping. As for unblocking myself, I was quite open as to the fact that I was doing it, and cited WP:IAR. The direct reason was that I was in the middle of making this edit which had taken the best part of an hour and involved comparing five separate reference books. It was 1 AM local time and I had to be in work at 9 AM. (It took Tom harrison a whole 18 hours to reply to the email I sent him a minute after he applied the block) There is no way that I was going to see this work lost even if that meant involving myself in what I expected would be a whole load of trouble in the morning. I was very surprised when there was absolutely nothing and no-one seemed to have noticed: indeed no-one noticed during the day so I was hardly disrupting anyone! I spent the time adding a whole load of useful encyclopaedic information and writing an encyclopaedia (I actually rather like Rhodesia general election, 1962, and if anyone speedy deletes it on the grounds it was made by a user who should have been blocked then that will be the height of lunacy). Blocks are not applied for punishment but to stop disruption. I was not disrupting anything, Q.E.D. I do hope someone will see sense and unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiv (talk • contribs)

Dbiv, while I have implied here that I felt your block was unjust and said as much on your talk page, I don't think your action in unblocking yourself was well thought-out. Though I am a mere user without admin powers, from what I've read, there's a strong consensus that under no circumstances should this be acceptable, and I think the reasons are obvious. Even when "justified," unblocking oneself has a tendency to cause far more trouble than its worth, especially when the initial block was for only 24 hours. Though I think hardly anyone considers you anything but a good faith editor, disruption is in the eye of the beholder, and as an involved party, I don't think you should be the one to decide that. The reaction right here could very well be considered disruption in itself, and the blocking/unblocking actions already feel like the beginning (if not the process itself) of a wheel war. I don't see your point about "losing" your work. Few changes to Misplaced Pages are important enough that can't wait a day, and those that are can be handled by someone else. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see why you couldn't have saved your work elsewhere, and waited to make the change after the block expired. -- Hinotori 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocks should never be applied "for the sake of form", only to help preserve the encyclopaedia. If it is true that there is disruption here because of the discussion of my unblocking, that's because someone brought it here more than 24 hours after it happened. The actual unblocking didn't seem to disrupt anything, but it did allow me to add useful edits yesterday. I want to be unblocked now to add useful edits today. I always thought the cardinal unwritten rule of Misplaced Pages is that "whatever it is, writing an encyclopaedia is always more important".

And therein lies the problem with your assumption. Form and process are a part of ensuring a functional system for writing the encyclopedia; even if your initial block was unjustified, you are encouraging a precedent that one can unblock his or herself as long as one thinks it's for the good of the encyclopedia. Surely you see the problem with this thinking. Even if you are right in this instance, sanction of your actions has the potential to give excuse to those who would abuse such actions and has a long-term effect of making blocks ineffective. It causes ill will, gives newer users the impression of a Cabal, and has the potential to start disruptive wheel wars, giving Misplaced Pages a bad impression in general. Unblocking yourself was in fact the cause of the discussion here, as none of this regarding your action would have been said if you didn't unblock yourself to begin with. In fact, had you not unblocked yourself, another admin would most likely have, and you would have been easily vindicated. As for improving the encyclopedia, again, I see no reason your edits couldn't have waited till after the block, so the benefit to Misplaced Pages appears neglible to me. The harms, on the other hand, are already making themselves manifest. -- Hinotori 10:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that when I say the "benefit" is "negligible," I'm not referring to the edits themselves which are exceptional. They could, however, have just as easily been made AFTER the block had expired or, at least, after another admin had unblocked you. -- Hinotori 10:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the initial 3RR block was unjust - there is no way that the diffs cited above are reverts, they are (as David says) a genuine attempt to find a compromise which is NPOV. However, given the self-unblocking, I'm not going to get involved. --ajn (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like admins unblocking themselves. Even if the original block was unjust. I agree with ignoring all rules when the situation dictates that it's better to ignore the rule than obey it. It would have been so much though to unblock both parties dont you think? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it either. But in the circumstances I had no choice. With regard to Hinotori, with my browser if you get the 'blocked from editing' page, you lose the edit. It was 1 AM and I needed to sleep; if another admin had removed the block, what was I supposed to do - stay awake and wait? I'm not asking for sanctioning my actions because I acknowledged I shouldn't be doing it right from the start. I know it was wrong - and I'm not going to unblock myself now. But since (a) everyone other than the blocking admin has accepted that the original block was unjustified, and (b) I didn't disrupt Misplaced Pages while blocked, what harm did it do? If you don't want good quality edits from me today, please say so explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiv (talk • contribs)

"Marina Girl" stereotype essay at Marina District, San Francisco, California

There is a group of users who insist on reverting to a version of this article that contains a lengthy, tongue-in-cheek essay on the "Marina Girl" stereotype of this neighborhood. The essay borders on an attack, and my explanations on the talk page of why I feel that the essay violates WP:POV and WP:Verifiability don't seem to have done much good. While there may be a few examples of stereotypes (e.g. Yuppie) that can be sufficiently documented, I have doubts about this one, especially given that the scope is so limited. I ask that others read the disputed content and weigh in on the subject. OhNoitsJamie 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed content is a bunch of nasty stereotypes and derogatory social commentary. We wouldn't fill the Arkansas article with a bunch of snippy comments about toothless rednecks who wear wifebeater T-shirts and screw their cousins; or the Oakland, California article with racially offensive remarks about looting. We shouldn't do the analogous to this locale either. --FOo 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wyss' repeated deletions of other User comments on Talk: Adolf Hitler

As of this moment, Wyss has deleted my comments three times on Talk:Adolf Hitler and has also deleted the comments of another user, User:CPMcE. The first time round she claimed it was a server error, but after that she began to deliberately remove my comments blanking them out with personal attack removed. This is NOT the first time Wyss has unilaterally removed comments from Talk pages, specifically mine. I will find those links later. For now I think Wyss should be blocked or at least prevented from making further deletions on Talk pages.

Here are the edits in question:

1. 1st deletion of my comments
2. 1st deletion of User:CPMcE's comments
3. Wyss' excuse: Note, there were server problems and some comments got deleted accidently. Wyss 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
4. 2nd deletion of my comments after her excuse.
5. 3rd deletion of my comments

-- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think someone can likely correlate the server problems with the times of those diffs. I was pressing save, getting an error message, backing up the browser to return to the edit window, pressing save again, sometimes twice, and this happened maybe three times. I had no idea comments were being deleted. IMHO user:Simonides is attempting to use this as leverage in a little spat we're having about the intro to Adolf Hitler. I'll be away from the article for at least half a day now anyway but if someone wants to help either there or on my talk page... please!!! :) Wyss 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As with all of Wyss' arguments (evident on the Talk page in question) this is highly disingenuous. Every editor gets an 'Edit Conflict' message when one message is about to be saved over another, particularly if server errors occur between edits - both I and User:CPMcE were editing at the same time and neither of us 'accidentally' deleted others' messages. It is clear that Wyss is using the occasional server glitches to her advantage and will not tolerate any claims of error and wrongdoing (as demonstrated by the above links and her Talk page). -- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the edit conflict message, it was the multilingual server problem message, white background, green letters. It got so bad I stopped editing for around ten minutes, couldn't even see my talk page or watchlist. Wyss 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss' other Talk page deletions

On her Talk page, here, Wyss began by making false or conjectural charges against me and trying to shift the blame of her violation on to my edits (as she does above too.) Sadly for her, the admins did not quite see things the same way. In retaliation she prevented me from countering her false claims on her Talk page and characterized all my edits as 'personal attacks', a by now routine modus operandi she uses with several users regardless of her own lack of civility.

Some of the edits that she deleted, including replies to other editors addressing me:

And from Talk:Adolf Hitler, once again

• deletion of comment

-- Simonides 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Readers will note that every one of those is either a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA which I removed according to WP policy or harassment on my own talk page which I removed with comment in the edit summary. Wyss 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While some of the comments above may have been at heated moments, others were made in good faith and written as dispassionately as possible; some were not even addressed to Wyss. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Simonides' other accusations are rather hollow, the true problem is that I, along with several other editors, don't agree with Simonides about some word choices in the article intro. Wyss 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. Other users I disagree with aren't deleting my comments. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss has requested a stop to the mutual disrespect here and I have replied here. If there is any progress I shall remove this incident. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy to block

Here's an open proxy to block: 72.232.67.202 (talk • contribs) Werdna648/_C\ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I thought open proxys are subject to indef, or am I wrong here? ;) - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that is an open proxy.. shared IP perhaps, but not open. Sasquatch t|c 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to indef as it is the same like an open proxy anyone can come to that page and type in a web address, feel free to change it. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• IP leads to Layered Technologies, a hosting company. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is used by http://www.projectbypass.org --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dohfast1

I blocked this editor earlier this evening for a "heinous" personal attack. Thought I should report it here before I turn in. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually kind of vague as to whether it's an attack, as it doesn't say "I will" but rather "I would", but it's really the same as what got User:Amorrow banned indef, and I strongly support that, so this can stay, too, IMO. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== User: Pink Floyd For Free ==

The above-named user is apparently here solely for the purpose of posting linkspam, and linkspam for a blatantly illegal site that requires third-party software to use at that. He has yet to make a single contribution that wasn't either linkspam or a thouroughly unpersuasive (in some cases downright dishonest) defense of same. What can be done about this? (Note that the same linkspam has been posted from several anonymous IPs prior to the recent creation of this account.) PurplePlatypus 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice nobody's yet tried his talk page... -GTBacchus 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He's been told repeatedly, albeit intemperately (especially in my case), that his behaviour is unacceptable; does it matter that much where? PurplePlatypus 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Current events

Can somebody figure out where the garbage at the top of the Current events page is coming from? User:Zoe| 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was coming from Template:Current_events --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zoe| 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please semi-protect Muslim

The article is being vandalized every few minutes, often by anonIPs. It's difficult to keep the article intact -- I just found that we'd been restoring a version that had already been vandalized (someone wiped out the bottom third of the article). Zora 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, please. Thank you! :) - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards