Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gene Nygaard (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 10 March 2007 (→[]'s admin abuse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

User:Dpotop blocked without warning or explanation

User:Dpotop was blocked by User:Blnguyen for a time period of 48-hours. The reason given on the blockpage is this:

There are a few problems with that reasoning.

1. Coicoi, in Romanian, does not mean testicles. Coaie, in slang language, means testicles and some may say also coi.
2. Dpotop called Khoikhoi for coicoi on March 7; and about 24 hours later, he was blocked for 48 hours.
3. Dahn confronted Dpotop about calling Khoikhoi for coicoi, in which Dpotop answered by saying this:

This is true. If I wanted to write the name Khoikhoi in Romanian, it would be written as "coicoi."

4. Dpotop was not warned by any admin, for any violation; he was not notified that he was blocked; and nor was he told where he could appeal against his block. I think the block is unfair and that Dpotop should be unblocked on grounds that there is no proof of him intending to use the alternative spelling as a way to insult Khoikhoi. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know events where people have been called worse and didn't get blocked for personal attacks. I guess that's life :-( --Domitius 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it should have any bearing on the decision, and I don't ultimately claim that it should (that is a decision for admins to take). I will however point out that the "explanation" furnished above by Anittas is ridiculous. "Coi" means "a testicle", "coaie" means "testicles", pure and simple. In my view, as I have stated before, Dpotop used it on purpose, as a derogatory manipulation of Khoikhoi's user name. I also find the theory about k being uncommon in Romanian to be absurd - it is by no means that uncommon (if one is looking for it, one will find it easily), and Dpotop wrote the rest of his message in English, which has a lot of ks (he did not have trouble finding them, apparently). "Spontaneity" is out of the question (not to get tangled up in semantics, but "kh" never turns into "c" in Romanian, and I am yet to see a person that would find spelling with a c "easier" than spelling with a k in Romanian). That is what I have to say. Dahn 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? We agree that coi/coaie means testicle/s. The letter K is indeed uncommon in Romanian. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In a quick read, I see your point. However cross cultural slurs/insults about alternate spellings & pronunciations of usernames have come up before (can't begin to find diffs, but I definitely remember it happening) Sometimes its a misunderstanding, sometimes its not. I've alerted User:Blnguyen to this discussion on his talk page. Cheers Dina 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I met User:Blnguyen on the DYK page and I recall her/him as an excellent contributor. I am afraid that now s/he really committed a big mistake in blocking User:Dpotop for that “Khoikhoi = coicoi” story. As a native Romanian speaker I can say that you need a huge portion imagination to construct a case out of this Romanian transliteration. Knowing User:Blnguyen as a fair person, I think that all was but a misunderstanding. As I said, you cannot possibly accuse a Romanian person of bad faith or insulting intentions when transliterating “Khoikhoi” to “coicoi”, since it’s the most obvious and spontaneous way of writing down “Khoikhoi” in a phonetic way. Besides, “coi” – meaning testicle in Romanian – is by no means used as an insulting word. A Romanian called “coi” would be rather surprised than insulted. Moreover, “coi” is a particle of many Romanian words like “Ciocoi”, Băicoi”, “Coif”, “Coir”, so that there is no concern for Romanian speakers to avoid words containing “coi”. Besides, what Dahn argues reads like weird speculations aimed at harming Dpotop. I wonder where so much hate on Dpotop comes from. I think that there are strong reasons to unblock User:Dpotop. --Vintilă Barbu 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to undue the block without hearing from User:Blnguyen, since 48 hours is not excessive for a personal attack. In context, I can see the argument that this was not meant as it was interpreted. Although I would suggest that mispelling of usernames in arguments can often be seen as dismissive and my read of the diff is sort of like that. Sort of like someone saying about me "well Deena thinks so, so whatever". It's a bit rude, and the argument seemed to be a bit heated at the time. I have alerted User:Khoikhoi to the existence of this discussion, since his/her feelings about the alleged insult seem relevant. To be frank: I'm not going to unblock without discussion with the two admins involved, and it may be longer than 48 hours until they respond. My apologies if this is all a misunderstanding. Cheers. Dina 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block - this user and a couple of others were basically attacking Khoikhoi and badgering another user about something on the Romanian Misplaced Pages. Appears more like trolling than anything else. Rama's arrow 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some users write messages to others in their native languages/scripts here - the bottomline is this was obviously a bad-faith ref to Khoikhoi and nobody can use translation as an excuse about it. This is the ENGLISH Misplaced Pages where you're not supposed to use any other language, especially under such circumstances. Do you seriously expect others to be able to translate Romanian, Bengali, Arabic and all other languages under the sun in order to check for personal attacks? Rama's arrow 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the matter initially under discussion here, I do want to weigh in on "not supposed to use any other language": it is perfectly reasonable for users to communicate with one another in languages in which they are comfortable. There are quite a few users who routinely address me in either Romanian or Spanish, because it is easier for them and generally no problem for me. I think that's more than fine. On at least two occasions, the comments in question have been blatant (and obscene) personal attacks, and I've reported them as such. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In such a situation I would seek clarification, or at the very least start with a warning. _InBC 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not reasonable exactly becoz of such a situation - the English Misplaced Pages is the most diverse of its kind. What will happen if editors here, from so many different countries just start using their local languages for their interactions? I would consider it a tremendous discourtesy to those who don't speak Indian languages if Indian editors began conducting dialogue and business in Indian languages. Everybody is free to participate and all dialogues are transparent and open here - this can't be enforced w/o a generally strict usage of English only. Who will be able to keep track of the personal attacks, incivility, etc. stuff going on? As an administrator, I find the prospect terribly challenging - I've already seen 3 cases of insulting comments/insinuations being made in Bengali, Hindi and Urdu. Were it not for my background or for the presence of some other admins who do know that particular language, who's to say which version of the translation would be accurate? Would an Australian admin be able to detect the slur? English is the thread that binds us here - all practical interaction must be conducted in English and very rarely (I regard the exchange of greetings, pleasantries to be ok) should other languages be used. It is not fair to other users and certainly difficult to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Right now the unity given by English allows a Vietnamese-Australian admin (Blnguyen) to block a Romanian editor for a personal attack. And I'm a terrestrial of martian origin (lol) lecturing on how on the English Misplaced Pages, only English should be used. While it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be anglophiles, this being the English Misplaced Pages must compell the Romanian editors in question to not use Romanian phrases in such public discussions, at the very least. Rama's arrow 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to write in Romanian, but that's beside the point, because the user didn't write in Romanian. He merely wrote the name as it would be written in Romanian and that can't be against the rules. As for trolling and personal attacks, as you claim to have seen:--I guess you can always provide examples, but I don't see this incident as a such example. Everything is based on assumption which Dahl started. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who are ready to take this semantical explanation for granted may be interested to see what two Romanian-speaking editors have argued on the notice board: see this (and follow the links provided in the latter of the two posts). Dahn 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that three posts. I want to clarify this again here: I did not call for the block, did not endorse it, and was not even aware of it until someone advertised it on the notice board. But to pretend that the words used were "not insults" is simply absurd. Dahn 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading an earlier attempt to interpret the spelling of Khoikhoi as an insult. Due to the phonetic identity between the particle “Khoi” and the Romanian word “coi” (vernacular for “testicle”) it is very easy to accuse a Romanian person of having meant “testicle” when s/he writes Khoi or coicoi. Anyway, these accusations break the very basic WP principle of WP:AGF. --Vintilă Barbu 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy of assume good faith works hand in hand with common sense. It is ludicrous to argue that "Coicoi" was just a "Romanian transliteration" or a "different spelling". Names are names, and since Romanian uses the Latin alphabet, there is absolutely no need for changing names, particularly when you get words like "coi", which are insulting. If Dpotop genuinely wrote "Coicoi" because he wanted to use Romanian spelling, whatever that may mean, then he at least should've realised, upon reading what he wrote, that Coicoi is insulting, and removed it on that grounds. Ronline ✉ 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's essential point -- non-english should be avoided, at the very least, because it can certainly give the impression to someone that they were being talked about, or mocked. I've had that happen to me in real life as well, and it's unsettling, particularly when you can't be sure. But I am not certain that discouraging the use of foreign languages really applies here, as "KhoiKhoi" is not english and, apparently "coicoi" is not Romanian. It's necessary to trust native Romanian speakers as to whether or not this could be interpreted as a slur. Such things are usually subtle, in all languages. Some good faith seems necessary. I do think that in the case of a personal attack block, the case just generally be very clear cut. However, I expect the user in question, whether his intention was to insult or not, will be much more careful in the future and that can only be a good thing. Dina 13:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It does appear, from Dahn's diffs above, that three native Romanian speakers (including at least one who does not agree with the block) say that this is clearly a slur of some kind. However, no one seems to be saying that it's a really terrible, horrible insult. So I essentially endorse the block, however it should have been handled properly. The user should have been warned, and the block time should have much shorter. Dina 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I firmly persist that “coicoi” is no insult. At worst I view it as a quite tasteless jest transliteration. You don't block someone for 48 hours just for that. Nevertheless User:Dpotop did break the general courtesy norm of never altering names. (You never know what can happen: in France there is a name spelled “Zabé”, while “zabe” means cock. I may doubt that a Mrs. or Mr. Zabé would become excessively appreciative when someone drops that accent). Admittedly User:Dpotop was quite inconsiderate altering Khoikhoi into whatever else. What I am criticising, is the automatically inferring of bad faith from a name altering, be it one of dubious taste. We can proudly say that assuming bad faith has worked flawless this time. --Vintilă Barbu 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not play games here. If it were me who wrote 'coicoi', I would have play innocent who didnt know what he is doing. But Dpotop knew only too well the meaning of the word he was writing. `'mikka 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppinion of User:Dpotop. Since my block is now over, I think it's time you don't just talk about me, but also hear my position:

1. If User:Khoikhoi feels he was the object of a personal attack, then I address him my apologies. After all, personal attacks are forbidden because they make their object feel bad or reduced in some way. However, I still have to see User:Khoikhoi formulate a complaint.
2. Believe me or not, I did not intend to make User:Khoikhoi feel bad. I do agree that the innocence of my (unique) name-change "Coicoi" can be disputed. Actually, I don't really recall why I did it: The subject of the incriminated post, which took place on the talk page of User:Dahn, was the article Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, where User:Dahn intervened as a proxy for User:Khoikhoi, making blind reverts. My objective was just to emphasize the abnormality represented by these editing practices where users blindly support each other.
3. Frankly, I belive that what I see now as a mild fault (but fault indeed, regardless of my intentions) from my part is only now becoming a huge insult to User:Khoikhoi through all the fuss initiated around it by User:Dahn in a discussion where he used this argument (and many more) in order to deviate the discussion from its subject (perceived vandalism by User:Khoikhoi, who made controversial edits on ro.wikipedia, and then pretended they were not made by him). For this whole "testicle" propaganda I do apologize to User:Khokhoi, although it was never my intention, nor of my making.
4. Coming now to the actual blocking, I do feel it was unjust on both procedure and duration. First of all, it was not an obvious personal attack. The only person accusing me was User:Dahn, in the middle of a heated discussion where he was opposed by everyone else (including confirmed editors). Aside from a 2-line accusation in the middle of a huge technical discussion, there was no appeal to an administrator, and, most important, User:Khoikhoi did not formulate any complaint (while he was editing other articles and was informed of the discussion).
5. I can only presume that User:Dahn demanded my block through unpublic means (mail) to admin User:Blnguyen. I can easily believe this, because User:Blnguyen is also the administrator that overturned without any obvious cause or explanation the last 3RR block of User:Dahn after only 2 hours.
6. So frankly, I cannot help but feel here cartel-like editing and administration practices (between User:Dahn, User:Khoikhoi, and User:Blnguyen, to be precise) where decision-making does not obey wikipedia rules (such as 3RR) and opponents are punished at sight with the harshest punishments available regardless of their arguments, and where the least critique or inquiry is diverted through long diatribes on irrelevant subjects.

Thanks for listening, Dpotop 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

1. See the blocklog, March 8
2. See dictionary.com and dexonline.ro
3. See Dahn's talkpage, March 7, 2007; 8:26
4. See Misplaced Pages talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, Vintilă Barbu 14:16, 7 March 2007
5. See Dpotop's userpage and talkpage

Big Boss 0

Big Boss 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been frustrating the hell out of myself and User:The Hybrid for quite some time now. That resulted in a 48 hour block on February 19 by me. (See relevant threads here and here).

Since the block, he's continued to be disruptive. He keeps taunting Ockenbock (a blocked user who continues to come back to troll my user talk page). But now, recently, there's some crazy things he's saying that really scary and annoying for me: see this and this. He's threatening to stalk me, basically, and that scares me. See also this thread at The Hybrid's talk page where he explains his stalking and such.

And there's also just odd actions like this conversation and this related diff. He's trying to run some wrestling fanboy thing on here and thinks he can control all the other fanboy actions on Misplaced Pages.

Can another admin please look at this? I think I'm too involved to make a proper ruling on this, but something needs to be done. Thanks, Metros232 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also this diff. It seems that Nightmare81 might be the person he claims is doing all the research on me and everything. "I also wish to have a report of all of the data you have gathered" and "I didn't break policy for no reason. This will be big on both of our parts" kind of bother me. Metros232 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, there's either some real weird non-WP related nonsense going on (it looks like there's a few folks doing an RP account thing on here), or there is a real possible issue. MSJapan 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out, I think. Remember, we are dealing with a young teen here, probably around 13, and a wrestling fan. Now, I believe that he is trying to start a faction within Misplaced Pages under the banner of the nWo. The new World order, or nWo, was a professional wrestling faction within World Championship Wrestling that was incredibly large, and in the storyline they had a real chance of conquering WCW. I believe that he is trying to start an nWo on Misplaced Pages, with him as the leader. In the nWo, the leader was almost always a world champion, and he calls himself "The Real People's Champion." I believe that his goal is to gain control over a certain area of Misplaced Pages, and he views Metros232 as a threat to this goal. Metros, being an admin, has the power to squash his movement before it starts with his power to block people, though of course we know that it would take some serious stuff for him to start running around handing out indef ACB blocks to people.

When he first got here I explained to him how things work, and he asked me many questions about how to most efficiently damage Misplaced Pages. I suspected him of having ulterior motives, but he was being a vandal fighter, and he does seem rather young, so I assumed good faith and answered his questions assuming that he was simply being overzealous due to his curiosity like when a young boy learns about explosions in chemistry class.

However, it now appears that he is trying to start a movement in Misplaced Pages for whatever reason. I believe that his provocation of Ockenbock is an attempt to distract both me and Metros from what he is doing. I believe that he is making preparations to start his own Misplaced Pages nWo, and he wants both editors and vandals (nWo Wolfpac and nWo Hollywood) to join him. He wants to understand the motives of vandals, and I believe that his motive behind this is to get them to join him, which is why he has maintained a presence on Uncyclopedia after tracking down Ockenbock. Meanwhile, he is trying to recruit actual editors over here. What he thinks he will gain by starting a Misplaced Pages nWo is anyone's guess, but we are dealing with a rather young person here, so logic isn't necessarily a part of this.

This is my theory, but since I am leaving for vacation tomorrow I won't be here to see how this thing turns out. Either way, he is violating policies knowingly and unapologetically, so something needs to happen. Peace, -- The Hybrid 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. First of all I am older than 13. And as far as conquoring wikipedia goes it was never my intention. My goal was to reagin control of PDL. On January 3rd PDL fell into the hands of someone who was trying to destroy it all together. They manages to get their hands on all 3 of our titles. All they would have had to done was get their hands on our contracts and PDL would be finished. We decided to stop this at any cost. On the 9th of January the New World Organization was born to counter this threat. From then on there were two factions within PDL those on the Pontiac League board and the New World Organization. On February 2nd I was able to recaputure the LC Championship due to the fact that since I held the PDL Championship for over a year in one reign I can exercise a title match clause anytime I want. In order to stop them from exercising their rematch clauses we decided to rename it the NWO Championship. Every PDL member has 2 rematch clauses in their contract. I had still retained my right to rename titles and with it the rematch clauses they had would be useless. You cannot challenge for what doesn't exist. Finally on March 1st I won the Pontiac Hardcore Championship unifying it with the NWO Championship. With that title I renamed it the PDL Traditional Championship so that I could reinstate it at a later date. The next day I was able to regain control of the PDL Championship when the current holder failed to defend the title when he was supposed to so I was able to vacate it even though I lost the authority to in January he violated contract and that allowed me to vacate the title. The very next day I rematched the current PDL faction for their contracts and the PDL title because the former champion still had his rematch clauses. In the end a PDL Member won it but immediately changed sides unexpectedaly. Not even I saw it coming. Apparently he made a deal with Exxod 6. With that I was able to terminate their membership and regain control of my duelist league. Misplaced Pages was a way to draw attention away from what we were planning. They were keeping a cloes eye on me and I came up with the ultimate way to distract them. And shortly before this all happened I met Nightmare 81 in person. I agreed to get Ockenbock's attention to distract them even further and so that Nightmare 81 could get his data. I would also be getting something very valuable out of all of this. He needed a vandal for his project. So I looked for one and found Ockenbock by accident. So I figured why not. I needed him because he would cause so much trouble on my end that they couldn't find out what we were really planning with the New World Organization. Mutual gain on my and Nightmare 81's. I attacked Ockenbock to gain his full attention and try to completely take it away completely from Metros232. It partially worked and he attacked me. But he still kept attacking Metros. Nightmare has been searching throught all of Ockenbocks sockpuppets and put an I.A. to watch Metros232's talk page. It is completely unable to do anything but watch. My re-taking over was successful and I shall relinquish my PDL authority soon. Everything on my end is done. Now we must wait on him. It should be interesting to look at what he found out. I know I can't wait to see. Big Boss 0 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not some place for you to play out your little Pokemón fantasies and leagues out on here or whatever the heck you're rambling about. If you continue to be disruptive and use Misplaced Pages to further your own factions and groups, you will be blocked. Metros232 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns on Stacy Schiff

If everyone disagrees with me, that's fine with me. But, should Ms. Schiff's birthday be included on her article or not? Per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays, would she be considered "marginally notable" so as not to include her birthday? or is she notable enough to include it? I also object to others characterizing my edits as vandalism, but have greater concerns about getting this right on her article. Please advise in on the article Talk:Stacy_Schiff#BLP_concerns talk page. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it disparaging to suggest that a Pulitzer Prize winner is only "marginally notable". If anything the article is under-developed. Such basic information as that should only be withheld if it is unknown or disputed. We've got articles about local newspeople, even weathermen, with twice as much content as this one. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If her exact birthday is widely known and available to the public, keep it in. Otherwise, remove it per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays. Since the issue is one of information research, this noticeboard's involvement in this incident is resolve. -- Jreferee 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauer ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Misplaced Pages. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.

And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.

In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.

A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.

There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.

ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Misplaced Pages admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And SSP case was opened in this instance, , but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed on User RfC please

Bishonen (talk · contribs) deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother" stating "This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion. -- Jreferee 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Would a previously uninvolved admin please help me out by taking a look at the current RfC on me brought by User:Anynobody, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother, and please consider cancelling it as not meeting the minimum requirement of two good faith efforts to resolve the dispute between Anynobody and myself. User:Smeelgova is listed as the 2nd party to attempt to resolve the dispute but he made no good faith effort to do so. User:Bishonen was advising Anynobody and Smee on the RfC before it went live and she strongly recommended that they do not file the RfC without further good faith efforts at resolution but that advice was ignored and Anynobody posted the RfC anyway. I welcome a neutral 3rd-party to help settle any dispute between Anynobody and myself. I am sure that they will find that I am very easy to work with. Thank you for considering my request. --Justanother 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: - Please note that there are already at least two administrators involved in this RFC process. Smee 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, one said to not post it without further attempt at resolving any dispute and the other, in my opinion, wrongfully promoted it from candidate staus. The latter is the situation that I would like some help with. --Justanother 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a disruptive waste of space on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, which has been done before. There is no need for more Admins to get involved, as your perceptions about the individuals currently involved are inaccurate. However, if other Admins wish to comment at the RFC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Justanother, I'm sure it would be welcomed by the other editors already involved on that page... Smee 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow, that is pretty inappropriate, Smee. But OK, you've had your say. --Justanother 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You've both had your say here, it seems. I ask that you both refrain from escalating the conflict here. If the RfC is deemed to have failed, try mediation or arbitration. I'm not closing it because I have no knowledge of RfC. Don't dispute on this board past a complaint and response, please. Teke 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Anyone, please feel free to remove the off-topic thread. Thanks --Justanother 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. I'm not surprised nobody uninvolved has chosen to research this, when the warring parties make it sound so *difficult*. This admin and that admin, both unnamed, and mysterious hints of warring admins (not the case at all). The salient facts are that Justanother has requested deletion, 48 hours are well past, and the dispute resolution evidence offered by Smee is utterly inadequate, see discussion on my Talk, where I told Smee: "The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it.". My advice to get some real dispute resolution attempt made (besides that of Anynobody, who is one user, not the two users required by the RFC instructions) wasn't taken. I second Justanother's request that an uninvolved admin consider deleting this RfC.Bishonen | talk 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Having had a quick look at the RFC, I am struggling to see where there has been much effort at prior dispute resolution. Some of the claimed efforts at dispute resolution relate to warning templates - a sure-fire way to find common ground. Not.

I was also a little surprised to see that Daniel.Bryant upgraded the page from a candidate to an approved RFC just one minute before endorsing a rather negative commentary on the actions of the person whose conduct is the subject of the RFC.

I don't have much experience of RFCs, and am not familiar with the actions of the parties here, so I am loath to wade: can someone who with more familiarity of this process please have a look at this. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? OK, I'll just delete it myself. After all, I'm as "uninvolved" as anybody in the content of it, I'm on nobody's side; I've merely attempted, on request, to assist Anynobody and Smeelgova in setting it up correctly. The 48-hour rule is very clear, this case is very obvious, and Justanother has waited long enough to have a reasonable request executed. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much, Bishonen. I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - Some help needed

Hello people. Can I please get someone to help me with Emir Arven? Myself and this user have had disputes in the past, and both of us have been blocked as a result of personal attacks against each other. Our last dispute was a result of this edit summary. I then calmly started a discussion with the user about why they would falsely accuse me like that, but he just turned hostile straight away. The user then started provoking me some more, and that's when we started an exchange of personal attacks. I was blocked for 72 hrs for personal attacks, and he was blocked for 2 weeks, as he is a repeat offender. After his block expired, things cooled down, and I haven't heard anything from him so far. But, not ten minutes ago, Emir Arven has restarted with his provocative and offensive edits/behaviour (see here, here, and here. I am asking if an administrator (or maybe more) could step in, and tell the user to stop falsely accusing, stop provoking, and maybe tell him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like all the personal attacks this user has made against me on his talk page and elsewhere be removed, in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please help, because when I'm in situations like these, I can't help but retaliate, and that would just result in bad results for me. Anyway, help! —KingIvan 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is totally false. This user, Ivan Kricancic was warned earlier by AnonEMouse because of his sockpuppet past. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets.

Here is conclusion about that

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

• 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29
• 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
• 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis
• 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

I have found new evidence that he still continues his sockpuppet behaviour, so I told him that I would report him if he continued:

He told me once: Whenever I see an edit made by a fanatical Bosniak user, I will be sure to include your user name in the edit summary., and immidiately he went to Srebrenica Genocide and Alija Izetbegović articles to provoke. He didn't read the articles, but he reverted it immediately in order to provoke. I asked him about IP address and he didn't answer me. But continued to provoke. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit58.165.126.17.

There he goes again - twisting people's words and taking it out of context to try to turn the argument in his favor. The edit where I said the above can clearly be seen as a response to him not aplogising, provoking me some more, and if I acted on my words, it would have been me doing to him, what he has done to me. As for teh IP address, I was the one who even gave him the WHOIS link above - he did not start with a question about the IP - I started that discussion with this edit, where I sarcastically tell him that the anon could not be me, as I live hundreds of kilometers away from where it's IP is lcoated. Emir either did not notice this, ignored it, or just plain and simple, does not understand English. Even after answering his "question" numerous times, he still does not seem to understand or does not want to understand. Emir has only come to the English Misplaced Pages to provoke, attack and spread his POV - that's what I hate about certain non native English speakers who edit en.wikipedia; a lot of them only come here to spread propaganda and lies. —KingIvan 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Kricancic

• Ivan Kricancic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ivan Kricancic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: C

So he came here, as he did before to talk lies about me, because I found more facts about his sockpuppet role: 58.165.126.167.I said I will report him if he continues, I didn't insult him. And the others will decide about my accusation. Emir Arven 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Report on Emir

Now I must say, creating sockpuppet pages with absolutely no proof or evidence is in very bad taste. These pages must be deleted until your unfounded accusations that came out of nowhere prove true - which won't happen because you are a perennial liar. This whole thing started because of a provocation by Emir, and now Emir just will not stop with the attacks, lies and falsifications. I am yet again asking that a good admin step in, and remove all the personal attacks/falsifications/provocations directed against me by User:Emir Arven. He cannot hide under the guise of doing good for Misplaced Pages with personal attacks like this - which translated means

Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also.

This is insulting and provocative beyond belief - yet this, and many more attacks like it, have not been removed, and he has not yet been warned or punished for posting the above message numerous times.

Also, notice his block log.

• 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
• 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
• 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
• 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
• 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
• 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
• 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
• 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
• 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Seven blocks for heavy edit warring, many personal attacks, and rampant incivility.

Now, let's examine some of his edits and edit summaries:

• Claiming an edit which has stood for ages as "false" without any evidence, and of a generally provocative nature.
• Here, where his racist tendencies are shown - he claims a source is invalid purely because it was written by a Serb.

• A page move which is provocative in many ways to people involved in the article (those who are not "on his side")
• 2nd edit after his most recent block. Immediately jumps straight back into edit warring, and removes a huge section about a war crimes investigation on the man.
• A regular victim of his warring. With this edit, he reverts a version that was a compromise version between warring parties, and shows that he is unwilling to compromise.

Also on the same article, this edit which he writes "this is ok", which it simply is not, because he has removed all references to the man being Serb - another example of his racism.

• 7th Muslim brigade. Another article in which he removes sourced information and edit wars in, so he can try to paint a rosy picture of "his side".
• This one! Imagine begin the anonymous user, and BAM, out of nowhere some guy just reverts your edits, then goes "Ivan, is that you?".
• I don't need a link for this one, as the edit is what you see up above there written by him. Reproducing the same attacking and provocative bullshit that he has written about me elsewhere - if that's not an insult, then you can also blow up the Western Wall and expect teh Jews to be happy.

Now consider his editing patterns, his mannerisms and his block log, then take a look at my block log. I was blocked once for vandalizing a real life friend of mine's user page (which was wrong, but in retaliation to this). And my other block was as a result of me making personal attacks against Emir Arven after he provoked, harassed and attacked me. Now make a judgment over which editor is more trustworthy. I will ask again, please delete/remove his personal attacks/provocations/insults, warn the user not to do it, and possibly block him - in my opinion (judging by the numerous blocks, edit wars, slander, personal attacks, insults, provocations, and racism from this user) an indefinite block would suffice, but one of you admins may be more tolerant than I am, so a one or two month block would do if an indef is not made. Please read this, and do something about this vandalistic troll. Thank you. —KingIvan 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your report is irrelevant for the case and you are wrong. After you were strongly warned by AnonEMouse: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets, because you pretended to be an ethnic Bosniak in order to push false information about Bosniaks, your second account was indefinitely blocked. Your second "ethnic Bosniak" account which was blocked I just said I would report you if you continue to do this. P.S. When I edit I provide sourceses, my edits are valuable, I don't pretend to be an ethnic Croat in order to push false information about Croats (I am not interested in Croats), and you as a Croat, pretended to be a Bosniak, which was very low, rude and pathetic. Let me remind you what you wrote in your second blocked user page: . You said: Also, articles of particular interest to me are ones concerning Bosnia, as I am an ethnic Bosniak. But, being born and raised in Australia, I suffer from "the curse of the English speakers", that is, It's really hard to learn another language even if you reall want to.. And according to your "interests" and "thoughts" in your original user page it is obvious that you, as a Croat, hate Bosniaks. I think this is not good for your health, because you are young and should enjoy life, not spend your life in lies and hatred. Emir Arven 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL at you talking about lies and hatred. You're obviously a racist bigot. And every single one of your edits has actually been disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Stop propagating your lies. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ivan's userpage may violate WP:USER, WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and WP:NPA (is "muslimani" an ethnic slur? I cannot tell). As a personal comment, I would like to point out that that bit about Alexander the Great being "non-Greek" just demonstrates a blatant ignorance of history.--Domitius 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is one of the modern Slav Macedonians - we all know that is false; I'm saying that the ancient Macedonians were different people than the ancient Greeks. But we don't need to start a discussion on him here. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, see the Muslims by nationality article. Speaking 'bout WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA; someone should take a look at User:Ancient Land of Bosoni. --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HRE, you have to know, when you pretend to belong to an ethnic group which you don't belong, just to take advantage in promoting false information about that ethnic group, because you hate it, then you cannot talk about WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA. And Ivan's second account was blocked because of that. I think, it was very dishonest act from him. And he continued to do that again although he was strongly warned not to do that. Emir Arven 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir, grow up. Please learn how to speak English properly or restrict your activities to the Bosnian Misplaced Pages. Your childish games, personal attacks, rampant incivility, and blatant lies have no place on the English Misplaced Pages. We both know that you falsely accused me just for the sake of harassing me. Your edits and your mannerisms show that you are a bigot, and even though you have been blocked seven times for your disruptive behaviour, you still don't understand that what you are doing is wrong. The best thing for you all of us is for you to just leave the English Misplaced Pages. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent uncivil behaviour by JoeMystical

The JoeMystical's posts identified by Bi as the basis for the request in this noticeboard incident are not personal attacks. -- Jreferee 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reported JoeMystical before for uncivil behaviour bordering on personal attacks (), though administrator User:J.Smith decided at that time it was a just a "one-time incident" and took no further action. Now, however, it's clear that it's not a "one-time incident", as JoeMystical is at it again: see , . I therefore urge administrators to take some preventive action now, and put a stop to his scurrilous behaviour. Bi 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links aren't attacks, they aren't even uncivil in my opinion. He's stating simply that you're trying to get articles or content deleted because you are anti-Tech... whatever that means. That's not uncivil. He's arguing against your *position*, he's not calling you names. Wjhonson 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not one to put up with incivility, but I see nothing in those comments that requires admin intervention. You may be reading it as incivility, but it looks like perfectly ordinary criticism to me. I think there's plenty of room for you and JoeMystical to resolve your dispute without admins needing to point fingers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not proper criticism. It's "sing someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." In each of the 3 cases, instead of addressing the specific issue being discussed, he's using the fact that I'm anti-Neo-Tech to discredit my arguments.

Anyway, I don't get it. First, J. Smith tells me the first attack is just a "one-time" attack of incivility, and now suddenly none of them are uncivil attacks. So which is it? Please make up your minds and let me know. Bi 08:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins aren't required to have one collective mind that they make up. I haven't seen the previous supposed attacks, but I know that the examples you quoted are far from personal attacks. "Discrediting your arguments" isn't against any policy. What you have here is not a case that requires administrator intervention, but a run-of-the-mill content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Damareinu (talk · contribs · logs)

Edits oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitedly. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One of our more prolific contributors has left Misplaced Pages because his personal information was revealed by the above named editor. Nobleeagle's information was revealed on his user page, but it was later deleted by an intervening administrator. Nobleeagle requested an indefinite block over his account on Nlu's talk page, and the administrator complied. Later, this editor harassed another editor - User:Demonblade by revealing his real life identity. Demonblade later requested Nlu to block his account indefinitely - . The diffs should be immediately deleted, in my opinion, and appropriate preventive action should be taken against Damareinu, to arrest the deletrious affect his presence is having on Misplaced Pages. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Policies to refer: m:Privacy policy and Misplaced Pages:Harrassment. There is discussion among other editors on the Noticeboard for India-related discussions - . ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitedly. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for what you're doing guys. This guy has been a major pain in the ass. Can admins see registered user's IP? I can make sure he never goes on wikipedia again, or go on the internet for that matter. Lets see him go on the internet with all his ports jammed shut. I appreciate what you're doing here. Damareinu obviously knows Nobleeagle personally and seems very much like one of those reject of evolution, you know, like dodos and homo ingrown-penis-apiens.

Anyway, loving sentiments aside. thanks for blocking him. Happy Editing 124.168.129.14 11:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucas

—Quarl 2007-03-10 10:43Z

Lads, you might want to have a look at the Lucas page. There's a bit of a nasty edit war going there. Not sure why the 2 users are on about but the last comment is a bit nasty to say the least... Saebhiar Adishatz 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The last several edits are from a school ID. It looks like one student is bullying or teasing by making allegations using another student's real name, and the named student has gotten upset. I've blocked the school for 24 hours and you might drop an e-mail to Oversight to get the last few edits removed. I'm also watchlisting the Lucas page. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This may seem excessive to some, but it might be a good idea to send an email to the school. The last edit summary that's currently in the history from that IP is really nasty and the proper authorities may want to be aware of this situation. Natalie 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the page and restored some of the earlier edits. The page was also protected by me. User:Zscout370 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD Spamming

Spamming reverted, warning given, CfD closing admin notified. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja (talk · contribs) (see contribs for a string of spam solicitations) has been spamming for CFD votes and attacking me for CFD'ing a cat. See ,,,,. And then a string of attacks on me ,,,, . The cfd's in question are Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil_Americans. Bakaman 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the spamming and given a warning to him in the strongest words possible. Please inform this noticeboard (or me) if he continues to canvass for the cfd. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a notice to the CfD closing admin regarding this thread. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nowonline and Original research

User:Wjhonson removed as a source "Richard B Autry" and made a post on Nowonline's talk page regarding the same. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Nowonline is apparently ignoring the No Original Research policy WP:Attribution, and seems unwilling to discuss it, having blanked the section on the account's associated talk page. In several articles, the source is given as unpublished work by Richard B. Autry - am I right in saying the doesn't meet with policy? If so, could a friendly Admin "have a word" so to speak, or, if I'm wrong, let me know. Thanks, WLD 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a full text search of Misplaced Pages shows the number of articles that this affects: WLD 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Matter does not need administrator intervention and has otherwise been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.111.128.3 edit/revert warring

82.111.128.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to undo edits in Socialist Party USA and Misandry, despite repeated warnings (past final), and with insufficient discussion. Particularly in Misandry this user is re-inserting (a long block of) text that has been repeatedly discussed with a consensus to remove in the past. User has been contacted on Talk pages for user and both articles, and has had policies pointed out. User seems to be an experienced editor (IP so can't be certain) and despite frequent reversions is avoiding 3RR on both articles. / edgarde 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the disputes at Socialist Party USA, though since I'm part of that organization I've tried to avoid becoming too involved. The user does seem to have some experience, though complained at one point about not knowing how to sign talk page posts.

The edits to the SP article are POV-pushing, but relatively minor. A few editors have addressed them on the article's talk page, focusing on verifiability. However, the user seems to be treating changes to his contributions as personal attacks, and is reluctant to trust the advice of other involved editors, or their discussions of policies. I'm not sure what can be done to improve this situation, with the user feeling so persecuted and defensive.

One final note: I was interested to see that the user has contributed to articles about the Croatian left. This reminded me of last year's "SP USA spammer", who edited exclusively from British and Croatian IPs. This of course is far from conclusive, but may be worth considering. -David Schaich /_Cont 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Still at it. Editor has abandoned Talk page discussion (participation had been minimal), and has reverted neutral helpful contributions. If the 3RR rules specified 25 hours he'd be in violation in Misandry, and is probably in 3RR violation in Socialist Party USA. Could really use a 24-hour block here. / edgarde 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) talk page

The request for restoring the talk page or emailing the contents belongs at WP:DRV#Content_review. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please restore the talk page of this: the archives have been lost, and it's good we have a record of such things. 5 records worth, gone!! please help! --66.79.168.140 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of deleted articles are usually deleted together with the article itself. I see no reason to keep the talk page in this case. --cesarb 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason for doing so: people need this information for deletion review purposes, OK?? Gay nigger association of america has a talkpage even though article is deleted,. --Apoplexic Cafe Dude 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for deletion review purposes at all. Deletion review is simple provide some third-party non-trivial reliable sources, no need for a talk page to do that. --pgk 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Contents of that talk page until it was protected as deleted fell, for quite some time, into these distinct patterns:

• Abject nonsense
• "You just lost the game" or other similarly hilarious variants on that particularly unoriginal theme (also, incidentally, a common form of vandalism when we had the article)
• Reposts of the deleted content
• Argufying about the deletion

Of these, the last belongs on deletion review and the rest belong on Uncyclopedia or somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The request for restoring or emailing article page or talk page content will be best addressed at WP:DRV#Content_review. I posted this on 66.79.168.140 (talk · contribs) talk page. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent retaliatory behavior by okkar

Per the talk page at Talk:Tin Oo, user User:Okkar is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("Read the source... pay attention when you read the article, it is historical fact, you should take a visit to Defense Museum in Yangon... have you ever been there?"). No one can make a change to one of his poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. When the fact tags he places are addressed (see Tin Tun, Ye Htoon, and Scouting in Burma), he removes them and places the fact tags once again, it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. We at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Myanmar (Burma) have been speaking with this user since early January about Misplaced Pages-appropriate work with others, rather than against others, and it has fallen on deaf ears. We need fresh voices in this. Chris 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okkar has also made personal attacks on other editors accusing them of bias and favoring Burmese opposition pro-democracy groups. This is one on Hintha: ("Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Misplaced Pages. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Myanmar

Here is another comment made by Okkar: ("Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_%28Burma%29#Political_Agendas

In both quotes, Okkar is neither assuming good faith nor is he avoiding personal attacks on other editors. This kind of behavior and language is clearly counter to Misplaced Pages's standards. I've not witnessed any apology by Okar for this behavior. His pattern seems to be to cease temporarily this kind of behavior then start up again later. Based on this constant bad behavior, I raise the question of whether he should be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. SimonBillenness 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohanishjagtap (talk · contribs)

User_talk:Mohanishjagtap has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since February 25, 2007. This user has been participating in the current WPBiography template assessment drive. However, his/her contributions has caused considerable trouble. The user has not responded to any of the messages placed on his/her talk page and continues to make talk page posts that will need to be cleaned up. Blocking this user for 24 (?) hours may be the only way to get this person's attention to address the concerns posted on his/her talk page. Please review this situaiton. Thanks. -- Jreferee 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there appear to be several days' delays between their activities, so 24 hours may not be enough. BNutzer 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We cleaned up his contributions and an admin has gotten involved. The noticeboard's involvement in this matter is resolved. -- Jreferee 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fujimori-press.jpg on List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people

Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor is consistently violating the fair-use requirement of the above image, and does not understand the appropriate fair use claims of the image. Can an admin please step in and describe whether or not the image should appropriately be displayed on the List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people? I'm not quite sure if this is the correct place for this inquiry, but the editor in question doesn't seem to listen to logic and doesn't understand the nature of the dispute. Thanks much, PaddyM 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this thread to the talk page requesting a Fair Use statement and provided a link for future copyright questions. Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SkipSmith

Requestor's post created paper trail desired by requestor. -- Jreferee 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is someone who has cyberstalked me on various sites around the web. Suspiciously, just after I talked about my experiences with the article on the South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" in my blog, he shows up there solely to post a personal attack, as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=113790042&oldid=112769131.

I understand one incident is far from enough to justify any kind of block, but I wanted to establish a "paper trail". I simply want this person to leave me alone. - 66.93.144.171 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Surrender of Montreal (1760)

Hi, We have a bit of a revert-war going on over here, with myself unblanking the page and one or 2 other editors blanking and redirecing the page. details of the dispute are on the talk page, so I won't get into them here. I'd just like to request that the stub be un-blanked/un-redirected and if possible, locked until an aggreement or outcome can be reached one way or another. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathunder's admin abuse

Jonathunder keeps moving Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag, stating that the most common name for this author "here in Minnesota" doesn't contain a diacritic in her name. I've been moving it back stating that her correct (and official name according to the covers of her own books) contains "á". I requested move protection for this article in order to bring the matter to the talk page, and it was effectively protected by Arjun01. Still, Jonathunder used his admin ability to edit protected pages to move it back to Wanda Gag after the protection. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you.--Húsönd 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an objective (?) third-party, I do notice that the usage of the diacritic is not consistent within the article and should at very least be changed to be internally consistent and consistent with the page title. Ryanjunk 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a first obvious sign that something's wrong. The name had a diacritic throughout the article since its very creation. The title also had a diacritic until Gene Nygaard decided to move it to a non-diacritic version two days ago (disrespecting a community probation).--Húsönd 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that Gene violated his community probation here - it was a non-contested move per the MOS and therefore ok. Once the move was contested, Gene stepped aside and asked an administrator to look at it. See Gene's talk page for more. --Duk 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this situation, but I just read the terms of the probation, and they clearly state that he can only move pages where consensus is clearly in favor of a move, NOT simply when there is no consensus not to move. They're two different concepts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In absence of any dispute, a move in line with the MOS is per consensus. --Duk 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,

1. This move by User:Tevildo was undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus.
2. It remained undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus in this move by User:Husond. Gene Nygaard 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've gotta say, regardless of who is right or whatever, an administrator involved in the dispute moving it after it was move-protected and the protection log admonished all involved to use the talk page is a blatant violation of the protection policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've notified Jonathunder of this thread; please remember to leave a note on users' talk pages if you start a thread concerning them, as instructed in the header of this page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My bad, sorry. --Húsönd 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 13:25, March 9 2007 Arjun01 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wanda Gág: Continued moves without discussion. Please use the talk page. )
  • 13:57, March 9 2007 Jonathunder (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag over redirect: Use more common name.)

Has anyone asked the user about this? Jkelly 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mind you, we do seem to be the only one of the top Google hits that uses the diacritic... Guy (Help!) 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, although that could be attributed more to the fact that a good number of people on the internet have no clue how to actually insert a diacritic. As an example, here is an Amazon.com page listing one of her books for sale; the page lists her name without the diacritic, but the cover of the book itself (which, I think, would reflect the spelling of her own name, would it not?) clearly has it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. The issue here is an administrator clearly using his powers to gain a leg up in an edit dispute. What's worse, it's actually worked: he's gotten off with a warning, and no one is reverting him in order to avoid wheel warring. As he clearly knew that what he did was wrong, I would say he should be told to move it back or face a 48 hour block. I've had enough of seeing administrators who know better manage to get the upper hand because no one is willing to castigate or undo their actions. If any uninvolved admin has guts to do what's right, please do ask him to move it back or block him if he won't. Part Deux 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it was an honest mistake, done because he didn't realize it was protected. Has anyone asked that? -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've notified him of this thread, but he hasn't been active since the move. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Husond is everybit as guilty of edit-warring and tryig to gain an advantage without discussing the issue as Jonathunder is. The article should be moved back to its original name, and if Husond or Tevildo want to move it, they can make their case for a move through {{WP:RM]]. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand, are guilty of perpetuating this kind of edit-warring. It is you who have caused so much trouble that had to be given a community probation regarding unilateral moves, the same probation that you have been trying to dodge. It is you who are most obliged to list move proposals on WP:RM. No WP:AGF for you, Gene.--Húsönd 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond, you specifically claimed that your reversion of my move was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because, in your words "You may not do so according to your community probation". Therefore, you were not making your move based on the merits of the case; something that was further evident from the fact that you already knew that the previous move had been objected to as being unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial--yet you provided no discussion, no references, no nothing for making your move. Therefore, if the only thing you were objecting to was me making the move, which in fact you explicitly claimed to be the case, then you have absolutely no cause whatsoever to complain about any other editor looking at it and making that same move, whether it be Jonathunder or anyone else. You had certainly provided no reason not to do so, had you? 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Pancasila (personal attacks)

Pancasila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in December for one week for personal attacks against User:John Hyams and others. Today he/she resumed personal attacks against User:John Hyams. —Psychonaut 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That goes here. // DecaimientoPoético 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It ought to have gone at WP:PAIN but that doesn't exist any more, so I'm posting it here. —Psychonaut 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of bad faith RFD nomination

Resolved by the deletion review and the withdrawl of the deletion review. -- Jreferee 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RFD with speedy keep as "clear...well, WP:POINT nomination.", Post on my talk page accusing me of having been involved in a dispute and nominating because of this - violation of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, possibly WP:NPA. Note also Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point guideline I was accused of violating. Actually read it for comprehension everyone please, the common misinterpretation is exactly what my problem with the shortcut was. See also Misplaced Pages talk:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point - others made posts on substantially the same issue long before I even thought of this. WP:POINT is widely misquoted, and the primary reason is because the main shortcut to it says "POINT" and ignores the fact that only _disruptive_ point-making is invalid. --Random832 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

When you thought about nominating it for RfD, did you actually think there was any chance at all that it was going to be deleted, or did you just nominate it because you think it's been misquoted? Picaroon 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it because the shortcut itself is harmful because i think that it is the cause of this misinterpretation. --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that people often incorrectly call 'WP:POINT' on things which aren't at all disruptive I doubt that the name of the redirect is the cause of that. People will always 'interpret' things more broadly than they were intended. --CBD 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only shortcut were WP:DISRUPT, you don't think people would think twice about linking to it when people aren't disrupting? --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - I didn't come here to complain about the closure. See the DRV for that. I came here to complain about the absolutely unjustified accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason. (which, incidentally, even if true STILL would not violate WP:POINT, because even if there were a conflict of interest or something else that might well violate some other guideline, a single RFD is in no way disruptive) --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that your RFD nom was sincere - on the view that deleting that abbreviation would clarify the intent of the policy. You may even be right about just having 'WP:DISRUPT' leading to less mis-linking... but 'disruption' applies to alot more than just 'disrupting to make a point', so that wouldn't be clear either. Not surprising that abbreviations for shortcuts are less than fully descriptive. --CBD 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The RfD nomination for WP:POINT was closed 22:19, 9 March 2007 with the phrase ", clear...well, WP:POINT nomination." The deletion review of this closure was posted at 22:26, 9 March 2007. This administrative request was posted 12 minutes later, at 22:38, 9 March 2007. The growing concensus at the deletion review appears to have addressed the issue posted here - "accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason." The deletion review was withdrawn 00:31, 10 March 2007. This 22:38, 9 March 2007 post issue matter appears to have been resolved by the deletion review and its withdrawl. -- Jreferee 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable speedy deletion nominations

—Quarl 2007-03-10 10:42Z

I have just written the biography of Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, who served for 19 years as Member of Parliament for Worthing in the United Kingdom. Per Notability guidelines, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are considered notable. However, the article has been repeatedly tagged for speedy deletion by Patricknoddy. I have taken this matter up on his talk page but he has not explained to me his reasoning, nor has he taken up the invitation to nominate the article at Articles for deletion. I notice several other complaints from users that he has nominated articles for speedy deletion inappropriately. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This thread is being handled on AN. Let's avoid cross-posting. Part Deux 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy went there to complain that I had removed his speedy deletion tags, although it seemed to me that this was the most appropriate forum based on the rubric at the top of the page. I note that Freakofnurture has now removed some of the tags Patricknoddy has placed, and that Zscout370 has blocked him from editing with a note that "when you stop using the tool, come and email me and I will lift your block". Sam Blacketer 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was on the verge of issuing him a 24-hour block when I noticed he had already been blocked indefinitely. I have no objection at this time. —freak(talk) 01:58, Mar. 10, 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he's not responding to valid concerns with his taggings. The most important aspect of new pages patrolling is to guide new users into contributing constructively. Refusal to discuss a tag defeats the whole purpose. Leebo /C 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:69.132.198.252

A copending incident is posted here. -- Jreferee 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has become quite a problem for several other editors on the board for Shelby Young. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shelby_Young He has now flat out called me a racist, TWICE. The issue stems from him PRETENDING to be Greek. You'll note on Ms. Young's talk page, him posting in very plain English, harrassing Ms. Young, then reverting to "comical" broken English, which I find to be racist, seeing as how my father is a German immigrant. The user Leebo has been kept abreast of this, but I've had enough. I'm looking for admin intervention here. This user is wikistalking/wikiharrassing a teenager as well as wikiharrassing me. He contributes nothing of value to Misplaced Pages. If an admin takes action in this matter, would it be feasible to have someone watch Ms. Young's pages as well as those of Hailey Anne Nelson, specifically for baseless attacks from users coming from the North Carolina area? Thanks in advance. -- Ispy1981 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the main concern is that this user is edit warring with the real Shelby Young on the Shelby Young page. They are uncivil, but I consider this to be secondary. Leebo /C 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD Tamil Americans

Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

... is getting ugly pretty quickly (i.e., it's devolved into "you're saying that because you don't like my ethnicity"). Don't know what should be done, or if anything can be done, but I really thought I should give a heads-up on this. Part Deux 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Somewhat heated discussion, but CfD posts are orderly. Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request deletion of User:Dragoonmac/List_of_Shock_Sites

—Quarl 2007-03-10 10:41Z

The user has been absent for a long time, but the page contains direct links to numerous sites on Misplaced Pages's blacklist, including tubgirl.com. I can't save the page with a speedy or prod notice because it contains so many blacklisted site links. RJASE1 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A helpful admin has deleted the page - this issue can be closed, thanks. RJASE1 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Echo16 (talk · contribs)

Incident being handled at Requests for arbitration per Guy.-- Jreferee 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has edited only to try to get John Bambenek undeleted. I was assuming good faith, until he requested an Arbcom case the instant after he created an RfC on it. Now I'm not. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I assumed good faith, but I also assumed that it's yet another sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek, whose good faith is at odds with policy, so I blocked the account and reverted the Bambenek RfC and comented on WP:RFAR. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard's probation

I would like to be clarified regarding the current status of Gene Nygaard's community probation. Quoting Gene himself about it, "the page (...) has a big notice a the top: This Misplaced Pages page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest". Does the fact that the community sanction page is now tagged as inactive mean that the probations contained therein are void? Gene's probation clearly states that "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves until further notice". If the ban is still active, then Gene has been constantly disrespecting it, according to his move log. Namely, Gene's been moving articles with the well-known purpose of wiping diacritics off their names. Recent examples of this are Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag, Eggert Jónsson to Eggert Jonsson, Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic, among others. Particularly interesting is Šuligoj Roman to Roman Suligoj, where Gene states that the reason for the move was "order per naming conventions", not forgetting though to deface the name by removing the diacritic in the process.
I reminded Gene of his probation , but unsurprisingly Gene replied with his typical strategy of launching random accusations. I kindly request a review by the community regarding Gene's actions and current status of his probation.--Húsönd 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Wanda Gag for an example of Husond's shenanigans here.

Furthermore, the previous discussion dealt with only moving articles which didn't have the proper redirects from the English language spelling. I have not done that since. Instead, I point out to the editors of those articles the need for creating such redirects by using the maintenance Category:Articles needing redirects.

Note also that Husond tries to deceptively hide the fact that he is perpetually pushing the inclusion of diacritics where they do not belong, as he did here in the case of Arpad Elo who spelled his name that way for 80 years as a U.S. citizen, and for whom the only evidence of any other spelling he may have used was not the Árpád Élő spelling he was pushing, but rather the Arpád Éllő spelling used on the ship's manifest when he came to America as a kid. Gene Nygaard 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Shenanigans, ooooh. Why do you keep bringing up Árpád Élő, the one and only move proposal that pleased you (and solely because nobody could find reliable online records of his Hungarian name)? Should I cast tens of examples of move proposals where you fought an uphill battle and lost after wasting everybody's time and patience? Not here.--Húsönd 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable records of his Hungarian name are irrelevant, and you know it. There was oodles of evidence that "Arpad Elo" was the name always used in his publications, and always used in reference to the Elo rating system in chess for which he is famous (except for places corrupted by Misplaced Pages). That rating system is the reason he is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article in the first place. Note that even the rabid diacritics fanatics like Husond have never tried to move that to Élő rating system; in fact, even they realize that there is absolutely no need for even a redirect from that, because it is never used, just as Arpad Elo never used any other spelling for the last 80 years of his life. That is one of tens or hundreds of cases where bad moves have been reversed. Our article is at Ho Chi Minh and not at at Hồ Chí Minh (which is of course a redirect). You are just a sore loser, Husond, because you argued unsuccessfully for retaining improper names in cases such as Amer Delic and others.

And then you have the gall to come here and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people here, trying to falsely imply that when a name is or was sometimes written with diacritics that the version with diacritics is always the proper one to use, and that if it is written with a varying number of letters with diacritics, the version with the most diacritics is the proper one. Why in the world are you so hell-bound on eliminating the use of the English language on the English Misplaced Pages in any case? Why you consistently claim that there is some error in using the English alphabet when writing in English? We may choose to use diacritics in many of the names here on Misplaced Pages, but we do not do so because it is incorrect not to do so in English. Rather, we are choosing among legitimate alternatives.

Note also that Husond was the one who unblocked User:Darwinek when he was blocked for personal attacks against me at the same time as Darwinek make the improper block against me to gain advantage in a content dispute, which was reversed as discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. Husond puts his blinders on when it comes to abuses of admin powers as well as the violations of the rule against personal attacks by his fellow admin who has helped out with many of these undiscussed, unreferenced and improper moves, but for some reason has a vendetta against me. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The community-imposed probation holds no matter where the discussion occurred. Just because WP:PAIN does not exist anymore doesn't mean that personal attack complaints/reports posted there in the past were not legitimate and now void. I remark only on the procedure, not the dispute itself. --physicq (c) 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Husond, maybe you'd like to discuss this improper, unreferenced and unexplained move by you of Pal Benko to Pál Benkő, which was of course later reversed and moved back where it belongs without the diacritics, in a requested moves discussion which didn't even need my participation or even any awareness of it on my part to come to the proper conclusion. I haven't ever edited either that article or its talk page. Gene Nygaard 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you both should step away from the issue (and each other), as all of this is turning into a bit of a war. I'm sure the diacritics will work themselves out without the two of you for a short time until you can both cool off.

That said, I do find that moving a page over another Admin's block as User:Jonathunder did, or in spite of a community probation against such activity, as User:Gene Nygaard did, is not a particularly productive way to ensure that we all have the best Misplaced Pages we can. Just a random editor's opinion. Ryanjunk 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If, as Husond claims, he was merely reverting on the basis that I had violated the earlier discussion (which I totally dispute), then what in the hell cause does he, or you, have to complain about an independent determination to move it on the basis fo the facts of the case, whether it is by User:Jonathunder or any other editor whatsoever? If User:Husond wasn't making a determination to revert on the basis of the facts of the case, then it remains an open field.

Furthermore, if instead Husond was indeed basing his move on the facts of the case, then in light of the fact that it had already been pointed out that the previous move was unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial, then it was incumbent upon User:Husond to engage in that discussion, to cite his reasons and see if anyone else agreed or disagreed, before making the move. Husond did not do so. He can't have it both ways. Gene Nygaard 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Nikkul

Nikkul (talk · contribs) has used a series of sockpuppets (Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Nikkul) to influence the outcome of discussions on the Talk:India page. He has denied ever using socks but today's checkuser results have confirmed the same. He has also interpreted consensus to make edits to the page without the discussion ending leading to edit wars and the page being locked. Since I'm involved in the dispute, I leave it to the community to decide his fate. (PS he has also deleted warnings on this talk page) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is primarily at Talk:India#Nikkul and Hillbillie are the same. Please take it into consideration here. The Behnam 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DiNovo redux and, more

Our anon APNIC friend is back for more. Their latest tactic pertaining to DiNovo is to insert "Cheri DiNovo is a coke-whore" into Drugs and prostitution; they also recreated Talk:Cheri DiNovo/Comments again.

In a particularly astonishing bit of "what could possibly happen next?", however, they've also taken up a new target: Jonah Goldberg, where they've repeatedly and persistently inserted the unverifiable claim that Goldberg's biological father is Lyndon B. Johnson...and, naturally, the inevitable assertions on the talk page that any editor who reverts their changes is an "attack queer". The claim about Jonah's paternity was also inserted into Lucianne Goldberg, from which it wasn't reverted — until I caught it just a few minutes ago, the claim had been left in the article for four full days. Clearly it needs a few people to add it to their watchlists ASAP.

I mention this because, as some of you may recall, the whole DiNovo thing began in November of last year. The fact that it's still going on four months later is not an encouraging sign that any of this foolishness is going to end anytime soon.

I'd also be intrigued to hear any ideas about what kind of person could possibly be simultaneously opposed to both Cheri DiNovo and Jonah Goldberg, since about all I can come up with is "ideologically confused". Bearcat 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by anonymous Telia user with shifting IPs

Pilotguy applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. -- Jreferee 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What I believe to be a single user

• 62.20.114.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.20.115.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.181.178.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.181.178.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This person is committing a particularly invidious kind of vandalism with dozens of small edits that escape attention under AIV or even warnings a lot of the time, and has hours to devote to it. TedFrank 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While the edits aren't vandalism, they're certainly counterproductive, and attempting to edit from multiple IPs is also an aggravating factor. I've applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. —Pilotguy (go around) 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot out of commission

Werdnabot has now been blocked for several days following a malfunction. Werdna does not appear to be around to deal with the problem. It may be worth considering switching the archiving to MiszaBot II (for project talk pages and noticeboards) and MiszaBot III (for user talk pages), especially if talkpages are getting very full. To have either of those Bots handle archiving, make a request at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests, including the following information:

1. Page to be archived =
2. Current archive =
3. Age threads should reach before being archived =
4. Max size of archive before new archive is started =

Hopefully that should keep everything functioning smoothly... WjBscribe 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created a dedicated page for the requests: User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. Please post them there. Thanks, Миша13 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris77xyz (talk · contribs) - Legal threats, personal attacks, threats of an edit war

Back in 2002 I took some photographs of Tara Subkoff's Imitation of Christ fashion show. One of the "vignettes" in the show was of models wearing a line of underwear vacuuming topless. Professional photographs can be seen on the highly-regarded Vogue Magazine's Style.com and Artnet Magazine. I put my photograph on the Tara Subkoff page (there is no Imitation of Christ page). Chris77xyz has some kind of issue with breasts and initially tried to add a disclaimer that they don't represent Subkoff's designs (as the links above to mainstream publications show, they do) and then tried to take them off. He is now threatening legal action, called me a "scumb bag" and "perv" and is threatening edit wars. The photographs aren't obscene, unless breasts are obscene (British editors/admins take note). These are clear cut case of violation of Misplaced Pages:No_legal_threats and Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks. I note I reverted his edits one time and he has never made any attempt to contact me. --DavidShankBone 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have links to Chris77yz's offenses so that we don't have to search to verify if true or not? Cla68 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry - I had included it in the edit summary, but forgot to include it in the text - doh! It's on the Talk page of the Tara Subkoff article.--DavidShankBone 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

—xyzzy_n 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Chris77xyz for 24 hours for gross incivility, personal attacks, and borderline legal threats. Someone may with to review or expand on my comments on his talk page.

I note that some of DavidShankBone's conduct – while probably not rising to the level of blockable behaviour on a first offense – also has left something to be desired. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now left a note for DavidShankBone about his conduct on his talk page, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. --DavidShankBone 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the block, good messages left to both parties. _InBC 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonty Rhodes article and edits by Paul Venter

Hi, Paul Venter seems to take an issue with positioning of the Image:Jonty_rhodes02.jpg and insists it should not be placed in the infobox since this is simply convention and does not neccessarily need to be followed. There has been a discussion in the talk page, and every one except Paul agrees it should go in the infobox, but he keeps reverting this. Please have a look and protect the page since this might soon descend into a revert war.Rueben lys 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

content dispute. Cla68 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so much content as much layout dispute.Rueben lys 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for admin attention, try WP:DR. _InBC 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added links to process on the article talk page to aid their discussion. This noticeboard's participation in the matter is resolved since no further need for admin attention. -- Jreferee 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Kittel (talk · contribs)

I'm having an on-going problem with this user at Berliner FC Dynamo and from the looks of his talk page he's been causing other folks various forms of grief as well.

While he has made some useful additions to the page its been an on-going struggle to keep him from turning the article into some sort of fan-page and from applying a pro-East Germany / Dynamo-themed POV on much of what he edits despite requests/warnings from multiple users. My specific concerns include:

• repeated use and posting of un-sourced image files
• repeated use of out-dated or incorrect material when it has been clearly shown that there are more current/accurate materials available
• consistent failure to respond to messages on his talk page whether in English or his native German including immediate deletion or archiving of other editors remarks, blanking or editing of other editors talk pages, tagging other editors remarks with NPOV markers
• consistent failure to annotate edits despite repeated requests to do so
• creation of pages that duplicate existing pages in all respects except their titles
• on-going edits to Berliner FC Dynamo which are not neutral in character and reflect a clear bias, including attempts to whitewash or santitize unsavory aspects of the clubs history, repeated addition of spam links to the page, deletion of material and image captions, deletion of citations, repeatedly restoring poorly translated materials after they have been properly edited
• on-going edits to pages about Marylin Monroe containing incorrect or unsourced material including an on-going dispute over a Latin translation that 10 minutes spent on Google would clearly resolve in other editors favour

A review of Nadia's talk page or the history of some of the pages in question will show a persistaint disdain for other editors and established policy here. He has previously been blocked for similar behavior, but still refuses to show any inclination to manage various POV's or ensure the quality/accuracy of his contributions. Anything you can do would be helpful. Wiggy! 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And he has also now taken to replacing without comment images at Berliner FC Dynamo with versions that are inaccurate or have been challenged as inaccurate at Image:Berliner FC Dynamo 10.png and Image:Dynamo 3.png making the job of cleaning up after him a little more involved. Wiggy! 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's hard at it, reverting my edit without comment and despite my remarks as I type this ... Wiggy! 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil userbox?

I came across an entry on a babel userbox that I'm a bit curious about. Which states: This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration.. To me it seems a bit off to be be referring to all your fellow community members as potential dumbasses. It seems to have been put in the template with this code: :UBX/du-1 but I have no idea where to find that. Can anyone offer some insight?--Crossmr 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the userpage which it is on UBX, is in existence simply to host userboxes. The userbox you refer to, I assume, is here: User:UBX/du-1. The account is an alternate account of METS501. You might try asking that editor about the box. IrishGuy 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelbyyoung (talk · contribs)

Identity confirmed by bbatsell. -- Jreferee 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A co-pending incident regarding this matter is posted here.

There is some question as to whether User:Shelbyyoung is the living person that is the subject of the article on this actress. Per innappropriate usernames, this account may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation if in an administrator's best judgment. Please consider giving this matter a look. -- Jreferee 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never dealt with confirming identities before, but I dug into her userpage history a bit and she had a picture up of herself holding a handwritten sign with her username and mentioning Misplaced Pages. I have no idea if that is sufficient, but I am confirming (since it has since been deleted by request) that that picture existed, was clearly Shelby Young, and did not appear to be edited in any way. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish to discuss an issue

This issue contains a situation of potentially utmost importance. It you visitthis userpage, you'll get a sense of this...predicament I have trouble describing.HarryisScary 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

There's nothing wrong with the article this. What is your problem? Sandstein 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete_K (talk · contribs)

This user's behavior has been under review in an Arb comm hearing for some time, but in the last few hours is on a rampage and I believe there is urgency now, and he warrants an immediate temporary ban to stop this deliberate disruption which violates all kinds of WP policies. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review A review of his edits in the last few hours shows that his disruptive editing is very deliberate. Special:Contributions/Pete_K Venado 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

White people article

Please have a look at user Lukas, in the white people article. You can clearly see his irrational position. He argues with almost everyone else and is ready in engage in any edit war if it does not suit his POV. He is treating that article as if it was his own private one and his POV the only absolute truth. Veritas et Severitas 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else might be LSLM: IP, User:65.3.245.190 looks similar to his other sockpuppets, , especially given the similarity of their post history and posting times. Lukas19 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS GUY THINKS THAT WE ARE ALL THE SAME. HIS ARGUMENTS ARE ALL OF THE SAME NATURE. NOW HE HAS VIOLATED THE 3REVERT RULE. vERITAS65.3.245.190 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that 65.3.245.190 is you which is veritas which is User:LSLM. And I was reverting Vandalism. You were deleting sourced material without explaining and without writing on talk page. Lukas19 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SndrAndrss (talk · contribs)

Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · block log) is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, " has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."

This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:

• Template:Infobox Football club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Country data England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:ENGf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Nordic skiing World Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.

And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.

I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.

Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:

His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

Help...! – Elisson • T • C • 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly useful that he numbers his sockpuppets, which makes it trivial to confirm that he keeps evading his blocks. Persistently disruptive users such as he who show no inclination to communicate or cooperate with the community should simply be indefblocked, and their socks blocked and reverted on sight - which should be possible here given the vandal's narrow range of interests. He'll eventually go away. Accordingly, I'd support a community ban at this point. Sandstein 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that he is willing to communicate with others. He simply doesn't care of rules, warnings, blocks. Sockpuppetry is prohibited? Doesn't matter, he registers accounts with obvious connections to his main one. I support community ban against him, and recommend temporary semiprotection for his favorite pages. MaxSem 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Darwinek has been a big supporter of SndrAndrss, despite his refusal to discuss anything, including protecting pages to protect SndrAndrss actions

• Gilberto Aristízabal history
• Damir Matovinović history
• Antonio Márquez Ramírez history

Gene Nygaard 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm that looks like Darwinek protecting pages from being moved, by you, to titles without diacritics. Doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. Grandmasterka 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nygaard's "arguments" are as always not relevant. I am not a "big supporter" of SndrAndrss. In fact I have been many times a vital opposer of that user, reverting many of his wrong actions. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AntiVandal Bot

Hurray! Looks like it's back! --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and Pete K

Not sure where the ArbCom members/clerks have disappeared to - but User:Pete K is adding this <redacted> to the current ArbCom review - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. I think there might be a major WP:BLP issue here ... , have tried removing but Pete keeps adding it back in. Any help would be appreciated! Cheers Lethaniol 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be gone now (and I've deleted the link from the above also). I'm watching the page and if this is reinserted I will have to issue a block. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

�������

Problem with all of the AntiVandalBots that requires attention. The bots seem to be replacing all nonstandard unicode symbols with �s. The problem is quite widespread and may require the temporary blocking of all of bots of this type until the bug is corrected--VectorPotential 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As an example, , and they're all doing it--VectorPotential 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just came to report the same problem. Please block User:AntiVandalBot. Nearly all of its edits are bugged. --- RockMFR 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Already done. If you find another bot with the same problem, it may indicate a problem with the framework (if they use the same one, I mean). -- ReyBrujo 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot for a day and notified Tawker. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot (talk · contribs) seems to be doing the same thing, although it looks like Martin shut his bot down already since it hasn't edited since 19:35 when the first bug was reported--VectorPotential 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23 is aware of the issue. Snowolf _CON - 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that MartinBot has become active again--VectorPotential 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through all of AntiVandalBot's today's edits and reverted the unicode damage it caused on all of them. --cesarb 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot *should* be inactive right now. This behaviur is very strange and unexpected, but seems to stem from the fact that the bots use an older version of a python library, which has clearly become incompatible with Misplaced Pages's use of unicode. I'll take a look at fixing the problem tomorrow evening - there may be another library we can use to make the edits unicode compliant - failing that, I'll try to find out where the problem is being caused in the library as it is now. Thanks for your patience :) Martinp23 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The block on AntiVandalBot is just for 24 hours; will it stay stopped, or should the block be extended to avoid it becoming active again before being fixed? --cesarb 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking the second idea. // DecaimientoPoético 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As the IRC part of the bot is still online, make it indef until Tawker gets back (or a toolserver admin kills the processes). I've just made a small change to the code, which may fix the problems (but may not...), so I'll do a short, controlled trial on MartinBot - feel free to revert any edits by it, and I too will be watching them like a hawk. Thanks, Martinp23 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

3 REVERT RULE

USER LUKAS HAS VIOLATED THE 3 REVERT RULE IN WHITE PEOPLE. VERITAS 65.3.245.190 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, calm down. I think you're looking for this. // DecaimientoPoético 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note the above section: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#White_people_article Lukas19 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already filed a report on Lukas19 The Behnam 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations.

At Electronic voice phenomenon there has recently been editing from multiple IP addresses, and on the article talk page, editors User:Davkal and User:Martinphi have made the accusation that they are sock puppets of a registered editor. Most recently, Martinphi made the following comment: "I suggest that we only edit versions of the article which are the last by an editor who is not a sock puppet. Thus, all sock puppetry will be useless. Also, let several sock versions pile up, then revert or edit in the responsible version. The sock will be wasting his time." While it's possible that there is sock puppetry going on, this seems like a bad way to handle it (particularly if it turned out not to be a sock puppet). As far as I know, neither editor has taken any action with a sock puppet report or checkuser. Could an admin look into the situation? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User Theandrewdotcom adding lots of chess openins

User:Theandrewdotcom has begun mass-adding a lot of chess openings with no real attempt at articles. It's spam and possible vandalism. Mister.Manticore 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it "spam" or "vandalism". Certainly, at least some chess openings (the ones with names) are notable, though I'm not sure I'd consider all the numbered openings to be separately notable. That user is using some atrocious coding syntax, however, with malformed HTML instead of wiki syntax, though Mediawiki is great at making a valid XHTML document out of whatever the users throw at it. *Dan T.* 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody run a bot on these articles and make them redirect to List of chess openings? They seem to have little potential as articles, but some navigational value. —xyzzy_n 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've usernameblocked him, as "Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address" are prohibited per WP:U. Sandstein 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Theandrewdotcom seems to be a chess themed weblog--VectorPotential 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

has a huge backlog, and now has links to even huger backlogs. I've done my small part, but I must leave and now all of you should carry on the good fight. By the way, there was once an idea to have some sort of automated template at the top of this page telling us when there's a large backlog at CSD... Whatever happened to that idea? Grandmasterka 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My word...makes the Titanic look puny. The template sounds like a good idea. Moreschi 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

National Anthem Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was brought up on the Help Desk, and I thought it might be a good idea to bring it here before it turns into an edit war (: Would probably be good for a third party to get involved--VectorPotential 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Iantresman

User:Iantresman is under ArbCom sanction at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I think his comments at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6 constitute disruption, as well as gross incivility. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot