Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 13 March 2008 (→User:Mackan79 apparently WordBomb sockpuppet: reply, thanks). 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My Defense

Spot's unscrupulous methods to bring my contributions into question and to discredit fractal compression are obvious and transparent. If you read the fractal discussion board pay close attention the comments made by. Kevin Baast who is obviously well versed on the subject.

"After having read much discussion on this page, I have come to the conclusion that Editor5435's arguments are among the most rational and logically-sound of those made here. It's a pity to see so much of it fall upon deaf ears. I applaud and encourage his efforts, and ask other editors to consider his arguments more carefully. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Spot isn't being honest here and is acting in bad faith.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I gave Editor5435 a 24 hour timeout, but he is right on one point: Spot (aka Scott Draves) has been editing articles on himself and his own endeavours, and many of them do not actually have external sources do demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I would like to point out another inappropriate Wiki entry that appears to be self promotion. In the Wiki article Spot there is an entry under the heading Other meanings - *Scott Draves, digital artist and VJ. Based upon the contents of the list I feel this in an inappropriate example of self promotion and should be removed.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting your comments into the top of discussions, that's not polite. I am google hit #6 for "spot" so I think it's entirely appropriate for me to be in a any list of "spots". Any errors I have made editing other pages in no way justify what you have done to the Fractal Compression page. I also invite you to reveal your true identity so we can assess your conflict of interest. Spot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again serving your own self interest by shamelessly advocating and editing articles/discussions about yourself. Its a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's COI and self promotion/vanity. As for the fractal compression page you might want to check out the discussion page, finally someone agrees with what I have been trying to say. Again, I believe it is you who have an agenda to spread misinformation about fractal compression for some unknown reason.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for bringing this to the attention of the admins, and Guy for stepping in. I don't know if I have time today to redo the article, but I'll get to it asap. Frankly I am really sick of dealing with this and if someone else who knows fractal compression would step up, that would be great. Perhaps if the text came from someone other than me, Editor5435 would be less incensed. If you don't really know about fractal compression and the history of deception surrounding it, please do not just assume the truth lies halfway between his claims and mine. Read the FAQ for starters, including the "Reader Beware" section. I think the Misplaced Pages article should have a similar warning.

As for the notability and sourcing for the articles about me and my work, this probably isn't the right place to address them in full but note that I didn't create these articles and they they have survived for a long time and been edited by a lot of people. I have made some edits to them under my own name without any deception, but I believe I am allowed to correct basic factual errors. If I have overstepped the rules then I apologize and invite an audit and the chance to provide references. Re notability, have been covered in Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. See my bio. Spot (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused by Ronz of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. This was not an act of vandalism, my intention was to end this ridiculous controversy. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The below brought here from Ronz's page who asked us to continue the discussion elsewhere and suggested here. Spot (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Misplaced Pages's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Misplaced Pages administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that my statement "TMMI has a history of fraud" (iirc) has been confirmed by Editor5435 saying: "Fraud was committed against the company and its shareholders by a scam artist." on his talk page. Rather than respond there I will try to bring the conversation here since he objects when I respond on his talk page, calling it harassment. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot, you were insinuating that the company was committing fraud, quite a different thing than being a victim of fraud. Also you said "pump and dump fraud" which is libelous, Misplaced Pages could be sued that have such things displayed on its website. You should be more careful about the accusations you make--Editor5435 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release says that the perpetrator was a Director of the company at the time. Regardless of who the victim was, illegal shares were apparently issued and entered the market. As for your accusation of libel, iirc I only said the possibility or appearance of a pump and dump (please point me at the exact quote, you seem to have deleted it). Merely stating my opinion is not libel, and neither is a statement in good faith. There are various people on the stock discussion boards saying the same thing, and in stronger language. Your threats will not intimidate me. Spot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing OFF TOPIC irrelevant discussion to fractal compression, none of the above has anything to do with the subject of fractal compression technology. Your obvious attempts to discredit this technology have failed.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You introduced the topic of libel. If you can't back it up, then I'll consider the case closed. I do, however think it's rather interesting that you interpreted a statement about TMMI as "libelous attacks against me". This is more evidence that you are part of TMMI or have some conflict of interest with them. I would appreciate it if you would directly answer this question directly: do you have a CoI with TMMI? Spot (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You insinuated I was involved in a pump and dump fraud, stop trying to squirm your way out of this, and stop trying to obfuscate your attempts to discredit fractal compression by constantly trying to bring OFF TOPIC TMMI into the discussion, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the fractal compression article, just STOP this NONSENSE! Fortunately there are others who support my views on fractal compression and disagree with your false and misleading information you have attempted to spread.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editor5435 has nominated the page about me Scott Draves for deletion in retribution for our edit war. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retaliation? Or because he saw it as shameless self-promotion? We do seem to have rather more articles on you and your endeavours than the limited sources would seem to justify. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of sources to the talk page on the article. I didn't create any of these articles. Spot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sources? I saw more self-promotion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sources listed here: Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? are neutral third parties and established print periodicals writing about me and my work. Spot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Scott Draves article has external links to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com which is gross abuse of Misplaced Pages, honestly, who makes web sites about themselves and uses Misplaced Pages as an advertising service?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario

A Bearcat (talk · contribs) seems to be redirectifying mass number of articles on various Townships. The one on Cobden, Ontario (11,087 bytes) had caught my attention and I reverted his bold merges. He reverted back with the edit summary: "there was no removal of content; it was all merged into another article. there's simply no need for Cobden to have a separate article from the actual municipality that it's a part of." but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario (16,262 bytes). With little work that can be a good article. Please help sort this out. Administrative action may be necesary if the user is mass redirectifying mass number of articles without consensus (preliminary analysis agrees to this assertion: ). -- Cat 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Misplaced Pages practice is for less notable subjects to be merged into their "parent" article. Now, generally, I can't argue with this, especially when dealing with minor pop culture subjects. But for long articles on "real" things, where the merge takes the form of digesting down to a paragraph, that's harder to justify. But, so far, s/he doesn't appear to have reverted you. So there's nothing to see here, unless s/he starts to re-revert back rather than talk about it. If that happens, come back. But the bold, revert, discuss cycle, whilst sometimes annoying, is often a Good Thing. You two have done the B R bit; just D remains. Some inline sources in the Cobden article would help your cause here. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no patience or tolerance left to people mass blanking/redirectifying pages due to my general frustration on this edit pattern. Weather it is to pop culture related articles or real world topics such as this particular case, I am very very tired of it. If such activity has consensus behind it, I'd like to see the evidence for it. If there is no consensus behind it perhaps admin involvement may be warranted. I'd welcome someone else, preferably an admin (a person who has understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines) to pursue this issue. -- Cat 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my job to rescue articles people redirectify without even reading them. -- Cat 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody "digested" anything down to one paragraph. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that mass anything without consensus is disruptive. It's an attempt at overwhelming rational process. The subject doesnt matter--the direction doesnt mater--the particular way of doing it doesnt matter. Even for something which explicitly does not require consensus, like removing PROD notices, if I went through PROD and removed every prod notice, which I am technically entitled to do, as is every editor here, it would be wrong, and someone should stop me. DGG (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus that in general, geographical locations such as towns should not be merged - they're notable in the sense there will be third party sources about them, and apart from a bit of cruft in the Cobden article, I'm not seeing any real problem with it existing in its own right. Orderinchaos 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On researching it, there's some indication that WikiProject Ontario is dealing with this situation in its own way. No objections have been raised in two months, so unless article development is planned for the article I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. Orderinchaos 08:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects cannot dictate what becomes a redirect and what goes. That makes it more problematic. -- Cat 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, from the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." and "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting..." I've let Bearcat know about this but you might have got a quicker result if either yourself or User:Olsdude if either of you had asked him. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Non-consensus random removal of information will be reverted. We often consider these as simple vandalism. -- Cat 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's been no removal of information. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy dictates what becomes a redirect, and this was entirely consistent with it. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Cobden, it appears that Bearcat has contravened her/his own conventions v/v the merge, which were to merge only insubstantial articles, not those with content. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think Bearcat is vandalising then why not tell him that? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden is not a town. It's an unincorporated hamlet within the municipality of Whitewater Region, Ontario. The bottom line is that the municipality's article has to come first — the unincorporated communities within a municipality should only have independent articles once the parent municipality's article is itself long enough to warrant splitouts. Note that until I did the merge, Whitewater Region had a completely unreferenced stub article; the improved current state of the article is entirely due to the merges and redirects. And this is entirely consistent with WP:OUTCOMES, which explicitly states that communities and neighbourhoods within a municipality should be redirected to the parent municipality. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario All of the content from Cobden, Ontario is in the article on Whitewater Region, Ontario, excepting that which is simply an unnecessary repeat of information from a standalone article on a separate topic such as Logos Land. Check the various subheadings. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if we're using loaded language here. When I see an argument about weather Cobden is or is not a town I wonder why it is being brought up. The points that other users have made are still valid regardless of weather Cobden is a town or hamlet. Plus, I'm having a hard time finding a definition of what is a town, hamlet, or village but I don't think that it's necessary to clarify.

Also, I have to say that I agree with the guideline for merger set out by Bearcat - The guideline being this: Essentially, for smaller communities which are either (a) still redlinks, or (b) only one-or-two line stubs identifying the topic as a community within Township of Whateverville but giving no other verifiable and properly sourced information about the community - That seems pretty reasonable. (I do however question when or even if this has ever become policy) However it seems as though Bearcat may have gotten a bit merger happy. It seems obvious that the article on Cobden, Ontario is neither a or b. I can't see how anything is helped by destroying a perfectly fine article (I'm basing this on other peoples statements) and I don't think it makes it any different if you are erasing article X because article Y was not as good as article X.

Finally, the reason why I did not go to Bearcat initially was because, I'm sad to say, in my experience with contesting administrators decisions the only thing it accomplishes is to have my credibility as a contributor called into question, a bunch of cryptic blunt messages dropped on my board and very little else.--Matt D (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As an unincorporated hamlet within a larger municipality, Cobden is not inherently entitled to an article of any length until the incorporated municipality of Whitewater Region has an article sufficiently long, detailed and referenced to warrant being subdivided. And the definitions of a town, a village or a hamlet aren't that hard to figure out: a town is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of town under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. A village is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of village under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. If it's unincorporated, it's a hamlet, not a town or a village, regardless of its population. (Check the population of Fort McMurray, Alberta, which is legally a hamlet, if you have trouble with this.) The definition of a town or a village inherently requires that the community is actually incorporated as a distinct municipality with its own distinct local government. A municipality has to have a good article before any community within it is entitled its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this line of reasoning - the view elsewhere in the world is *very* different to this. For instance, every suburb of every Australian city and every town of any size (we don't have a concept of incorporation here) has an article, or is intended to have an article where none presently exists. Orderinchaos 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I normally would agree with Bearcat but hang on a sec. I recognize the name and looked it up, this is OR (which is permissible outside article space) - Cobden is a definitely established town in Ontario. It seems to qualify from the definitions of geographic entity, it's there and it's been there for a long time. If you're going whitewater rafting on the Ottawa River, it's the closest beer store. I disagree with Bearcat that there is any inherent requirement for incorporation. The existence of the settlement area is notable by its own fact. Cobden is there all by itself. It doesn't need Misplaced Pages to tell it so. WP however, should report it is so. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether people say "Town of Cobden" in everyday usage or not, Cobden is an unincorporated hamlet, not an incorporated town. Being an incorporated municipality is an inherent requirement of being a town — any community in Ontario that is not legally incorporated as a town by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not a town no matter how many times you call it one. Misplaced Pages has to represent these things by their correct and proper legal definitions, not by popular misconceptions, so we cannot and will not say that Cobden is a town when it's an unincorporated community within a municipality.

But either way, you're misrepresenting the dispute here: whether Cobden has its own separate article or gets redirected to Whitewater Region, Ontario, Misplaced Pages is reporting the community's existence either way. This is not a choice of representation or invisibility — it's a dispute about how to represent the community best. And my position remains, and will continue to be, that until Whitewater Region has a sufficiently long and properly-referenced article that it is ready to be subdivided, Misplaced Pages policy dictates that smaller communities within it are to be represented in Whitewater Region's article rather than separate ones. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What an odd debate. I've lived in Ontario for most of my 40 years. Many, if not most, people in Ontario have heard of Cobden. I don't think many outside the Ottawa valley have heard of the "Whitewater Region" whatever that is. These are real towns, with histories, and are miles from each other. Just because there is no political structure for each town, doesn't mean that these are real places worthy of their own page. There is significant content for the Cobden article - it should clearly be a seperate page from the region. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A community has to be incorporated to be a town. If it isn't incorporated, it is a hamlet, not a town. And "who's heard of this" is not the standard for what deserves an article. As a municipality, Whitewater Region has to have a solid, referenced and substantial article before any subtopic of it gets split out — it doesn't matter whether Cobden is more famous than its parent municipality or not. Whitewater Region is the more important and higher-priority topic, because it's an actual municipality with an actual municipal government. Fame is irrelevant; the municipality is more important by virtue of being a municipality. It cannot have a short, unreferenced stub article as long as any community within it has a long one.

And furthermore, all of the information in the Cobden article is also in the Whitewater Region article — and without that information, the Whitewater Region article is a short and unreferenced stub. And the fact that something exists does not automatically entitle it to a separate article — Cobden should only have a separate article once its parent topic has a long enough article to warrant subdivision. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I (2X) HATE EC'S - Ontario - Official Road Map - 1992/93 (yeah, I'm getting on in years) - Cobden (991), C14. Notability established. (There's a cool magnetic hill just south of Dacre, pretty close). I'm trying to convey that "Whitewater Region" is as artificial as it gets, whereas Cobden is a real honest-to-god place with churches and pickup trucks and all that stuff. It pre-exists Misplaced Pages and will probably post-exist it. No matter how you try to cut the definitions, it just plain and simple exists by geographic fact. I've been there, it's an Ontario small town, I don't understand which rule says it doesn't deserve its own entry. It exists, it has a postal code. If that Blofeld guy is pumping hundreds of French commune stubs onto wiki anticipating their expansion, then we can keep the Ontario village stubs as well. (And thanx Nfitz) Franamax (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) It's not all that great of an article, is it? But it can be made better...

"Artificial" or not, Whitewater Region is an incorporated municipality, which makes it a higher priority for expansion and improvement than Cobden is. We do not make judgement calls about whether things are "artificial" or not; we report on the things that exist, and Whitewater Region is an actual municipal government which consequently has to have a real article whether you think it's "artificial" or not. And for the last freaking time: Cobden is a hamlet, not a town, because places have to be incorporated as towns to be towns. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question is if someone wanted information on Cobden, wouldn't they be a little thrown if they end up at a different article which is for the most part not about Cobden? Orderinchaos 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet? That's not a word real people use. People will say they going to town, or going to the village. I have not heard one person in Ontario, saying "I'm going to the Hamlet to go to the store". It's just not a word that is used. Whether or not it is a legal definintion or not is immaterial. Short unreferenced stub article? Cobden is quite an extensive, though poorly written, article! That's no stub. And if you start eliminating articles for towns like this, what about articles for a part of a town or a city, such as The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo, Gastown, etc. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether "hamlet" is what people say in common everyday speech or not, it's legally what Cobden is. You can call it a town all you like in private conversation — but an encyclopedia can't call it a town as long as it doesn't actually have that status under law. Our obligation here is to be accurate, not to reflect common usage even if it's wrong. And incidentally, Cobden is not equivalent to The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo or Gastown, as those are all subdivisions of big cities — and each of those cities already has a long, substantial and well-referenced article that can be subdivided without turning the parent article back into a three-line stub in the process. Until the same can be said of Whitewater Region's article, Cobden is not an equivalent topic. Quality has to start trumping quantity around here. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Cobden is the notable entity, while Whitewater Region isn't. Logically speaking, the latter should be merged into the former. --clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's going too far, that's an insult to all the people in Forester's Falls! Which reminds me - is anyone asking for admin actions here? Maybe we should wander off to our own sun-dappled glade... Any suggestions for a better spot for this? Franamax (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An unincorporated hamlet is more important and notable than the municipality that governs it? Gawd almighty, I need drugs to make sense of that one. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I was mostly sarcastic. Second, I didn't say the hamlet was more important. If most of the content at Whitewater Region is about Cobden, why not have an article about Cobden? Why can't a municipality article be a stub? --clpo13_(talk) 01:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone still watching this, I'll tentatively say party at my place! I can open another bottle of wine and it sounds like Bearcat is out looking for some good drugs ;) Unless there's some argument, no admins needed, no admin wrongdoing, needs a good hat put on top? Franamax (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Test edit to get a timestamp. I can't believe this, ANI with only four edits in an entire hour? What about the drama people, what about the drama?? Franamax (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the only reason I brought up the whole town/hamlet thing was because I was afraid that the word hamlet was being used to imply "unimportant" (And maybe I was right). I also think a key point to remember is that the whitewater region article needing expansion is a very different thing then Cobden's article needing to be deleted. I wonder if anyone has considered that, perhaps, going to the library and getting a couple books about the history of the whitewater region would be a better method of expansion than the one currently being employed? Shouldn't that be the first step? Can we have an attempt at creating an article in the regular way before we start some territorial expansionist phase? It will have to be done eventually won't it? I mean, taking the history of Cobden and replacing the word Cobden with Whitewater region doesn't make a good article does it? All we are left with is no article on Cobden and a half-assed article on the Whitewater region. I fail to see the urgency that requires this merger. The Whitewater region article must be longer than Cobden's? Municipalities are more important by virtue of being municipalities? Maybe so but is this the only way to improve articles?

I realize that the history and information about Cobden would end up being in the whitewater region article. But anybody looking up the history of Cobden shouldn't have to dig through the whitewater article looking for it. And since, as other users have pointed out, the municipal government is, to most people, a more abstract entity than a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within, ect. people may want to look up it's history or whatever without caring about the greater whitewater region.--Matt D (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, hamlet does not automatically imply "unimportant" (Fort McMurray, anyone?) It does, however, imply located within a larger municipal entity. Yes, municipalities are more important — for one thing, they have actual governments. As for "the municipal government is, to most people, a more abstract entity than a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within", a municipality is a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within, etc. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems simple here. Bearcat appears to be a responsible and diligent editor. However the Cobden article does seem to be large enough, and Cobden notable enough, that it should have it's own page, which is referenced from the Whitewater Region page. Two pages, no overlap. If anything otherwise, then why not have a merge discussion on the two pages - rather than debating this here. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Victor64

This user was reported through WP:AIV. Despite an early constructive edit or two, edits had taken a turn for the negative, and I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. I believed that the user was not showing signs of wanting to be a productive member of the community.

I have since received several progressively more aggressive requests from a third party to unblock Victor. I agreed to an unblock, provided that Victor apologized for his vandalism and pledged to not vandalize again, and left a message to that extent on his talk page. In addition, I told the third party those conditions and also gave the unblock-l for them to get a second opinion if they wanted.

I have had no communication from the blocked party about this, and there has been nothing left on his talk page contesting the block. Nor has any email gone to unblock-l. The only communication has been with the third party, and has taken a turn for the ugly. The communication can be viewed at User:Philippe/Archive2#Your_block_of_User:_Victor64 and User_talk:Philippe#Your_block_of_Victor64.

I invite your review and have no objection if someone wishes to unblock. I would prefer that the unblock be accompanied by SOME indication from the party that they desire it and apologize, but I'm afraid I'm at a stale-mate with the third party now. - Philippe | Talk 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the block, and have no difficulty with the language. Out of 4 total edits the first two were minor corrections of anothers vandalism (most likely with a subject of personal interest to the editor) and the next two were major disruption of replacing a sizable quantity of content with an insulting term. Also, of course, indefinite does not equal infinite. I shall drop a note to the third party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to raise this until after Easter, as I don't properly have time to address this until then. However User:Philippe blatantly mischaracterised User:Victor64 actions by referring to the account as a "vandalism-only" account. As over half of this user's edits were constructive, by the very definition, it wasn't a vandalism-only account. I've pointed out to User:Philippe his mischaracterization, and he has ignored my comments, so I can only assume that his mischaracterization is deliberate - hence he is lying to the community. I've documeted the actions of User:Victor64 on my talk page. User:Philippe blocked User:Victor64 on the basis that "because your account is being used only for vandalism". It was clear from his edit history that the account was not only being used for vandalism. User:Philippe knowingly trumped up the charges, and over-reacted. This was a new user to Misplaced Pages that within the space of 5 minutes did a couple of dumb edits. And was given an indefinite block. This isn't the appropriate action for a first or second offence. And this is not the way to welcome a new user to Misplaced Pages. User:Philippe's action and User:Equazcion's request for such action were clearly out of line with Misplaced Pages policy. At worst, User:Victor64 should have received a short block - the actions taken was completely unproportional and an overeaction. User:Philippe has lied to User:Victor64 and the community and needs to applogise. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure this situation was handled as well as it could have been, but I tend to agree with Nfitz that this was an inappropriate block. I believe Equazcion was in error: the first warning should not also be the final warning. Aside from egregious vandalism, I would have at least tried a couple warnings. Furthermore, a 24-hour block, not an indefinite block, would seem to be in order. I don’t think there is any precedent for requiring an apology after a couple episodes of minor vandalism (and noncompliance resulting in an infinite block). I would suggest removing the block, and applying blocks of increasing length should the vandalism continue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this with Nfitz right after the block when his rhetoric seemed to be escalating, and proposed much the same remedy as Philippe: an appropriately-worded unblock request would be regarded with favor. At the time, Nfitz indicated that he had no particular issue with Philippe, but demanded that Equazcion be sanctioned somehow for reporting Victor64 to AIV. Since then, the word "lies" has been used freely (and without substantiation). The issue has become centered around a grudge, rather than a constructive remedy, which is easily available if Nfitz chooses to pursue it. Acroterion _(talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me say clearly, again, that an unblock has been offered, that the unblock-l address has been offered, and that although there were a couple of early constructive changes, 100% of the recent changes had been vandalism, including blanking the 5 pillars and replacing them with "this is retarded". I honestly feel like I've bent over backwards to help this user, and gotten nothing but abuse from Nfitz. But... preemptively unblock them without any expression that they're sorry for their vandalism? Someone else will need to do that, because I won't. I would also remind all that this is an indefinite block, not a permanent one. Should Victor express some remorse and ask to be unblocked, I remain happy to do so. - Philippe | Talk 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)You've got to be kidding me. This user has a total of 4 edits half of which are clearly vandalism, and Nfitz is actually complaining about an indefinite block and that Philippe "lied to the community" about being a vandalism-only account? Give me a break. I would have done the exact same thing that Philippe, and I think he is being more than generous in even considering an unblock. Jauerback/_dude. 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am commenting on is the block of Victor64. I have not examined Nfitz’s comments in detail as their appropriateness or lack thereof is not relevant. My concern is the rash blocking of a new user. This is not the way to welcome new members to our community or show them how our procedures work. I also take exception to several of Philippe’s statements here. I could easily invert your statement to “…although there were a couple of recent vandalism edits, 100% of the earlier changes had been constructive…” And you’ve “bent over backward to help this user”? The only “help” I see is an indefinite block, the indefinite block boilerplate message, and then the message saying you’ll unblock him if he pledges to change. That’s not helpful. What would be helpful would be removing the block.

Look, new users who stumble upon Misplaced Pages often don’t fully appreciate its nature. The novelty of being able to edit the web site and see the changes live is irresistible to some, and they often don’t grasp the significance of what they do. Look at this case. A new user edits to fix an error, and receives a welcome message. The next minute, he fixes another error in the same article. Four minutes later, he vandalizes one of the links in the welcome message. Incredibly, he receives a final warning! And then two minutes later, after he vandalizes another page, he is indefinitely blocked. It is likely he hadn't even gotten the "new messages" box yet. This is no way to treat new members of the community. However, since you state it will be acceptable for the block to be removed, I will do so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, with Philippe, being the editor who made the warning and the AIV report. Stepped vandalism warnings are meant for situations where it is unclear whether or not the user had intentional disruption in mind. The option to give an "only warning" is meant for other scenarios, when the intent to disrupt is clear from the get-go. I see no reason to "bend over backwards" for people like that, and saying that the temptation to see edits occur live makes it simply too unbearable to resist replacing content with inane and disparaging comments seems like quite a stretch of "assume good faith". I don't think removing the block was proper, Knowledge Seeker, at this point. Next time kindly wait until it seems like you've got some agreement before you act. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:15, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion I think you incorrect. Stepped responses are not only meant for unclear actions - they are also meant for new users, who are essentially doing test edits. I note that you were warned on your talk page on this incident by others about not reporting people to being only vandals, when that wasn't the case. Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned, though I don't see what that has to do with anything. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. We are in disagreement. Replacing large chunks of content with inane statements is not a good-faith action. "Assume good faith" does not extend to trying to understand people's reasoning for vandalizing pages. Vandalism is a bad-faith action by definition, and worthy of an only warning. If you disagree, then so be it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is worthy of a warning. A warning would be fine ... even a short block. My concern was that this went immediately to an infinite block - which seemed to be overkill for a new user to Misplaced Pages, who was at least making some constructive efforts. I'm not sure what you mean by "an only warning" - I'm not familiar with this. The one issue that has caused so much grief on this, is that claims were made, that the account was only being used for vandalism - which were not true. I'm confused on why such untrue statements were, and continue, to be made. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of an "only warning":{{Uw-vandalism4im}}. It's for cases where intent is clear. I do not consider this user to have been making an effort at good-faith edits. Again, if you disagree, that's fine. The action taken was not nearly as damaging as you're making it out to be. "Indefinite" blocking doesn't mean "blocked forever". It means the block has no definite end. All the user needed to do was request an unblock and show some good faith, but he did not communicate whatsoever. If he had, the block could've been overturned. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:13, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Incivility bordering on Wiki-Hate Incident from Randy_Blackamoor

--VS 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I previously expressed concerned to Randy B that he mis-quoted me (actually, he falsely quoted me), and I asked that he apologize. He did so by adding considerably more uncivility to the dialogue, and I consider his new actions to show wiki-hate. Judge for yourself. He has been warned and warned and warned. DanaUllman 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have left a strong warning re WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA on user's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I blocked before I saw your warning, but since you left a final, I'll reverse the block. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the response on his talk page to your warning... I'm leaving my block in place. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think a week shows remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I would argue his username alone deserves an indef block for its derogatory overtones. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask admins to review Randy's history of uncivility, abuse, and now hatred, despite many many warnings. DanaUllman 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His record is poor indeed, and he has been blocked on three previous occasions. Personally, I wouldn't object if he were blocked indefinitely as I believe these people on balance do the project more harm than good. I would see what result a one-week block produces but would anyone else here like to review the situation? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone taking it to indef, but since I've already signed my name to "one week", I'd prefer that I not be the one to extend it. - Philippe | Talk 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a week block seems the appropriate thing to do here. While there have defiantly been some civility issues with this user, I also see some good contributions. Tiptoety 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think Randy's behavior is terrible, can we please ask that Dana stay off his talk page after he returns and stop baiting him? Two editors already commented on the page about this behavior. It's been well established that Randy will respond to these things negatively, so barging in and demanding an apoplogy seems disingenuous, at best. Let's not indef yet. Baegis (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without more research, I'm not inclined to condone the language that Dana is "baiting". It's possible, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I would think it would be courteous for Dana to stay off the talk page, yes. - Philippe | Talk 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is not Randy_Blackamoor a racist username? See Randy Blackamoor. 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are other indications of overt racism, I suggest it is best to make a good faith assumption that it is not intended as such. If you are still suspicious, then you should ask him about it. Ronnotel (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF is why i asked a question. I just read thread and the first thing i thought was the name was a bit dodgy, thats all i'm saying. 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackamoore returned 141,000 ghits - being a term for jewelery, tropical fish, statues, and also a placename and surname. It may have had origins in a descriptive term for black people from a time when there was less sensitivity, and can still be used pejoratively as such, it seems to be not inappropriate - it may even be the editors real name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)*I was about to block indef under the following reasoning:

"You have persistently failed to work constructively with other editors, considering it appropriate to insult and attack on numerous occasions, and previous blocks seem not to have brought it home to you that this is unacceptable. In particular, you have been made fully aware of the ArbCom's recent ruling on Homeopathy and related articles and still fail to grasp that however strongly you feel about content of articles, your behaviour towards other editors is expected to be civil. I would say that if I had any doubt about your conduct, your username would have tipped it, being offensive, in my opinion; however, after a deep review of your contributions, there is no balance to tip, and whereas I earlier considered a week's ban lenient, there is nothing in your entrenched attitude to make me think that you are going to change your behaviour as a result of it."

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable assessment of the situation? Yes, some of the contributions are good, but I balance those against the long-term history, and find they are insufficient to outweigh the disruption and lack of respect for other editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not defend RB's "go fuck yourself" sentiment, but arbcom has made no ruling whatsoever on homeopathy, recently or otherwise. I would urge an in-depth review of the situation on Talk:Homeopathy and elsewhere before deciding to indef him. There has been baiting and extremely bad faith from both sides in the dispute. Skinwalker (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was referring to this community decision which is of comparable weight, in my view. As to who's baiting whom, it matters not a whit to me. Any editor brought here in breach of policy is at risk of the consequences of their actions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed some of Randy's diffs here. They may be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've grabbed this bull by the horns and extended it to one month--and also left a "next time it's gonna be indef" message. Blueboy96 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy has a serious civility problem, but is unfortunately baited and poked constantly by a pack of tendentious editors. I'll speak to him privately and see if I can help with the former. A week-long block seems quite appropriate, but a month is just too much. Will you drop it back down to a week if I keep an eye on him and provide a guiding hand? east.718 at 03:10, March 9, 2008

Done ... though looking at the history, I'm not too optimistic. Blueboy96 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Thank you for looking at this openly, Blueboy96. It's worth noting that of the two people pushing hardest here for Randy's exit, one has the worst conflict of interest possible for an editor in this area, while the other is a proven edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. east.718 at 03:17, March 9, 2008

I support that if you would be guiding him. It is a suggestion that I have made in the past, as he doesn't seem to understand. Anthon01 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think baiting is the main issue. Randy believe that homeopathy is bunk, and that that POV allows him to trash anyone who believes differently because homeopaths are murderers. Anthon01 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

East: Sockpuppeteer? Are you talking about me? Anthon01 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I would support an even more lenient block or no block if an admin takes the responsibility of guiding him. And of course you too East.718 have been blocked for Edit-warring. Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't keep half a dozen accounts around for a rainy day. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

I believe that FT2 determined in that case that Anthon01 made some experimental edits with a non-logged-in account on one day and stopped. There was nothing that indicated that Anthon01 had any additional accounts, though I could be mistaken about that, in any case Anthon01 apologized and FT2 didn't think it was such a big deal. —Whig (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One other account used on one day for 1.5 hours and never used again, as an experiment. I didn't understand the need for it. So I tried it out and decided it didn't fit me.

East718: You linked to FT2's original suspicions, but not to his final determination. From FT2's final determination

Here is the link to his full final determination. Now East.718, do you intent to continue to mis-characterize the situation? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One more point. FT2 noted multiple IPs, however he was able to find all those IPs because I always log in as Anthon01. IOW, One account using Multiple IPs. I post from home, work and the library under Anthon01. I occasionally post if I'm on the road. Anthon01 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure if that would work. He's been blocked three times prior for persistent incivility and personal attacks to those who disagree with his viewpoints. He's made that quite clear before. I could care less if you fall into the "anti-science" or "pro-science" camp, incivility and personal attacks is incivility and personal attacks regardless, and telling others to "fuck off" and etc. is only asking for trouble. He's been warned many times of this; a week's block (as it currently stands) is sufficient and should open up a line of discussion regarding his behavior. If it resorts to trolling further, then I support a longer block of a month (as it was earlier). seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That illustrates what I feel is a major problem: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

It looks like only some of those are admin stuff. TE, SOCK, DE. The others are content disputes. Are you really saying that admins should decide matters of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE? That looks like a major re-arrangement of WP.

I recall that Randy once stated he wasn't going to knuckle under to calls for civility. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if his POV were otherwise he would be indef blocked. He has accused me and other editors of bad faith and has not supported that claim. He has said he will not assume good faith in the future. I can supply these diffs. —Whig (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to comment on Randy's page, but when he showed bad faith for misquoting me, I simply asked him to reference his quote from me or to acknowledge his error. I take great offense when some people above said that I "baited" Randy B. I simply expressed concern that he made up out of thin air a quote from me. Two editors (one of whom again made this "allegation" of baiting above) deleted my comment from Randy's page because they worried about Randy's reaction to my legitimate concern (Randy's comment to me actually acknowledged his error, but then, he went into his tirade). Ironically, one of the editors who deleted my comment of concern was an admin, Jehochman, with whom I have had content disputes. It is my understanding that homeopathy articles are under probation and that all parties have been warned about this, and yet, these community concerns have not diminished Randy's uncivility and even hatred. I wish Randy well (I really do), though I wonder if he can be rehabilitated. DanaUllman 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the rules as I understand them, allow editors to blank comments to their own user talk page. Edit warring to reintroduce a message that was blanked is often considered disruptive. Addhoc (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It's worth noting that clever people can turn Misplaced Pages's own rules against it. The process is something like this: choose your victim, preferably someone who already has been blocked for incivility and thus is susceptible to the tactic; persistently needle them while being careful not to display obvious incivility yourself; persist until they reach the end of their rope; when they finally snap, shed crocodile tears over the resulting block for incivility; repeat ad infinitum. The neatest thing about the tactic is that there's almost zero risk for the person (or team) doing it. Quite impressive really. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuuuuuuuuuse me...but I wish that Addhoc and Raymound Arritt would avoid re-writing history. Randy B did NOT delete my comments on his user-page (Jehochman did so and so did you, Addhoc!). Randy B admitted his error AND apologized for it, but then, he became venomous enough that he actually wrote that he hoped that I would die. If editors feel that it is OK to wish death on other editors, then we have a serious problem here, Houston...serious. Ironically, while Randy B is given a silly week's vacation, the anti-homeopathy editors are trying ban (!) Whig (primarily due to content disputes), despite his extraordinary civility. The anti-homeopathy forces may be a tad out of control. DanaUllman 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy's comments in this instance were plainly unacceptable. No one has said Randy's comments in this instance were acceptable, so it is disingenuous (at the least) for you to imply that they did. Some of us are pointing out that there are further aspects to the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and avoiding re-writing the present as well. Whig is NOT facing a ban over content issues. East718 summarised the problem exrtemely well: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. Whig is extremely good at the sort of gaming to which Raymond refers, and whilst he is scrupulous in following WP:CIVIL, he is also incredibly disruptive, shows no signs of improving, and has thoroughly earned the sanctions he faces following his repeated violations of his editing restrictions. Dana, you might consider what it means that only two editors (including you) have voiced support for Whig. Hint: it isn't that you are all being victimised by the big bad anti-homeopathy boogeyman. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block of Randy, and hope that upon his return he will endeavor to comport himself. I think it's reasonable to consider this a "last chance", however, and further inappropriate behavior may merit and indefinite block. Relatedly, however, I expect those with whom RB has consistently feuded to drop the gasoline and matches, and quit the subtle and not-so-subtle baiting that has been painfully obvious. — Scientizzle 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle and others, I'm a tad confused. I am not at all clear why you think that I have baited Randy by asking him to acknowledge that the quote that he attributed to me was not true. We all make mistakes. A simply apology would have put this all behind us. It could have been so simple. In this case, however, Randy went way way over the line (again), and I am shocked, even very shocked, that his desire for my death would warrant a simple week's vacation from wikipedia. To whom can I register this real concern because I do not feel safe, nor do I feel that Randy's repeated offenses and his unrepetent tendencies are adequately acknowledged or dealt with. DanaUllman 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I was already familiar with the entire situation, including the thread you reference immediately below. My statement was, however, not referring solely to this instance. There's quite a long and obvious history of RB behaving questionably, and others (several editors) poking RB to seemingly exacerbate the situation rather than defuse. At this point, every interaction between RB & his antagonists has a chicken-or-the-egg feel to it, and rarely does a participant in these flame wars have a monopoly on the proverbial "high road". I hope that is clear. — Scientizzle 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor who is normally antagonistic to homeopathy has alerted me that he didn't see the original posting by Randy B about which this Incident was reported. Here is that seriously offensive statement that Randy wrote: "I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)" I cannot help but sense that other admins and editors didn't see this posting. Being called a "monster" and wanting my imminent death has NO place on wikipedia. Does this deserve a simple week's punishment? DanaUllman 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely unacceptable, and if I read the above thread correctly, the block has already been extended to a month. In the meantime, you are expected to stay off his talk page for any reason. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

yes. it is very easy to lose ones comprotment, especially ona controversial subject such as homeopathic technology. Randy_Blackmor does have a temper and it is definitely bad that he chose to take it out on you like that, but there is no need to get more draconian on him. one weeks ban and a timme to cool off should be enough to give him a chance to cool off, get his bearings back, and return to continue his productive work on wikiepdia. I say this as someone who has clashed with him many times in the past on Homeopathy and elsehwere that while he can be abrasive he is a decent person who sometimes makes mistakes.

One thing that we can do to minimize the concerns that have led him to lash out the way he did at Dana Ullman is for people who have content disputes with him to try to not go on his talk page and bother him there since even though they mean well he might not take it htat way and might get upset.

of course something should be done about what he said to Dana and once he gets back he can apologize and we should put this behind us for the good of the Wikipeida Project. Smith Jones (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be confusion regarding the block, it was refactored to one week. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed Randy's edits for even a small amount of time will realise that his normal behaviour is to shock and brow beat. No one is baiting him. That's just what he does. True he does not edit war to a great extent but he is vey disruptive on the talk pages making no effort to be contructive. In my opinion he should get a minimum of two weeks off. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this diff shows that the user needs to be indefinitely blocked for harassment. Since they appear to be blocked at the moment, I will leave this for discussion. I would also ask the usual homeopathy partisans to refrain from commenting, and let uninvolved administrators discuss this. Jehochman 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it your diff is linked to and ? seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From the link posted by Jehochman above:

I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. This is my talk page, it's not the homeopathy article. If he wants to come here and complain, I can respond. Furthermore, if Misplaced Pages now has a "please be polite to murderers" policy, link me to it, and shame on Misplaced Pages if so. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remind me again, why are we not extending this to an indefinite ban block? Just how productive does an editor have to be to excuse such behaviour. I'd suggest quite a bit more than Randy currently contributes to this project. David D. (Talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When we deal with similar editors who make veiled threats and make consistently poor behaviour, we usually endorse an indef block. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't, especially based upon the DIFFs given above. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the question I asked. Since we are here on the noticeboard, if an indefinite block is agreed, it will be a community ban. Jehochman 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be absolutely thrilled to extend my block to indefinite. I'll give it a couple of hours and then check back, and if there's not significant opposition, I'll do the block myself. I used a week because it looked like it was a heated argument, I didn't know the back-story, and I was trying to follow an escalated block procedure. If my block was too conservative, I'll gladly extend it. - Philippe | Talk 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly anti homeopathy and dislike the stance of some of its proponents on wikipedia, but we can't have an editor calling those he disagrees with "murderers". Would we allow it on other articles? That is worth an indef block, IMHO. On the other hand, it seems wrong to keep changing our minds about his block.:)The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his Talk. I'm sympathetic with the idea "quacks selling fake medicine to sick, gullible people are murderers" but that all homeopaths are such quacks is plainly wrong, and we certainly can't endure such a standard for murder here. It would be akin to calling all the people who voted for FDR "murderers" because he led us into WWII. That's just too far afield from the actionable felony. Pete St.John (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block and/or ban, or whatever we're calling them these days. There's enough trouble on homeopathy without this editor's continual flame-fanning, and the two quoted comments above are completely unacceptable. MastCell  18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that when I went over to block him on Saturday. Ban indeed. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

!vote for ban. Jauerback/_dude. 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) ... so anyone willing to do this? I would, but a few editors would look at it as me being in the bed of "anti-science" editors as I am currently a mediator at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to see if there's enough consensus ... I'm certainly willing to pull the trigger. Blueboy96 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing, too - I'm avowedly pro-science, but we need to distinguish between pro-science editors who are defending NPOV and those, like Randy Blackamoor, who are only around to insult the anti-science types. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• No further discussion needed from my perspective - I am not involved in any way with this area. Having read through all of this thread I have blocked for gross incivility as detailed above.--VS 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School?

Someone posted at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Plano Senior High School about this edit. Thought I should repost here for some advice. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern was dealt with by Bongwarrior, who was also posted by the same party, earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deliberate hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should notify the police in Plano,Texas. With all the school shootings VA Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine High School.The world isnt some happy place anymore.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just phone Mike Godwin. Right now. ASAP , about this. What happends something happens. Any you guys are left thinking , feeling guilty about. And , what happends if it a real threat. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy that posted this threat has broken USA law ; they posted a teroristic threat. A felony. So, its some serious bs . Rio de oro (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to notify the police in Plano,Texas, and the WM foundation.--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this: Would I send my kid to this school tomorrow morning with a good feeling? No. Do we Wikipedians have sufficient background knowledge to make a final judgement about the seriousness of such a threat? No. So maybe it's better to notify the police. Of course, we are in the danger to turn a mouse into an elephant (that's a German saying). On the other hand: What if...? And finally, if it was a hoax: Maybe it's a good idea to send a message to bored kids: Don't fool around with threats like this. --Abrech (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: School is in Texas, IP that made the threat is from Pennsylvania. However, this is a major offense of US law, and does need to be dealt with seriously. ---CWY2190 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's today's featured article just increases the likelihood that this is a poor taste of a bad joke. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. Metros (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we always do contact the autorities. Anyone in texas?Geni 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a joke... and has anyone notified the police yet? Sethie (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some shit you absolutely do not joke about. This is an example. HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the phone number of the Plano police; I'd be willing to call, but I'm not sure they'd take the words of a 16-year-old Misplaced Pages admin from Canada too seriously. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a licensed EMT and public safety professional, I'll volunteer to make the call. Bstone (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call has been made. I have informed them of the threat, time and location. Bstone (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BStone; I wish I'd spotted this thread earlier. I've now lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has arisen, and how it has not been dealt with seriously and expeditiously. Jimbo Wales' & Mike Godwin's positions has always been (to me, at least) that we are not qualified to judge the cogency of these incidents, the law enforcement agencies are, and they should always be reported for them to make the appropriate decisions. There was an addition to WP:SUICIDE to deal with this sort of thing, and every admin, at least, should be aware of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The second you even attempt to make a 'joke' like that, you deserve exactly what happens to you. HalfShadow (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone; the last thing this site needs is a real version of the Benoit incident. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got a call back from the Plano Police Dept in which I spoke to an officer. I sent him the diff with the offending post and a screenshot. I walked him through how to read it and he took down all the information and said they will investigate. The officer gave me a reference number, which is 08-43705. In case this ever needs to be brought up again this reference number can be used. Bstone (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon used a proxy to make that threat. Not much that can be done.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Cary Bass; the foundation is dealing with it, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this gets sorted out quickly. --Sharkface217 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we let this slip by, what happens if people actually got hurt then it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS.--Rio de oro (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We didn't "let this slip by". The authorities have been informed, as clearly discussed above. Good job, Bstone and MoP. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get the original IP address that did this. The proxy IP resolves to two CGI proxy websites- one of them says that all activity is logged, and anything against their TOS will result in a ban from the proxy. I'm betting that if we e-mailed them, we could get the IP address from them that made the threat. Especially if it was from a wikimedia.org e-mail address. There's two domains that I believe I found (I'm behind a filter right now, so I can't check)- enjoylearning.com and clanzhost.com (or clanzhosting.com, not sure). I'll be able to tell for sure once I get home. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you figure it out please post it here. I have an email address for the police dept and can forward them any info. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bstone, for making the call! and h2g2bob for reporting this. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anything happend or was there a report , or did anything unusal happend at the school. Rio de oro (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the domain registrants for the proxies behind the IP. So now, we wait and see. And for those interested, the domains I found behind the IP are enjoylearning.info and clanzhost.com, so if you find any more, please let me know, so I can contact them as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did anyone contact the school? They should investigate on their end, in case someone made the threat from inside the school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for a moment that the police informed them, but I can't WP:V that. Bstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news! I got the logs for one of the proxies, and I'm looking at them right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, from the logs, there's an IP address I'm currently investigating. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your email just now and am logging in on Lyn's laptop! Checkuser says that's a direct match for user agent, tho' it's a reasonably popular one - Alison 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's a new proposal at Misplaced Pages:ThreatsOfViolence - intended to avoid having to cover similar ground repeatedly at noticeboards - take a look if you're interested - thoughts welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I got a call from Det. McClendon from the Plano Police Dept today. We went over the fact of the case, the threat, etc. He has stated his interest in working with us in order to get him and his department information which would lead to the identity of whomever issued this threat, but indicated he is not the most technical. I said we're a bunch of geeks who would likely want to help and I see above that Nwwaew and perhaps others have begun to work on this. I am waiting for a call back from him as we got disconnected (my phone died), but I thought I'd update you all. Bstone (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mailed Bstone with what I have so far. It's not much, but it's worth taking a look. I haven't heard from the other proxy yet; I'll probably re-email them later on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded it to the email I have for the Plano Police Dept. Thanks for the digging, tho the country where it seems to have come from (Netherlands) is a bit out of the jurisdiction of the TX police. Are we sure it's from Amsterdam? Bstone (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the only IP that accessed the edit page for the high school. From that proxy, at least- theres another proxy that I'm still waiting for a reply from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talked to the detective again. Sent him all of the information you sent me and also included a link to this discussion. He thanked us for our hard work and said to always report incidents such as this as the police will always been interested in investigation a threat of violence. He asked that we do our best with the logs and investigate where this came from if it seems Amsterdam is not the location. Something in the US would be better, of course, as the NL is a tad bit outside the jurisdiction of the Plano police. In any case, he thanked us very much for our assistance. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the guy that posted the threat lives in Holland(aka Netherlands) do we need to phone The Hague , or INTERPOL. My opinion we need to phone interpol because its an international incident. PLANO PD cant just cross international boundaries like that. So, we need to file an Internet Crime form. Its on some web site called IC3 or something like that I'm sure of. Also, someone needs to send a email to the FBI , or if anyone can type in DUTCH alert the Dutch Police(or their own FBI ASAP) if the this guy is from the Netherlands.--Rio de oro (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will email Det McClendon and ask if he would like us to fill out the complaint form here. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragging INTERPOL into this strikes me as a bit of an overreaction at this point. It was pretty obviously not a credible threat. All you're doing now is trying to teach this guy a lesson. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was some INTERPOL thing ; because it crosed COUNTIRES borders.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Canvassing

Can administrators please interfere — User:Kuban kazak is advertising on the message board an AfD with an attempt to influence the vote, which is contrary to WP:CANVASS. I tried to modify the entry and of course with this user it evolved into a revert war. An outside intervention is very welcome. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a gentle notice. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how putting up a notice and a personal thought about the deletion request on a public portal is an act of WP:CANVASSing. Is that what the portals are there for, so that you can inform the community about such developemnts? On the other hand by altering someone's talk page entry, that is certainly bordering on WP:VANDalism? --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled too by Bearian's "gentle note". I see the allegedly offending diff and I fail to see anything at all even remotely resembling canvassing. This thread seems more like an intimidation attempt and should be noted as such. ---Irpen 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilock posted saying only "*This article Donbas secessionism has been listed for deletion here. " But then Kuban added to it: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." I consider that canvassing for a particular opinion. Much better to just say where it is, and make the argument at the Afd. I think the very mild note Berian left, which was essentially just telling him of this discussion, was appropriate. DGG (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock posted nothing. See below. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has clearly crossed the line by adding his biased opinion to the original neutral note. Bearian acted correctly. Irpen's accusations of intimidation seems to be an assumption of bad faith, and should be noted as such. Martintg (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who wants to add a comment to an issue get the facts straight first.

1. This was Kuban's "original note".
2. This was Hillock’s editing of the Kuban's note, not the other way around.
3. This was Kuban's restoring his original comment.

I've seen enough of Hillock to not have to resort to "assumptions" of what he is doing. You, Martin, may note what you like. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock et al., it is not the purpose of this board to try to stir up trouble for those who disagree with you on content matters. Kuban, it is better that you keep your own opinion to yourself when posting poll information on noticeboards ... gives those guys ammunition against you. Bearian ... my commiserations! Marting ... Irpen's not speaking from bad faith born of bad faith; the persecution of Kuban by certain users on wikipedia is something that is well-established.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I just witness this: Irpen doesn't consider this comment: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." even remotely resembles canvassing, then proceeds to attack Hillock's motives and questions Bearian's judgement. Amazing. Martintg (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, don't put words in my mouth and don't distort facts, especially since they are in plain view. This is all I am saying. I posted the diffs above. They speak for themselves. --Irpen 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I've seen enough of the cabal's circling of the wagons ... How about dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think many have again acted first and failed to question. Kuban kazak is a well established editor and does not need this "attack". I think caution should be taken in the future when reporting things to this board. Please read ALL relevant pages before posting "based on half the knowledge." I will apologize for everyone, sorry Kuban Thright (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Thright, precisely because Kuban kazak is a well established experienced editor, there is absolutely no excuse for canvassing on a notice board. Since you are a new editor who joined on March 8th with less than 300 edits to your credit, you may not be familiar with WP:CANVAS Martintg (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Martintg since you seem to be so much of an expert please point out in whichever policy it says where on a public announcement board one is forbidden to make a suggestion and propose a vector in which that particular topic can be developed? I will only accept a direct quote from a policy, that answers to all of the criteria I laid out.

Incidentally there have been numerous cases on discussion boards when someone puts a note and/or a suggestion on it and someone else answers to it. Never before has that been reported. What I see is but a sad and pathetic attempt by the likes of Hillock and you to intimidate me. (BTW what is your play in this matter?) If you want violations to end tell your newly found freind (who canvassed you I presume? ;) to stop WP:STALKing me. For the record I do not involve myself in your conflicts with the Baltic-related articles, and anytime someone reports you here and frankly don't care about any of that, so why do you feel the urge to grind your WP:AX against me?

Thright, no need to apologise, if everyone was forced to apologise to me for all their wrong-doing and putting sticks between the spikes of my wheels, the wikipedian server would collapse from the traffic my talk page would recieve. Anyhow nice meeting you. --Kuban Cossack 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that this issue would go away on its own ... The likes of Hillock ?! What the HELL is that? Where is the intimidation, where is harassing?! Reminding a user not to canvass for an AfD on Portal message board didn't have to degrade to personal attacks of this kind. I wish administrators would finally intervene! --Hillock65 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record can someone tell Hillock not to stop tattling about any comment directed at and about him as a personal attack. (Considering he makes personal accusations at me non-stop yet I don't go around bitching about him attacking me).

Like I said again, no quote from a policy on a violation by my part means there has been no violation!. For the record the defendant is inoccent until PROVEN guilty, no proof, no canvassing. Anything else is an offspur of Hillock's imagination. Even Martintg below seems to agree, and no there was no meat there.

Incidentally the original dispute (even though there really has been none) was about the suitability of that article. I supported its deletion request (which Hillock brought up) and the personal comment both on the AfD and the Portal was nothing but a vector in which that topic can be developed. Usually when a deletion request is put up on a public announcement board it is often included with a personal comment about it, so that other memebers of the community can go to the AfD and instead of only voting also bring up suggestions on further improvements of the topic.

So if admins do want to get involved, then please investigate User:Hillock65s previous attempts at intimidating me at articles that are not even on his watchlist. For example the dispute, medcab and later medcom at Podilsko-Voskresenska Line where after the original user has long lost interest in continuing it, Hillock, having made no input in improving the article, for nearly a month or more attempted to stay someone else's course, only on the lines enemy of my enemy is my freind. If admins are interested in seeing more future FA articles like Ukrainian architecture that I have just published, wall me off from this annoyance.

PS: Just before Hillock makes anew accusations of Personal Attacks, none of the above is meant to be offensive to him her ;) --Kuban Cossack 15:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to make a suggestion and propose a vector on a public announcement board in which that particular topic can be developed, this is perfectly acceptable. But it's quite another matter when it is in regard to an AfD vote, as there are potential issues of WP:MEAT involved. I've been in enough deletion debates to know how the issues can become quickly muddled when there is a sudden influx of participants arriving to support the "cause" due to somebody's canvassing. For the record I have no association with either Kuban or Hillock, I have no idea what prior personal history is involved with these two editors. Both have no dount made excellent contributions to Misplaced Pages. It's clear that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes canvassing, so I shrug my shoulders. This whole thing seems like a dead horse as far as I am concerned and this discussion should be archived before it spins out of control. Martintg (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors, and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with. I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell  22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has added these to the spam blacklist. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag; Natalie Erin has made a lot of progress at Amanda Baggs, but the situation continues at Donna Williams (author) and doesn't show any signs of letting up. BLP, COI, NPA, Civil, AGF; you name it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will an admin please help with the ongoing disruption from Appto (talk · contribs), who is removing talk page posts, removing warnings from his/her talk page, and all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm back from lunch now and can probably work on this. I'm not sure is Appto really gets it, but if this continues s/he should probably be blocked, although I would appreciate some other opinions about this. Natalie (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him/her for more than a day now, explaining policy and guidelines to no avail. Time consuming just to keep the BLP violations off the talk pages, and reinstated deleted text from talk. Either s/he can't understand, or won't understand. Unclear yet if Appto and Bettwice are the same editor. S/he has posted one reliable source to Donna Williams, which I would incorporate into the article if I could ever get a break from the disruptive editing. Timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've warned and have their contribs page in my background. Next violation is a block. MBisanz 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Appto and Bettwice are the same person. Bettwice has self identified as John Best, a rather aggressive figure in the anti-vaccination community and the writer of the Hating Autism blog. That user's writing style up until the self identification were also consistent with Best. Appto, on the other hand, writes in a very different style and in my experience, Best has a hard time moderating his own choice of words, so I find it doubtful that Appto is Best, yet somehow remaining mostly calm through this entire thing. The post linked above, where Best identifies himself, is a pretty typical example of his conversational style. Honestly, we could probably block the Bettwice account now, as I sincerely doubt it won't be disruptive, but I'm more than happy to give people enough rope to hand themselves, as the saying goes. Appto, on the other hand, seems somewhat reasonable, just laboring under a misimpression of how Misplaced Pages works. The conversation is continuing on the talk page, so perhaps it will be fruitful in some way. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because somewhere in all the mess of the last 24 hours, I thought Seidel accused Appto of being John Best. Well, the 12-hour break is welcome so I can get something done around here. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he did, because both accounts were linking to Best's blog. John West has also identified himself as Bettwice on his blog, so I think that ID, at least, is pretty airtight. Natalie (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I identified Best when he posted under an IP address, which I recognized from another (non-WP) context. I apologize for the rules violation and will not do it again. - DaveSeidel (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block for Appto for Disruptive editing → , a continuation of yesterdays removals and alteringof comments--Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Bettwice33 (talk · contribs) for this, which is a copy-paste from his blog and contains various personal attacks, following several stern warnings. I have also removed the blog post from the talk page, as it is either a copy of discussion here or personal attacks. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Appto being John Best; he has a history of being capable of writing in a number of different styles. He has even acted as a female on a forum at one time. The man is obsessed with the issue of Amanda Baggs and anyone who supports her - including Dave Seidel - and is capable of anything. The only way to be certain is to do a checkuser between Appto and Bettwice33. If there isn't a match, there may at least be some evidence to meat puppetry if not sock puppetry. GetDumb 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Dumb is right. He must be reading Wrong Planet, because the subject was indeed mentioned that User:Bettwice33 was playing a woman on a forum (it was Autism Speaks by the way) and further even used it to threaten someone privately. I myself have been the victim of this man's erratic and psychotic behaviour. It is not beyond reason that User:Appto is a sock puppet of User:Bettwice33. He has been irrationally unhinged by the publicity Amanda has received because he is convinced that she is not Autistic. His so called "million sources" do not exist beyond information from two people who claim to know her and do not. User:Bettwice33 is trying to involve WP in his personal war against Autistic Spectrum Disorders - all because he has been driven to meglomania by the fact that his son is Autistic and he can't handle it. Banning him is the best course of action against this person, and his IP should be blocked as well if it hasn't already. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read two posts up, Fenric - the account has been blocked indefinitely. My experience with John Best online has been quite different - although he may claim whatever he wants about his identity, I've found that anything he's typing deteriorates into the same spiel after about three posts or so, and thus it seems unlikely that Appto is John Best keeping up a charade for an extended period of time. It wouldn't surprise me at all, however, if the two were confederates.Natalie (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see that. Sorry if I confused you. I was pushing for the check user and the IP block. With respect, my experience with Best goes a long way back, and he can (if he wants to) maintain such a charade. I've seen it. But it is also possible that User:Appto is a meat puppet rather than a sock puppet I agree. Either way - a check user would certainly resolve that matter once and for all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ay. I didn't realize what all I had walked in to; before I add it, can I get some extra eyes on the proposed text I've added to the talk page of Donna Williams (author), based on the one reliable source that came out of all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, and given that I understand that Donna has disputed the content of the interview and the context of it, it's reliability is questionable. The fact that it's more than ten years old also doesn't help. I think the source needs back up. By itself it may be okay but because it's being disputed places a cloud over even using the thing. GetDumb 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of user using his User space to CANVASS for AfD warring

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has apparently heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept, even going so far as to say that policy should not be followed () and saying that "policy is not binding" (). He's created User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight and linked to it from his User page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We really need to have a word with Kmweber. The RFA opposes are in good faith, but now it looks like he's picking a fight. Will 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did this administrator put out a call for on-wiki disruption? Link? Lawrence § t/e 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called for "disruption" and its on WikiEn-l. I don't think there is a problem with putting a list of AfDs you're interested in on a user subpage, and if this wasn't Kurt with his history at RfAs there wouldn't be an AN/I thread about it. Avruch 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw Corvus write, "heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept", and that did not sound good. But thats why I asked. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been actively discussed on Wikien-L for a couple of days now. This is entirely appropriate - canvassing for a particular AFD issue is questionable, but calling attention to process issues writ wider is completely legitimate community activity. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: Kmweber is pretty much exactly the wrong person to be encouraging to use Misplaced Pages as a personal battleground regarding deletion policy, given that he -- literally -- believes everything, without except, belongs on Misplaced Pages. Witness this and his arguments here (like this claim, this claim, and this claim. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I claim no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Kurt reads wikien-l and will use it as a launching point to go off and be Kurt - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Whats wrong here? It looks like he may be taking WP:IAR a bit far, but policy is not the end all solution to everything here, and if it gets in the way of a constructive project then go around it. And as for the links to AfD's, I know a ton of users who have those, just a list to watch, and it is not canvasing if it is in his own userspace. Tiptoety 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's call for AfD warring is at and following discussions on that thread name. This has nothing to do with Kurt Weber's history on AfDs, I don't even know what his history is on the matter. It wouldn't have been an issue if David Gerard hadn't begunt his campaing and Kurt hadn't followed along. What would you call Kurt's vote to keep articles on non-notable bands which violate a LONG-standing guideline at WP:BAND except trying to turn AfD into a battlefield to keep garbage? Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"AFD warring"? This is a perfect example of the problem with AFD: it's hopelessly inbred and inward-focused, with active hostility (which has even been noted in Third-Party Reliable Sources) to anyone perceived as an "outsider." AFD can not seriously be claimed to represent community opinion if its regulars are "reporting" people to ANI for pointing this out and asking people to participate in it, which I did indeed do, so help me Dawkins - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David, this is the fifth or sixth time you've referred to "Third-Party Reliable Sources" without bothering to elaborate. Which Third-Party Reliable Sources? Could it be that you're getting a bit worked up about an article in The Economist? Aecis 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an article in Slate about AfD at one point? I remember it not being particularly well-written, but also not particularly flattering to WP. I think I've seen others as well, though I can't remember off the top of my head where. In any event I think it's fair to say that third party sources have criticized the deletion process on Misplaced Pages -- whether that criticism is valid or not is of course a different matter. --TheOtherBob 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The song remains the same: if they rightly criticize us over AFD, we should fix it, but only because there's a problem to fix; if they wrongly criticize us over AFD there's nothing to fix. This isn't the first time we've been covered, and it won't be the last time. The "public relations" issue is irrelevant since we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. There's no immediate urgency justifying the way David Gerard and others are going about things. Aecis 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can chalk this up to "don't ask a question if you don't want an answer." The question may be irrelevant -- but, hey, since you asked it...

To answer your point, though, no one has said that we should change the AfD process to enhance Misplaced Pages's public image. Rather, the point (as I understand it) is that we're (in David's view, apparently) receiving a fair amount of outside criticism, and that we should consider the possibility that this criticism indicates that our processes aren't working as well as they might. If David is right and AfD has become so hostile to outsiders that it's become notorious...well, then it may not be working properly. That's not PR -- that's hearing criticism and taking a long, hard look at ourselves. And maybe that long, hard look will tell us that all is well (I hope it will -- I've never considered AfD to be as broken as it's made out to be here).

Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with encouraging participation in AfD, particularly with an eye towards improving things there -- so this seems much ado about nothing. --TheOtherBob 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not a call for AFD warring - if the community is concerned about the way AFD has been going of late (and I for one am, and was long before this Wikien-L thread) and we're motivated to get involved, this is entirely legitimate community process. Corvus, you may not like what we think about things right now, but please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets WP:AGF here, no policies have been broken, and no damage done to the project (not yet at least). Tiptoety 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. That an AFD regular can react like this at the prospect of the community they claim to represent actually showing up fails to demonstrate that AFD is fine and dandy and non-pathological - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no claims of representing anyone but myself. I do feel a bit of dismay when you, or anybody else for that matter, start posting calls for war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that what I actually said was (to quote the message in its entirety): "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?", I am completely at a loss to make sense of your bizarre characterisation as other than seeing yourself as defending AFD against invading forces. That the invading forces would be the community that AFD claims its mandate from seems to have completely escaped you - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing a different side or something, but as of late, AfD seems to be improving. Whenever I've nominated a questionable article, it's either accepted to be deleted due to no sources after a couple people looked, or kept after being vastly improved. Doesn't sound so bad. After reading the mailing list I don't see anything about it making it a battleground. In fact, I'm not positive what they want. To quote David: "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there." Now, what attitude he means I'd like to know, this way I'll knwo whether I'm for or against this. Wizardman 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to the general AfD attitude of deletionism that has been turning into a battleground against "outsiders" interested in real discussion. I haven't seen what Wiz has sen in an improvement, personally, in fact I think it's getting worse. ANI threads like this only add to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WEll, whether circumstances are betting better or worse, I have no idea what Kurt is trying to prove with his edits other than a point. Wizardman 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to that, closing admins are encouraged to use their best judgment. AFD is allegedly not a vote, so if Kurt is proposing things that don't have consensus, what's wrong with that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, our deletion processes suffer from a lack of sufficient participation and are often dominated by two groups; AFD regulars and the authors of particular articles. Neither are a good gauge of wider consensus, I feel, and David's attempts to encourage AFD participation are praiseworthy. Note that he has explicitly encouraged those who disagree with him to also go to AFD and participate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, getting different users to look at different AfDs is a good idea. Hopefully this will continue, since I do tend to see the same editors pop up every so often, though I do see occasional new afd users. Wizardman 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there even are "AFD regulars" shows something is seriously wrong around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is barring you from participating. Corvus cornix_talk 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If only everyone was an AfD regular. Tiptoety 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an admitted "AfD regular", as nominator, participator, and now more recently as closer, I would be more than thrilled to see wider participation. I probably relist for consensus more than I close as either keep or delete because nobody (at least whilst looking through the older debates, seems to be chiming in. Just an observatin. Every editor, regardless of how they arrived there short of being a SPA or canvassed, IMHO, is welcome. Also, IMO, Kmweber was not canvassed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a secret that I consider the general atmosphere on AFD severely problematic and damaging to the project's internal workings, let alone its public relations. (When you get written up in The Economist, you've, ah, arrived. The people on WT:AFD who dismiss the article as merely a pissed-off deletee are just ... rather too highly focused on AFD itself.) The best possible way I can think of to get it fixed is more community involvement - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think things have settled a little but this is where I get a problem with consensus WRT deletion-minded people predominating there while others of us are making content. I sometimes wonder whatever happened to AGF, where editors have to hide stuff on their sandbox so it doesn't get speedy-deleted. Just seems to be the wrong way about it all some how (flower power, man...that's where we should be at..) ] (] · ]) 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on "public relations" is grating. It has soured at least one editor and possibly more on the whole article deletion process, which is ironic given the calls for wider participation. Aren't we were supposed to be neutral and objective? Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wishing that people would participate more in AfD's is hardly "a call for AfD warring". (that was to address the David point.) As to AfD, it really does just need more people to chip in, and more people to close the debates too. I've been starting to do non-admin closures but I don't think I'd have much luck doing that to something with only one or two responses. And are AfD regulars really 'abnormal'? :):) As to Kmweber, I disagree with his position on keeping all articles, but he's allowed to list some AfDs in his userspace. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But David didn't just "wish that people would participate", he wished that people would participate and make sure that iffy articles get kept. He was requesting that like-minded individuals to participate. Corvus cornix_talk 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

At least once he stated that he also wants those who disagree with him to also edit there. I suspect David would agree with me that one of its flaws is such minimal participation that many deletion debates aren't properly representative. Additionally, he stated all these things in a neutral forum (wikien-l) frequented by those with pretty much the whole spectrum of opinions on AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikzilla warning - long term vandal threatening escalation

Wikzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making some interesting vandalism threats (see for example threat to disruptively edit ). User is using widely separated IP ranges (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wikzilla and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wikzilla ). They have been very predictable to date but are now threatening to vandalize widely and more anonymously. I will also add to long-term abuse cases when I get a chance, but if you see him hanging around, block away. We've escalated to indef on sight on accounts and six months on the IP addresses (after much gentler warnings and shorter blocks were tried). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an updated advisory, I have rangeblocked Wikzilla's favorite IP netblocks. Hopefully this works and isn't overkill. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lulz at juxtaposition on this user page Orderinchaos 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII article, AFD, and sock puppets

Hello. A short while back I started work on an article for a Famicom pirate cartridge, based off the original article User:FightingStreet had started, and another user, User:Wiki22445 nominated it for deletion. That in itself wasn't unusual. However the account holder nominated several articles in his short time here and did nothing else, and additionally as his contributions will show he vandalized the page, breaking the tags for several citations.

Additionally another account, User:Foxit22, appeared and placed a vote on the page. However the poster was completely new and hasn't posted any changes with the account since. Additionally the username of it seems to imply "fox it", a term for copyright holders to hand copyright infringing projects a cease and desists kill.

And then there's User IP:68.209.235.149, who oddly fired accusations of sock puppets under my control as the only possibility of anyone voting Keep for the article, and I'm led to suspect he might have set up some for himself. After speaking with one admin regarding what could count as notable online sources and validating those cited in the article, I posted that, and a short while afterward a user posted another comment, 68.209.235.149 claimed he was a sock puppet I was using, and then in rapid succession 4 IP only posts shouting delete appeared...the strange part about which being though is that all 4 either had no prior posts or the ones they did were entirely vandalism. Yet they suddenly speak in the same tone. There are additional factors as well, such as the user using a shield of "good faith" and posting such on the talk pages of myself and User:FightingStreet, but not practicing such as his attitude clearly shows on his own talk page.

Lastly, User:Ham Pastrami stepped in on the discussion page and pointed out he'd learned of it from someone "bemoaning its existence", which shows someone is attempting to play this situation unfairly.

I'm certain there is something going on regarding the deletion discussion for the article and disruption of said discussion, and would ask that it be investigated by an admin. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also take a look at the evidence regarding User:Kung Fu Man, as outlined in the AfD discussion. Several proxies and single-purpose accounts have appeared for both sides of the issue, as well as obvious meatpuppets by Kung Fu Man. (see AfD discussion for clear admission of this) I would call this a bad faith nomination, but then again, it looks like something everyone was in on. The majority of the discussion (not considering the sockpuppetry that took place later on) was in favor of removing the article due to issues with verifiability and notability, as outlined. As you can see, several suspicious IPs appear immediately afterwards, first following with "keep" votes, and then some single-purpose accounts opposing them with "delete" votes. The consensus before suspected sockpuppetry became involved seemed to be in favor of deleting the article, which aside from administrative action against the suspected sockpuppeteers involved, would likely be a good idea considering the dispute in following. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Following up on User:Kung Fu Man's edit, it would be a good idea to investigate some of the submissions of the suspected proxies of Kung Fu Man, namely Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) User_talk:Robert the Small (blatant single-purpose account) User_talk:Krator(blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/98.26.120.149 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/Zsabreuser (blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/206.162.204.6 (possibility of proxy)
  • Excuse me? I think if you look at my (Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153)edit history, I have little to do with the topics Kung Fu Man talks about except for a few in the Mugen article. If you look closely, I'm practically fighting with him in the M.U.G.E.N article on some of the stuff he has in that article. By the way, I do have an account, I just rarely log in with it. EvilThouther (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these accounts / IPs have edits outside of the AfD nomination. While Kung Fu Man is pleading a bad faith nomination, his side of the issue currently hosts the most suspicious accounts. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so blatantly false that I question the judgement of the submitting editor. I'd encourage someone to strike up a conversation in Dutch with Kung Fu Man, too. User:Krator (t c) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit a lot of the same articles as Kung Fu Man. Guess that makes me a sockpuppet, too? Don't be ridiculous, anony. Your bad faith accusations really make it all the more obvious that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User reported and is pending further investigation. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kung_Fu_Man Nori198 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:JuJube followed up with a threat on my talk page ]. I thought this might be of interest to the case. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And this just gets more and more ridiculous. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, looking at my talk page will show KFM asking me for help. Which can only mean it's a carefully orchestrated plot to make this sockpuppet account look valid! lulz. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the entire posting history of User:Nori198 seems based around just making the report page XD Yeah this should be a hoot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving an outsider's point of view, the amount of anonymous and new users who came for that AFD was pretty interesting. I don't think they are sockpuppets, but meatpuppet, asked to come here in some forum. I suggest putting it for deletion review to get it back to AFD. The blogs are not reliable at all (had IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy or any other consumer site posted about this? No, because it is not even worth a mention). Keeping the article here is why people think video games only bloat Misplaced Pages. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure IGN and GameSpot will get around to covering it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a tracert on some of the IPs to verify whether or not any proxies were involved. We can procede with blocking if anything comes up. In the meantime, I'll be sure to put in a request for the AfD review. Nori198 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP Policy page MFD'd

SilkTork (talk · contribs) has nom'd part of the BLP policy at MFD. While I think silktork has some very relevant points, MFD is not the venue to change or modify policy, indeed the MFD guidelines state that Nominating a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.. Looking into the history, I don't think this is a POINT nomination just a good faith editor looking for further input - just in the wrong place. I'd ask for a speedy close on this matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the debate on a procedural basis, both due to the importance of the policy in question and the fact that the proposed deletion only included a section of the page, not the entire page - by definition, an editing debate, not a deletion debate. No comment on the merits, except that there are other forums for this concern. I will so notify Silktork momentarily. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for this action, though I would have appreciated a wider discussion on allowing the MfD to stand as putting the section up for discussion on MfD was intended to end a slow moving but potentially disruptive dispute about that section's place in BLP. The guideline quoted above would be for a nom that was in itself disruptive, rather than for one that was intended to reduce or avoid disruption. The nom was discussed in advance, and was only put in place after another editor agreed with that action. I don't think that the procedural basis for closing the MfD was appropriate given the situation. Sometimes we have to apply good sense. This matter has been under discussion in the appropriate place since October 2007 and the situation has not yet been resolved to satisfaction, as the consensus to move the section was reverted by a single individual. A second merge discussion was then also bypassed without consensus. The potential for disruption is already taking place. A move to end potential disruption by using a formal procedure cannot surely be disruptive in itself? I would welcome a discussion and rethink on letting this MfD take place. The current discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Shortcut_WP:BLP1E_should_not_link_here, previous Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#One_Event_merge, prior to that: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_7#Suggested_merge_from_WP:BLP1E_to_here_-_Redux, and the original: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_7#Suggested_merge_from_WP:BLP1E_to_here. There is no wide consensus either way in the actions so far - the need for a wider discussion is pressing. SilkTork * 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost always a mistake to interpret agreement among a smal group of like-minded editors in some project space as consensus. WP:BLP is an important policy following multiple serious and very public problems with articles, and deleting it was not going to happen. The fact that some people like to have faux biographies for people notable for a single event is well known, and has been a long-standing cause of friction, but WP:BLP is a good policy which reinforces the long-standing consensus that Misplaced Pages should not be seen to be evil. The correct place to debate WP:BLP1E is the talk page of the policy itself, or perhaps the Village Pump. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been listed for discussion at the policy page and guideline page on and off since Oct last year, and all that has happened is that half-completed reverts have created a misdirected shortcut and some confusion. So correct or not, what is important is - has that discussion made progress? No, that discussion has not made progress. Where we all appear to be in agreement is that this matter does need wider discussion - where we are now stalling, is that I have brought the matter out for that wider discussion, but it has been stopped as a procedural error - I question that it is an error for the reasons I have given above. However, I will now try the Village Pump. SilkTork * 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I closed the debate is that you filed a request to delete a portion of the page, but did not signal any desire to actually have that section deleted. You proposed moving the section elsewhere, which I can't disagree with - but MfD is not the proper forum for such a request. I'm aware that discussion has been ongoing for a while, and maybe the Village Pump will be a good place to centralize it. I would recommend that you note that such discussion is ongoing by posting a (neutral!) notice at the BLP talk page, WP:AN, and WP:BLPN, so that more interested editors and admins can weigh in on the topic. A summary of previous discussion would be in order, as well, to avoid duplicating previous efforts. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's also why I very specifically closed as a Procedural Close rather than a Speedy Close, as the nom was not itself disruptive - quite the opposite, Silktork has some very well-reasoned concerns. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue is now taking place at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Further discussion is encouraged at that page. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy (II)

On the 28th of January, I was blocked by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Connolley was involved in a content dispute with me. He still is, and it's not the only one. I have linked to a plethora of outside sources, only to be told that I was doing too much unnecessary referencing. Automatically assuming admins are in the right at all times do neither of you any favours.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, this is a rediculous interpretation of policy. If correct, a user could become exempt from being blocked by vandalising each admin' s talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Undoing the work of a disruptive user is NOT a content dispute. I see no evidence of that here. Admins, and indeed ANY editor, is within their rights to stop disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin has the right to prevent further vandalism of his/her user page(s). Bearian (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought this up on WP:AN/I (). Last time you didn't get the answer you wanted; asking the same question again a week or two later is forum-shopping at best and WP:POINT at worst. You've had your feedback. Continuing to hunt for the response you want is disruptive. MastCell  19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly when does this:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

apply? Each of you seem to be taking Connolley's assertions at face value. I'd prefer if you had a closer look.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed in several forums by a number of uninvolved administrators. It would seem that most or all have actually reviewed the incident in question. Continuing to push the same issue in different forums in hopes of getting a different answer is disruptive and inappropriate and is highly unlikely to have the effect you desire. If there is a major issue with abuse of admin tools, consider WP:RfC, which is the normal mechanism for dealing with such things. If you continue to forum-shop this in inappropriate venues, you'll end up being blocked for disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. MastCell  16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight, King Dedede et al now that the TV 2 case is closed

Meta Knight and King Dedede have already been resurrected without discussion now that the TV 2 case is closed; I have restored the redirects. So, what's the plan to keep throw-away accounts users like User:Yair rand from running amok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how his is a throw-away account given he's been doing some contributor work here (and I do have to add that it wouldn't be difficult to make either character's pages into proper articles rather than condensed sections on a character list). Just my thoughts on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted that bit. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 for context. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed the arbitrators and stop edit-warring on these articles then "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." Catchpole (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, IPs and established editors (sans TTN) are continuing the edit-warring. The problem is, the IPs and newbies restoring the articles cannot effectively be punished, even with the arbcom prohibition. – sgeureka 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that new discussions need to take place on Talk:Meta Knight, Talk:King Dedede, and Talk:List of Kirby characters, rather than revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Colonel Warden has resurrected the articles again without discussion. So the difference that the RfAR has made is .... once again, fuck all. Black Kite 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Power plant pages in Argentina

I have indefinetely semi protected 5 pages pertaining power plant pages in Argentina edited by the 200.45/200.43 ranges (Atucha II nuclear power plant, José Antonio Balseiro, Huemul Project, National Atomic Energy Commission, INVAP). The user also edits 2006 Argentine nuclear reactivation plan but that one is still clean (sorry for the beans). A user in this range (using, sometimes rapidly, shifting IPs) continues to show their POV and trying to get some negative information in the pages (e.g. diff). My reasoning:

• The vandalism edits continue after the previous protection was lifted (as happened a couple of times)
• IP Edits since the last protection was lifted are only by this IP range, these IPs only edit these 5 pages, performing only the POV edits, and perform no other edits to these pages than the same edits they have performed for the last .. years.
• The IP has shown in the past to not want to discuss at all. When confronted with a question of why they thinks a certain edit should be performed, they clearly show that they don't care (diff).
• During protection they also vandalise other pages which have been edited by involved editors (see e.g. Special:Contributions/200.45.150.227).
• I did not see any requests by editors for edits on these pages (except for editors out of the same range during the protection).

I know it would be better to block the editors, or to discuss, but that all seems impossible (for the first the ranges are too wide, for the latter, it gets refused). Could someone please review my protections and adapt if necessery. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page protection has been noticed: Special:Contributions/200.43.201.20. I am trying to apply WP:RBI, but may need some help, because this is not easy to detect. --Dirk Beetstra 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Policy.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We're having a problem at talk:list of the verified oldest people about keeping the 'race' column in supercentenarians. The argument that if we remove it, it would violate WP:POV where we try to 'pick and choose' what sources we want and don't want. The counter-argument is it is concensus - that is, a consensus that does not want the race column in the article's table. Particularly this edit explains it. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people&diff=197413550&oldid=197391320

So can consensus override policy? This is a world table, so race for many countries. The people wanting to keep the race column are Americans, and the people against are from outside the U.S., which consider knowing someone's race to be meaningless. And therefore, should be removed. The argument is whether or not consensus can override policy. WP:POV talks about local bias. Neal (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

The short answer is the consensus can override policy (for example, under WP:IAR). However, I'm really not clear on what policy you think requires the inclusion of this column - I certainly see nothing in WP:NPOV that says that you can't list old people without mentioning the colour of their skin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is simply and absolutely wrong. Under no circumstances can consensus overrule WP:NPOV and WP:V. That said, in this case, the tension is not actually as described, so that would not be an issue anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR would suggest otherwise, but I imagine neither one of us feels like getting into a debate about that. Suffice it to say that I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be advisable to invoke WP:IAR to overrule those two policies, that I have no plans to ever do so, and that I am very likely to oppose any attempt by other editors to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR is a feather in the face of NPOV's cast iron hammer. It can't trump it or move it. Lawrence § t/e 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So what does the "A" stand for, in your view?

Okay, I'm going to stop arguing this, because I agree that NPOV is, in practice, sacrosanct, and I don't want to find myself the spokesadmin for people who think that IAR gives them license to push their own POVs. I'm arguing a technicality, and it doesn't matter. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view the "A" stands for "A Poorly Worded" policy page, that poorly worded page being "IAR" itself. It should be just IR, since some rules you can't ignore (NPOV, V, BLP, in that order). Ever. Lawrence § t/e 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any policy can be changed or overridden by consensus. The given policy dictates the level of consensus needed. NPOV, being our Number One Most Important Policy That We Serve, any consensus on any one little article page is irrelevant: it won't trump NPOV. Ever. You need consensus on a mega scale, on the level of thousands of users across multiple WP projects, the planets to align, and the duly elected WMF Board to sign off as well, probably. Lawrence § t/e 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When we cite a source, we don't include the entire source -- we cite the material necessary to establish the fact we are talking about. The article is about age, to which race is entirely irrelevant. The appeals to NPOV and OR (on the page in question) are entirely off base. There is no policy conflict here. - Revolving Bugbear 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay good points. So the question is more about specific source inclusion and not. NPOV says "All Misplaced Pages articles all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This would violate this because we want consensus to remove the 'race' column, which is removing a signicant view. Followed by "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." The source we are pulling from is http://www.grg.org/Adams/BB.HTM - where the 'R' column is race. Neal (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

With respect, I believe you're severely misinterpreting WP:NPOV. A person's race is not a "view", it is a fact (well, sort of, but I'm not going to get into that here because it's irrelevant). A view would be if many scientists thought that people of a given ethnicity were genetically predisposed towards longer lives while other scientists disagreed; in that case, you'd have to give coverage to each view. However, even that would be irrelevant in this particular case, because that section of WP:NPOV is about covering controversies, not about listing data in tables.

I can say with certainty that there is nothing in any Misplaced Pages policy that could reasonably be construed as requiring the inclusion of the race column. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) WP:IAR says that policies can be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. In other words, there needs to be a good reason. I can't see any reason for removing the race column, since the sources include it and it is fairly significant. In my opinion, removing the race column would be bordering on censorship. --clpo13_(talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that WP:IAR requires a damned good reason to invoke. However, there's no need to invoke it here, simply because there's no rule requiring the inclusion of the race column. I believe that there are several excellent reasons for removing them, but that's something to be discussed on the talk page. For here, suffice it to say that there is no policy either requiring or prohibiting the column's inclusion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the question isn't if there is a good reason to include it, but if there is a good reason to remove it. And WP:IAR should say ignore it. Basically, this is now consensus vs. WP:IAR. Neal (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Er, no, it really isn't. It's just plain consensus: if consensus says keep the column, keep it. If consensus says remove the column, remove it. There's really no policy conflict here at all Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Being a cynical bastard, and seeing TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his obsession with the geriatric, I was immediately reminded of the banned Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• By the way Guy, you were the 1st declining admin for Ryoung122's block. A week ago, conversation has been brought up at the bottom of user_talk:Bart Versieck's page on a 2nd unblock request. Just fyi. Neal (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Guys, you can't "IAR" Foundational issues. You can't IAR over NPOV. It's just not going to happen, ever. We serve NPOV. Anything that takes away from or diminishes NPOV is not helping the encyclopedia, period full stop. So IAR is meaningless to discuss here. Lawrence § t/e 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, back to whether or not removal of race in a table of the oldest verified by people column is a violation of policy or not. I just Ctrl F'd the talk page and found these 2 arguments by 2 different people. I just need to know whether they are true or not. Here they are. Discuss. Note that, I'm going to sign my name twice at the end of each point even though they are from the same post so people can colon them individually.

1."By selecting the source and then picking and choosing the information you want is the worst kind of bias and POV." Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Completely wrong. Selecting sources and picking and choosing the information to be included is how Misplaced Pages articles are built. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2."Misplaced Pages policy is that major points of view must be included in order for an article to be NPOV. Deleting the 'race' category is actually POV: "I don't like 'race' so it should be deleted." " Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Completely wrong: deleting the race category is expressing a POV on the article, not on the article's subject. All editors have POVs on articles, which is why talk pages exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If none of these violate a policy (and unless someone can come up with another reason), I rest my case - so that there is no policy, so consensus will override. Thanks. Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Yes. If there is consensus for the removal of the race column, it should be removed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as no one is trying to override NPOV, V, or BLP via a disallowed and wrong usage of IAR, there's nothing really for admins to do here and this is a pure content dispute. Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot trouble?

I'm not encountering anti-V bot edits today. Maybe it's just my luck, or maybe something happened to some helpful bots. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is still active. MaxSem 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:ClueBot (special:contributions/ClueBot), User:VoABot II (special:contributions/VoABot II) and user:XLinkBot (special:contributions/XLinkBot) all three have reverts until a couple of minutes ago. But which bot do you mean? --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't encountered any of them today. Just my luck apparently. But at least I haven't been trying to revert stuff they fixed 10 seconds earlier. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty weird when you don't see them for a while on the articles you watch. I've noticed this myself from time to time. Just one of those weird things, I guess. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Buddha

A person who has vandalized Misplaced Pages before has done it again, this time to Portal:Buddha. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portal:Buddhism&oldid=197492505 --jmeeter (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple case of vandalism, so give him vandalism warning, and at extreme level, report in AIV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Giant heap of oddball sockpuppet vandals

I'm here to report that this weird person is back, vandalizing pages by adding false sock accusations, false "blocked" templates (to his own sock pages!) and sort of carrying on a weird dialogue with himself amongst his various IPs and socks. The account is The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), IPs are 86.29.253.211 (talk · contribs), 167.128.202.93 (talk · contribs). etc. etc. I've tried reporting this before only to be told it's too stale, or "what is the problem?" The problem here is that someone is out there playing games on talk pages with socks and IPs, vandalizing, using Misplaced Pages for personal amusement/deranged therapy. I don't know what this person's problem is but I really wish someone would look into it and block the socks, run a checkuser, whatever it takes. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another sock is Handy wall link (talk · contribs) who had an {{indefblock}} added by 86.29.244.214 (talk · contribs) but has not been blocked. I've removed the tag but the user still probably needs to be blocked. --Snigbrook 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MaxSem 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TomGreen

TomGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Several unconstructive edits to Road rage (see ). Has engaged in edit warring when edits are reverted. I reported this to WP:AIV, but was redirected here. This user is not new to edit warring (see for example , although he often knows just how far to go to avoid the 3RR rule). As a long term user, he should be aware of these rules. 81.152.148.200 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See Apparently you weren't the only person who saw this problem. This was already dealt with. Thanks for keeping tabs on this, and good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment TomGreen has since been blocked by another admin.--VS 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, by me. Also protected the article for a few days (possibly on The Wrong Version) for longer than the 24 hours I gave Tom. I didn't - and don't intend to - look into any other edit warring Tom may have been involved in. I'd suggest WP:RFC for that - but you may need to create an account to create the report. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, obviously, not you Steve. I meant 81.152.148.200 :oO ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Further input needed on behavior of Ahoalton and socks

See and and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Ahoalton. The user in question not only is trying to dodge a block by creating new accounts and using multiple IP addresses, but he continues to assert that ANY admin that has dealt with his behavior troubles is somehow involved with this Order of the Arrow and that any attempt to correct his behavior by an admin is necessarily some act of a sort of grand conspiracy by this "Order" to protect its article. This is patently rediculous, and needs to be stopped. Any comments? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow? That would be; sharp bit, stick, feathers, wouldn't it? I'll take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon review I note the editor has been indef blocked under this name, although they do edit via hopping ip's. I can't suggest much more than WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a message at the top of Talk:Order of the Arrow that explains the general consensus on the issue at question. Because "safeguarded" materials are not published outside of the organization, they do not meet Misplaced Pages's requirement of verifiability. There is nothing "secret" about the OA and local lodges make any and all materials available on demand to parents, church leaders, or other adults with a legitimate interest. But it is gratuitous to post passwords or exact texts from the ceremony here. --B (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other AN/I discussions with regards to this one? Another editor (Padillah) asked me to look at this case... while Ahoalton's IP activities and block evasion are certainly problematic, there are some aspects of the proceedings that might need review.

• Why was the user ID User:Ahoalton blocked based on the username policy? It doesn't seem to be offensive, and there certainly didn't seem to be consensus on the report page for a name-based block. (The "a-hole" note isn't relevant, as the username seems to be a term used in the "Arrow" ceremony.) While the user has sock issues, I've yet to see anything "abusive"; the sockpuppeteer "EverybodyHatesChris", who continues to be truly abusive to me and countless others, was given way more latitude (and opportunity to repent) than what I've seen so far here.
• Why have the talk pages for Ahoalton and the sock Ahoalton1 been semi-protected? More importantly, why was the talk page for Ahoalton1 blanked with a note on the protection log as "abusive"? There's nothing "abusive" in terms of language on the talk page as far as I can tell, plus the discussion there is now hidden.
• Furthermore, some of the concerns raised about what is and is not being permitted in the Order of the Arrow article should be examined as it doesn't - to an outsider - look quite right.

I've more questions, but I would like to see if there is a way to centralize this whole matter first. Right now, it seems to be scattered across too many pages to be coherent. If I'm missing some truly obnoxious ban-worthy behaviour, please let me know. It's just not very apparent right now. --Ckatz_spy 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sock behaviour is starting to explain itself. I'd still like to see this discussed somewhere central, though. --Ckatz_spy 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be out in left field on this, but I don't think anyone would have an issue with this user being a non-disruptive contributor. Going out and making a user name based on a content dispute to make a WP:POINT is inherently disruptive. If he wants to contribute non-disruptively from an unrelated username, I don't think that would be an issue. (This is my opinion only - I don't claim this to be a policy statement or an assertion of whether or not he is "banned".) --B (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsection (to dissociate Ckatz's request from Ahaulton's sock

• • Thank You! Finally, an admin who sees the point! The only reason I have been sockpuppeting is because I could not even access my own TALK page to defend myself! If someone will please unblock my original Ahoalton talk page and give me a reasonable block time then I swear I will limit myself to it. In the meantime, and in my own defense may I say that just because a book is not available in every corner bookstore does not mean it is invalid or unverifiable. If a book goes out of print is it useable as sourse material. That these "safeguarded" books exist is irrefutable--they pop up on ebay, they get sold at garage sales, they wind up in private collections and at research libraries. And if they are available for the asking by parents and other interested parties then what is the problem? These books are available! Misplaced Pages users should at least have the choice to use that information. --VivaAhoalton (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you at Talk:Order of the Arrow how to do what you want to do (edit under a new account after a reasonable block). Starting more accounts like the one above only decreases the chance of another admin agreeing to that. MBisanz 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd waited out your initial block instead of creating socks repeatedly, you would not be in the situation you got yourself into. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, the block is entirely unrelated to the username at this point. The user has been blocked; they have continued to create accounts ad-nauseum, or to edit via IP, and have largely ignored the block. The initial block was placed on an IP, and the accounts were created in RESPONSE to the IP block in order to dodge it. That one of them got tagged with the username-block tag, instead of the perhaps more approrpriate sock-block tag, is largely a red herring. Forget the username issue entirely, it has NO BEARING on the issue at hand. The first block was against an IP for edit warring. He first dodged that block by editing from additional IPs, and then started to create accounts to dodge the further blocks. If he had only waited out the initial edit-war block, we would not be having this conversation right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, based on subsequent events, and I'd add that I'm certainly not endorsing Ahoalton's actions, just trying to get a handle on what has happened since it is quite messy. --Ckatz_spy 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point I have to agree with (and apologize to) Ckatz. I had counseled this user to sit tight and wait for me to try and help. Apparently the user is simply too impatient (or too foolhearty) to wait for the proper channels and, as such, I can no longer support their actions. My deepest apologies, Ckatz. Padillah (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the link to the full sock list an the WP:SSP case, this has gotten way out of hand an range block is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of events

1. 69.127.11.135 (talk · contribs) blocked
2. 69.127.1.53 (talk · contribs) blocked
3. 69.127.11.176 (talk · contribs) blocked
4. Ahoalton (talk · contribs) created, then blocked, with confusing username-block tag
5. Various other Ahoalton socks created.

Since the initial block on this person was done to the IP 69.127.11.135 before the confusing username-block, that is the "Master account" for sockpuppet organization purposes. All IPs used or accounts created after 23:07, March 9 should be treated as inappropriate alternate accounts of this first block. The first four "socks" I listed above ALL edited during the initial 24 hour block on 69.127.11.135. The block was then extended to 30 days for the sockpuppetry abuse. I hope that clears up the timetable for you, Ckatz... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For sock purposes, you can use the oldest or most prominent username. Here, I think Ahoalton should be the "master" account, as listed at SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a cause for concern: (from User talk:69.127.11.135) I'd also suggest creating an account per Misplaced Pages:Why create an account?. Dreadstar † 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ... I've also increased the block on this IP to 30 days for evading the block. Dreadstar † 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ... Suggesting creating an account and then blocking for doing so? (actually, it looks like it was for changing IPs - which makes it even more odd... if he's changed IPs, shouldn't the extended block be on the new IP, since the old IP isn't his IP anymore?) —Random832 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was originally blocked for edit warring, but then evaded the block and continued disruptively editing from other IP addresses - that's why the block was extended. The user then continued using other IP addresses and started creating usernames that were obvious attempts to poke the other editors in the eye. He was not blocked for merely "creating an account as was suggested." The multiple unblock requests were all denied by uninvolved administrators, the user was also abusing the unblock template. Multiple infractions. Dreadstar †

User talk:204.129.175.106

I think the user has been warned enough times in one day? Yes? Here is a link to the user's contributions. Every single one of them is a vandlism. I'm asking for a ban to this vandalism only account. Blizzard Beast 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported the IP to WP:AIV. For future reference, that's the best place to report straight-forward vandalism that just requires a block. --clpo13_(talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, WP:AIV is the place for this, either way I blocked for 24 hours. Tiptoety 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like "Arbuthbott-Bumley-Smythe" - nice nod towards on of our Misplaced Pages-as-Burkes editors :o) Guy (Help!) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Death of Michael Todd (British Police Chief)

Someone's written 'i am michael todd, i did not die' several times at the bottom of this article. Rather insensitive given that he died yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.67.151 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Already removed. I'm watching the page, no doubt like several others. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• That editor has been warned about this and other vandalism occurring today - since quiet - next vandalism is likely to result in a block.--VS 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Michael J. Todd, if anyone wants to add it to their list temporarily. Bencherlite 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherine de Burgh redux

If you are lacking in sources of amusement you might want to glance at this page since it was restored a day or so ago. She seems to be having some sort of argument with her sisters. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. No disruption, no abuse, nothing administrators can act upon. Just a humorous userpage. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it at least be identified per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you like your bureaucracy to cross every t and dot every i then yes. But if no foul == no harm, then there's no problem and we can do other things. Drink cocoa or write an encyclopedia or clear a backlog or something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is there really no policy about a satirical userpage masquerading as an article? Avruch 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Danielroberts spamming Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

for now I believe

About 25 articles about heath in the last hour. Ward20 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request delete of some revisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ALoolylolly1997&diff=197144687&oldid=196927765

This user has self-identified as being a ten year-old girl. She had posted her full birth date in her user page, but I removed that, replacing with just her birth year, with an explanation on her talk page, and she not only didn't object but seemed grateful for the concern. I'd just like to have the revisions that contained the full birth date deleted. All those revisions are contained in the diff above. Thanks -- Equazcion •✗/C • 01:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can you double-check from a non-admin view? I think I got it all. MBisanz 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You did, but now all revisions aside from the current one seem to be gone. I suppose that's okay though. Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock for a certain banned user

I humbly submit that you people need to blast a few more ranges; he seems to come back nightly. I've been rolling back his edits on the Pornographic film and Talk:Chihuahua (dog) pages. If you have any doubts whether this is the banned user, you are not familiar with his M.O.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee. This guy never seems to give up over something as minute as this. seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked out some range contribs and blocked the following ones:

• 71.127.224.0/20
• 72.68.0.0/18
• 72.68.64.0/19
• 72.68.96.0/20
• 72.76.0.0/18
• 72.76.64.0/19
• 72.76.96.0/21

Hope this stems the tide. east.718 at 02:12, March 12, 2008

Wow. Good luck cleaning up the collateral damage WRT unblock requests. A quick "back of the napkin" calculation shows you have blocked some 58000+ IP addresses with these rangeblocks. It may be neccessary and a good idea with the level and sorts of abuse from these ranges, but keep this in mind... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:220.157.71.55

The above user, which is a vandalism-only account, continues to vandalize Misplaced Pages articles. Needs to be blocked indefinitely. Hochmanisajerk (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this user has been warned for abuse and I have blocked indef for trolling and inappropriate username. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked, 72 hours. MBisanz 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sporadic multi-state harassment pattern

Can someone with checkuser priviledge take a look at the history of User:Apostrophe? ( direct link ) there appears to be a clear harassment pattern being carried out by IPs from across the United States (as far away from each other as New York and California acording to WHOIS) all of these edits have a thing in common wich is the inclusion of references to "mudkip", usually as "So I herd you like mudkip", evidently and based on all the states that are being given as source for the address there is more than a dynamic address here, is there a precedent in such cases? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IT should be noted that, depending on the ISP in question, the WHOIS data on the location of the corporate entity the IP address is registered to may have little to do with the physical location of the computer being used to edit. While multiple IPs editing from the same location is usually a positive confirmation that it is likely the same person using it, the opposite is not ALWAYS true, due to the nature of how some IPs are registerred. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it's all IP addresses, there's not really a whole lot that checkuser can achieve here. All you can do is block the IPs, check to see if they're TOR or open proxies (likely, if they're random) and maybe semi-protect the target page until they get bored and move on - Alison 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay

Can someone please explain how this user page is not polemical and a violation of WP:USERPAGE. I have tried to have it MFD'd once before yet was howled down and blocked for doing so. I still do not see how this helps create an environment of encyclopedia building. Prester John (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is completely against WP:UP policy. It's completely offensive, and potentially disruptive if the user wishes to edit regularly. Be WP:BOLD and delete on sight. If anything, I'll nominate it for WP:MFD if there is a problem. I personally am not offended, however WP:SOAP. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that a MFD exists . - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christopher Mann McKay, Prester John nominated this, 3 months ago. That discussion was speedy closed as keep and Prester John was blocked for point disruptions. Metros (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What were the other cases of point disruption besides the MFD? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall the surrounding context right now. But if you're interested, explore his edits and the history of his talk page for early December 2007 to see what else was up. Metros (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Prester John's userpage was MfD'd (I won't go into why, don't want to rehash, but there was ample cause, at least in the opinion of many involved). In response, he MfD'd quite a number of the uerspages of people who had raised the concerns about his userpage. Completely POINTy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The only thing that troubles me is how several of the userss said it wasn't illegal to burn the flag. I'm not entirely sure that's the issue, or was the issue. And if it was, it's erroneous. However, wikipolicy is still wikipolicy. And according to user page policy, anything that is likely to cause widespread offense is deemed inappropriate. Just my two cents..three or four. I'd advocate asking the user first to remove it though. That would be the better approach. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at the previous discussion, the page looked like this. The flag was just a smaller part of the user page. Also note that the basic reason for deletion was that it, according to Prester John, displayed the flag which is an illegal act (which is not true). It's just like his calling WebHamster's image child pornography without any factual basis or truth. Metros (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that discussion was erroneously snuffed out after 20 minutes and 4 votes. I believe it was kept in error and warrants input from the wider community. The "keep" votes in that archive never detailed 'how' this page is in line with WP:USERPAGE and why this does not qualify as a "polemic" statement. Prester John (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets please not start this all over again, I see no disruption to the project (other than this thread) , and no violation of WP:USERPAGE, if you dont like it, then dont look at it. Tiptoety 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the userpage should go right now; it is a clear violation of policy, deliberately meant to provoke and insult. The WebHamster incident is in no way relevant. IronDuke 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then are we going to remove the image from this userpage as well? Tiptoety 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost curious if PJ will be complaining about every user page that may so offend his overly strict definitions? At least he hasn't started forum/admin shopping about this bit yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all quite amusing given the previous battles over his own polemical userpages and userboxes in times past. Orderinchaos 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not polemical because it is not an argument "written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach". In this case, the argument is contained in a visual representation of an activity which the United States Supreme Court has ruled is a valid expression of free speech, in Texas v. Johnson. The issue as far as Misplaced Pages is whether it prevents cooperative editing, and that is a subjective test. The fact that you find it offensive is neither here nor there; you are not compelled to view that user page, and the overall impression I get is that you continue to make these points as retaliation to the deletion of your own user page some months ago. I suggest you move on and edit some articles, if that's what you're really here for. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all look at the relevant part of user page policy ]. And I quote from the policy; "There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images". Do you guys really believe that this image does not bring the project into disrepute? If you honestly do believe it, would you hold onto this principle if I include on my userpage a "Koran being flushed down the toilet" picture? Prester John (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Either is perfectly legal; how would perfectly legal behaviour "bring the project into disrepute"? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

@Tiptoey: absolutely remove it. Political userboxes are an inherently bad idea anyway, but if we have them, let's not allow (literally) inflammatory ones. Rod is right that the test here can only be subjective. I personally find it quite offensive. IronDuke 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This violates the WP:Soap portion of WP:USERPAGE. It's a no-brainer, I think. IronDuke 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Then I suggest you send it to MfD to assess community consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Tiptoety 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if it's already been sort of deleted. I'm now very confused. See: . Someone clue me in? IronDuke 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The deleted image was hosted here; the one on the user page in question is on Commons. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But the link to the user page image, when I try to edit it, tells me I'm recreating it. Sorry if I'm being dense, appreciate the help. IronDuke 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. If you click on the image on the above user page, it takes you to commons, where the image was moved from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would happen if somebody decided to this is literarily? The username was "BurningtheAmerianFlag!!!". The username would be reported to UAA and then instantly blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the difference is that the username would show up in every edit, whereas the image is only on the userpage, which people are not forced to visit. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"People are not forced to visit" it is not a valid argument for allowing it. That would open the door to pretty much any image, as long as it wasn't a copyvio. IronDuke 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So? WP isn't a soapbox. but WP isn't censored. Seems to me there is a potential conflict there serving those two goals. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why it should go to MfD. This debate is obviously going nowhere. Clearly nobody is keen on deleting the image right now, and it's an issue where consensus should be sought, including, if necessary, clarification of policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"bring the project into disrepute" - Not at all. WP:SOAPBOX - so far-fetched, it's laughable. And offensive is the most objective word--for me seeing a Misplaced Pages userpage displaying the American flag not burning is extremely offensive because it is showing that user is proud of a country that is directly responsible more injustice than any single nation on earth. This effort to tell me how large my images can be on my userpage is unnecessary censorship.—Christopher Mann McKay 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People love to invoke WP:CENSOR without appearing to have read it. This policy guideline is explicit in describing how it is applicable to wikipedia "Articles" only. WP:CENSOR does not apply to userpages. Let us read from the policy; "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)" User pages are not protected by these rules and are kept with the will of the community. For McKay to justify his refusal to remove this image as; "the American flag not burning is extremely offensive", is so moronic that it defies belief. Prester John (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Nevermind that then.... I just don't understand what the issues is: the size of the image, or the image itself?—Christopher Mann McKay 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We should all be aware of Prester John's biases/opinions/beliefs, and his angle on this issue should be clear (PJ, let's not hash that out, I'm just making clear what is a visible thread in what you've already said). I don't agree. I do not consider this image to be intentionally or fundamentally offensive - offensive to some (e.g. PJ), but not offensive prima facie (and certainly not illegal). Content that is by its nature questionable, illegal, or restricted to certain viewership should not be displayed on userpages - that issue is certainly not universally agreed upon, but if I had a public domain HD (1080p) picture of a penis and stuck it on my userpage, I think I'd get in trouble. Even though this is not comparable to your image, it is still problematic on similar grounds - WP:USER makes it clear that the purpose of userpages is to facilitate building the encyclopedia. While we are given great latitude (using that picture in a userbox, for example), there still has to be a clear indication that your userpage is primarily or deliberately designed to benefit/build the project in some way or another. Up until recently it has, but then you changed it to just this image, which doesn't seem to fit the bill anymore. OH and a note to Prester John: please refrain from making personal attacks like calling people "moronic" - it's not necessary, you can make your point without further inflaming (no pun intended) the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I agree this should go to MfD. There's no clear policy here, and no consensus will be gained here that matters. It's a policy dispute, and should be settled officially. For the record, I think making any kind of political statement on here with your user page is kind of silly (including userboxes), but it doesn't bother me. I think it's up to wikipedia to make an official policy, though, on what's offensive. Four years ago, we would have been talking about banning people with "This user listens to the Dixie Chicks" userboxes. Redrocket (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be opening up a hornet's nest - many of our users are not from the same geographical regions or political viewpoints and as such it is likely impossible to satisfy everybody. There's a smell of WP:POINT lingering over all this, anyway. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup

I just reverted a gloating message from Christopher Mann McKay on Prester John's talk page (who is currently blocked over an unrelated issue), in which he claimed "You get to show your support for this unmoral horrible country and I get to show my hate for it--that is how Misplaced Pages works--get used it to buddy :) :)" Trolling aside, I reckon that statement confirms that Christopher Mann McKay's user page is a blatant case of disruptive soapboxing. Hesperian 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgiacatcrimson (talk · contribs)

Will someone be willing to look into the activities of Georgiacatcrimson (talk · contribs). At first Georgiacatcrimson was restoring a list of fictional character from spoiled brat after the list had been deleted two AFD discussions (AFD1 and AFD2).

He has also restored content deleted form List of tomboys in fiction that I initially deleted as being original research (and flat out wrong) and when another editor removed removed the entire section as original research, Georgiacatcrimson restored it again. When I added fact and original research tags to part of the list, he reverts again. When I informed him that blanket removal of tag can be considered vandalism, he leaves this message on my talk page. And has now placed AFD tags on Tomboys in popular culture and List of tomboys in fiction. The latter, incidentally, had a previous AFD discussion closed earlier this morning.

I'm honestly at a lot on what to do as the editor tends to avoid comments on his edits. And the few comments he does leave are very hostile and authoritative. --Farix (Talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for another indef-blocked editor harassing me and SchuminWeb

I now ask the community to look at Mickylynch101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Markanthony101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as confirmed by CheckUser.

Besides the accounts, he continually comes back using anonymous IP addresses, despite rangeblocks, such as these recent attacks here, here, and even in his unblock request.

I'm tired of putting up with this user, and I feel he's exhausted our patience. Would the Community please take a look, and consider a ban? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

endorsed- This user has promised further disruption, has been an absolute pest on WP and has already resulted in numerous time-wasting checkuser requests - Alison 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nwwaew, It may be helpful for you to read the essay on Friday's user page. It gives some very valuable tips on how to due with these types of users. If I was in your position, I would just leave the vandal alone, as he will soon become board and leave you alone. Also, if I may add, posting messages here is just showing the vandal that he can get to you and will keep it up. I suggest emailing an admin instead. Let them take care of the issue for you. Hope this helps. Blessings Thright (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

However, Nnwaew is asking for a community ban, which would allow us to block him on sight, thus balancing out the necessary post here. -Jéské 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup - WP:RBI is the order of the day - Alison 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ostracision Ugh. and I thought BlackStarRock was bad... -Jéské 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent one, just confirmed by Alison: . Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obnoxious and persistent, a bad combination. Therefore, ban. Jehochman 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of him and all his nefarious socks — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Would someone review these edits Diff the editor has expressed a lack of confidence in my judgment since I tagged him for vandalism on similar edits. Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it vandalism, POV pushing, a spade, what have you. Justin_(u) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. Instead of repeatedly attacking, why don't you add your own counterpoints? Mine is not only true but well referenced, although the language may not be as objective as you'd like. But when only 4% of a student body votes, I think it's fair to say management slipped the bill past. The fact that it's a "segregated" (I removed this word) fee is meaningless to the 40,000 students who are paying those fees. As for my use of the word "Mismanagement" instead of "Controversy", I'm indifferent. I think either is appropriate, but clearly, the desire is to water down my criticisms with weaker terms. I'll try to devote some time to finding more references. BTW: I think this is here because Jeepguy would like to ban me from contributing. He threatened to do so if I do any "more" "vandalism", or things that he would like to consider vandalism. My concern is that there is such an overwhelming threat of censorship here based on monir changes, and Jeepguy works for the Wisconsin government. (Tortugadillo (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

You see, this is the problem with the calling a spade a spade argument. Disputes over content, wording, information etc..etc..are not classified as vandalism. It might breach NPOV, but it's certainly not an example of vandalism. Instead, calling it such is more disruptive than the edits. Potentially. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

its best if all the parties just move on. If needed use the talk pages. Stamp this as resolved before it gets out of control. Thright (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thrigh

Agreed. It's better if the thread starter just discusses it on the user's talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright infringement

User Azalea Pomp has been warned about his imageImage:Albanian_Dialects_Map2.PNG. In doing so, I noticed 71.32.35.34 was using an Artist's name and song lyrics on the page. Deleted, just wanted to report it. Warned both of them.User:Twaz (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To simply write an artist's name and song title is not a copyright violation. The text left there by the IP user was not necessary, so next time, just take it out rather than leaving a note about it on that page. Metros (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Itihaaskar (talk · contribs)

I am the user Itihaaskar and I was blocked by requests from Shshshsh (talk · contribs). We we were engaged in a debate on the historicity of Jodhabai being the wife of Akbar. I have been writing that modern historians like Irfan Habib, Harbans Mukhia (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631185550) etc categorically dismiss the idea that Jodha was the wife of Akbar. Shshshsh (talk · contribs) on the other hand contends that this is not the case. I requested User ShShShSh many a times to come up with a reference from modern historians to support his POV. Till date he has been unable to do so. On the other hand I provided unanimous agreement of modern medieveal historians that Jodhabai was not the wife of Akbar.

You can see the debate here where Shshshsh (talk · contribs) does not even know the names of modern historians whose reference he wants to overturn by his POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193312471&oldid=193307992

Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact. Also, there is no sign of them being notable at all. Who are they? Are they prominent?

Then he was told: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jodhaa_Akbar&diff=193460993&oldid=193460581

Please be a bit more serious. Irfan Habib is a well known historian. You not knowing him is irrelevant to this debate.

. . . . .

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.

It is high time you show us some references to back up your POV. Otherwise it is blatant POV pushing from your side! WP does not entertain such behavior. Sorry.

Till this date he has not shown us a single reference from a peer reviewed historian that Jodha is the wife of Akbar.

Yet he wants to own the aricle and wants to have only his POV be written:

Even now the article tries to give an impression that movie is "historically accurate" when infact the name in the title itself, Jodha, is historically false.

Mediveal historians have consensus that Jodha was the wife of AKbar's son as the genealogical records from the house of Marwar (the princely house in which she was born) clearly indicate: http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

• 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
  • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

I have a couple of questions:

• a) Can a user write there POV without citing a single reference?
• b) Can you get others blocked because you are friends with some powers that be?

I have only edited from my IP address and my user name yet I cannot edit using my username for last many days.

What should I do?

124.125.208.35 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do / look into here? Orderinchaos 10:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the taking away of my editing privilege justified? Secondly please guide how to deal with a person who does not cite any peer reviewed references and just wants to write there POV as is the case with Shshshsh (talk · contribs).

124.125.208.35 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for sock evasion. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean sock evasion? I hope you understand how DHCP works. ISP's provide you a dynamic IP address in internet cafes. 124.125.208.* is what I get assigned. I cannot control the last octet. This is really high handed ness on your part to keep accusing me of sock puppetry. 124.125.208.35 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else please look into why Blnugyen is blocking me repeatedly? 124.125.208.35 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted material

User:Justinm1978 nommed User:Allstarecho/scouts for deletion. After Justin's canvassing (here and here) and User:Dreadstar's speedy closal, it was deleted. No problem, I'll take that issue to DRV. The problem I have here, and am requesting that be restored, is Dreadstar's further deletion of User:Allstarecho/cfireusa. I created this second userbox during the MfD as an alternative to anyone who had an issue with the first one, so it wasn't created as a WP:POINT issue nor was it created to cause disruption, which Dreadstar has threatened to block me for. The second box does not "attack" anyone or any organization and does not even mention the Boy Scouts of America. Dreadstar was out of line for deleting it as G4: Recreation of deleted material. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 05:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except for the very prominent Boy Scouts logo with the cross through it. If I made a userbox that said "This user supports anti-Imperialism and an end to war" with a big US flag with a cross through it, would that be considered divisive? Would it be considered materially different from a userbox which says "This opposes the US imperialist war machine"? --Haemo (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the Boy Scouts logo or else it wouldn't be hosted on Commons as a free image. So what happens if I create it again without what is perceived to be the Boy Scouts logo? Will Dreadstar still block me for "disruption"? I mean, seriously, he is out of line for deleting the second version. It doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America anywhere in it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What did the second version say? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're an admin, you'll be able to see both versions. The first one made reference to supporting Campfire USA instead of the BSA because of the BSA's homophobic policy. The second one did not mention the BSA at all. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the gold BSA logo (minus the eagle, but absolutely recognizable), the rainbow flag, and the text "This user supports Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. The claim that it "doesn't mention the Boy Scouts of America" is technically true, but the logo is clearly recognizable (despite the lack of the eagle). --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, then, that many of the arguments for deleting the first userbox would also apply to the second userbox. I don't see a problem with Dreadstar's actions here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the second version does not mention the Boy Scouts of America at all, which is why the first one was deleted: as an "attack" on the Boy Scouts of America. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated User:Allstarecho/cfireusa to address the issue of the logo, even though it is not the logo of the BSA and therefore really didn't fall under "recreation of deleted material". The version now does not include that image, and it still doesn't say or link to anything about the Boy Scouts of America. Therefore, it is not in violation of any policy now nor is it recreation of deleted material as it is substantially different than the originals. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• While polemic userboxes of any sort never fill me with delight, that one looks OK now. No doubt, this being wiki, someone will take issue with it though. Black Kite 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the "because..." part. As such, it is an inflammatory and divisive userbox, and I really thought we had gone beyond that. Misplaced Pages is not a social network or a venue for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but you would need a pretty massive change in Misplaced Pages to do that. There really isn't a logical difference between "I support the Salvation Army because of the work they do helping the poor" and "I support the Campfire Girls because they don't discriminate against gays". I don't know why editors feel compelled to mention these things at all, but I don't know how you can distinguish them.Kww (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just because lots of things exist doens't make it ok to keep something that is inflammatory and divisive. What prompted the deletion was the author's unwillingness to compromise by either removing it from the Scouting WIkiProject template list because it places one program of scouting over another, or re-word it to be generic ("This user supports "Camp Fire USA") without the polemic statement. He refused to budge, so it went to MfD, where it was speedy deleted. I haven't decided if I'll be putting the replacement up for MfD or not yet, as it is still divisive and using a logo in a userbox that wasn't designed for a userbox. I'm hoping that the creator will wisen up that not everything has to espouse an agenda and do the right thing, but failing that, I'll probably be nominating it for deletion in a day or two. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• And I'll probably be recreating it in a day or two as well. Firstly, there's no policy that says you can't use a free image in a userbox. Only non-free images. Secondly, the way the box is now, there is no attack on any organization, nor is there anything divisive in it. It says I support Camp Fire USA because they do not discriminate against gay members and leaders. Period. That's all it says now. Nothing wrong at ALL with it. Don't wikilawyer with all this "othercrapexists" just to make sure you get your way in the end. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have been quite uncivil with all of this. Just as you are using the avenues afforded to you to reverse deletion, I have the same right to use the avenues afforded to me, and will continue to use those so long as I have options. I expect that you will do the same, since you bothered to bring this to ANI. Suddenly I'm a wikilawyer because I'm citing policy rather than trying to bullty a personal agenda, and then go to the admins when I don't get my way? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is there for a reason. Perhaps you should spend less time pushing your personal agenda and a little more time understanding policy and collaborating to make Misplaced Pages better? Just a thought. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing at all inflammatory and divisive about saying one supports an organization because it does not practice discrimination. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is neither inflammatory nor divisive. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine and should remain undeleted. Careful, Justinm1978, to avoid the appearance that you are crusading against this users personal viewpoint as expressed on his page - such expressions are commonplace, and not disruptive solely because you disagree. Avruch 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User is entitled to at least a small userbox expressing his viewpoint/ personality. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of a "crusade" has manifested at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/cfireusa, which I request to be speedily kept just as the first one was speedily deleted. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As I am fairly sure that I will have no luck in reverting Gonezales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I am bringing this to the noticeboard ahead of time. It would be appreciated if someone could have a word with this user about WP:NPOV. See my note on his talk page for an example. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps I will; it appears he was already reverted once, and would have to break 3RR in order to continue. Consider this thread closed unless a) 3RR is broken, or b) someone would like to give an explanation anyway for the quite-likely next-time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someone should have a chat with you about not deleting encyclopedic material. Please note that the other editor who initially erased the section immediately reverted themselves. --Gonezales (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

~Yawn~. If you can't see why your edits violate the neutrality provision, and are thus decidedly not encyclopedic, then you'd probably be better off not editing here at all. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me for putting you to sleep - however you really need to take a chill pill and refresh yourself on policy, especially Assume Good Faith. --Gonezales (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, those two sections you're adding pretty blatantly violate neutral point of view. The first one is sourced to an opinion piece, so that's inappropriate for citing unattributed opinions right off the bat, and for the second paragraph you must be reading Bush's mind, because that source you give definitely doesn't say that. I'd suggest you stay off topics you have strong feelings about, as the only other way for this to end is your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an opinion piece, there are a hundred other references that it could be replaced with, and your reading of the second article seems a bit odd. The purpose of my edits is not to express an opinion, but to find the truth. --Gonezales (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the content of the edits themselves at the GWB talk page (rather than splitting discussion) is encouraged. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, not to mention Gonzales's blatant vandalism. DiligentTerrier 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Good faith edits are not vandalism. I have never vandalized any page. Gonezales (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Appears to be an incident by a user who has now been blocked for socking

Rudget. 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – indefblocked --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – AGK § 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards