Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaIl89 (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 14 June 2008 (→Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator: We have a vote so for now this complane should be removed.). 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Long thread over 50k moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Long thread over 50k moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor). It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch * 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner". Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response and interest by CSWEM, and the concerns raised, I think that the next step is to file an RFC? Has anyone tried IRC to see if he is still on? seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the last time CSCWEM actually replied on his talk page was over 5 months ago. Needless to say, this is concerning if he is still using the tools while ignoring users asking him questions. I hope he will reply somewhere to clear this up. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The heavy-handed blocks of accounts I have zero problem with. There is no reason to preserve an account with only vandal edits, and if the user wants to become productive they can create a new account (not the same situation for an account with some productive edits and some vandal edits, in which case they may wish to legitimately preserve their contrib history after apologizing for and ceasing the aberrant behavior).

The heavy-handed blocks of IPs are not as cool, especially with the misleading block summaries. If he knew for sure they were static IPs and said as much in the summary, that wouldn't be so disturbing. But, as others pointed out, this behavior has been tolerated in the past, and could be tolerable now.

The failure to communicate, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is not my understanding of how adminship functions here on Misplaced Pages. Admins have a responsibility to do more than just play around in their little corner and ignore everything else. I mean, could you imagine if there was an RfA today and the candidate said, "I want the mop so I can block people, but I don't intend to help out anywhere else, do any sort of conflict resolution, and I can't really be bothered to answer messages on my Talk page."? Would there be a single support !vote?!

I remember several months ago seeing CSCWEM's edits all the time when I was doing vandal patrol, and I very much respected his quick response time, tirelessness, and willingness to get tough on vandal-only accounts. He was a great help to the project. But if he has altogether ceased communication with other admins, we can't have that, regardless of his other contributions. Sadly, I think I see a bit of rouge on this clown.  ;( --Jaysweet (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much difference between now and the last couple years except he doesn't respond at all any more. But he rarely responded back then in my experience. And someone would bring him up here and a few people would hollar but none of their records were spotless either and CSCWEM generally helps far more than hinders in his vandal-fighting efforts and the whole thing would disappear. I guess this is just a new guard now, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, isn't it? He doesn't respond at all to, well, anything. And that's simply not acceptable, just as it wasn't acceptable a couple of years ago. So in that regard, nothing has changed. Additionally, I don't think there's any point in blocking him, as admins can continue to use their tools while being blocked. At least it was like that a year ago or so, so maybe that's changed by now. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe. But I see a big difference between "slow responses" and "no responses".

Also, maybe there is a reason why the "new guard" values dialog so much more highly than the old guard. The fact is, Misplaced Pages is accumulating a very negative public image because of the legions of people who show up, violate some policy, get reverted/warned/blocked, and it is never adequately explained to them what they did wrong. I have a close friend, for instance, who is going for a Master's degree in political science, and I know she has vast knowledge of The Federalist Papers, for which many of the articles on Misplaced Pages are very short (and sometimes misleading) stubs. But I am having trouble enticing her to contribute, because of an earlier experience on Misplaced Pages where she got reverted multiple times and it was never adequately explained to her what the problem was. (In fairness, she was doing a hatchet job on an acquaintance in another article in WP:COATRACK fashion, but she made the common new editor mistake of thinking that because it was "true", it was okay to add)

Let's say CSCWEM blocks a vandal, and the vandal doesn't understand what they did wrong, so they ask. If nobody explains it, they'll tell all their friends, "Yeah, I tried to edit Misplaced Pages but some guy called "ScaryClown" or something banned me from the site after like two minutes! Those guys are jerks and won't let me in their club!"

I was stunned the other day when I complained to my wife (who has a handful of edits here, and is a frequent contributor to our city's Wiki) that some people view Misplaced Pages as a "cabal of nerds who won't let you in their club unless you memorize a bunch of arcane acronyms" and she said, "Oh yeah, it's totally like that." And this is someone who is PRO-Misplaced Pages!

We have no shortage of vandal fighters. What we need in admins these days are liaisons to the public, ambassadors for Misplaced Pages who can articulately explain what we are all about and help people to understand how this place works.

As valuable as CSCWEM's vandal-fighting work is, there are at least a dozen or two dozen people clamoring to take his place whom I am sure could do just as good a job. If we are really in a shortage of vandal-fighters with mops, then start allowing RfAs for people with weak mainspace contribs. Seriously, how many RfAs have you seen get turned down because "We are sure you would use the mop responsibly, and your vandal patrolling work is good, but you just haven't done enough work building an encyclopedia. Come back when you have a few thousand more edits and have created a few articles."? If losing CSCWEM's vandal-fighting prowess is really a priority, that shouldn't be reason to decline an RfA, should it?

I think those declined RfAs communicate the message loud and clear: Misplaced Pages has enough cops. What we need now are ambassadors and mediators. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can counter your argument by saying that today's Misplaced Pages has a whole new culture of subtle POV/fringe/agenda pushers and that more policing is necessary rather than less. But then you could counter with stories of overly-paranoid admins who blocked legitimate editors who left forever because of it, etc., etc. If someone can point out especially egregious blocks or diffs (preferably in an RFC or RFAR or the like), please do. Otherwise, I view CSCWEM as one extreme end of a spectrum which also has an extreme opposite end somewhere (probably partaking in this discussion). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an entirely different type of policing, though. If CSCWEM is working to combat the subtle pov-warriors, then I retract everything I just said! Anyway, Ncmvocalist has a point (below), so I won't drop another couple kilobytes of essay here ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no point discussing this here further - please take it to RFC or arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that the community is capable of handling. One of three things will happen - (1) he will return as an active user, respond to those who express concerns, and edit/use the admin tools normally; (2) he will never make a logged action again; or (3) he will continue this unusual pattern of blocking. In the first two cases, the problem is solved and there is nothing to be gained by arbitration. In the third case, there would be near unanimous consent for an indefinite block until such time as he agrees not to take those actions and if he violates that by unblocking himself (or, I've never tried it, but if you still have access to special:blockip while blocked and he uses it), there would be unanimous consent for an emergency desysop. Either way, I don't see anything to arbitrate - the problem will work itself out. --B (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In re: Blocked admins blocking other users, admins can block and unblock themselves or others while blocked from editing, per my extensive research (i.e. I tried it.) So, unfortunately, a block in this circumstance would not be effective. Given that CSCWEM has ceased blocking/admin actioning, I would recommend we strongly urge him to discuss the blocks and concerns before acting again, and that we take a failure to do so as an indication that arbitration (the only procedural means by which a user may be desysopped) is warranted. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is with regret that I am starting to believe that perhaps opening an ArbCom to have CSCWEM desysopped pending a reasonable explanation of their actions may be the only way to resolve this. A RfC without the participation of the subject party is a hollow process, and is then only a step toward ArbCom; so that delay may as well be dispensed with.

I am extremely reluctant to take this step, since CSCWEM was the type of admin who inspired me in requesting the sysop bit and further help the encyclopedia, and I remember the helpful and invigorating presence he had when he was a frequent contributor to the noticeboards. However, I will make the RfAR myself if required, as I will attempt as far as possible to request the removal of the flag to be non-prejudiced in that CSCWEM may have admin rights returned by application to the Committee with a reasonable explanation and an undertaking to be more communicative in future. If there is a consensus for such a request I shall then do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think desysopping is in order, but maybe a temporary ban from blocking would be a good idea - until they can prove they can block appropriately...... Dendodge .. Talk 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe desysopping UNTIL we get an explanation, to prevent further such blocks...... Dendodge .. Talk 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to open an RfArb to do that, i.e. I don't think there is any process by which someone can be even "temporarily desysopped" without an RfArb.

I reluctantly endorse an RfArb, unless somebody has a better idea about how to get CSCWEM's attention. The aggressive blocking is probably tolerable, but the refusal to communicate at all is not. (In my humble non-admin opinion, that is :) )--Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• When an admin becomes this jaded it's a shame they don't have the self awareness to just ask to be desysopped for their own good and the good of the project. They could then take a nice long break without the temptation to log in and take admin actions that will likely prove controversial. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we would have to open an ArbCom case, but I think one's in order (in fact, I endorse it more the more I think about it), I'll give it about an hour and, unless someone stops me, I'll open one...... Dendodge .. Talk 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no blocks since May 28, and no contributions since April 1. What about we notify him of this thread (already happened, of course) and ask him not to do any more blocks until he is willing to discuss them? We don't need to desysop him for that, just ask politely. If he starts blocking again without any kind of discussion, then ArbCom might be the way to go, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Ok to me, I'll just mention that on the user's talk page and then - we wait...... Dendodge .. Talk 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have retired for the evening in an hours time, so I shall not be around to help as I would like. I intended to open a RfAR "tomorrow" (UK time) as it would allow any good arguments/suggestions to be made here in the meantime, as in this case it would be best if it was as uncontested a request as possible. However, if you wish to proceed I would only ask that you frame the request as an "unprejudiced desysop", pending clarification of the communities concerns. I feel the Committee and the community will better support the action if it is understood that CSCWEM may apply for re-instatement along with an reasonable explanation of both their actions and their lack of commucation. This would be my approach, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Dendodge) Communication is exactly the problem. It appears people have been waiting, and nothing happens. I agree (partly) with Ncmvocalist, it is time to act - but as considerately as possible. I am still intending to open a RfAR in 20+ hours if nobody has acted before, or has a better idea for resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication, communication, communication - but we don't know if he's even around now. He's done nothing in over a week. How about wait to see if he ever becomes active again, then prod him for an answer. He may be on vacation now! I don't know if Arbcom would even look at a case under these circumstances. There's really no particular hurry so wait until he returns - if he ever does - to file an Arbcom case. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no urgency, since CSCWEM hasn't blocked anyone in about two weeks now. If the blocks and the non-communication resume, I'm all for an RfAR, tho. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's reading this I would urge CSCWEM to ask to be desysopped, no stigma should be attached to this, quite the opposite, such an action I'm sure would be applauded. Take a good few months off and when you're ready to resume communication with the community ask to be resysopped. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, ArbCom may totally agree with you and Wknight94 - but we won't know unless we ask. I would prefer to be turned down than to be reminded it is not good practice to lock the stable door afterwards... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait, but I was acting on (the) consensus (at the time). I'd be more than happy to have a RFAR ASAP...... Dendodge .. Talk 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I do not know about a request for arbitration. It may be premature, may be not. However, I have started writing an RFC (would be userspace, but someone else created the page): Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I cannot possibly hope to complete it with diffs or analysis (I am not good at writing, and I forget stuff anyway). All others, please add and post in the meantime. I will sign on a later date; contact me in the rare possibility that no one else will sign it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, he has no logged actions in the last two weeks. So there is no evidence that the dispute has failed to be resolved. If he issues another block, then it becomes a problem, but as of right now, this RFC is uncertifiable and I would strongly suggest waiting until there is evidence that this dispute has not been resolved at this point. --B (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who are urging restraint are right - no blocks issued since June 11, there's a note on his talk page, leave it st that unless something changes. Neıl 龱 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last block was late on 28 May, actually - so it's even less urgent. Agree with holding off a bit. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this entire discussion late, & entirely disinterested ("disinterested" as in I will not directly benefit from its outcome), I'm concurring with the opinion that CSCWEM grew disillusioned with Misplaced Pages, went thru a "ban them all & let God sort it out" phase, then left. I'd even go a little further & speculate that he possibly left because no one noticed his aberrant behavior until now. (That does seem to be an obvious form of Wikisuicide. And FWIW his user page does mention that he is on Wikibreak, although that announcement seems to have been originally written last November.) In short, he's very likely gone. Now if someone wants to place an indef bock on his account to force him to explain his actions if/when he returns, well I'm not going to revert that -- but I believe the effort would be pointless. The same with an RfC or opening a case with the ArbCom. However, CSCWEM has listed a number of ways to contact him on his user page -- has anyone reached out to him for his side of the story? -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting to see if there are any further problematic actions from CSCWEM before proceeding with an RFC, but my understanding is that these problematic actions have been going on for a long time, that concerns have been raised many times, and CSCWEM has failed to respond or change his behaviour in response to these concerns. However, the only thing that we are all interested in is stopping the problematic behaviour, so if people consider that waiting to see if the problem occurs again will be useful, I would have no objection (especially if there is a strong belief that he may have quit Misplaced Pages or switched to a different account). Looking again at his blocks logs there do seem to be long gaps, including April 25th to May 28th, and then a very short period in which a large number of blocks are issued - so the current gap of a couple of weeks may not be a strong indication of him leaving/changing account. In the meantime, there is the issue of the blocks (and possibly other admin actions) that he has carried out, which may be continuing to have a damaging effect. I wonder if, in the light of a failure to respond, there is consensus to review and undo any problematic actions. TigerShark (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I forgot to mention in my paragraph above was a point which anticipated TigerShark's question. Common sense dictates that if an Admin leaves Misplaced Pages (or is thought to have left) has made a number of questionable blocks, then any other Admin is free to review those actions & either reduce the period or lift the block. We should be willing to do this even while assuming good faith in the actions of the vanished Admin -- after all that Admin may have acted without knowing the whole story, or simply made a mistake & confused two similar usernames. We are not reenacting the court-martial scene from Melville's short story "Billy Budd", where policy & procedure are more important than even human life. -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RfAR/CSCWEM

I have opened a Request and invite all the above parties and other contributors to make statements or provide opinion to help the Committee to decide whether to accept. I would also ask anyone who is in contact with CSCWEM to request that they participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety - Swastika and Racist attacks

Userpage deleted,editor indefed by User:Ryulong.--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk · contribs)'s behaviors draw my attention after he left a highly inappropriate comment on User talk:Flying tiger."show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page" At that time, he or she was spreading similar insulting attacks to other editors, so I visited his page and saw very surprising and unique user page ever.

The first paragraph with a lot of Swastika says like "Heil, Imperial China! (卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國) just like Nazi did to Adolf Hitler.

Besides, the user page has a section containing editors whom he/she thinks of not good, so gave a threat or improper personal/racist attacks to. Given that he registered his account 10 days ago, and he/she is highly likely a sock of some banned user, or any who may make edit warring with the Korean editors. I think the user page has to be removed and the user has to be blocked for his disruptive racist comments and assaults. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable examples

• japanese have small brains at User_talk:No_2_Hinoh, at User talk:Fourteenth hinomaru
• User_talk:Ishikawa_Minoru#your_comments_on_shanghai_talk_page... japanese people are a very primitive people, all japanese writing systems are derived from chinese or the roman alphabet....(the user Ishikawa_Minoru seems to have a serious problem too..)
• the article on the dumb german- russian

This is serious, and I don't see any good contributions from the user in question. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits, I came to the same conclusion. User page nuked out of the water, user blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, before the Germans ruined it for everyone, the swastika was considered a 'good luck sign'. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, when you think about it. Anybody wearing one would need good luck to not get jumped.--Koji†Dude 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, though I agree that the other content on the user page is at best inflamatory and at worst racist, you guys have misinterpreted his use of the swastika. From the Swastika page: These two symbols are included, at least since the Liao Dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character 萬 or 万 (wàn in Chinese, man in Korean/Japanese, vạn in Vietnamese) meaning "all" or "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as 卐, which is seldom used. When he wrote "...卍卍萬歲 中華帝國", he's saying "long live the Chinese empire." Refer to the ten thousand years article also for more context. —Umofomia (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note: Nazi swastikas turn rightward, while all of the ones used by this editor turn leftward. Durova 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May have been the only one to be had in the UTF-8 character set. This reversed version can still be seen in a non-political context in Japan, on maps, to mark Buddhist temples. Also, as I recall, the symbol was used by at least one tribe in the southwestern desert of pre-Columbian North America. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In either case, I collapsed the copy of the user page. Symbol of hate or symbol of good luck, either way that little piece of mind terrorism was starting to wear on me a little bit. heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite his style, but worth checking to see this isn't DavidYork71? The nick is his sort of thing and he had an obsession with Nazism. Orderinchaos 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinPhi restricted

Long thread over 50k moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi.' D.M.N. (talk)

Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

Could someone else step in on this please? WillyJulia (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't like that myself and another editor are enforcing WP:BLP policies on Chris Crocker -- I know, not everyone's cup of tea -- and they seem persistent in speculating who the person is despite being asked not to and now here they are copying my user page which may not be a violation but it is creepy. I have to take a break now but would appreciate uninvolved parties suss it out more civilly than I feel I would. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates WP:BLP. Perhaps I erred but they also filled their user page with multiple copies of a copyrighted picture which has been added and removed multiple times from the article. This perhaps led them to copy my user page onto theirs. Perhaps not a violation but I would like help in how to approach this since I'm now of such interest to them. Any advice appreciated. Banjeboi 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!". Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread above. Banjeboi 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work. Banjeboi 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a WP:AIV on him, reasoning that he removed comments. It has already been removed by an administrator. Arienh4 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

and the editor continues with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting . The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO . Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

that was i was trying to say BIDGEE said This is very complicated. The link in the This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in section may say where his from however it's not being used to state where he may live rather to say that Misplaced Pages has been mentioned but your using link and trying to state where he lives (or lived) which is against the WPBIO policy. If you have an issue with the link then take it up first to get a consensus. I hope that makes it easer to understand. This is also the last edit I'm going to make since it's 2am in the morning so I will not be replying until sometime later today or tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC) very complicated? you can say that again!--WillyJulia (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. WillyJulia, the article already states he is Tennessee-based and has for some time, this is verifiable. It also states, per the subject's own MySpace site that he is now in Los Angeles. These are in reliable sources by wikipedia's standard. The link on the top of the talk page has nothing in the article that isn't already in the biography we have and, in fact, it refers to us because, I believe, we have the best article on him available. You wanted to include he's from Tennessee? It's already in there. You want to say he was born there or what his identity is? You'll need reliable sources and concensus to include that. I'm very open to reporting those details once we have the sourcing to do so. Banjeboi 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).

This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Misplaced Pages policy. (So far, I count WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly: Please block this user as an WP:SPA with no contribs that do not relate to exposing the real identity of a WP:BLP, and for being a general PITA in other ways. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now in communication with Bidgee (talk · contribs), so maybe he/she can straighten this person out. Perhaps advocating a block was a little premature -- the user is violating policy and generally creating a ruckus, but I think I was mostly just pissed off that I opened their somewhat-NSFW user page while I was at work. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't copying somebody else's User page a violation of GFDL? Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just issued the user a final warning after his reinsertion of a personal attack against User:Benjiboi on Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). He doesn't look like he's going to be able to play well with others, and I'm not seeing any reason for anything other than an indef block. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped on this. I'm seeing this editor as only pushing to include chat comments as a source to "out" the concealed identity of a BLP, and not in any civil fashion, and then turning on editors, including myself. I hope they can leave that all behind but in the meanwhile just a thanks for helping deal with it all. Banjeboi 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to add a vital piece of information to the article and users are just shouting WP:BLP!! at me i have many reliable sources so there is no reason not to add it!--WillyJulia (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People are shouting WP:BLP at you because you are acting as if you have not clicked on and read that link. Please do so now if you haven't already done so. In a nutshell, it says we have to be extremely careful about disclosing any sensitive and/or damaging information about living persons even if you have a reliable source. Since Crocker has indicated that he intends to conceal his real identity, that makes it sensitive information and we must be extremely careful about what we disclose and what we don't. Even if you have a reliable source.

If you check the talk page, you will say that I, for one, think his state of origin could probably be included in the article, but not his real name. Other editors may also have different opinions. However, Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, so it is vital that all controversial changes (such as this one) be discussed on the talk page. You have not really discussed there, other than to make a personal attack against Benjiboi. This is not how Misplaced Pages operates, and the community is rapidly losing patience with your unwillingness to learn and abide by our rules. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody has disagreed instead they just delete things i write.--WillyJulia (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If people are simply reverting you, then that is a sign that something is amiss and that you should stop reverting them and talk it out, rather than continue the edit-war. -Jéské 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And actually, people have disagreed. People like me. See the talk page, AND the paragraph immediately preceding your assertion that nobody disagrees. I think including his real name is in violation of WP:BLP, and even if it weren't I think it is unethical, since he has committed no crimes and a lot of people hate him. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, you got reverted, now is the time for discussion. Bold-revert-revert-revert-etc. isn't helpful. shoy 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for desysop of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Heads up in case it gets missed for being added nearer the top of this noticeboard, I posted this notice per the header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless CSCWEM has voluntarily subjected himself to recall there is no way (other than ArbCom) to desysop him. Of course, this lack of recall is in violation of basic tenants of consensus, which this project claims to hold so dearly. Bstone (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a better structure for possible desysopping that doesn't leave admins open to the whims of tendentious editors, feel free to suggest it. Black Kite 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the issue here. Bstone (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I completely see your point (and this is a good example of how the current structure falls down), I don't see anything much in the way of a viable alternative there. The problem with "consensus" is that it's very difficult to measure. Black Kite 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of consensus about how to measure consensus is less of a problem than, or is perhaps a direct result of, the lack of consensus about what consensus actually is. Indeed, if we had consensus about what consensus actually is, we would not need to measure it, but rather we would be able to recognize it when it occurs. That said, I entirely agree with Bstone's short and to the point assessment linked above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, essentially the idea of "consensus recall" has been repeatedly rejected because nobody has yet proposed a workable system that would prevent such a mechanism from being abused to retaliate against administrators taking unpopular, but policy-compliant, actions. We ask our administrators to do tasks that create enemies - blocks, protections, BLP interventions, et al. Allowing those enemies to have an administrator desysopped by sheer force of numbers would be a disaster for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise no-one has come up with a workable system to deal with admins who have lost the trust of the community. Not everyone who thinks that a particular admin should be de-adminned is "an enemy" - though in my experience that is the first line of attack used against editors calling for such action. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there's a system called the ArbCom. The ArbCom has consistently shown that it is unafraid to desysop admins who have abused the tools. That is the only legitimate reason to desysop anyone - abuse of the administrator tools. We don't desysop as punishment, we don't desysop because we don't like someone, we don't desysop for content disagreements. We desysop because someone has shown, through their actions, that they can't be trusted to legitimately and properly use the rollback/block/protect buttons. If that's the case here with CSCWEM, the ArbCom can make that call. If they feel it's an urgent matter, they can call for an emergency desysop. FCYTravis (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not describe Arbcom as a workable system. It is a system that can be worked, but that is another thing altogether. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the community decides who can be trusted to be a sysop then why do we filter all potential desysopings to ArbCom? No, it's a broken system. The community must decide, not ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not how it works. Again, it is the case that admins may be called upon to take policy enforcement actions that could displease certain parts of the community. If administrators have to live in fear that if they take such actions, they could be targeted for lynch-mob desysoppings, then that creates a powerful disincentive to enforce policy. That is not healthy for the future of the encyclopedia.

If an administrator has misused or abused the tools, then that administrator should have the tools removed. There is no other valid rationale for removing them. FCYTravis (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To me it smacks of some admins holding the community in contempt - basically, they are saying that the community cannot be trusted. Apparently we are capable of deciding who should have the tools, but we aren't capable of deciding that we made a mistake, or that someone hasn't lived up to expectations. An admin can be a bully without actually using the tools - just the threat of use is used by some as a way of preventing legitimate criticism. There are two or three who are almost guaranteed to turn up and threaten editors who criticize their friends - and a lot of other admins who, whether out of cowardice or ignorance, just let it go. Those admins who do call for accountability and responsibility from their colleagues get treated pretty poorly too. It is far, far too hard to get the tools - pretty much guaranteeing that anyone who does get them has put a huge amount of work into getting them, making adminship a very big deal indeed - so then, when it becomes clear that they are no longer the right person to have tools, they and their colleagues will fight the community tooth and nail to stop removal - and in a system which is already designed to make it excessively hard to remove. Adminship no big deal? Misplaced Pages's biggest lie. Admins have made it a very big deal indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The community (and in reality a very small part of it) is entrusted in arguing whether a contributor is sufficiently trusted to be granted the tools - but the decision is that of a 'Crat who weighs the arguments for validity. Being entrusted with the tools, and being recognised as using them appropriately are different matters. There are some nasty little tasks that sometimes have to be done (this matter, for example) and decisions are sometimes taken that will otherwise be unpopular with the community (or a small but vocal part of it). The ArbCom, who are individuals with - presently and historically - sysop work experience, understand the responsibilities and pressures of administration activity and are far better to review complaints then either the community at large or (and especially) the sysop community. It is unfortunate in many ways that the removal of the sysop bit is far more difficult to achieve than the granting, but the sometimes contentious and unpopular work admins do will not get done for fear of having to go through the process (and never mind the result) every time somebody gets upset with a poor or disputed sysop action. Perhaps the community may decide to request temporary/conditional desysopping from the ArbCom more often in the future? Why not? There are more admins than there ever have been... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreamer.se

I posted above, with no administrator response on this user: . the user has been indef blocked elsewhere, and has engaged in fair use violations passed final warnings. Please handle, or say why not to handle. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism and while there are many deleted image uploads from a few weeks ago, lately this editor seems to have been uploading fair use album art with rationales. Could you please provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes some more specific information would be helpful, a quick glance shows no recent final warnings (only fair use di warnings, which the user seems to have rectified). Removing user warnings isn't a prohibited activity on one's talk page. – Zedla (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the previous post, I believe this information is present: the warning is in the deleted versions (if they're still deleted) of the old user talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Dispute

Alright, I'm bringing this to ANI, as I'm asking for administrative input. Let me give give you a little background information, for those who aren't aware of it. The Prem Rawat dispute has been quite a long dispute on Misplaced Pages, from what I've gathered, and includes these articles. An arbitration case resulted, where article probation was imposed. Now, I'm mediating the case on the content side of things, and so far, it's remarkably been going OK, albeit with a few bumps in the road, as well as one today, which is why I'm here. This thread started on the Prem Rawat talk page today, as I made a request to all parties here, which they all agreed to. Regarding the edits that were made today, I was asked about them on my talk page here, where Arbitration Enforcement was possibly requested, however, I am not sure if the recent edits fall under the terms of probation. What I am sure of, however, is that something needs to be done, and that is why I am here. I understand this is a contentious topic, and one that few administrators are willing to approach, but it needs some action, whether administrative, well, that's why this needs to be discussed. Thanks, and I hope something can be done here, whether its AE, protection, or whatever it is, something. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator, in which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) agreed to the terms of the mediation. But today, he went ahead and made these unilateral edits bypassing the agreement. See also this user's block log. Why should active editors that are making excellent progress in constructive discussions in proposal pages set forth by the mediator be penalized with article protection? User:Francis Schonken should do the right thing by self-reverting and following the process that has been agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, at the moment, this "suggestion" that I made, remains that, a suggestion, and a mediator has no ability or power to enforce anything, merely to make suggestions. Possibly, this suggestion could be somewhat solidified? I think such things as a topic ban should really be used as a last resort, but one thing I do know, something does need to be done. Perhaps the edits made by Francis should be undone, that is not really my call to make. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Your suggestion was accepted as a sound proposal by all active editors, as a step in dispute resolution, and an orderly debate is currently taking place because of that. Why should the disruption of that process be allowed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that it should be, however I think that a topic ban here would be extreme, and that's why I'm asking at ANI. I note that no one else has commented here....as I thought, no one wishes to touch a topic such as this... Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that the one edit has disrupted the dispute resolution process. There hasn't been any disruption that I've noticed. Jossi hasn't even objected to the substance of the edit, only to the process. This is just informal mediation. If folks want to get caught up in procedure then they should pursue formal mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about "process" but about fulfilling commitments made. Francis should undo these changes and discuss them as we all are. Wyy should he be exempt of making edits without discussion as agreed? Should other editors simply go ahead and bypass the mediation process, forfeit the agreements made and let hell lose all over again? Is that what you are asking we do? I find this to be completely unacceptable behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just informal mediation - Not a very nice way to describe the good efforts of a MedCab volunteer, which has led for the first time in a long time to an orderly debate, consensus, and true collaboration, is it? I would have hope that such efforts would be more appreciated, rather than be dismissed as it was nothing. Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will is right. As I stated previously on the Rawat Discussion page, this process is only informal mediation, with no formal requirement to adhere to this process. Let's separate the process from the people. I think we all believe that Steve is doing a fantastic job and that his efforts are much appreciated. It is unhelpful to make personal comments such as shameful, about a stating a fact that the mediation is just informal, when you know that Will (and myself) strongly support what Steve is doing.

• Having said that, I agree that the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation, but any formal complaint needs to stand on its own feet in respect of the specific editing, and this case hasn't been made yet.Savlonn (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• While I do appreciate your comments about my efforts, I didn't bring this to ANI to be complimented :-). I brought it here to see if any further action needs to be taken regarding the recent edits, and I am still waiting on outside input from a user/administrator that isn't actually involved in the dispute. I'd appreciate outside input. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary - it can be frustrating when parties feel that an editor isn't respecting the mediation or their agreements, but that's a conduct issue as opposed to content and needs to be dealt with in another format. As far as this particular situation goes, since it just came out of arbitration and the committee didn't feel sanctions were necessary, its unlikely that a single act by an editor, regardless of how frustrating, would rise to the level of needing sanctions. Shell 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):

• User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic A
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Criticism: section content
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat#Secondary source on Collier
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Cagan, again
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#First Impression (Again)

Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.

I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you have participated in the mediation pages, that is not disputed. Just that suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussions you decided to delete material, add new material, and change the article structure. All this without an attempt to explain your edits or make proposals as everybody else is doing. So far four editors have asked you to re-consider and self revert: Rumiton, and myself in article's talk, Will Beback in your talk page, and user Savlonn in this thread. So I would hope that in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building, you do the right thing, by self-reverting and making proposals that can be discussed and assessed alongside all others proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, stop the harassment --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to self-revert is not harassment. shoy 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to do something once is not harassment. Making the same request over and over in multiple forums may be harassing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< So I take it that

• That may be so, but what can be done here? This doesn't fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, as far as I know. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I add my voice to those who are asking Francis to self revert. And I would remind Admin WillBeback, who reverted me within the hour for "no consensus" , that he should apply the same rules to Francis as he does to me.Momento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney makes an excellent observation. Here's hoping this particular disagreement dies down, as such things often do. If concerns continue regarding elements outside the current arbitration decision, suggest initiating a formal request for clarification on the case. Best wishes, Durova 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor making personal attack

Please check out User talk:Andyvphil where 24.12.114.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is at 7RR or 8RR (more or less) calling this editor a WP:DICK. The IP has been warned several times. I'm filing a new report here because this is only tangentially reported to the larger issue discussed here in the past few days. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I'm linking to WP:DICK. I've asked for help in numerous places, but NO ONE has given me an answer to how this is a personal attack. Why does the link exist?!? 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked that one myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who we get with an unblock request if that IP gets blocked... Avruch * 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should take a look again at the boldface message at the top of the meta page to which your link redirects: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Your very first edit (from this IP, at least) was "Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK …" Deor (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye out for this editor possibly being a WP:SOCK. If they've never edited Misplaced Pages before they're learning awfully fast. Warnings on people's talk pages, threats to "report" the editors reverting the dick comment, found the report here without a courtesy notice....something is a little odd. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit my first attempt at linking to it was in bad form, but I still fail to see how putting a link to it as I did the last umpteen times is wrong. I give up. 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked the editor to promise to stop doing it to give people a chance to explain things. If "I give up" means what I think it means, perhaps a block can be avoided. Cheers - I'm off for the rest of the night. Thanks for the help. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stunts like this AIV report are pure WP:POINT and I have blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. If this sort of thing resumes, a longer block would be entirely reasonable. MastCell  17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regard abuse of Misplaced Pages policies by user

Well, it has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the administrators that a particular user from Pakistan, through a set of anonymous IPs has been indulging in personal abuses, POV pushing and racism against India.

He has violated the following rules: WP:CIVIL (,,,,), WP:3RR (), Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV

However, I observe that nothing has been done to this regard. Moreover, this last edit by the same editor clearly indicates that the user is unrelentive and gives the impression that the admninistrators are acting partisan in this regard. This is a very serious issue and may have far-reaching consequences. If this editor is allowed to continue uttering his venomous racist nonsense then I may have to escalate this matter.

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing.

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the diffs, it looks like his "racist nonsense" is actually accusing you of racism. Since you accuse him of the same, in the above post, I'm not sure what an admin could do to help - other than ask you both to make more of an effort to discuss things with one another in a civil manner. ETA Accusations of sock-puppetry have also gone both ways. The names of banned users User:NisarKand and/or User:Beh-nam have been mentioned. Something for a CU to look into, in their copious leisure time, perhaps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, this whole 'race related' incident occurred when User:Ravichandar84 (obviously a Hindu from eastern India if you click on his user page) uploaded and added this image on the right of an old street bum in former India (now Pakistan) to the Pashtun people article. What Ravichandar did is nothing but provocation to start war with Muslim Pashtun people. Out of all the images available of Pashtun people, why did Ravichandar84 choose the 1921 image that shows an old man with torn rags who looks like a street bum? Answer: That's Ravichandar84's way of telling readers that the old man in the image is Pakistan and that Muslims look like that. Trust me I am an expert on Hindus and that's how most of them think about Muslims. Most of the top Bollywood superstars (Shahrukh Khan, Feroz Khan, Dilip Kumar, Aamir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Zayed Khan, Kader Khan, Sussanne Roshan, Sanjay Khan, and many others) in India are Muslims and of Pathan ethnic background, meaning they are Pashtun people, and the funny thing is most of these are not added to the Pashtun article and instead an image of the 1921 old man with torn clothes is added. In 1921 that's how most people in the world looked and dressed but why do we need such old images to describe what Pashtuns look like in 2008? That's why I was against the useage of that image from the very start. If you look at the Pashtun people article, I've added most of the images there and I think I've done a good job. I help Misplaced Pages and I respect all the people. Ravichandar84's mission was to put up ugly images of Pathans in the Pashtun people article and when that failed he now wants to file cases against me because he is obviously angry and not satisfied.--119.30.79.195 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New sock of blocked User:Bov

67.170.205.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been editing Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center exactly the same way Bov and his known sock have. I don't know if a checkuser is necessary, but, again, I can't block because of previous edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bov isn't blocked as far as I can tell. The last block in his block log is dated 16 March 2007.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His primary IP (152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is blocked for multiple edit warring, and it's noted in the block note that it applies to Bov. If Bov edits, it would clearly be considered bypassing the block of his (static) IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request a block review

Long thread over 50k moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Kelly block review. D.M.N. (talk)

User:Alastair Haines - edit warring and incivility

On the article Gender of God, user Template:User3-small is disruptively editing the lead text and introducing grammatical clumsiness and discord with the title (and therefore implied subject) of the article. Specifically: He is changing "God is a central figure of many religions" to " God or gods are a central feature of many religions", ignoring the fact that the article is specific to God. While I believe he has good intentions, I also believe he has shown enormous stubbornness and refusal to entertain alternate views, and that this is harming the article. Rather than discuss the matter with me, he persistently accuses me of trolling , or simply reverts my edits without comment .

Additionally, the editor is using the talk page as a forum . Since the content in question - part of a personal conversation with another editor - is so long and so clearly unrelated to improving the article, I removed it and urged Alastair to take the conversation to the user's talk page . He immediately reverted this, and shortly started a WQA against me , which ended with another editor agreeing that the material is in violation of WP:TALK . Despite this, Alastair has continued to revert its removal , insisting that he will do so until he is convinced of his being wrong and until somebody asks him politely to remove it . Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there are two issues:

• Gender of God edits, which seem to be in good faith and probably legitimate.
• Talk page discussion which should be moved to user talk per WQA. I will leave a message on the talk page to this effect.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good summary Toddst1.

Two comments.

1. Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits. Ilkali is the most assertive editor I've ever encountered in two years at Wiki. It was his persistence in reverting stable text, and refusal to accept criticism of his arguments that lead to me raising a WQA for the first time in two years. He has stopped both now, so I'm satisfied.
2. Regarding the talk page discussion, I disagree with moving it, until the edit history and talk page archives of the article are restored from God and gender, and hence the matter can be considered properly. Specifically, discussion of "transcendence" and "imminence" are relevant to God and gender in Christian theology, not simply to Andowney and myself. Discussion of a feminine Holy Spirit is extremely marginal in reliable sources regarding Christian theology, however, at this page it has been the focus of both nearly all article volatility and talk page discussion for two years. Since it often ends up being me and all reliable sources against a random number of editors seeking higher prominence for a feminine Holy Spirit, I claim any text I provide on the subject is important to documenting issues and addressing concerns critical to the reliability of the page. If you wish to pursue the matter, by all means involve as many people as you like and, when you're ready, present both a rationale and a proposal at my talk page, and I will consider it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find a talk page comment that purports to help people to find "a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love" to be not only completely irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia based on the principles of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR; but also somewhat personally offensive and irritating.

I have no comment about the content dispute, but the talk page comment has got to stay gone. It is not helpful in the slightest. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits". Where are the diffs? Where is the evidence?

You are stubbornly insisting on a version of the article that is blatantly at odds with its title. Your claim is that "This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions". No it isn't. It is about the gender of God. That's why it's called 'Gender of God'. Entities that are not God are patently irrelevant. If you want the article to be about deities in general - and I'm not opposed to that - then what's needed is a change of title. Are you willing to consider changing the title? Ilkali (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I attempted to solve the gender of god problem by a new neutral lead that avoided the god/gods question and concentrated on the gender of God (seemed reasonable to me) but, sadly, Alastair simply ignored that and inserted a rambling and mainly unrelated lead which looks mightily like plagiarism to me. Abtract (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to others: Alastair's new lead is being discussed here, where Alastair has pledged to edit war over it until somebody convinces him that something else is better ("If I think something I post is relevant, I will revert back to it, unless a polite and good case is made for something else"). Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has serious issues, and the ongoing arguments with this one user are a distraction from the observation that this article should not even exist. It began as a narrow discussion of the Abrahamist religions, focusing on the idea of a single God. As soon as Hinduism was brought into it two years ago the shape of the article changed dramatically, and led to this current conflict. Once the door was open to polytheism, the whole point of the article crumbled, and the controversial user, aside from his methods, was perfectly fair to bring in "god or gods" in the lead. In fact, the article's original purpose appears to be some kind of POV push about the maleness or femaleness of the Abrahamist God in reference to feminism. With polytheism, you have gods and goddesses, hence no gender issues at all, so why is that stuff even in the article? As I see it, this article is nothing more than a POV fork from the main article of the monotheistic concept of God, and should be scrapped. Baseball Bugs 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

Hi. Last night, I got a friendly note from a new user, User:Flyhead. I've never had previous contact with this individual before and it seems he's a model aircraft enthusiast who'd found an upload of a photo I'd taken of one of my own models. I had responded in kind. He and another new user, User:Motofan, are apparently friends and communicate with each other in Swedish on their respective talk pages. My concern is that both of these users and possibly a third, User:Brandblusser, are horribly racist as evidenced by Motofan's placement of a Nazi symbol on Flyhead's page (which I removed on my initial contact) and an equally horrid comment left by Flyhead on the Zulu article. Frankly, I've seen this kind of behavior here before and it worries me. Seemingly friendly and helpful...but not. Is this an AIV issue or what? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Flyhead indefinitely. He has received final warnings before and then made a recent edit to the Zulu article this morning. That sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Requesting review of block. Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise someone to check Motofan (talk · contribs) talk page too, that should deserve him a block, IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In line with their focus of attention; I think the language they were communicating in was Afrikaans not Swedish. Rudget (Help?) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and thanks for the correction of the language. I thought Swedish or Dutch, but Afrikaans is based on Dutch, so there you have it. In the meantime, I think it's wise to let Brandblusser know what's up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's time to block Motofan as well. I just removed that damned Nazi symbol from his talk page; the edit stated that he's a "proud member of the AWB."--PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind for now. He just left nice word on my talk page regarding the use of English. I've advised him against the use of the symbol. His edits to F1 articles seem to be in good faith. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Flyhead has already reincarnated as Babba12 (talk · contribs) (blocked). Motofan has a number of minor sockpuppets including Brandblusser (talk · contribs) and needs a trout slap if he is going to be a productive editor. Thatcher 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. He's apologized for the AWB symbol on my talk pge - twice, in fact - and in reviewing his edits to F1-related articles, they all seem to be sincere and I'd like to assume good faith. I agree that some advice directly from an admin is in order. I'll go get the trout.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can be persuaded to overlook that twisted symbol in the spirit of "assume good faith", but am I the only one to be disturbed by his comment on his last revision of his user page? To wit: "I hate kaffers!!!" The link & exclamation points are original -- he knows that kaffir is the South African version of "nigger". -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cazique

Cazique (talk · contribs) This user has returned from a blocked and immediately has resumed the edit war he was blocked for. See his recent edit history for proof of his reticence to do anything but continue warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uther, you kinda forgot to mention how involved you are. And it would have been courteous to notify the user of this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous now, I'm so bored of it - drama here will solve nothing. It's only a damn redirect you're fighting over. Alex Muller 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drama? The user threatened to game the system, and a couple of IPs popped up to make the same edits as he had been. I'd classify that as tendentious editing, myself, and have left a sharp warning on Cazique's page suggesting not to do that. I've suggested dispute resolution instead of that course of action. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I do agree it's a kind of silly thing to be fighting over. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly, I'd go for an insane thing to be fighting over. Other than Cazique getting his own way with the redirects, I can't see a way for this too end. That's not to say I'm not critical of UtherSRG's behaviour, as I am. To engage in a three-day revert war (over a redirect) for an admin, is frankly unbelievable. Is there any implementable form of mediation that could calm this down? Mark t young (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah, I've stepped into a clusterf&$k. This edit suggests that Cazique is encouraging meatpuppets to keep reverting. I've asked for clarification, and will be keeping an eye on the articles in case they need protecting. Can someone else take a look at this situation? The participants seem to think there's nothing that can be done other than the fighting. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we think there's nothing left other than fighting. However, I do believe that no dispute resolution will have any effect. Blocking Cazique further would work, as would blocking his admitted sock/meat puppets. Short of that, protecting the articles in question would limit Cazique's influence to just himself, cutting off his meatpuppetry. As things stands, I've indef blocked the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, two problems: we don't indef IPs, and you're involved in the dispute here, so using your tools is probably a pretty bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef isn't permanent. It can be undone. Preferably when the conflict is no more. If you think my actions were incorrect, undo it. But perhaps you're right. I'll instead post here what actions I would take instead of doing them. I don't know why someone else hadn't blocked the IPs for whatever period of time when they popped up. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, semi-protection would be in order here. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

True, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Banning Uther and having his adminship removed would solve this. He quite clearly should not be an admin. Cazique (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My being an admin has nothing to do with your edit warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O-kay, bad scene all around here. Uther, please undo your indef-blocks and remove the semiprotection on the articles; you are involved, and should not be using your tools in relation to this case. As I said, I *am* monitoring this, and will semiprotect if it's needed - three IP edits does not require protection. Cazique: as I see you've erased my query about whether you're blatantly recruiting meatpuppets, I'll say this here: the majority seems to be against your point of view. If you feel there's a problem with that, dispute resolution is that way. Further edit-warring - by yourself or by IPs - will result in a block. This is a ridiculous thing to be fighting over, and it's time for everyone to stop. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to dive into the whole history of this dispute you would see that I have already read that and done everything I feel I could do. But how can I reach a consensus when people wish to be ignorant and not answer points I raise and instead ignore me or sidetrack the issues. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and this needs to be done the right way. Cazique (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the talk pages and see that the majority of the people involved feel that the current situation is the best compromise. You are the only one continuing to fight. Take it to mediation if you feel it hasn't worked, but continuing to edit war is not acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony - done, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Uther not done and done. You have failed to unblock the IPs. Do I need to take action?! Cazique (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I lifted the blocks on the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Tony - it really looks like 3RR evasion, and since IP blocks have been discussed, I would say that semi-protection is in order. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that the only edits by both IPs have been edit-warring on these articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. They've made two and one edits on each article respectively; if they continue, an uninvolved admin can semiprotect. Uther is far too involved to be using his tools in this dispute. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction Guettarda, you mean to say have been reverting back to revision without hatnotes which were provided in wrong context. Cazique (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather, they have been undoing hatnotes that Cazique himeslf acknowledges improve the article but doesn't want in solely for his own ulterior motives. From Cazique's response to me on his talk page: "Yes I already aknowledgd the hatnotes were an improvement repeatedly but did not agree to have them in until a concensous was reached as they further strengthen Uther's redirect and make my redirect look less valid." I am pleased that the admins seem to be prepared to protect the integrity of these articles from the recent unproductive silliness.Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said a million times now! I am all for having hatnotes in the articles as they help the average joe, but only when used in the right context. Two sets of hatnotes were provided by both parties and should only be included once a consensus has been reached. The improper use of the strawpoll and your opinions based on an illogical reasoning are yet to do resolve this. Cazique (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs aside, upon returning from his block (for edit warring, on this series of articles/redirects) Cazique returned to edit-warring on the same articles (his only post-block mainspace edits have been to these articles). The apparently sock/meatpuppetry aside, I think it would be reasonable to reblock based on his immediate resumption of the edit war that got him blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to block you for disobeying[REDACTED] policies by not assuming good faith and acting incivilly. Don't become involved in a situation unless you are aware of all the facts. Cazique (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Cazique for 1 week (it's his fourth block in 11 days). Even after repeated attempts by several users to reason with him, he's still reverting to his preferred version of articles and categories, and leaving messages like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper AfD - Administrator help requested

In reference to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination). This AfD was opened, in good faith, by an editor who actually wants to keep the entry (though he has changed his comment to delete since I asked him to withdraw the nomination based upon what I am about to explain). He listed no deletion criteria in his nomination, instead making reference to talk page comments that suggest others want to delete the entry. As the nominator has pointed out there doesn't seem to be anything explicit in policy stating that a rationale for deletion must be listed, but it is certainly requested in the instructions on making such a listing Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, and it is clearly implied in all the policy and guideline pages I can find, like this one: Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. As someone who actually does believe this entry merits deletion I believe this AfD is pointless and due to the manner in which it was listed will only cause confusion and end in "no consensus" or some other non-decision. As another editor has commented, there is a logic to follow in these discussions, where conventionally we agree or disagree with the nominator's rationale, sometimes suggesting an alternate remedy, and sometimes amending the rationale. Either way discussion revolves around the rationale, and in this case it cannot. Could and admin please do something about this? Either close the AfD as improper or maybe allow someone else to amend the rationale. If something isn't done soon the comments will keep piling up and we'll just have another failed AfD to add to the list, making it 6 thus far. BTW I want to make it clear that I find nothing willfully wrong with the nominator's behavior and am not asking for any sanctions thereof. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently defended the creation of an AfD on behalf of another user. In that case, I thought it was justifiable as there essentially was a sole nominator who endorsed deletion, even though the person who actually started the AfD was a different user. The 3rd party merely stepped in to assist the deletion-endorser with the technical aspects of listing an AfD (which I can sympathize with).

This is an entirely different situation, where an editor has speculatively created an AfD based on discussions on the Talk page. I don't think there's anyway to avoid "another failed AfD to add to the list", but the closing admin should list it as a "Procedural Close", so it is clear that it was not a true consensus attempt. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Whenever a closer feels that the debate has run long enough, he should mark this as a Procedural close, so that the record will be clear the next time this comes around. Obviously this type of close would allow an immediate good-faith nomination for deletion by an editor who *does* have a rationale for deletion to offer. (If nobody besides the nominator had commented in the debate, I would have suggested a speedy close, but now there are too many comments). EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, wasn't this put up for AfD only a month ago or less, and survived, or am I getting it mixed up with another one? Sticky Parkin 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the last one was over a year ago . All of the previous AfDs are listed on the current AfD page, where I see you (Sticky) have commented "keep". This fact, along with your question here, does not instill the outside observer with much confidence that you reviewed the matter much before commenting. I do not mean offense, but it is disheartening to see editors add weight to one side of a discussion in this fashion. One doesn't have to read everything ever penned on the issue, but a little looking should always presage a vote one way or the other. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Legal Threat

In the interest of WP:DOLT, I would like to report an apparent legal threat against Misplaced Pages (and myself). Here's the edit Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for the legal threat. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtman and Malik Shabazz's continued edit war on Arthur Waskow

Previous ANI thread. They continue to edit war, despite templates, warnings and admin intervention. Last time MasterOfPuppets indicated any further edit warring would lead to a 2 day block. Bstone (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors were given warnings. Let's see how it progresses from here. --Selket 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So they are given warnings after given final warnings? The integrity of the process is failing. Bstone (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion concerning the category on Talk:Arthur Waskow. MasterOfPuppets agreed that Waskow belongs in the category, but Thoughtman removed him again — without an edit summary, as usual. — ] (] · ]) 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an involved editor, but was happy my attention was drawn to this page and the person it deals with. An edit-war situation certainly exists. Reviewing however what little evidence there is, it is very hard to see a rationale behind Thoughtman 's reversion of Malik Shabazz's CAT. From the page's details, the CAT seems absolutely appropriate, and ]'s insistence, under challenge, is quite proper. It is up to Thoughtman to provide a detailed explanation of why he persists in holding the page hostage against such an innocuous descriptive category. Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, they are still edit-warring, which is against policy. They have been appropriately warned with threat of block, yet continue to edit war. It's somewhat mind-blogging that they haven't been given a block. Bstone (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that is the technical lay of the land. The objective lay of the land is that one of the two is being disruptive, in editing without reasoned justification for what are otherwise incomprehensible reversions. But if one of the two will not use the talk-page to reply to Shabazz, but simply edits without due recourse to dialogue, I hardly think this imbalance should go unnoticed. I once had to restore 3 highly RS sources that were, in a tagteam effort, consistently reversed without explanation. I was punished, the others sniggled, the text remains defective,. and wiki loses out, simply because an administrator did not happen to use a discretionary word in the right direction, but 'applied the rules'. Admins apply the rules, but they should, in certain cases, look closely at what is happening. Intelligent governments are rule-abiding, but use discretion as well, which is not partisan, but merely a prompt to one of the two parties to play by all the rules (dialogue) and not just the ones that suit them Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What is somewhat mind-boggling is the vehemence with which Bstone is calling for me to be blocked. I've assumed good faith as long as I can, but I'm not going to bite my tongue any longer.

I wonder, Bstone: Are you still carrying a grudge from February, when I helped defeat your attempt to delete Beyt Tikkun (an AfD that was upheld when you tried to take a second bite of the apple at WP:DRV)? Is this whole thing because I didn't support you in your vendetta against IZAK? Maybe it's time to let it go.

In this case I wasn't given "templates warnings"; I was given a single warning. It wasn't a "final warning", it was just a warning, period.

In the last ANI, I wrote that I would pursue dispute resolution. The first step is to discuss the issue on the Talk page, which I did. I didn't think restoring something that was agreed upon on the article's Talk page was edit-warring. But if I was wrong, I think your reaction is completely out of proportion to the offense. Stop making mountains out of molehills. — ] (] · ]) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not even respond to that, Malik. Adding failure to assume good faith to your persistent edit-warring is not professional. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Further personal attacks from User:Radiolbx

(see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#User:Radiolbx)

User:Radiolbx's personal attacks of me continue - I'm unprofessional and an ambulance chaser now. This all appears to be in regards to a content issue regarding WKHQ-FM, which he admits to working at (). I've tagged his talk page with {{uw-coi}}, but I don't know if it'll make a difference. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And, a jerk. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He is indeed being a little incivil, but I think an issue like this could have been better handled at Wikiquette Alerts. Also, in his [last edit, he said "You win" and hasn't made any further edits (granted that was only like 20 minutes ago). FWIW, I think Radiolbx was acting in good faith (even though his edits were not particularly encyclopedic) and it's somewhat sad that he was driven away from the project so quickly.

If he continues to make incivil comments, let me know and I will issue a warning. But dollars to doughnuts, I think he's done editing here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, and actually wasn't even aware of WP:WQA. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The other person involved here, Milonica (talk · contribs) dropped a note asking for help on my talk page; I'm overloaded, and suggested they try editor assistance. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Nunh-huh Vandalism

User: Nunh-huh has continuously defied my corrections to the article; Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester. I NEED HELP! PLEASE! He is using his abilities as an Administrator for Vandalism. It is NOT right, and something needs to be done about it! Rbkl (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It's not necessary to bold names as you are doing, nor is it necessary to make numeric lists. I can't speak to the factual details of the article. OhNoitsJamie 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content (formatting mostly) dispute, and I can't find any use of admin tools. Am I missing something? --Selket 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nunh-huh's last (and only second) revert was at 17:44, 13 June 2008 . Your first attempt to engage him in dialog was at 18:27, 13 June 2008. As of the time I am making this comment, the current revision is your version of the article. What is your complaint again?

In the future, please do not make spurious complaint to the administrators' noticeboard without first attempting to reach a compromise with the user. This is stated clearly at the top of this page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, after three edit conflicts. Rbk1 is trying to bold names and do other edits in spite of the manual of style. Rbk1, your edits are the incorrect ones, here. Tan | 39 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin failed consensus

We have already had a debate about Kingsford Smith International Airport (KSIA) to Sydney airport (Since it's known as Sydney Airport and no longer KSIA) and the consensus was to move. Now Admin NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to tell us on the talk page or getting a new consensus, again moving the article back to it's old name which most people agreed to change! Bidgee (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting my move to be reverted, and by the way, I am not an administrator. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, possibly moot) And you gave them, what, 9 minutes to reply to your talk page message before running here? Perhaps you need to at least try to resolve the issue before escalating it? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I did and they replied. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I moved the page back to Sydney Airport. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? Avruch * 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Good to keep the semi-protect up, might be enough for this scenario for the next week. Problem being, half of these vandals are procuring the stereotypes that contemporary conservatism apparently represents. They're looking for excuses to be immature. Sad, really. (Not that the left is any less guilty of it, but still) Brokenwit (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

• Arcayne (talk · contribs)

As reported at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?, this user has been constantly unconstructive in Talk:Silence in the Library, Talk:Forest of the Dead, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, User talk:U-Mos#When reverted and User talk:Arcayne. He has been incredibly rude to me (to which bait I may have risen once or twice, which I would apologise for), refuses to give any ground on the points he makes despite facing opposition, continues to edit war, ignores my perfectly reasonable request to wait for the project discussion to end, decides to "ban" me from his talk page after I point out that a comment he made caused me offence, accuses me of all sorts of offences I have not commited, and generally assumes authority and ownership at almost every turn. Wheras he does generally seem to be a good user, I don't believe this sort of behaviour should be acceptable from anyone. U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So ask him about it. What administrative intervention is required here? I can see none. Bstone (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My asking, and indeed any communication I make with him, has led to me being fobbed off with accusations and patronism, as seen mostly on my talk page and Talk:Forest of the Dead. He deleted the last message I left on his talk page saying "sorry chum, but I get the last word here". I can do nothing against a user so adamant and dismissive. I wish for him to listen to reason, and he certainly won't listen to mine, so I came here. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Arcayne has requested U-Mos not to post on his talkpage. Can U-Mos provide any diffs that indicate violation of WP policy? Otherwise, it is just a dispute that both parties should withdraw from or else seek resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with policies, so could not definitely say if he has specifically violated any. But I'd hazard a guess at ownership (refusing to take into account other people's PoV in Talk:Silence in the Library#Removed paragraphs in continuity section), incivility (my talk page) and edit-warring (constant reversions citied in the Editor Assistance page). U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see much evidence that dispute resolution has been tried here... you might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Mediation cabal for some help. Above all, keep cool! Cheers, --Ryan Delaney 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess one of the more frustrating parts of interacting with U-Mos (for me) is the fact that he likes arguing (and has admitted such in his talk page); however, when I disagree with him on policy, he charges OWNership and incivility, which is odd, since that is what I pointed out on his talk page that he runs the risk of having his edits perceived as.
I don't think I've broken any rules or guidelines in either my edits in Misplaced Pages or my interaction with U-Mos. I have been particularly careful in remaining polite, as this user seems to think that AN/I is his personal complaints department filing reports left and right. And I find myself concerned that someone might eventually think I am doing something wrong. Towards that end, I first asked, then reiterated and finally banned him from my talk page, cutting my interaction with him to a minimum. Some people you can work with, and U-Mos isn't one of those, when it comes to Doctor Who episodic articles. It's done his way, or the voice of dissent is "being disruptive" or trying to own the article. As repeatedly noted by a previous admin, it's mostly a matter of a 'large mouth and a thin skin'.
Perhaps he finds me adamant because the matters we disagree on are content issues, and some of the content centers around the addition of fan trivia and synthesis. U-Mos' largest edit-wars himself and complains that there is no consensus for keeping our synthesis policy intact for articles within the Doctor Who wikiproject. When I discuss the matter there, his sole complaint is that he 'doesn't like it.'. I have found that the best method to interact with this editor is to ban him from my user-talk page and then ignore him in article discussion. This means I don't respond to his repeated snipes in article discussion and elsewhere. I would prefer if the user would find someone else to bother, because I am quite frankly getting a bit tired of his abuse. When I explain my point of view, he dismisses them with 'i don't like it'-style comments that fail to address the meat of the explanation asked for, sort of a 'refusing to get the point' thing.
I am not sure that DR would be helpful. My attempts to generate an RfC were perceived by the user as disruptive and trollishness. Again, while I do not mind trying DR, I think the user perceives it as something other than what it is, and won't even try. - Arcayne () 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignoring the above post, which is almost entirely untrue, I had (as shown above) sought editor assistance for this matter. But as some ground is finally being made in the article, I felt that was the wrong place to put this. Basically, in the general spirit of improving experiences on Misplaced Pages, I would like Arcayne to realise that his manner in editing is unnaccepatble, and I'm sure he'd find people much more civil towards him if he treated them with respect (and starting comments with "with respect" doesn't count), maybe even as equals. I wasn't completely sure where to go with this issue, so if there is a better place please point me in its direction. Thanks. U-Mos (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would imagine that in the "general spirit of improving experiences on Misplaced Pages", perhaps saying that you are ignoring what people say while characterizing their words as "completely untrue" would be one of the first things to avoid. You get good faith and respect, and if you squander it by being rude and/or dismissive, you have to work that much harder to get it back, but that isn't the first time you have been told this. Perhaps my posts lack diplomacy in responding to your behavior, but not one whit of anything I have said is incorrect or uncivil. Perhaps looking at your own posting tone would help lead you to a better understanding of interacting with others. Until then, i would prefer if you would simply avoid my edits, please.- Arcayne () 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the disputes centres around one subject (Dr Who) and is between only the two of you I think a third opinion may be the first dispute resolution process to try. I suggest that you read the page and decide if it is suitable for both of you - that is, both parties need to agree to it. Having just one party review and comment upon the dispute is a far less drama generating process than the alternatives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tring that. - Arcayne () 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to WP:30 as suggested. U-Mos (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm (talk · contribs) freaky act

- - :I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this guy blank the main page. And he only got a level 1? But he did self-revert it. Am I in the right place? Shapiros10 _{My work} 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipediaclouds the brain". Hmmmm. Not good. Bstone (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. He was already blocked and unblocked over it. This thread is useless now. Shapiros10 _{My work} 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he claims his account was compromised. Eeps! Anyway, marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For review: indefinite block of Jagz (talk · contribs)

I'd like to submit one of my blocks for review. Jagz (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a long-term tendentious editor on the topic of race and intelligence. In a recent AN/I thread, I proposed a topic ban, with the goal of refocusing Jagz on constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. After quite a bit of discussion, the thread ended with Jagz agreeing not to edit the pages in question, and there was talk of placing him on probation for disruptiveness and incivility. Since then, he's continued to pursue the same grudges in different venues. Most recently, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's opponents, announced his retirement. Jagz chose this juncture to taunt Mathsci by vandalizing his userpage.

I view this as the final straw for this editor: the topic ban has had no effect; he continues to pursue his same old disruptive agenda in new venues; and he's stooped to vandalizing opposing editors' userspace to gloat about their departure from the project. I haven't seen anything positive originate from Jagz's account in a long time, and there's no reason to think things are getting any better - quite the reverse. I've blocked the account indefinitely for a long-term pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing capped off by personal attacks and vandalism of an opposing editor's userpage.

Jagz himself has not requested an unblock thus far, but Elonka (talk · contribs) raised the concern that this block was overly harsh. I agreed to disagree, but felt I should bring it here for further review and discussion. If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so. I would ask that if he is unblocked, he commit to contribute positively, and that a plan be in place to provide both clear behavioral guidelines and restrictions and/or mentoring/monitoring. MastCell  21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this editor at User talk:Cailil. My review of Jagz's recent contributions indicate a pattern of disruptiveness and polite trolling. I think the block was a good decision. I was unaware of how long this pattern had been going on, or else I might have done more than just blank Jagz's taunts. Jehochman 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the previous discussion concluded with agreeing to a topic ban, a party that appears not to have joined the consensus was Jagz - who was violating said ban before the last edit was posted in the discussion. I fully support the indef block now, as not only does the editor seem unwilling to withdraw from the disputed area but also seems more than willing to argue his "case" by the same questionable methods (personal attacks, attempts to sanction "opponents", etc) as in the past. Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this chap a while back for 3RR. I wasn't impressed then, and have grown steadily less so as time has gone on. This is definitely one we're well quit of. Race and intelligence is quite contentious enough a topic without letting tendentious, edit-warring, and harassing SPAs such as Jagz go unrestrained. AGF has its limits: those he exceeded a long time ago. I also put the other single-purpose accounts operating in this area on notice to clean up their act, or else I shall personally ensure they follow in Jagz's footsteps, and that swiftly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with indef. A warning or a brief block may have been appropriate, but an indefinite block was overkill. Now, I do agree that Jagz has been disruptive in the past, but I felt that he had been making steady improvement. I am also concerned that he may have been the victim of some "tag team" harassment. In the past, he did seem to have some constructive contributions, but ran into what he felt was a "team" organized against him, when editing some race-related articles. He was blocked for 3RR in March, and another 24-block for personal attacks in May. A week or so ago, Jagz voluntarily agreed to avoid editing the Race and intelligence article for the rest of the year. I have been working with him since then, as he is identifying areas where he feels that there is "team" editing. I have not yet completed my investigation, but it is obvious to me that Jagz was not the sole problem at some of these articles, as there was disruptive behavior from multiple editors. Since his voluntary ban, Jagz has honored his word and avoided the R&I article. He has left a couple messages on talkpages of related users, some of which were unfortunate, such as placing a "cheshire cat" image on the userpage of a retired user, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's earlier opponents. His edit was reverted by another of his opponents as "vandalism", but I think that this was overstating the situation. In fact, Mathsci had first placed a "cheshire cat" image in a previous conversation with Jagz, so Jagz's response was to place the cheshire cat image on Mathsci's page (granted, he should have put it on the talkpage, not the userpage). It may have been an ill-considered attempt at humor, but it wasn't vandalism. Jagz also indicated his opposition to one of his opponents, Cailil, who is considering running for admin. When Jagz posted this message at Cailil's takpage, it was deleted by administrator Jehochman with an excessive edit summary. When Jagz restored his message, Jehochman again deleted it, this time accusing Jagz of "trolling". MastCell followed this up with an indef block of Jagz. I'm in agreement that Jagz's behavior could have been better, but I think an indef block was excessive, and indeed has an appearance of being an attempt to silence a potential opponent before an RfA. --Elonka 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think that Elonka has not taken the time to review this editor's behaviour. In the previous disussion here and subsequently she has somewhat villified his critics (alun (Wobble), Ramdrake, Slrubenstein), suggesting that it is they that should have a topic ban. Even above she has placed remarks from over a month ago out of context. When Jagz announced his retirement from editing Race and intelligence with postings in several new sections on the talk page, proclaiming that the article was in a finished state, he placed other editors in a state of confusion. This type of editing seems to be what is usually called trolling. Elonka seems to condone the vandalism of my user page and talk page in her remarks above: although she might dislike me, such vandalism is upsetting and against WP policy. Since she is the interventionist administrator that has put an end to my contributions to WP, with mathematical articles stopped in midstream, I am not surprised that she seems to be giving the thumbs up to Jagz's act of vandalism. (Her recent slowness to recognize User:Koalorka's history of anti-Turkish POV-pushing, perhaps because she had not made this observation herself, showed a similar attempt to deny a consistently disruptive pattern of behaviour carefully documented by me User:Mathsci/subpage.) Does anybody else understand why she is acting in this way? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds fine to me. Maybe review Jagz's situation again after an appropriate period of time (6 months, a year?) but not now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• When Jagz was topic-banned not long ago, among the conditions of his ban were a civility and NPA parole. Since then, the sum total of his contributions outside his own user and talk pages has been limited to:

• 1)Putting up at ANI the picture of a baby to show his discontent with a comment about him about which he disagreed;
• 2) Commenting on the user talk page of an editor considering accepting a nomination for adminship that the editor in question wouldn't be ready "for a few years", talking about an otherwise established and very respected editor and edit-warring to put his comment back after it was removed as inappropriate;
• 3)putting first on the user page of a retired user and then on his talk page the same derogatory image (in context) and revert warring to keep it there;
• 4) having a long conversation with another admin about his woes that other editors wouldn't let him further his POV at the R&I article
• 5)and then questioning the authority of an editor who removed one of his unpleasant comments from a user's page.

All in all, I don't see that he has made any improvement at all since his topic ban, as his contribution to main article or article talk page space has been zero, although he has made several derogatory contributions to user pages and user talk pages, in addition to trying to get a previously uninvolved admin to help him settle old scores. I say indef was the right decision.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at Leather Pride flag

this diff I've since reverted. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours, and will semi-protect the article if they begin IP hopping, but that will also leave you unable to edit the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, this appears to be a work of an editor who has been banned for similar edits, and an inability to understand that people cannot own a page on Misplaced Pages. See User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who is likely the same person as User:HenryLaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); both editors have made statements about not accepting alteration of the page. It's a low-level but chronic problem, and the 48 hour block is probably not going to have an impact on this topic. Horologium (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the same misinformation over at LGBT symbols‎, so you may want to keep an eye out over there as well. ➪HiDrNick! 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vadalism from 69.230.165.27

There is an anonymous editor who seems to like making up characters in films, and changing the actors who played parts in random movies. Thought I should mention it. Mathewignash (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring (repeated blanking of sourced text) by User:Caspian blue at Seolleongtang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Caspian blue insists on repeatedly removing properly sourced etymological information regarding an alternate spelling, in Chinese characters/hanja (Sino-Korean characters) from the article Seolleongtang, (which is about a Korean soup), without participating at that article's discussion page. It is getting difficult to improve the article when the editor simply blanks this text over and over. The spelling is supported by over 20 thousand sources, as well as the etymology section of the Wiktionary entry, as provided by User:Visviva, who is active at both Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary. The Wiktionary entry in question, which contains two legitimate sources bearing out the alternate spelling, may be found here. Instances of blanking (with accompanying edit summaries, but without discussion on the talk page) may be found at the article's revision history. Badagnani (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed blanking of sourced text continues. Badagnani (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not allow Badagnani to make allegations of edit-warring. He just got off his sixth suspension for that offense and has made false allegations before in an attempt to pass blame onto others (me, for instance). Caspian has been working on the Korean Cuisine article, with Chef Tanner, the article he was banned from on this last time. This appears to be his modus operandi, making allegations against another editor with whom he is waring with in an attempt to bolster his argument.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in several of those instances I had been reverting simple disruptive, WP:POINT blanking of text, and an admin who been solicited by another editor who did not like me decided to block--in the last two cases for instances where I had reverted simple blanking, and did not exceed three reverts. Kindly discuss the case at hand without ad hominem attacks, which I have never made against you. I am a prolific and (I hope) valued contributor, as are you, and attacks are not necessary; the repeated blanking of sourced text is never okay, no matter who is doing it, nor whether we either "like" or "don't like" that contributor. We're all here to build an encyclopedia together, and the blanking of another's properly sourced text really isn't okay. It was necessary to take this incident here because it has become apparent that reverting simple blanking (vandalism), up to three times per day, can and will be blocked by editors who are "out for" certain other contributors. If that is the case, it is clear that this incident report is needed to prevent such blanking in the future, by other means than constant reversion. Badagnani (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your block was so suitable and warranted in light of your hostile calling "blanking" to several people who removed your unhelpful and nothing but hidden question on articles. At least 4 people, me, Jeremy, Chris, Dforest are hurt by your uncivil attitude regarding your calling "blanking". Even though we all repeatedly suggested you to leave your question at talk pages or visit our user page, you would not listen to the suggestion at all. Besides, when I moved your hidden comments from articles to talk pages, you reverted and gave me absurd vandalism warnings so many times. Who is the most disruptive editor in this context?--Caspian blue (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly restrict your comments to the actual article at hand? Your continual and habitual blanking of other editors' editing comments (as seen, for example, in this edit) is not the issue here. Badagnani (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you habitually say and maliciously accuse people who suggest you to leave your comment at talk "blanking very important comment to the article" (your own hidden comment). Then you habitually throw vandalism warnings to the people including me. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone? However, as pointed out earlier, your summary removal of other editors' editing comments at the hotteok article, as seen in this edit, is not the subject of this incident report.

Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s disruptive original research campaign

Everyone can easily find that the above comment is a "blatant lie" from bad-faith if they read the history and talk page. I should be the one who would report his introducing original research campain. Of course, I left my opinion with citations several times before. I have undergone his introducing original research into Korean cuisine related articles over and over, such as seolleongtang, hotteok, jeongol. Every time, I have tried to "fix" incorrect info introduced by Badagnani as myself searching relevant information from Korean resources (English resources are limited on such subjects), his disruption does not stop. Visviva is neither Korean nor authoritive figure at all in Korean language. The entry at Wikidictionary was built up by Badagnani, not Visvisa. The page at Wikidictionary should be removed as well. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone and restrict your comments to the actual article at hand (numerous etymological sources for which have been provided at that article's discussion page)? Regarding User:Visviva, I believe him to be one of the most knowledgeable editors in Korean linguistics at both the English-language Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary. Regarding the deletion of the Wiktionary article, that article is properly sourced, and so would not merit deletion. Badagnani (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the subject of this incident report is the article Seolleongtang, I note that of the three articles you mention above, I began two of them (seolleongtang and jeongol). Badagnani (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At hotteok article, you wrote original research on varieties of hotteok but the citation that I provided does not have any information that you wrote. Besides, you do not read Korean, and bave't been to Korea, and eateb the dish, and you introduced the very wrong information. Even you push me to find sources for your original research, that case also could be found at Korean barbecue. I'm not your tutor and your behaviors toward me are more than disruptive. --00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone (vis-a-vis the last sentence of your comment)? The hotteok article is not the subject of this incident report; however, it is clear from an examination of your blanking of my editing comments, as seen in this edit, that I had made several targeted comments regarding the wording and subject matter of the article, with the eventual goal of clarifying those passages through further research (in both the Korean and English languages), and consequently improving the article. You chose to simply blank them, in a WP:POINT manner. It would be helpful if you would address the actual article at hand, however. Badagnani (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are all you added to the page to back up your claim, but can these bare google returns without confirmations be inline text resource? Therefore, I removed it per WP:V, WP:RM and you restored it as insisting that they're all properly cited source.

1. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%E9%9B%AA%E6%BF%83%E6%B9%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_ko&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
2. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%E9%9B%AA%E6%BF%83%E6%B9%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_zh-TW&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

I've cleaned up your original research on so many articles such as Korean noodles, but I have no obligation to search information that you incorrectly wrote without any reliable sources.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources were and are provided; there are quite a few that you neglect to present here, but they may be found at Talk:Seolleongtang for others to see. The proper course of action in light of so many thousands of Google hits, as mentioned just above, would have been to place a "fact" tag and to have discussed at the article's talk page before engaging in repeated blanking of the entire text (which had already been sourced). Now that there are sources, please restore the text about the Chinese use of the name 雪濃湯, as seen at the Chinese Misplaced Pages article about this food, which you removed earlier today without first placing a "fact" tag or discussing at the article's discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you only confirm people that the Chinese Misplaced Pages has no citation. That may be simply translated from another wikipedia, such as English Wiki as many other language wikipedians do. The seolleongtang article was created by you with the incorrect spelling. That is good to know. Unless you read every possible articles with credibility and confirm whether your claim is right, the hit number is useless. Most of them say in Korean, the usuage is FALSE and you keep insisting on including your original research.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone (use of all capital letters)? The sources were and are provided--over 20 thousand of them, with several of the most authoritative at Talk:Seolleongtang. We do include alternate names for foods at WP, some of which are etymologically "incorrect" yet in demonstrably wide usage. The chaise longue article, for example, presents the quite incorrect but widely used English misspelling "chaise lounge" in its text. That, however, is not the question; the question is the incident of User:Caspian blue's tendency to blank text rather than first discuss, go over the sources in detail in a collaborative, collegial manner at "Discussion," add "fact" tags when no sources are provided, etc. It really should be possible for us to work together in a collegial manner, without resorting to name-calling and denigration of another editor's knowledge or qualifications, as I see just above. Badagnani (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last search was barely done after I removed your Zh.Misplaced Pages.org link and suggested you to find sources. The spelling is not yet confirmed whether it is widely used in Chinese speaking. Unless confirmation procedure, hit-number is no use. Your tendency of introducing original research to articles and giving absurd warning as to "blanking" by your own definition which none agrees. The report is nothing but from very malicious intention. I have so many opportunities to him to reconsider his disruptive and unhelpful behaviors, and he keep doing such so blocked 2 days ago. I left so many opinion at talk page, and I have no patience on your disruption. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The 20 thousand Chinese-language Google hits for the term and the link to the Chinese-language Misplaced Pages article about the soup were already included as sources when you chose to blank the text entirely and repeatedly, without first adding a "fact" tag nor contributing at "Discussion." It is this pattern that is under scrutiny here. A half dozen reputable sources in the Chinese language are provided at Talk:Seolleongtang (including the actual Chinese-language Misplaced Pages article on this soup), demonstrating that the term is used in Chinese, yet User:Caspian blue still blanked the text entirely and repeatedly, and apparently refuses to restore it. This tendency is inherently disruptive, not the restoration of properly sourced text, nor the preparation of an incident report of such blanking. Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You report this with very insulting title against me, and why did you alter the subtitle? That is inappropriate. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Badagnani should learn what his original research and false allegation would result in as his reward. (he just got off from his block and then he is the one who initiated edit wars without any reliable source. I'm tired of his behaviors. Another example is At WP:CFD/Log/2008_April_12#Seasonal_cuisine, even though the consensus reached to remove seasonal cuisine, User:Badagnani inserted too broad and abusrd category such asto hotteok --01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the actual subject of this incident report is User:Caspian blue's choice to blank sourced text from the Seolleongtang article in a repeated manner, without first using a "fact" tag or discussing in a calm, collegial manner at the article's Talk page, but instead engaging in unending blanking of the entire text, along with sources. Although, as already mentioned three times above, hotteok is not the subject of this incident report, I did believe that the "Winter cuisine" category was appropriate, as the article states that this food "is usually eaten during the winter season." Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the mention irrelevant? This section is about your habitual original research campaign and disruptive behaviors such as giving absurd vandalism warnings to people, not only about Seolleongtang. Your insistences and blatant disregard toward consensus are always splendid, notable example is Talk:Prunus_mume#Discussione too. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Can you tell me what is this?

Badagnani's habitual misrepresentation come up again, but that is not even surprising. He attacked me with comments that I did not say to him. He selected comment for his own sake and tries to look me to have been uncooperative on discussion, which never happened to me. Who is telling unthruth/ I think administrative action should be taken upon his malicious report and his behaviors to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; however, the issue at hand is User:Caspian blue's choice to blank text entirely first, then discuss later (and, then, only after an incident report having been submitted), as seen in the edit history of Seolleongtang. The above is more appropriate for the discussion page of that article. What needs to be resolved is User:Caspian blue's failure to edit in a collegial, deliberative manner that involves placing "fact" tags and making use of "Discussion" first, and blanking sourced text as a last resort. Is it possible to mandate that WP contributors edit in a collegial manner? I am not certain, but I do believe that we should not have to do so; we should do so as a matter of course.

Regarding the alternate name, we do provide widely used alternate names even when they are "wrong," such as the common misspelling at Chaise longue. 20 thousand Google hits in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, and the actual Chinese-language Misplaced Pages article for this soup, had already been provided before the text was blanked entirely and repeatedly by User:Caspian blue. Badagnani (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs) makes Wiki policy to unwritten and his own version approved by none. Badagnani (talk · contribs) created and edited the article in question on 2005 with no citation for the first one month and introduce false spelling and information until others fix and added citations, but he has not tried to do such at all. Introducing wrong information over 3 years is nothing but harm and laziness. I think Badagnani (talk · contribs) should not allow to edi Korean cuisine articles, given by all his disruptive behaviors. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked approximately nine times to moderate your tone, but the above comment is highly inflammatory and appears to represent a WP:TROLL. I will ask for a tenth time: please moderate your tone. My actual record, now that it is I who am being put on the defensive by the editor whose blanking is the actual subject of this incident report, is that I have created and improved dozens of Korean cuisine articles. Why does it seem necessary for you to denigrate another contributor's expertise in such an inflammatory manner? Is this an attitude that reflects well on our project? Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets start this over again

Can you two put one, short paragraph explaining what exactly the problem is? Include diffs so that we can verify your account of events and see if anything needs to be done. Be aware that if you are primarily experiencing a content dispute, there won't be much that can be done via this board. Disputes don't get resolved here, and this is not the place to continue your arguments. Avruch * 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I was succinct regarding the nature of the incident in my first report; all subsequent posts were in response to User:Caspian blue's rebuttals. It is by no means a content dispute as the text was already sourced; the essence of the incident report (and attention requested from skilled admins) is that User:Caspian blue nearly always resorts to blanking of text rather than the addition of "fact" tags or the use of Discussion pages. Reversion of such blanking simply leads to blocks for "edit warring" but it is unclear why the editor reverting the blanking receives blocks, whereas the editor who is known particularly for such blanking does not, as a rule. I do think it would be helpful if the admins attending to this incident would read the above text and look at the article in question. The blanking is clearly visible in the history. Badagnani (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This matter is very simple. Badagnani (talk · contribs) who just got off from his 48 days block sanction after his 3RR violation and falsely accusing others vandals at Korean cuisine, returned to initiate an edit war to back up his original research at Seolleongtang. I've put up with his habitual hostile comments "blanking" for a long time because his claim has no reliable source on an incorrect usage of Chinese character referring to the dish, but just has google bare results (which he claims that it is proper citation. you can see what they are above, the longest google links) without any confirmation. However, he maliciously reported here. I think the user has not be allowed to edit any of Korean cuisine related articles due to his habitually introducing original research. His recent block was in the same line. "1) The edits you reverted were not blanking, they were deletions of comments you added to the article and are not covered by the exception for simple vandalism." commented by two admins. Besides, I used discussion page, and he lied about my editing. That is nothing but personal attack. He did not even confirm that his google result links are actually relevant and reliable until I said him to search. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - Good enough. Wait for some review based on that, please. Avruch * 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As with this incident, I had been reverting simple disruptive, WP:POINT blanking of text, and did not exceed three reverts. Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s problem is always circulating as below

1. He created or edited an article relating Korean cuisine with no reference
2. Then he put hidden comments onto the article which would be only shown to people who're willing to edit the article in future, but generally the hidden remarks do not get any attention or cause an irritation. Several people told him to write his question at talk page, and he keeps refusing.
3. Somebody edits one of his interested articles. Even if the edit was with reliable citations, the edit is against Badagnani's firm belief, and then Badagani restored the deleted false information
4. Naturally, the new person who fixed the article aske why Badagnani reverted to the previous wrong version with incorrect info.
5. I usually intervene and check newly added citations and search for more info from Korean cites (English information on Korean cuisine is limited), so implement the disputed contents with citations
6. Regardless, in many cases, Badaganani insists on including his original research, but I or others request him to provide reliable sources. But he added bare google results claiming as "reliabe source" (see also yukgaejang article)
7. If I or other removed the unconfirmed links and unsourced claim, he calls me or others "blanking highly important info", "disruptive" and gives absurd vandalism/blanking warnings.
8. Or he urges me or others to find more info and to confirm links from the google results to back up his claim, because he CAN NOT read Korean, nor has EATen the related dishes.
9. I tended to implemented per his request but begin to refuse because he can easily find needed sources or created articles he needs, but he always defers to me or others.
10. Revert warring with him is totally wasting of my time per my experience with him, so generally I or others just give up and let him do as he's satisfied with.
11. Finally, he filed this false and bad-faith report to justify his original research. I think he is the one who gets a proper saction because his recent two blocks are all related to his insistence of "blanking". --Caspian blue (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct. The incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text rather than edit in a thoughtful, collegial manner, first using "fact" tags and Discussion before engaging in such repeated blanking. Badagnani (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not an incident, but Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s malicious false report to justify his unconfirmed claim. His recent two blocks are all related to his false accusations to editors of "blanking information" which are all original research or his hidden comments. Even Badagnani's problem is actively shown at Talk:Korean cuisine#Use of pedigree dogs as well. Whenever I edit, I use reliable sources, unlike Badagnani. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a blog, or political forum. I use discussion pages more than enough whenever {User|Badagnani}} introduces false information or inquisitively asks questions on info that he could easily find sources from even English sources. Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s blatant disregard against consensus and personal attacks worry a lot of people as well. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually tend to not get involved with controversial conversations about editors, but I believe that the accusations toward Caspian blue are inappropriate as Badagnani continuously uses a couple phrases in order to accuse users of "vandalism" and "blanking" when in reality they are properly removing information "boldly" as the majority of his work is either original research or like in this case poorly sourced. Just because something has thousands of hits on the internet doesn't make it correct, additionally a translation of an inappropriately researched article from a non-English Misplaced Pages is not proper research either and in other cases he has pushed sources that are micro in nature, to push a macro point. So based on Caspian blue's grasp of the Korean language and adherance to proper sourcing, I feel that Badagnani's report is not only inappropriate, but is also a continued sign of his inability to be civil or to keep his ] out of articles. Furthermore he is also quite adept at using ] to further his agenda, even if he needs to manipulate the voice of the person he is stalking as evidenced in issues with myself, Jeremy, Caspian blue, and others.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin had asked that we be succinct. It would be best if you would from now on edit in a collegial manner rather than attack other contributors. I did introduce editing comments into articles, always in the sense of asking questions regarding wording, grammar, or content that needed to be clarified by editors with more expertise than I, and I don't believe it was proper to remove all of them summarily in a WP:POINT action, as was done repeatedly. However, the subject of this incident is the repeated blanking of sourced text, at Seolleongtang, by User:Caspian blue. Badagnani (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment of User:Tanner-Christopher, he became involved here due following a solicitation from User:Caspian blue. This user apparently does not like my editing, as he has frequently made negative comments about me on various pages over a period of months. Regarding civility, in reviewing User:Caspian blue's comments and edit summaries, do you believe them to be more civil than mine? If so, by what criteria? Regarding the bias I am accused of having, what might that presumed bias be? Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, zh.wikipeida.org/article name becomes a properly sourced material? Badagnani should read WP:V and WP:RM, WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL. You've stalked me, but I've forgiven your repeated personal attacks and lies about me at my talk page. If everybody say the same thing to you, you should at least try to make a gesture to listen to. You stalk people and attack people, and insist on your own point of view that nobody agree with. That is more than WP:TROLL which ironically you referred to the above.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct in our comments here. This incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text before (or instead of) using "fact" tags or discussion pages, as well as his failure to edit in a collegial manner. It appears that from such inflammatory comments as appear above that he believes "the best defense is a good offense." Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, who said WP:TROLL first? Who reported this with false and insulting title? (edit war was initiated by you, not me), You've stalked me, that is too clear. When I asked PC78 about marmite, you followed me even though I said that I would not talk with you again after your perosnal attacks on me. Whenever I edit or created articles, you followed me, even though you did not edit one single time to the articles. I'm saying fact about your behaviors. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert emergency

There's an obscene image on the Tim Russert page. I imagine it's from a compromised template, but I can't go poking around looking for it at the present time. Somebody please fix it, immediately? Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not there now. Viridae 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was made to Template:Infobox journalist, so if you want to watchlist it then feel free to do so. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user:66.229.101.36

user:66.229.101.36 keeps posting that Maureen Orth wife of Tim Russert is dead. If he's right i owe an appology, but if not the ip needs a block for repeated vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russrt is deceasedad, and i think that you owe user:66.229.101.36 an apology. heres a source if you need it 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I know Tim Russert is deceased, the ip says his wife is dead too, haven't seen that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like the IP's been blocked, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A two week block was given to the IP. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) on Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)

Requesting administrative intervention here:

A couple of hours ago, Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) tagged FICT as "rejected". I undid this, noting discussion was ongoing and it can't be rejected because it had been accepted in the past. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)#Failed proposal. A further look into it revealed that the tagging may have been partisan due to his vote to reject the new guideline. Both me and Avruch (talk · contribs) asked him to stop edit warring, which he did. However, he then canvassed five editors with a rather uncivil message, and when I asked him to stop, he replied "Up yours, buddy". I'm not sure what intervention is exactly needed, but I feel as if I've done all I can and it's not deterring him. Sceptre 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He just needs to calm down. Tagging it as anything other than what it is right now is not crucial, and it can wait through a discussion. I don't know the point of view attached to the people he notified, but it wasn't exactly a neutrally worded notification. Time to just take a little break and come back with some perspective and distance. Avruch * 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• (A) Contacting participants to a talk page about further developments in the context of the ongoing process is not canvassing. (B) I was furious when Sceptre threatened me with banning, and made the unfortunate comment; however, I immediately reverted my comment and posted the following: "Please don't threaten -- that's not called for" in its place. I think that Sceptre is being a bit disingenuous in not giving the entire story and a stretching the tale a bit here. Thanks for looking at thsi and I appoligize for creating an issue that need to come this far. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism or not, feedback wanted

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could comment on this edit . Someone keeps adding the word "terrorist" to the Hamas article, and others keep taking it out, characterizing it as vandalism. I think that's clearly not the case (it may be POV, or violate other policies), but I'd appreciate some neutral input: is this vandalism? I left this on the vandalism talk page, but almost no one comments there. IronDuke 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Militant" does seem most appropriate, as the term "terrorist" is gone into in great detail just one or two paragraphs later in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, Badagani. However, my concern was with whether using the word terrorist here was vandalism, as per WP policy. Thoughts? IronDuke 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here: In this situation, "Terrorist" is not vandalism, per se, but rather, a possible NPOV violation, and repeated insertion definitely falls under tendentious editing and/or point-making. umrguy42 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Death of host

Page needs to be freeze on Tim Russerts page. Should lock editing till more is found out about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.225.180 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected—semi-protected, meaning unregistered users (such as yourself) or those with new accounts and few edits are unable to make changes to it. Do you mean the Meet the Press page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

216.114.144.100 (talk · contribs)

This user has been consistently abusing Misplaced Pages for over six months, making numerous abusive edits, all of which are destructive in nature. Can we please perma-ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweekly (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't perma-ban nor indef block IPs. He hasn't given even gotten a block. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i mislike how you instantly come here to try and have a user PERMANENTLY BANNED for an unspecific "abuse" without even bothering to give hi a WP:WELCOME first. i think that we should at least give this user a welcome before we take him to WP:ANI to be sumarily executed. That is why I went and gave hi ma welcome and I think we should wait before proceding with any bannings other than what the admins have deemed necesary. Smith Jones (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy Article Redirect Versus Stand-Alone - Assistance Needed

Hello-

The issue at hand is whether the article "Gabriel Murphy" should be a redirect to the article Aplus.net or if the article has enough content outside the scope of Aplus.net to warrant a seperate article. The issue first arose back in February 2008 when the article was proposed for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy). Back in February, the article was very small with only a few references (I cannot figure out how to link to the history of the article back in February of 2008).

The article was re-written in May with 17 sources to newspapers and magazines. Here is a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabriel_Murphy&oldid=219116422

The article was brought-up on deletion review on June 2 regarding whether the new article should be stand-alone or merged into aplus.net. The result of the "voting" was 4-3 in favor of keeping the article seperate from aplus.net. Here is a link to the deletion review discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2

Nontheless, the article continues to be redirected to aplus.net and has had semi-protection placed on the article. Any assistance/guidence on this issue would be appreciated.

ill take care of it. Smith Jones (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help- let me know your conclusion(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.132.152 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih evading block with new account: User:Sunchief

I believe User:Thamirih has opened a new account to avoid a block. This is more than mere sockpuppetry.

On Talk:Juan Cole Thamarih was, probably, editing without logging in leaving his IP address open. This IP address is from Brisbane, NSW, Australia. The IP's edits and the logged-in edits were within a minute of each other.

This user has been blocked for a month for personal attacks, etc., on Talk:Ayahuasca. This is the fifth escalating block on this user.

Now, a brand new user User:Sunchief is editing on that talk page, and it's IP address is also from Australia. (Also, he was editing a few minutes before creating the account.)

This account, Sunchief, was created within 24 hours after the block on User:Thamarih went in, picked up the discussion right where it left off and went right back to reverting Ayahuasca:

Thamarih:

Sunchief:

The IP addresses are different, but that's covered as easily as going to the next internet cafe. The coincidence seems too perfect, and the user has a demonstrated pattern of learning from their blocks.

MARussellPESE (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason why you mentioned that they were both from australia? IP adresses are not necessarily allcoated by continent. i agree with you that Sunchief is probabl ya sock puppet or even a meat puppet. i recommend getting a WP:CHECKUSER to cover everything. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit alone is sufficient evidence. I have indefinitely blocked the sock account and will leave a warning on User talk:Thamarih. Further socking will result in an indefinite block of the master account. --jonny-mt 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal (2007-04-28) and compare the IP addresses in the deleted history? There's also SecretChiefs3 (talk · contribs). The main account appears to be Mr. Azal. For more backstory, see:. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination) AfD

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination), two users keep removing comments from users arguing in favor of keeping the article. Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comments that seem to be removed are best suited for the talk page of the AfD as they stray off-topic. They were moved to the talk page and linked to. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They were not in fact linked to, and I don't think the comments all strayed entirely. I wouldn't expect other editors or the closing admin to generally give the talk page much scrutiny, so I really think this was bad form. -- Kendrick7 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Went ahead and closed discussion with a no consensus. Given that it was nominated for speedy deletion minutes after it was created, then AfD'ed, taken to DRV and then renominated in a very short period of time, the discussion at this AfD was running much in parallel to the first AfD. Many voices for keep, a few for delete, and an edit war of commentary that had relevance on the main discussion page -- hardly off-topic chatter, as one editor stated. Give this more time before reapplying for another AfD, and apply a little more good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your assessment and decision to close, though I don't disagree that the outcome was headed for "no consensus". Your "Many voices for keep, a few for delete" comment is the exact opposite conclusion reached by the admin who closed the first AfD as they noted "18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinion". That's 26 to 10 in favour of delete or merge. Certainly that was within the parameters of no consensus, but are you sure you paid it enough due diligence in your closure? By closing it early and for reasons not related to the discussion, seems to invite a 3rd AfD and not squelch it as you may have intended. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I !voted for "merge", but I support the closure by Seicer. Remember, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion regarding whether the article should be deleted. There was no clear consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I told you not to stop messing around with the consensus process. Karma, imo. -- Kendrick7 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what karma is? You need to overcome avidya before you can recognize karma. I support the result of the close but an early closure will only accelerate the next AfD as those that nominate it will see AfD #2 as not being valid. If anything, Karma would be AfD #3 starting because AfD #2 was closed out-of-process because |of constructive, consensus building comments such as this which you refused to take to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the closure by Seicer, as well. No doubt they will do another Afd in the next few weeks, after another review upholds it again. It follows the pattern to blank the section when it was in the Allegations article. Btw, the removal of my comments was just another form of desperation to suppress and bait, but to no avail. Sadly, we even see an admin, WMC, doing do: "G33 chatters endlessly. Its no surprise that people remove his comments. Feel free to report me William M. Connolley 21:24, 13 June 2008." He then proceeds to remove my comment, supporting DHeywards edit-warring to remove my comments (and others):

Notice my comment did not stray off topic in any way but dealt with the arguments for why deletion was not valid. It's the power of the argument, not the power of numbers that is paramount, so they felt a need to remove my argument. I did not report this, even though WMC told me to "report him." Better not to feed such negative attention seeking. But since this ANI thread was started by someone else, I thought comment here about it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I took into account the needless edit warring over valid and supportive comments -- per Speedy Keep. I've seen numerous AfD's where comments in favour or disfavour have been removed and moved to the never-visited talk page under the guise of off-topic, which seriously undermines the entire process. There was no overwhelming consensus on this AfD -- or any consensus, for that matter. If another AfD is filed within a brief period of time, then there is precedent to simply kill the recurring AfD as a bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A question for Admins.

Edit Great Iowa Flood of 2008, and see the last bit about the Wapsipinicon River: it does not save. Why? I was planning a larger sequence of paragraphs regarding the Great Iowa Flood of 2008, river-by-river, north-to-south, east-to-west which I sort of originated, but someone else did the work to make it real, and I continued.

So: Why am I forbidden to save? Someone with heavy admin privs has fiddled with the article. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing </ref> tag. I'm guessing it'll work for you now. --Onorem♠Dil 05:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So much gets cut for a slight error. I'll keep you in mind when something so silly becomes so frustrating. I do major articles with minimal markup skills; again thank you. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan

This user is disruptive to the point that I'm not sure where to start with this report. Myself and others have been very patient with him and tried our best to continue to assume good faith regarding his edits. If you will take a quick look at his block log you will see he was first blocked indefinitely as a 'vandalism only' account, but then unblocked. Following the initial block he has been blocked multiple other times for edit warring mainly. The user refuses to heed warnings, and has been warned dozens of times by numerous editors including admins. His behavior is becoming increasingly worse on nearly a daily basis. I am going to list some diffs below of his most recent behavior to give an idea of what I am referring to. The user frequents only a handful of articles, but it is getting increasingly difficult for us to clean up after him. See his contributions, he has made almost no constructive edits to the mainspace. Here are a few examples of his disruptive behavior: his response when asked to view policies Ok, to give you an idea of how bad this is, these edits are all in one day. These do not include the edit warring diffs since his last block, I also left out many personal attacks, etc. since the expiration of the last block. I hope I didn't make this too long. Anyone that doesn't want to pursue all these diffs should just take a look at The Used article and the talk page to understand the situation. Bottom line is the user inserts horrible grammar, and very unprofessional edits and attacks anyone that tries to alter something related to one of his edits. If anyone wants more examples of his behavior let me know and I will list some of his edits from the 12th. Thanks in advance to anyone that responds to this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the listed diffs as well as the general behavior of this editor, I have reinstated the indefinite block placed in the past. USEDfan has not improved or learned from past incidents, and I see no evidence s/he will ever learn. ···日本穣 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block. The user basically fits the definition of a disruptive editor. He seems to be completely unable to work on a collaborative project or work within our policies. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He has requested to be unblocked. I would appreciate another admin reviewing his request and responding as appropriate. ···日本穣 06:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your block has been reviewed and upheld. Landon1980 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator for two of his blocks, I am endorsing the indefinite block. One of the biggest pain in the asses to deal with, and his poor communication styles makes it near impossible to have discourse effectively with him. His "I do no wrong" interpretations of core policies, such as 3RR, makes dealing with the editor very difficult. Good riddens. seicer | talk | contribs 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

blacklist request

based on this edit and a few others adding 'joehulk.com' to the page, i'm requesting that the site be blacklisted. there's nothing that will ever be useful at that site. It's a fan-made parody of a trailer for hulk, which involves defecation as a main theme. It's a copyright infringement, i'm sure, which we shouldn't be linking to. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BLOCKME

I HAVE addmitted that I am User:Tom.mevlie and user:WilliamMThompson, so why won't anyone block me or reprimand me? What has happened to wikipedia. BLOCK ME please just block me. WillIreland (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to report yourself at Suspected sock puppets - even then, you'll only be blocked if you've misused the accounts. Are you complaining about your own behaviour, or are you in two minds about it? Kbthompson (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, they've previously been blocked, for sockpuppetry. You can report yourself, or continue to make positive contributions. Maybe an admin you've previously had contact with might consider a block for your prior behaviour - but this account seems clean so far. Difficult to see what you expect this board to do. Kbthompson (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address

The IP address 69.254.36.130 has been deleting articles wholesale and replacing them with lengthy essays written in a highly unencyclopedic tone. At United States Postal Service, he has removed all the content and pasted in copy from the USPS's own website. At New Wave music, he has deleted sourced copy and replaced it with a rambling unsourced POV essay full of song lyrics quoted in full, in flagrant violation of copyright. At National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, he has pasted in the entire constitution of the organisation. What can be done to stop this troll? Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand the ground rules sufficiently. I also agree that their edits have been disruptive, and detrimental to the quality of several articles. Accordingly, I have now reverted several of the articles they have edited to earlier versions, warned them about copyright problems, asked them to read the other comments on their talk page, and called their attention to your comments here. I think they can now be regarded as having had their attention drawn to this behavior; if we don't see any improvements, and they don't follow policies from now on, policy enforcement will probably be necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on the user's page for continued page blanking after the last warning. If they continue their disruptive behavior after this, report them to WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The similarity between their editing pattern and that of User:Johnny Spasm is also interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seems likely to be User:Johnny Spasm, due to removal of copyright notices from images uploaded by that user and re-addition of them to articles. TigerShark (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

List of pop punk bands

I just want to clarify that is considered vandalism rather than content dispute. All of the bands being removed included pop punk in their infobox. I requested that the user refrain from removing these bands, and have now begun issuing warnings as they have ignored my request. However, I just want to be sure that this unjustified removal of content is vandalism rather than content dispute, as I do not want to be blocked if I have to continue reverting this. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a content dispute, but it should be easily sorted out providing you can get consensus from other editors for the inclusive listing. Once you have consensus and the editor continues removing bands, then it is vandalism. As for the Blondie comment.... Eh? Not punk pop? Yeah, right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk spam

The ref desks keep getting hit by what I presume to be spam bots. Semi-protection is the only effective thing we can do, but this method stops the many good faith IPs who ask and answer questions. Can we blacklist the site please? (AnonTalk dot com)

Also, here's the IPs (all blocked 24 hours for now but are probably open proxies):

• 193.194.89.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 212.77.215.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 200.201.8.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 87.249.59.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 163.19.131.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seraphim♥Whipp 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, having the Reference Desk semi-protected is really not good. As the IPs that have been used so far are blocked, can I suggest that we unprotect and watch? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The IP addresses change so rapidly that blocking has absolutely no effect. As you can see, 4 IP adresses were used in the space of under two minutes. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should try. 3 of the edits were actually from the same IP (193.194...) Having it semi-protected means that it is almost unused, because the vast majority of questions posted are from IPs or brand new accounts. TigerShark (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly against unprotecting for the now because the few hours of semi-protection have been successful in the past and was the only effective tool, but that's just my opinion. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus warrants. Hmm...better still, I'll temporarily add the url to the blacklist and then make a case for it to stay there. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well you'll have my backing for that. Shall we try an unprotect and see what happens? TigerShark (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We can try... There's more eyes on it now anyway :). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) That's odd. Seems three versions of the link are already black listed o_0. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure is! OK, I unprotected it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the URL blacklist has any effect on body-text-only versions of those URLs. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anontalk spammer

I see the anontalk spammer seems to be back, and has hit this page among others: Can anything be done about this, for example by applying the spam blacklist to article content in order to catch text-only URLs, or by having a bot watch for this kind of vandalism? -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See section directly above. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed all the anontalk spam I can find using both the local search tool and Google. This is probably the best way to stop this spammer: if all their additions disappear shortly after being added, their efforts will be unproductive, and there's no incentive to continue them. Perhaps the rollback bots should be programmed to remove these edits on sight? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work if it were a human spamming but I'm pretty sure those are bots. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we required a captcha confirmation for adding certain blacklisted strings to Misplaced Pages, in the same way that we currently do for non-autoconfirmed users adding URLs, the spammer would need to expend a tiny bit of human effort for each edit. That, combined with zero economic advantage, should stop them. If we did this for not only the article content, but also the edit comments, that would also prevent several other kinds of bulk vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First part sounds good; it would definitely have an impact on bulk spam. Sounds like a proposal for the village pump :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to that, the rollback bots should look at the URL blacklist in general, and attempt to spot textual versions of any of those URLs added to articles under suspicious circumstances... --- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Being told to die in the subject on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=219134914

by this wonderful character http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/JJGD

they have already been blocked for 3 months on 2 occasions, perhaps 12 months or indef would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JJGD

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JJGD for one monthyear. I believe that any recurrence of similar behavior by JJGD should result in an indefinite block. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one? At this point I think a year or more is quite reasonable. Metros (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Any folks/admins doing new page patrol—please be on the lookout for newly-created articles on albums and singles with suspiciously far-off release dates and titles in the format Album(album) and Single(song) (no space). I've just deleted a proverbial metric shitload of articles clearly following the pattern of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer), with a few names changed in the body text; see Special:DeletedContributions/LLOVEU12345. The original hoax party, complete with navbox for all the articles, may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Move Your Body(song), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thats How I do(song), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Get Loose(album), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Waist Line(song), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The HITZ:Remix 09(album). Somebody has waaay too much time on their hands. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjyusM5rGw8cEEmfwYbK9XR4tUJAD919GCPG0

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards