Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaIl89 (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 17 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute)

I have been trying to mediate a dispute, which you can see here. Unfortunately, the party who asked for mediation, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), subsequently decided he didn't want mediation - and without both sides of a party agreeing, mediation is pretty much useless. He pulled out of mediation because one of the participants used a mild swear word in an edit summary (not directed at anyone, actually themselves). The dispute is around a number of pages, chiefly Attachment theory, Maternal deprivation, Attachment in children, John Bowlby, and Michael Rutter. All these articles are a mess, and if you look at their histories and talk pages, you can see most of this is due to KingsleyMiller, who has a very definite point of view on these articles, and neither our NPOV policy or the MOS can get in his way. With mediation having failed, I'm not sure of the next step to take. The dispute was sent to WP:3O twice with no luck (one of the 3O regulars, HelloAnnyong, had as little luck with Kingsley as anyone else). A message to the Psychology wikiproject had no responses; all the psychology people who want to be involved already are, and have had no luck. Traditionally, RFCs on obscure psychology topics get no response. I am running out of options - as best I can see it, there are three. 1) Leave it to sort out itself (this is unlikely), 2) Take to Arbcom (huge administrative effort and a possibility they won't actually accept it, as it's quite complicated and is a combination of content and conduct issues) or 3) Block Kingsley indefinitely, for extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others, on the condition that if he swears to stop edit-warring he can be unblocked. I am inclined towards three, but I've never really blocked for this sort of thing in over two years as an admin, so I could really do with someone else (ideally, a couple of others) taking half an hour to look at things and see what they think. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory#Closed and sections above it for the background. If nobody is willing to take a look, then I am probably going to go with my own judgment and block Kingsley. Neıl 龱 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, in his "withdrawal" contribution to the mediation page, links to a website providing the text and some dialogue of a number of County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. These judgments pertain to the attempts by a Mr Miller to secure various rights as a parent (from what I can see). I've asked Kingsley if he is the same Mr Miller on his talk page. Past versions of this user's page may provide another insight for anybody interested. Now, for my part, I feel that I agree most closely with Neil's third point. From what I can see, Kingsley is a user with an agenda to get his viewpoint into the relevant articles at any cost. He ignores sourcing guidelines and verifiability, and suggests that sources which he disagrees with should be ignored. This is in fact a common basis of disputes onwiki, but Kingsley's refusal to give up or make any concessions in his fight makes his relationship with this project, in my view, for the moment untenable. I think that he is determined to take "his case" to the "highest court" in wiki-land - the ArbCom, and he used my moment of madness using the word "fuck" in an edit summary (as Neil notes, though I should say I'm not a participant in the psych dispute) to drag the case up to ArbCom from which is was promptly thrown out. Attempts have been made at 3O. This only works if the parties are happy to accept the opinion of the third party, but Kingsley seems to refuse to accept this fact. Any attempt at dispute resolution around this user is a total failure. The only other possible option open that I can see is a block-enforceable topic ban from all Psychology related articles. Kingsley has become too much of a burden for the Project, and especially so for some of the members of the Psych wikiproject who have had to put up with him for so long. Thanks, Martinp23 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your summary of "extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others" is accurate, then I think a block (or series of escalating blocks leading up to an indefinite block if he doesn't get the message) wouldn't be inappropriate. I'll take a look at the referenced pages and weigh in again after. As a note, I've notified KingsleyMiller of this discussion (as should have been done before) and refactored the header to describe the thread. Avruch * 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say you hit the nail on the head with that description just based on the mediation pages. One person with a personal stake who refuses to adhere to policies can't be allowed to turn a number of articles into wreckage and then refuse mediation. Its obvious he sees Misplaced Pages as a battleground where he can push his point of view, and is not willing to even consider that the content of articles should be based only on reliable sources. If he refuses to cooperate and continues to make tendentious edits and reverts to various articles in the scope of child psych/parenting (essentially, anything related to his court case) then there may be no way around an indefinite block. Avruch * 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, and quickly! I haven't taken the time to review the links, but am responding to the last sentence by Avruch above - this person has an ongoing court case and is altering a public knowledge resource base on subjects relating to the case. It would not be good publicity for WP if this person was to refer to articles in court they have themselves have edited, and it wouldn't be very good for law generally if this were allowed. I shall enact the block immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it called when an admin tries to block someone who is already blocked? Not an edit conflict - maybe a block conflict? Either way, I just had that happen to me. Good block. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the notice I placed on User:KingsleyMiller's talkpage. It spells out my concerns, but I would welcome any other editors amendment of same in case I have been a little OTT. Regarding that, does anyone think that running this matter past Mike Godwin is of any benefit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If indeed Kingsley is the same Mr Miller as in the cases (likely, yes, but it's an assumption I attempted to avoid above - the existence of a brother is a distinct possibility), then this block for "ongoing court case" has no basis at all, in that the last time the Mr Miller referenced on that website appeared in court was in 2004. I'd suggest that he's simply trying to get his favoured theory a wider audience.. I don't honestly think there's anything malicious behind it. That's not to say that a topic ban or block/ban is inappropriate though - see my comments above. Martinp23 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He did refer on the mediation page (in his withdrawal notice, I think) to his personal involvement in the court proceedings, so based on that I assume its him. No reason at the moment to believe the case(s) might be ongoing, his description of final orders and links to the documents suggest otherwise. Avruch * 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhm I'm being perhaps overly cautious given my past run-in with the user :) His user page does confirm that he is the person in the cases. Martinp23 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think the block should remain until the editor promises to contribute per WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and consensually with other parties. I think they might need pointing toward WP:COI, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Sounds ok. The difficulty here is that he wants to insert "The Truth" into articles. By all means if he'll agree to the conditions we can give it a go, but I hold out little hope. Would a topic ban work, or is it something for a later date? Martinp23 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contributions does not indicate an interest outside of these related subjects, so a topic ban may only be a block with a serious temptation to game/avoid. I think a straight block is "cleanest" and fairest (and one which can be challenged). I have amended the original block reasons per the discussion above but I think this is as far as dispute resolution can go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be little late coming into this discussion but as one of the mediators listed i wanted to give my view. Personally my first thoughts are that a topic ban would be the best approach in conjunction with enforcing blocks if the ban isn't complied with. It may not be the "cleanest" method, topic bans rarely are, but it would allow him to improve issues and in my opinion the slim possibilty of getting a good converted editor rather than possible future sock puppeteering is worth it. I would would even offer myself to keep an eye on the situation. I don't contest the indef block but i do feel that perhaps a topic ban could be a better way out. Seddσn 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Misplaced Pages to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have issue with deleting the userpage as a soapbox? That's what it is, and I'm going to do so. Prostylitizing and self-victimizing, with delusions of grandeur thrown in for fun. Keegan 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping - I am quite glad to see my initial instinct was right, although disappointed Kingsley's conduct led to this. Neıl 龱 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have come to this matter extremely late, though I did give an external (informed) view to User:Fainites about any relationships there might be between maternal deprivation and attachment theory just over a month ago as a result of one aspect of a dispute in this area. Although I worked extensively with child psychologists and child psychiatrists up to retirement, and I am a psychologist, I have never joined the psychology project nor really edited any psychology articles, because of my impression of them being that they would be "too hard a job" to counteract idiosyncratic viewpoints expressed in them. I've glanced through the details of this dispute, and think that the block is the best option. My reason for posting this message is to state that if any opinion is needed from a professional psychologist who has extensive professional experience of research into topics within child psychology and psychiatry (as a research critiquer, designer, advisor, and interpretor), including publishing research articles and books in this area, though not as a practising child psychologist or child psychiatrist, then I could have the time to help out in any related tricky cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WBOSITG

For an admin, this user sure has uploaded a lot of copyright violations. I was stunned when I saw how many deleted files he has that were deleted as copyvios. -Nard 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not infallible, contrary to popular opinion. Was this post necessary? xenocidic (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

. Sceptre 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - fixed. ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My earnest advice to you is to study RFAs more closely. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, for the simple reason that admin action is not needed here. Good night all...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt many of these would have been uploaded early in his Wikicareer. People learn and improve as time goes on. Orderinchaos 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess, another troll from commons. Man SUL has some downsides to it. Anyway, back to commons with you, no need to bother us with your copyright paranoia. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Grudge much? ... You do realize the person you're calling a "troll for commons" has had an EnWP account since long before commons existed, right? --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Admirał Bum

This account has been blocked by User:Nlu for - as far as I can deduct - using non-English characters in the account name. I can also suppose the use of the word "Bum" which does sound weird in English, but in Polish is the equivalent of "Bang!" If we consider using non-English, local-alphabet-specific characters, the block doesn't seem to qualify per WP:U.

I approached Nlu on his talkpage (see entry), where he clarified that non-English characters weren't allowed, after which he archived the discussion, therefore effectively terminating the discussion on the matter.

So I bring this matter to the attention of more pairs of eyes. I suggest that the account should be unblocked due to the fact its name doesn't seem inappropriate. An additional argument here is the Single-User login. This specific account has not been blocked on any other wiki where it has been SULed, even though the non-English characters have been used. If English Misplaced Pages starts blocking account names that do not qualify because of that one single minor criterion, it will have problems with global-login users and will probably have to face the need of blocking gajillions of accounts of burdening the bureaucrats with massive user renames into such account names that use only the prescribed 26 English letters.

Comments, anyone? Wpedzich (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bum has its English meaning nevertheless. Global usernames face global suitability worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the username is inappropriate (and I highly doubt it is), a hard block for one non-English character is overwrought. I'm gonna be bold and change it to a soft block ... I'd unblock him myself, but in deference to Nlu we ought to wait until he contributes to the discussion. I'm also leaving a note on Nlu's talkpage. Blueboy96 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The account never should have been hard blocked for this. I didn't even think of checking for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this block is unnecessary. Even if it was intended to be English, it would still be borderline. Non-latin characters are allowed in usernames and "bum" doesn't seem very offensive. Asking the user to be renamed because of the ł is ridiculous, especially now since he has a global account. This is an experienced user on other projects who was treated like a vandal here (and this is just now coming to wider attention, 2 years later!). I recommend unblocking him immediately. Mr.Z-man 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note) as SUL gains more users we'll likely see more of these old incidents. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from asking the opinion on this specific situation that's also a general comment I wanted to make with this message. Wpedzich (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user since global usernames are swaying policies on this, the block was made two years ago and it looks like consensus is going to tend towards being ok with the word. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. That being said, I believe 2 years ago non-english characters were extremely frowned upon and blocking for this wasn't all that uncommon. Since consensus has moved away from this, there are probably a lot more like this we need to unblock. VegaDark (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I thought we have been allowing non-latin alphabet usernames for a while. Misplaced Pages:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames makes no mention of having to be an 'established user'. Sasquatch t|c 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

10:20, 22 September 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Admirał Bum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Inappropriate user name). MaxSem 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference: WP:U at the time of the block. See for yourself - one of the categories listed under "inappropriate usernames" at that time was "Names with non-Latin characters". We obviously don't do that anymore, but it was a perfectly reasonable block at the time. -Hit bull, win steak 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a latin character - just not Latin-1. --Random832 (contribs) 02:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of Bsharvy

Already indeffed, new socks checkusered and indeffed today. Declared intent to violate the indef on my user talk page. Requesting formal community ban so that editors who deal with the topics where he's been disruptive can revert new socks on sight.

As background, see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy and this attempted arbitration request. Also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). This was a troll so skilled that his maneuvers had gotten one editor sitebanned. When two productive editors tried to follow up with a second sock investigation request it went nowhere and he had gamed the system all the way up to an arbitration request against them. The main account has been indeffed since March, but this deserves to have a few more eyes upon it so he gets the idea that we mean business. Durova 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for block-evading post by the subject of this thread: if you object to the proposal, post a defense to your user talk page. Durova 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support full community ban. Having been deeply involved with this editor, some notes.

1. There was clearly a disconnect in the first checkuser request. User:Igorberger (a disruptive, now banned editor) actually presented a very persuasive case. I am surprised Jenochman declined it. Was it because he knew Igor was troublesome and then didn't take it seriously? If I had brought a request (which I kept meaning to) would it have been taken more seriously?
2. Should we reevaluate Igor's indef block? I don't know enough about the trouble he caused elsewhere, but on Anti-Americanism he could be cogent and occasionally helpful.
3. Bsharvy/Life.temp is skilled. We'll have to watch and perhaps tabulate where he is most likely to make an appearance. He would be stupid to come to Anti-Americanism again and I suspect when (not if) he reappears it will be elsewhere. At least at first. Marskell (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A technical clarification: that was a sockpuppet investigation request, not a checkuser request. Jehochman is not a checkuser. David Gerard, who is a checkuser, confirmed yesterday that these accounts are operated by the same person. Durova 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I haven't been down these alleways much. What exactly is the purpose of a sock investigation request if not to run a checkuser? Marskell (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Better not to get into the details at a thread where an indefinitely blocked editor who has socked for months and has vowed to sock again is being considered for a ban. Suffice it to say that this was an easy call once the smoke generator got shut off. Durova 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Marskell) Not all SSP reports need a CU, if there are patterns/edits already familiar to the investigating editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban, for what its worth - it at least puts down a marker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're chatting, I'll note that I'll still be watching Anti-Americanism in three or six months. What other admins will be? Precious few do now. We need to better coordinate radar for people like this. Marskell (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban, to help the people who will be reverting and blocking sockpuppets of this person. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kaizer13

If you look at the User talk:Kaizer13 page, you will notice that he has a history of unhelpful editing. The latest example is with The Beatles in which he reverted the gatefold photo of the group from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which already has formal fair-use rationale included and thus is allowed for use in the infobox for The Beatles article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this guy, make me a martyr. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize being blocked for vandalism isn't a worthy cause, and doesn't make you a martyr? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you team tag revert, and both get blocked, it might make you both a "two-martyr". Pip! Pip! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I have noted the actions of one editor who appears to be on a campaign to remove images. Despite the many challenges to his actions, he is relentless in identifying images for deletion. Please check the edit history of User:Fasach Nua who does not seem to make any substantive editing other than challenges and deletions. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC). (comment redirected from Village Pump)

I thought this page was for discussion of the village pump itself. My first impression is that the editor in question relies too much on the WP:BRD style of editing, but VP talk is not the place for Dispute Resolution. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach Nua disrupting IfD. seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that, I nominated an image for failing wp:nfc, it was deleted as failing wp:nfc, how disruptive was that! Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an altercation with this editor this morning, warned them against 3RR and other innapropriate behaviour, had the warning removed immediatley and was called a troll. In preparation for further action (which thankfully I have not yet had to take), I consolidated recent evidence (over the past few days and this particular incident) proving this editors disruptive behaviour, and feel that it might be worth posting it here:

• Reversions at Template:TardisIndexFile without discussion: , , , (3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.")

• Reversions at CITV without discussion: ,

• Unfounded accuastions of threats and Wikistalking, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: ("Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption")

• Unfounded threats of trolling, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: (see edit summary)

• 3RR warning given here:

• Preliminary warning for unacceptable behaviour given here:

• Final warning given here: (all three mesages removed here: , )

Having only really interacted with this user over the past few days, I cannot really comment on past behaviour, though it would appear that there is a trend. _TalkIslander 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not wish to call anyone a liar, but I feel I must clarify a few things:

There was extensive discussion of Template:TardisIndexFile on multiplae forums, including Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content, and the consensus was to remove

The threats issued by Islander where using the 3RR template, when he was the sole editor wanting these copyrighted images included, when multiple users wanted them excluded. The "final warning" threat was issued for unknown reasons

Islander had wikistalked me onto Template:TardisIndexFile a page he had never edited, undid my edit using a legal determination which if the UK is deemed a legitimite country are unfounded

3RR warnings issued by someone to bully people off the pages they feel they WP:OWN is unfortunate, especially when this user has edit warred over this page.

Other warnings given for what ....?

I really would expect better of a sysop Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again with the 'threats' and 'wikistalking'. And I suppose we can add 'liar' to that - what a glittering CV I seem to have ;). Firstly, check out WP:WIKISTALK - I am most certainly not wikistalking. The contribution logs are public for a very good reason. As for the threats, 'tis a pitty that instead of taking the 3RR warning as you should have (a gentle hint to stop, or else face a block), you took it as a threat, but there you go. The consensus on Template:TardisIndexFile - looking at the edit history and discussions, you appear to be one of the only people to think that there is any kind of consensus. Most seem to agree that there is no consensus, with a few acting just like you but for the other camp. I don't WP:OWN any pages on Misplaced Pages, as you well know, and I wasn't using a 3RR warning to 'bully' you, merely (suprise suprise) to make you aware of WP:3RR. You seriously need to be less accusatory, or else you will face a block. I posted the links above to make the current situation clear to others. Your agressive response has done little more than cement these views I have of you. It appears that you are unable to accept that you are the least bit in the wrong - a pitty. I'll leave this to someone else to sort out. _TalkIslander 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another case for you , Fasach Nua first put an imageoveruse tag on images showing history of station ident of RTE here . I reverted ,he reverted and I then left it for over a day until Copyrightdrone deleted them upon which I reverted and removed the tag .The editor a few hours later reverted thereby deleting the images again History of edits .At no stage has he put them up for any type of image review .Delete them if you will but let them go for review at least first .Garda40 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze louise, when will it stop? Why can't these commons SULs understand that EnWp is not Commons?!? --Dragon695 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Grawp Eradication Program

Hi. Please see this proposal at the Village pump for proposals. Thanks. ~AH1 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. So far, two main ideas have aquired some support from the community:

• Edit summary blacklist
• Rollback all contributions

Any further input is welcome. Thanks. ~AH1 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like both, but it's worth noting that our boring-but-inventive friend tends to make 10 good, correct, useful edits before s/he/it goes on a spree. Reverting all (typically) 20 edits undoes the 10 pieces of crap, but also 10 things we like. Grawp is actually providing a net benefit at the moment, AFAICT. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What about instead? Thanks. ~AH1 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If only he'd give up the HAGGER???? vandalism then we'd have a productive editor...RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:25, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

Rollback all is an extraordinary move and its use should be limited to only a few select admins for use is obvious, blatant, and harmful vandalism. Such a command would cause massive issues with articles and discussion pages if used on a non vandal account. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not very difficult to write a script to click all the rollback links on a user contribs page (its not very hard to just click them all manually either with tabbed browsing). Pagemoves are a little trickier, but not hard. Mr.Z-man 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already a script. See User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but blacklisting edit summaries is not possible ..--Cometstyles 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We can do it with links...there's got to be a hook, it'd be a fairly simple extension. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We tried to get the devs to do this in April, but it never eventuated, but there is a bug which was started then, you could comment on it ...--Cometstyles 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever patterns for the edit summaries we would blacklist he would work around it quite soon. The same as with the articles titles blacklist. I suggest making move protected all the established articles (say more than 6 month old with more than one contributor to them). There is no reason to move say Sun to anything else and moves, like say, Kiev to Kyiv while may have valid reasons should go via WP:RM anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this a while ago (permanent move protection), people were pretty opposed. John Reaves 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While we certainly can't stop Grawp copycats by banning their favorite edit summaries, we at least could block summaries with links to shock sites faster than GNAA registers new domains, if we make some kind of summary blacklist. MaxSem 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless we'd block any kind of URL to be displayed in edit summaries, I'm not sure how we're supposed to be able to block all shock sites from being mentioned. --Conti|✉ 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It costs a few bucks to register a domain. If each new domain can only be used once, sooner or later people will decide it's not worth the effort. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not opposed to blocking URLs in edit summaries... seems to me a fairly sensible thing to do, unless I'm missing something... - Philippe 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that being able to blacklist URLs in edit summaries is an excellent idea. And not just to combat Grawp. J.delanoy_adds 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly excellent reasons for being able to include them in deletion summaries, though; I'd be very opposed if any change meant losing that. There are legit reasons for having at least partial URLs in edit summaries, such as "www.whoevers-blog.com is not a reliable source", but I'd say it's worth the loss.

Uh oh, what have I done? There are countless reasons to have URLs in edit summaries (linking to diffs or log entries, to sources we use, to non-notable sources as part of an argument, etc.), and I'd strongly oppose to block all URLs in edit summaries. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should eradicate URLs from edit summaries. What I am saying is that we should be able to blacklist them just as we do in articles. J.delanoy_adds 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be useful, but I'm afraid we'll end up playing the same game that's played at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist right now: A URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it, and so on. I'm not sure if that's useful. --Conti|✉ 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but the only other alternative I see is to do something similar to what Moreschi suggested below. J.delanoy_adds 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do is to restrict page-moves to rollbackers. That would end all our page-move vandalism problems. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Enigma 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on BLP please

Hi, per prior discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) the same editor is again adding identifying content to a BLP of a person who has kept their identity and location hidden due to stated ongoing death threats. The editor has had this explained quite a few times that we need reliable sourcing and concensus to do so, of which there is neither. Banjeboi 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. --Stephen 00:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have issued User:WillyJulia a final warning over the issue. At this point, his editing has crossed the line into pure tendentiousness, and it needs to stop. There are legitimate concerns about the privacy of the article's subject, and considering that WJ has not been able to provide reliable sourcing, the information he has repeatedly added needs to be kept out of the article. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying WillyJulia to this thread, I will try to remember to do that in future use. Thank you for looking into this, on the original thread it was suggested this was a single-purpose account and it would seem that may be the case. Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has the background Benjiboi describes then this is quite serious. Recommend de-linking and seeking oversight. Full page protection may be advisable. Durova 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing a city and state is not grounds for oversight Durova. In fact, should they be reliably sourced, listing city and state is quite appropriate. What is not appropriate would be to list street address and phone number, items which are grounds for oversight. Let's not blow this out of proportion. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARM. --jonny-mt 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and if necessary WP:IAR. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Death threats, Dragon695. If the subject requests it I will also nominate for WP:AFD. Durova 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the meantime, I've gone back and deleted the relevant edits from the talk page history. I haven't yet tracked down when the information first appeared in the main article, though, so I'm a little hesitant to do the same there unless it's possible to do so in such a way that all the relevant versions are deleted without losing GFDL-significant contributions. That being said, the information has been removed and the relevant edit summaries are reasonably innocuous, so it might not be necessary to go as far as deleting them. --jonny-mt 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The information was in the article for quite some time, as I discovered when WillyJulia responded to my warning on his talk page. It appears that his hometown was originally added by Benjiboi (!) in this edit, and updated with the correct spelling in this edit. There are over 300 revisions since it was added, which makes for an extremely unpleasant cleanup job, if it's even possible. Horologium (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By Benjiboi? That is interesting. He hasn't logged back in yet. Durova 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, we have this discussion going on on the talk page a couple days ago, but now adding anything more than the country he lives in is a BLP violation? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Special circumstances: the subject is in hiding due to death threats. Durova 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking on Google news, the death threats started in mid-2007, has something changed in the past 2 days? Mr.Z-man 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A year of sustained death threats is something to take seriously. Err on the side of caution, if necessary. Durova 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not be doing this, it beyond our scope to judge or get involved in these matters. I don't give a damn about WP:HARM, all that matter is WP:NPOV. Adding city and state is not a violation of WP:BLP, please stop moving the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia, not crimestoppers. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, you might want to take a few steps back. Privacy and threats on someones life are very important factors. if one cannot respect the life of another human then that shows a persons true color. Internet Identies should not be linked unless there is 110% proof. otherwise the resulting risk could lead to physical harm or even loss of life. Canis Lupus (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have little or no respect for other people's lives, Dragon695. May I suggest that you take up a more suitable vocation than Misplaced Pages editor; say, National Enquirer staffer? FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FCY, would you consider refactoring that? Durova 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, Verifiability trumps NPOV, and there are no verifiable sources that state that the subject is from the town that was listed in the article, just blogs and Howard Stern. There are sources that identify him as being from a southern state (the article from The Stranger states that the author of that piece flew into a former confederate state to interview the subject), but nothing specific. I think we all know which state that is, but without a reliable source to back it up, we've got no justification to add it to the article. Additionally, take a look at WP:BURDEN, which is another policy page, and requires proof to add material that is likely to be contentious. I don't need to cite essays when existing policies support my position. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that we should err on the side of caution with BLPs and if there isn't a really good source it should be removed, but I'm trying to understand why 2 days ago the state was being added to the article with a source after a short discussion on the talk page by the person who started this thread, and now its a BLP violation possibly worthy of oversight and full-protection. This isn't moving the goalposts, this is switching to a new stadium. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whole different ballgame. If I'd been aware of this situation 2 days ago I'd have made the same comments then. (Wondering what this strange pointy ball you've passed me is, shrugging, putting it through the basket anyway...obvious slam dunk). Durova 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should state for the record that I have never edited the article in question, its talk page, or any related issue; my involvement stems solely from the two ANI threads over the issue. I have interacted with Benjiboi on Matt Sanchez-related issues, but nowhere else; I have not interacted with WillyJulia anywhere on Misplaced Pages other than his talk page. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that the alleged BLP-violating text was added by the initiator of the complaint (hence my "!" after the link to the edit which added the information). Nonetheless, looking at the situation as a relatively disinterested observer, I understand the concerns raised in the original complaint, and actively support any effort to scrub the data off WP servers entirely. Note that after my final warning, WJ identified and removed the relevant info from the article (for which I commend him), but it was his addition of that information to the userbox which precipitated the entire complaint. I don't retract my warning, but I do think that WJ got a bit of a raw deal in this entire affair, since he really wasn't adding anything that wasn't already in the article elsewhere, added by the editor who was the initiator of two separate complaints against him. This does not excuse the personal attack he launched afterwards, which is why I refuse to strike the warnings I issued. I am of the belief that some serious oversighting may be required to fix this article, but I'll allow community consensus to determine the correct course of action, considering that the information was added to the article in February, and it's now June. Horologium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little confused. Based on what I read on the talk page, the issue was not adding the state (which was verifiable) but rather adding the specific town--the diffs I deleted all have to do with the latter. --jonny-mt 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not confused at all; I think my comments may have clouded the issue. The article had a specific town and state explicitly identified in the narrative, and the whole argument started when User:WillyJulia started adding that information to the infobox. (He had previously been identifying the subject by his real name on the talk page, but those edits have been oversighted.) When I started digging, I found out that the information about the subject's home town was not identified by any of the three references listed; in fact, none of them even identified the state where he was located, let alone the town. That is why I support leaving the information out of the article; setting aside the potential threat to the article's subject, there is no reliable sourcing for that information. In this case, it's not a WP:BLP issue, or a WP:NOHARM issue, but simply a WP:V issue, which is policy. The fact that excluding the information protects the subject is just a beneficial side-effect. Horologium (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I may be able to clear this up a bit. In a past version of the subject's webpage the town in Tennessee was listed, ergo I added it at that time. My concerns with WillyJulia was adding the alleged name of the subject for which, I believe, we should have strong reliable sourcing for. I also think having the name of either the town the subject is in or grew up, etc or their exact birthdate also needs to be well sourced and adds little to the general reader's understanding of the subject. Mr.Z-man, you also have it right, after a short discussion and finding yet another reliable source I agreed that having the state was no big deal and then quickly reported that the state was already in the article. I have been topic-banned about 2.5 months ago and have generally walked away from[REDACTED] due to the stress and disgust of it all and have mostly stayed away with some exceptions. This article was one of them. I remain convinced that harm beyond generalized harassment will indeed come to the subject of the article if their identity and whereabouts is revealed and see no rush for[REDACTED] to report that information until reliable sources have first clearly done so to the satisfaction of WP:BLP and WP:HARM. Banjeboi 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an internet celebrity, not a real one, so what precise town they're in and what their real name is (given their notability attaches solely onto their online persona) is trivia at best, and in the case of BLP issues should be removed. Orderinchaos 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think internet celebrities are as real as any others. What makes a celebrity is fame not just the route towards that. Marilyn Monroe would be a photo celebrity and then a movie celebrity had[REDACTED] been around then to track her career from the beginning. And Paris Hilton was essentially an online celebrity until her real-world activities eclipsed her notorious beginnings. The subject of this BLP, like many preceding them, is also making real-world inroads (TMZ on TV and Jimmy Kimmel Live for example) so as long as we stick to policies already in place the article should be fine. Banjeboi 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've contacted the article subject and he doesn't want any personal information displayed. Durova 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Be on the look out for people like this guy—he made a talk archive full of Avril Lavigne crap, and transcluded it here. Lots of pages affected for 11 minutes. giggy _(:O) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would Powderfinger have been acceptable? ;) --Stephen 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been a rash of similar vandalism recently; I blocked another user who was reported at AN/I for the same shenanigans. I didn't see anything at WP:LTA, but I seem to remember reading somewhere about more of the same. Horologium (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:RD - a few months ago the Ref Desk was hit by an "Avril Lavigne troll". Given his use of open proxies a checkuser probably wouldn't be out of the question. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

13 username cases unresolved. D.M.N. (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The backlog is virtually gone now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 16

Hi. Could someone have a quick check of this - the most recent 20 or so AfDs all seem to have been incomplete and have been fixed by DumbBot - is there a current problem with the AfD process ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that the AfDs are by different editors, so it's not a case of one person getting the process wrong. CultureDrone (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's multiple AFDs from multiple editors, but the couple I've spot checked look like they weren't properly transcluded to the log - which is step three of the process. DumbBot transcludes all of the AFDs it corrects at once, to avoid filling the edit history unnecessarily, so it makes sense to have a long run of corrected noms. I'm seeing a template error on most of them, though - it's not substing the Full page into the View AfD link - suprised DumbBot didn't catch that, but I don't know how to fix it. I'll look into it. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the template errors; not sure why the (view AFD) links didn't parse properly. I've also sorted most of the dumbbot corrected AFDs. I'll try to keep an eye open, but it looks OK for now. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten AFD

This AFD seems to have been forgotten due to a page move. Should I re-nominate it, non-admin close it, or just forget about it and go back to sleep? Apologies if I'm in the wrong forum. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I closed it as stale, but feel free to relist for more consensus. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Security notice (especially to admins)

If you leave the "remember me" box unchecked when logging in and rely on this to automatically log you out when closing your browser, you should instead manually log yourself out by either clicking "log out" or clearing your cookies. This is especially important if you login at a public terminal or on a shared computer. See bugzilla:14564. --- RockMFR 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

This arbitration case has been closed and the full final decision is available here. In short, the remedies passed were:

• Special enforcement on biographies of living persons: a special enforcement on biography of living persons (BLP) articles is authorised, whereby administrators uninvolved with an article may, for that BLP, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". Administrators are authorised to utilise their protection and blocking tools as necessary to ensure that the article complies with Misplaced Pages's BLP policy, and are also directed to actively counsel any editors whos actions fail to comply with the BLP policy. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; appeals against restrictions put in place may be made to either: the relevant administrators' noticeboard; or, the arbitration committee directly. Before any article-based restrictions are extended to an individual editor, this counselling must take place: restrictions put in place should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, with relevant links to attempts to counsel the editor. The full text of this special enforcement is available here.
• Alansohn restricted: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, whereby he may be blocked for making any edits judged by an administrator to be be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, for "up to a week in the event of repeated violations". The full text is available here.

The final decision and remedies should be reviewed in full, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per that decision Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now "live". Remember to be specific when logging! MBisanz 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision this close has ongoing problems. Until such a time as there can be demonstrated consensus among the community the will enforce the decision "imposed" here, the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" section cannot be considered remotely enforceable. - brenneman 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is clear consensus by the community or authorization by the Committee, modifying any sanctions imposed under this remedy may result in suspension or revocation of admin privilleges by the Committee. Arbitration decisions are binding - this remedy is therefore enforcible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking for the arbitration committee, Ncmvocalist? Arbitration is not legislation, not is it administration or policing. It is actually meant to be a part of dispute resolution. I shouldn't actually have to say that, but hey. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be exactly those things, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's binding, per the foundation principles. Why is it binding? Because it gets enforced. How? It gets enforced by admins who carry out the enforcement. If no admin can be found to carry out the enforcement, it won't be enforced. There are a lot of admins, so it is hard to imagine a situation in which things would go unenforced. Further, any admin who actively works against (by undoing or wheelwarring) enforcement is liable to find an ArbCom member asking a steward to remove their bit in fairly short order. No particular steward has to do so, (stewards are volunteers too) so if no steward did then the removal wouldn't happen. But there are a lot of stewards. I think it's no secret that not everyone agrees with ArbCom completely on every matter, but they are, after all, ArbCom. We elected them, for the most part, or acquiesed to their appointment. Things would have to go pretty far downhill, I would think, before you would see a situation in which no admin would enforce remedies, most admins would undo them, and no steward would remove the bits of admins who undid them. It could happen, and it's the ultimate check, the consent of the governed withdrawn, yes. But I don't see it. I think it's no secret that I myself have some issues with the current ArbCom, some things I think they could do better/differently/more promptly/whatever, but I've removed the bit of an admin at ArbCom request before and I'd do it again if asked. If I ever got to the point where I wouldn't, you'll know about it, believe me. Everyone will. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The remedy has passed, and until such a time that the committee removes or alters the remedy, BLP articles are subject to special enforcement, and should be logged at the appropriate place as stated by the committee. Arbitration decisions are binding and administrators that take actions that are based on the decision are not in any position to be sanctioned, unlike administrators that reverse the action without consensus who will be sumarily desysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that admins that consistently take inappropriate BLP actions under the shelter of this remedy, will also end up desysopped. That is my interpretation of what ArbCom are saying. Enforce BLP more as both editors and admins, but arbcom will be watching and taking action (following appeals) if there is consistent abuse of the remedy. Nothing so far prevents people following the process outlined, getting in with "their" actions first, and then logging "their" actions in an attempt to prevent reversal of those actions. My views remain the same: admins should remove material that is problematic, and should then advise and guide, but should not try and directly influence or take part in discussions on the talk pages. They should also abide by any consensus that results from any discussion on the talk page. It boils down to whether admins should be mediators or enforcers. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there is a consensus to violate BLP? Should an admin abide by that? _{1 != 2} 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be an apparent, temporary, local "consensus" to violate BLP, but such "consensus" cannot be allowed to stand. BLP (whether you call it foundational, core, derived from foundational, whatever you like) is so fundamental that no consensus can override it. Where there is difficulty is not with the idea of overriding BLP, but with whether a particular matter is within scope of the policy and how the policy applies. There is room for disagreement there, yes, and those of good faith may well disagree, but not room for disagreement about whether we should abide by BLP. It's just not debateable. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully, which is why I don't think this finding is such a radical departure from what we already do. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course BLP should not be over-ridden. But who can reliably judge whether local consensus is correct or not? It boils down to telling people they are wrong. Which is fine as long as you are not wrong yourself. It requires high levels of confidence in your own opinion, the skills to back up your own opinion, and the knowledge that others will back your actions up. And even then, you might still be wrong. The classic BLP problem is the removal of "negative material". Judging whether negative material should be removed or not, there are a range of possible responses. Safest is to remove the material and direct discussion to the talk page. But if consensus emerges for a wording that (say) the subject of the article objects to, what then? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong!  :) ... no, actually, you're correct. Not sure how to resolve interpretation issues easily, tis not an easy problem. But still BLP itself can't be overturned by consensus, just like NPOV can't. Only interpretation of it is amenable to debate. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New user creating a slew of nonsense pages

User Adub001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around for two days, busily creating content which heads straight for the speedy deletion bin. Someone should slow this one down but I mostly don't do blocks and don't want to take it on. Takers? — Athaenara ✉ 03:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of a Davkal sock

Can anyone review the comments made by the following IP address? 65.173.105.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked by another administrator as a sock of Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the user has made repeated comments and unblock requests with pretty much the same tag line, all within the period of one day, so I have protected the page for the time being until the issue can be resolved.

I came across the account from Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (5th nomination). seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

About five other Davkal (talk · contribs) socks were found, all exhibiting the same edit patterns as 65.173.105.243. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/SUVx. Jehochman 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-consensual removal of Generation IV merger proposal

A while ago I added a merger proposal of the article Generation IV reactor to be merged into Fast breeder reactor. This proposal is open for discussion at Talk:Fast breeder reactor#Merger proposal. Until now there has not been consensus on how to proceed. Nuclear is, and always has been, a contended issue, so it needs extra prudence when editing. But now my proposal was removed by User:Lcolson with the argument that all my edits are driven by my point of view. I don't think this is according to WP policy, but using these kinds of arguments blocks me out of the entire process. -- Eiland (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Eiland's POV by User:Lcolson may have muddied the waters, but the thread is still open at Talk:Fast breeder reactor#Merger proposal for editors to add their view as to whether this merge makes sense. Obviously Lcolson and Eiland shouldn't revert war over the placement of the merge banner on Generation IV reactor. Maybe this AN thread will serve to collect more participants for the Talk discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lugina Of Leylana

• Lugina Of Leylana (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Zachsterdisaster (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Rosslin (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Not currently active, so I thought it best to express my concerns here rather than AIV. It seems as if this individual and at least two other accounts signed up for the sole purpose of using their talk pages as bulletin boards and/or text storage. The other accounts in question are User:Zachsterdisaster and User:Rosslin. The former used the latter's user page to launch a childish attack; the latter is using his talk page to store an original story as did the individual over whom I had the original concerns. In short, we have three kids using their accounts as Myspace/Facebook pages. Rosslin has a couple of edits to the article space to his credit, the others do not. Also, Lugina has created a second talk page of a non-existent account, User talk:Lugina Of Leylana2 for the purpose of avoiding disparaging comments by Zachsterdisaster. What a freaking mess. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors - MFD?

Hi there.

I've just started this discussion about possibly MFD'ing and closing the League of Copy-Editors project as a whole. Any opinions and thoughts are welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion page deleted

A certain user deleted the Talk:Belarusians. Now the Belarusians article misses a discussion page with such important topics like the image created for the article, and many more. Please restore it. It's an absurd and i have never seen anything like it. I was really temp to delete everything written on that administrators talk page, but it's not worth being blocked for. Please restore it. MaIl89 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards