Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ninguém (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 1 February 2009 (→User:Donadio). 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

John254 and Kristen Eriksen

This case goes back a few months, and has left some of us scratching our heads, but I think I've come to a conclusion. There is extremely strong evidence that John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been abusively sockpuppeting with the account Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past several months.

User:Kristen Eriksen joined on 2008-08-14, and immediately started editing like a seasoned user: her first edit was to add Lupin's tool to her monobook.js, and within her first day started fighting vandalism with automated tools, requesting permissions, and adding userboxes to her userpage; within two days of registration, she was commenting on ongoing arbitration cases. All not exactly hallmarks of a new user.

A couple weeks after this, an account was created impersonating yours truly - Crimp It! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who tried to MfD "Kristen's" userpage on mock puritanical grounds. A private checkuser inquiry found that Crimp It! was a confirmed sockpuppet of Kristen, though there was no clear connection to another master account at the time. Thus while I blocked Kristen at the time as another sockpuppet, it was decided to unblock as no clear evidence as to who the master was.

But since then, I've found many instances of evidence identifying Kristen Eriksen as a sockpuppet of the user John254.

• From August 12-14, John254 commented many times on a deletion review over some userboxes I'd deleted ("this user loves shemales," "this user loves blondes," etc.). One of his comments:

Furthermore, even if the "female editors' objections" inverse ad hominem argument against these userboxes were deductively valid (which it isn't), the fact that some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages undermines its central premise (see, for example, and ). While the fact that female editors have employed these userboxes does not, by itself, establish that the userboxes aren't "sexist, divisive, and pointless", it serious weakens an argument for deletion that is predicated entirely upon the gender of the editors criticizing the userboxes. John254 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A couple hours after John254's last comment at the DRV, User:Kristen Eriksen was created. As mentioned above, one of the account's first edits was to create a userpage, claiming to be an eighteen-year-old female editor and adding userboxes claiming to enjoy nudity and body painting, as if to validate John254's assertion that "some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages."
• While the two had never interacted on the project in the past, six days after Kristen had joined, after returning from a 24-hour "extended wikibreak" John254 presents Kristen a barnstar out of the blue "for your kindness in helping me to resolve Misplaced Pages-related stress." He also created a monobook.js for her.
• When the Kristen account was questioned about the confirmed sockpuppet Crimp It!, John254 immediately sprung to her defense and refactored her talk page. The Kristen account only responded several days later, on the 29th - a day that John254 did not edit at all, but at a time around when he would normally.
• Expanding on this last point, John254's contributions and Kristen Eriksen's contributions fit the classic pattern of sockpuppets, in that the periods of editing are constantly interwoven but never actually overlap. For example, John edited on the 18th of August, Kristen on the 19th, John on the 20th, etc... sometimes replying to each other's comments or giving each other a barnstar. On the few days where they both edit, their bursts of editing are still separated. (See November 23, for example, when both edited Covert incest, but at different times of day; or January 10.) This pattern seems very consistent with use of multiple computers, which would explain the inconclusive checkuser results back in August.
• But the final nail in the coffin: John254 stopped editing January 11th. The very next day, Kristen Eriksen copied his monobook.js and continued editing where he left off in the same times, in the same areas.

The evidence that John254 and Kristen Eriksen are one in the same seems extremely strong. What is the community's opinion? krimpet✽ 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it is. Maybe a trip to WP:SSP will do. However as per her edits are concerned, looks like it is constructive. Also, from this user's edits as User:Kristen Eriksen, it looks like that there is an another account (probably the master account also with the Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool) that can justify this user's edits. I'd say make a note on her talkpage and block the puppets. E Wing (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These are some pretty strong accusations, and I think it may be worth hearing some explanation from the users mentioned; I notice this has come up for discussion before, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164#Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Inappropriate block (both threads started by John254, looks like). As far as checkuser goes, I'm not finding any direct overlap, but the IPs involved geolocate similarly. The behavioral cues Krimpet's mentioned here do seem to suggest some connection between these accounts exists, regardless of whether the nature of that connection is malicious. Could be that someone's editing with one account from Location A, and the other account from Location B; could be that they're friends offline; could be something else entirely. Whatever the case, I hope we can see some productive discussion here with a minimum of drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain aspects of the evidence I provided lead me to believe they are the same person, rather than two people who are acquaintances offline: it seems a bit improbable, for example, that the same day John254 was protesting the deletion of several sexual userboxes, that he convinced his eighteen-year-old nudist female friend to join Misplaced Pages and add those userboxes to her userpage. That he managed to explain to her the workings of ArbCom cases within the next few days seems only more puzzling. krimpet✽ 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That does seem pretty remarkable. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have thought there was something up with KE since (s)he? arrived. No strong comment on whether it is the same person, but it certainly looks suspicious. Viridae 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • OK having read the evidence through properly now I agree with Krimpet that the evidence seems strong. One thing that eluded me was a reason for the noob mistake of having the sock appear out of nowhere and suddenly participate like an old hand. But as we have seen in the past, sometimes these things HAVE no good, well thought out reasoning. Viridae 10:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well, one thing that I note is the common habit of doing Non-admin closings on AfD at the same time of the day in the 00.00 - 01:00 UTC range, and more significantly almost always early on the fourth day of the listing. Now, to hear their point it is necessary to notify in any case KE as well. If they are the same, which seems at least possible, we would certainly have to look into the resulting disruption and deception, but the actual amount of abuse isn't obvious to me. One 'double' vote I came across was on a DRV, incidentally regarding a deletion by Krimpet, and endorsed by both. In other cases they qualify each other.. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is being investigated by various CUs. I ran some checks back in the Crimp It time period as did other CUs. That's all I am prepared to say at this time. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i actuall dealt with this user briefly while we were both editng acovert incest. she Seemed capable, thoug her userpage made it hard to communicate (all those increadably large image slow up my computer a lot!) but now that i have ereviwed User Crimpits evidence i can see that, even if kristen and john231 are different peple, kristens acctions re: the fake account user: Crimp It merit some action since that cna possibly have a negative aimpact on another innocent user:crimpit. kristens insisted on inserting himself or herself into major dbates could be also a clue of either meatpuppetry or suckputtering. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define "suckputtering." Edison (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, is it something from one of Kristen's movies? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I suckputtered myself, it made me go blind. – iridescent 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Golf course sex? Edison (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably related to token sucking. --NE2 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, its something that kiss-up caddies do. Schmidt, 02:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

however, due to kristens lack of vandalism (appearant), iw ould like to present this WP:SOCK#LEGIT link. in it postulates that sometimes sockpopers are allowed in certain cirucmstances such as to avoid scrutiny or perform security agaginst the main accont. krimpet mentioned that htis user seemed to be operating from different computers; perhaps the acocunt User:Kristen Eriksen was devleoped for editing when at a public computer where it is probable that htis accounts informatinoa could be stealed. in this case thaen this mightbe a legit use of a sockpuppet, or although i understand if this iseems impalausible. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To veer straight off the topic, your new terminology has me grinning madly. I hope there are more opportunities in the future to refer to suckputtering sockpopers. rspεεr (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone who has interacted with Kristen Eriksen has come to the conclusion that the person operating the account is not new to Misplaced Pages. I had hoped to research their edit history to try and figure out who they were, but it appears Krimpet already did it for me. After reviewing the evidence and hearing Luna-San's negative assurance (there is no evidence that indicates Kristen Eriksen and John254 are not the same person), I would agree with the conclusion that for Misplaced Pages's purposes, Kristen Eriksen and John254 should be treated as the same person. MBisanz 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same person, it is likely that the checkuser result will be inconclusive, unless he has slipped up recently. It would be useful to have someone independently analyze their edit times. Assume that they are the same person, and that he travels to a particular location to edit as KE so that there will be no IP connections between KE and himself. Can this hypothesis be disproved by an analysis of their edit times? Thatcher 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If he lived in an apartment/dorm building he could use one account from a wired connection and a second account piggybacked to a wireless connection that would route to a neighbor's wired connection, which could be on an entirely different ISP. And of course he could be using some for of VPN/secure proxy to come in through a hosting server, etc. Edit times are likely to be inconclusive at proving guilt or innocence IMO. MBisanz 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I checkusered KE some time ago. I never had a reason to check John, but I know where KE edited from and that there are no other interesting editors at that location/IP range. Therefore, unless there is a recent slip, current CU results will also be inconclusive at best. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had all just listened to me and deleted userboxes when we had the chance, this wouldn't've happened. Just saying. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring that up again??--Tom 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - if this had not come up about userboxes it would have been something else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, if these are two different people editing from two different locations who tend to make similar edits at similar times, then it must be likely that on at least one day the two of them were online and editing at the same time. The sockpuppet theory is falsifiable, in other words. Reading the above analysis, I'm leaning towards sockpuppetry on the balance of probability, but I do not have enough time to examine their contribs in detail. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that it what I said. Unless there has been a recent slip-up, the technical evidence will be inconclusive as Luna said above. Therefore, the hypothesis that they are the same person is not provable but may be falsifiable. CHL has now made an attempt at doing so. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i have refiewed Mr John's block log. he has an expired 24 hour block for inciviliy that was 2 years ago. is it possible that hei si sin fact relapsing into his old ways? some of us sohould ty and review his contribs to check for any vandlaism or inciviltiy connected with User:Krsten Eriksen and copared it to John's incvility. often sockpuppets have the same writing style or patter n of abuse as the sockmaster. Smith Jones (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They never edit at the same time (no interleaving). I think they're socks. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see here. There are 451 pages that both accounts have edited. Take special notice to those edits in the Misplaced Pages namepace (i.e.: AfD, Featured Picture and other votes) where both accounts were used. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a checkuser says otherwise (i.e. that they're unlikely to be the same user), I'm prepared to tag them and block them indefinitely, which appears to be the correct course given the nature of the socking. Objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means block KE, but I don't think John should be blocked - see below. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per what I interpret as consensus here (both as to the existence of sockpuppetry and the proper solution) I've blocked KE indefinitely. I still support a comparable remedy for John - when established contributors use sockpuppetry abusively and deliberately violate the community's trust, we should punt them - but won't take any action given the lack of consensus on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block John indefinitely, but I'd definitely give him a lengthy block, as his socking violations were quite flagrant. Gaming the system by participating twice in many discussions? he doesn't have my sympathy. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that both accounts were posting to the workshop of the Scientology arbitration case, playing different sides of the fence and even arguing with each other. The space taken up by John254 in particular nearly made the page unreadable. He appeared to be highly partisan and aggressive for no apparent reason, but if both accounts are him that's outright trolling. See:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_Kristen_Eriksen
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_John254

Disrupting arbitration is a serious matter. Durova 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smacks of a Locke/Demosthenes powerplay. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For those of you less versed in great science fiction, Xeno is referring to manipulating a debate by becoming the figure head of two opposing sides, and then using your influence together later.--Tznkai (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fooled me; I thought KE was a honeytrap of some other account, and that John254 was a potential victim (I have to say that I wasn't following the events too closely though). From the evidence of no overlapping, similar interests, and the matter of KE having the details of where that account and John254's disagreed so readily to hand does suggest a co-ordinated campaign... Anyone have any particular idea what the objective was, since there is an apparent divergence of intent between the two personae? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  See the diff posted by GTD above... –xeno (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Am I the only one who finds anything ironic in the user warning Kristen against "erotophobic bigots" being the same user who wanted a health warning added to "Masturbation"? – iridescent 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they are the same

Let's assume it is the same person operating the accounts (the evidence looks strong to say the least, especially when you compare edit times). What sanctions to people actually think should be placed on the accounts? I think it's clear that the KE account should be blocked and John limited to one account, but does anyone believe John should be sanctioned? Now that it's been found out, John should be strongly cautioned about sockpuppeteering and that in the future he would be blocked for a long time should he caught using socks. John has an extensive editing history and most of his work is very much productive - I see this as a severe lack of judgement, but not something that should see him hang. In the mean time, I do suggest we look over discussions that both accounts have participated in to make sure that their comments haven't affected the outcome of them. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Rjd's evidence above, this is the kind of socking that I think merits (and usually gets, when engaged in by less established contributors) indef blocks all around. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or at least a punishment that's very severe. --Cyde Weys 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Men pretending to be women and trying to sexually titillate other editors, we've been here before! As Sarcasticidealist, others would be blocked for this. At the time measures are being taken to make Misplaced Pages more respectable, we have editors on here making a joke of other editors. Disgraceful behaviour. GTD 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GTD. This isn't by any stretch a legitimate alternative account, this is an established editor votestacking after already being caught socking once with the Crimp It! account. – iridescent 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef both accounts and formalise it with a ban. This was not harmless socking, it was entirely abusive including vote stacking etc. We have plenty enough users that we can do without those who so blatantly and wilfully flout our rules. Viridae 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the one AFDs and two DRVs where there was duplicate participation. In the AFD KE participated and John closed, but it was the only possible closure given the other participants opinions, so the right outcome resulted. One of the DRV's KE nominated, John participated, and the close would have been the same had John not participated. In the other DRV the close would have been the same had neither participated.

I don't much care about the two WP:RFAR Workshop pages where they both participated; the effect of their action their would have been at most minimal.

I am most concerned about the RFA, where both accounts were more vocal than the typical RFA supporter in their support of the candidate, and persuaded at least one opposer to remove their opposition, and who knows what the effect of the discussion was on later opiners. I'd suggest that be fully reviewed. GRBerry 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an indef block, but saving that, at least 90 days block on John254 for deceiving the community, socking, etc. MBisanz 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They both should be indefinitely blocked, per my comment above. It would be a different story if the two accounts did not edit the same pages, but voting the same way on RfA's, AfD's, Featured picture candidates, etc. is far too disruptive and a blatant abuse of alternate accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted elsewhere, this edit suggests serious foul play, if the two accounts are indeed the same. I would suggest a ban is considered. GTD 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now blocked John254 indefinitely. I would be glad to be proven wrong here, but the evidence strongly and substantially suggests not only the use of alternate accounts in a deceptive manner (talking to each other, making political points, etc.), but also abusing multiple accounts in various on-wiki votes. This type of behavior is simply unacceptable, a principle that has been re-affirmed countless times over the past years. If significant evidence comes to light that disproves what has been said here, the indefinite block can be obviously be revisited. But, frankly, I doubt that will ever happen. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Vote stacking RFA, AFD, DRV, and featured processes is a standard cause for sitebanning. If there are reasons why this should be any exception, please bring them forward. So far I see none. Durova 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If true, this was a pretty serious and pathetic abuse of trust + lying about themselves + sockpuppeting + occasional vote stacking + deliberately winding up Krimpet + attempts to get one to pass RFA + general patheticness, this isn't really some minor error Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with above comments and support the indef blocks of John254 (talk · contribs) and Kristen Eriksen‎ (talk · contribs). Disruptive behavior at an active Arbitration Case, RFA, AFD, DRV, etc, is indeed cause for sitebanning. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with indef of Kristen Eriksen - abstain on John254 for now except to say I find the deception inherent in sockpuppetry to be the problem, and a serious one. I'd like for a CU to weigh in.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What would you like a CU to weigh in on? If these two users are the same person, the things done (as Durova listed) are deceptive enough that an indef block/ban for both is warranted. In my considered judgment, having run checks here more than once over a period of time, a CU cannot at this time show they are the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Confirmed. Nor can it show they are not the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Unrelated (I'm not talking certainty here, CU never is certain/infallible). But the time based edit analysis is damning. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Good enough.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll second that, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unless we see some clear evidence that these are different people, this looks like a conclusive demonstration of bad faith and as such, according to my understanding of policy, grounds for a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well if everyone else is in favor of an indefinite block/ban, I'm not one to argue. That's acceptable to me. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with a block/ban for both IDs. I suspect I'm not the only CU that had suspected something all along. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I support indef block or ban for both. This is pretty obvious, pretty extreme, an overall pretty clear-cut case. Really good work from all the investigators who gathered this strong evidence. delldot ∇. 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• KE is too obviously a false front (in a manner of speaking) and should be indeffed - I think we should wait for John254's response before making a decision on that account, but it would need to be pretty strong for a lengthy sanction not to be imposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'd agree with delldot and preceding - asking oneself to run for RfA...the arguing etc. This is not impulsive nor is it brief, but sustained. I think indef block both is appropriate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Casliber put his finger on the matter. I wouldn't have given two shakes of a USB cable about this sock puppeting, except that one account managed to get the Admin bit for the other. That indicates bad faith here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well they didn't manage to get it but they were making steps towards it. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ban both. We don't tolerate screwing around like this. Plus, the John account was a habitual disruptor of arbitration and a vexatious litigator. He'll be little missed - or she? Ah, fond memories of the PoetBeast flood back...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Seems like there is community consensus for a ban, so I'm tagging. Secret 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• This evidence while not nailing it to the wall is pretty conclusive. Especially the part about copying the monobook and continuing his edits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Too much here to ignore...I'm comfortable with an indef block+ban for both accounts. Proffered explanations to this point appear unsatisfactory. — Scientizzle 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban on John254, who has done a lot of good work and should have a place here. The best outcome for the encyclopedia is not an outcome that bars this person from volunteering. Everyking (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• ahas john254 ben given a chance to respond this charges? has he ven loged in recently? this is a major deal and would benefit from at least gietng to here him speak. we have heard kristen eriksens defense on her talkapge but john254s silence as well as his history of having at last some contrustive editing makes me want to hold off un permanelty closing the case and indefinitely banning him until he at least says something about this crises. Smith Jones (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with the ban of KE. I currently have no opinion on what to do about John254. GRBerry 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• These things about not banning John254 don't make any sense. John254 and Kristen Eriksen are the same person. Blocks are a technical measure that apply to an account or an IP, while bans are a social measure that apply to the person behind each account. Therefore, banning Kristen Eriksen and banning John254 are exactly the same action.
  It sounds like what some people are advocating is not to ban this person, but just to stop him from using his Kristen Eriksen character. That's a huge underreaction. John (the person) was trying to manipulate Misplaced Pages, trying to make himself an admin in naked-chick form, stacking votes, disrupting discussions, and lying about it the whole time. He needs to be banned, not just prohibited from being "Kristen". rspεεr (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• the arguemnt is that while KE is aa abusive sockpuppet john234 has been considered a respected and competenti edtor who has contributed contempitly to this article for a long time and in his extensve career. some people thing that weven though he may have played a litle joke on us the comunity should only sanction him moderately for his behavior rather than remove from him from the project permanent-like. Can you you worked with me? Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That approach was tried with Poetlister. The result was that a hardened troll grew more sophisticated and retaliated at the people who had blown the whistle. Durova 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• In a similar like to what Durova says, I have no respect for sock puppeteers and I fear something similar to what Poetlister did. I would recommend a full Wikimedia ban. If someone is willing to pretend to be a female to use that to manipulate others to give them power positions or work with votes, that is very, very bad and must be dealt with in a strong manner. We cannot afford to give people like this any ground to work with. I would also suggest that any CU data be kept (if possible) for future reference if needed. 75.104.128.39 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• i am not saying that tis user is worthy of being treated with such an pproach. i was merely attempting to clarify this for the help of User:Rspeer since he said that he did not understandt hat arguments being made against a fullbloc against User:John234. Personally, i feel that the ban should only be lifted in order to give john a chance to respond on his own talkpage. as far is i can tell, he has not been actually notifed of this. i believe that, for proper sake, he should be given a chance to respond. Its not fair for user:Kristen to get a hearing and user:John not to get one; even though i believe that in this case theyre are the same girl, the next people accused of sockpupeting might be innocent so we want to make sure that we take our time and keep John254 from editing indefinitely as per the administrators dicesion and the will of the Communtiy of Editors who comprise wikipedias workforce and editing base For EVEN when editors are good and helpful in the past any current abuses of trust (especially one as blatant and inflamationive) as his decision to persuade Kristen to become an administrator with full administratior privileges and tools/buttons, he should be blocked rater than risk a repeat of some sort of pointless drama or stress Smith Jones (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The ban doesn't need to be lifted in order for him to post at his user talk. Durova 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they're not the same

I'm not saying this to defend KE, or to spite the previous section. I just want to create a space where we can discuss this under the assumption that they're not the same. Please see my little stub of an essay for why I think this is helpful.

AFAIK, the alleged puppeteer has not been banned, so they is not evading a ban, which means we're not making a terrible mistake by assuming they're not the same. That leads us to the most important question: Did the account KE, by itself, do anything that needs to get banned? — Sebastian 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to do exactly what John254 would do in a situation like this: file a request for arbitration . — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A valid question especially as this thread has now resulted in both accounts being blocked for which I'd have liked to have seem some more discussion of the impact, possible counter indication, their productive contributions as well as a stronger consensus before the second block. In case there was consensus for one indef block only, I'd have suggested to put it somewhat against usual procedure unto John254. If they are not the same he might be Gentleman enough to take the bullet or simply not care anymore while Kristen could resume editing once the community thinks there is no further danger and if she is still interested. Now both accounts are blocked, but the question remains the same as it is Kristen who asks for an unblock.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite here. If they're not the same, KE is obviously not on her first account. On her third day as an editor, she was already familiar with Esperanza and had a strong opinion as to its inappropriateness. If she isn't John254, perhaps she could disclose previous account(s) or IP(s) to a checkuser for examination? --B (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant for this section. Please read my essay, which explains why. (I probably should rename this section to "AGF still provides value here", or some such.) — Sebastian 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, the evidence is overwhelming and AGF only goes so far. AGF isn't a parachute for those who decide to blatantly abuse editing privileges. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"AGF only goes so far" - That's precisely the mindset that I'm trying to get out of your head. It's sad enough that you have no better reason than what amounts to "I don't want to". I actually made the experience that it can go a lot further than this! If you have any evidence against that, please show it to us. (Preferably at User talk:SebastianHelm/Sock hunt.) — Sebastian 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that a policy like AGF is completely impossible to abuse, then I'm not going to argue. Besides, this is going off-topic. I don't have the time nor motivation to explain these things to you. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.) — Sebastian 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone believes this nonsense

I do not know either John254 or Kristin Erikson and recently stumbled across this. But, I have to say this looks like a witch hunt with evidence that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial. They can't prove they're not socks, so they must be. And any evidence to the contrary is more proof because it must have been deliberately planted. If we ban then and they drown, then they must have been innocent after all. Personally, I've been editing Misplaced Pages since the beginning (late 2001), both as an IP user and with an account that I have abandoned, so I fully understand KE appearing on Misplaced Pages knowing more than you think a new user ""should". I would bet that the vast majority (like 99%) of users spend some time editing as an IP user before they create an account -- the only question is how long they spend that way. It looks like KE didn't bother creating an account until she found a need to do so. That not only is not wrong, it should be encouraged.

Like KE, I have also edited extensively as an IP. For the most part, I found no reason to create an account, but I created a new account recently with my real name and, of course, my new account appeared to be an expert about Misplaced Pages immediately. Like KE, I also dive deeply into things. Were you to accuse me of being John254's sock puppet, I would do the same that she did -- dig into his edit history and compare it to mine to look for evidence to prove my innocence. Most of the contributors here have dug into KE's edit history and now may well know more about it than she does -- are you therefore sock puppets too?

Suggesting that defending herself with evidence, against people who are accusing her with flimsy evidence, is ridiculous. And, to argue that she would have deliberately created arguments with herself and other contrary evidence, over a long period of time, just in case anybody ever complained is hard to believe.

At best, the evidence here looks like collusion, not sock puppetry, and I don't even see that. But, even so, there is no rule against collusion on Misplaced Pages. And we see it all the time, with people cooperating on edits. I personally have emailed people I know to suggest that they edit pages in which I had an interest. Doing so does not make them my sock puppet or vice versa, whether they agree with me or disagree with me.

To me, this flimsy house of cards rush to judgment and assumption of guilt represents the very worst of Misplaced Pages, and I think that even if it turns out that they are witches (uh, sock puppets). And I, personally, do not believe it to be true after reading this and the information on KE's page.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:DUCK; the truth of the matter is that if the community is wrong (and that is entirely possible... theoretically) then the project suffers by the removal of two or more potentially useful members, but if the community is right - as it is by a huge percentage - then potential trouble is avoided. Please note that many commenting here are seasoned editors with experience of detecting socks and their masters - and even some who were unaware of the socking situation had concerns about the KE account from some time back. Two last points - don't. go. to. WP:SPI (you won't like it!), and, no relation to Judge Roy Leban then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why would someone with sense or experience create this as a userpage? And use this as a signature? Real women on the Internet get more unwanted sexual attention from deviant males than anybody likes to deal with. And sometimes end up going to the police about it (possibly asking the advice of experienced female editors first). If this were an actual woman it's dubious she'd put up those boxes even if they were true, and she'd likely ask for the page to be deleted within a month. That 'she' kept it up until the sockpuppet template took its place today, and joined so soon after 'her friend' engaged in a dispute about that type of userbox, strains credibility. This is more characteristic of male sockpuppeteers, and a rather blatant example. Durova 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just reading her interactions, it's so obviously a parody it's hilarious. For some reason, I read the mutual gushing with John654 and think encouraging Norwegians love Emerald Nuts. --B (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People are convicted of murder based on "circumstantial evidence." You don't understand what that term means. Here we're just trying to build an encyclopedia, and we make the best judgments we can. It seems likely that user has disrupted the project, and I can say this is not the only account apparently connected to these two to have done so. It's a pattern of abuse, and it needs to stop, so we're stopping it.

Incidentally, this certainly isn't collusion; the reason sock-puppetry has not previously been established is that the user has employed different computers at different times to edit Misplaced Pages. If they had edited in collusion, they might have once edited at the same time. But they don't; these edits sprang from a discrete human being. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a really stupid question. I'm assuming that the checkusers have ascertained if, in fact, this person is editing from a university and what university that is. Have any checkusers checked that school's directory to see if someone with the name Kristen Eriksen exists? At Tech, we have what we jokingly call Hokie Stalker and I'm assuming most schools have something similar. If this is a real and not a made up persona, it should be that hard to verify. Personally, I think it stretches the imagination. She lives in the dorm, edits Misplaced Pages nude, is 18 (a freshman), and is a pornstar? I don't think so. But in the off chance it's true, a checkuser could confirm it by using the appropriate search engine or asking her to email you from a school-issued email address. --B (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This school does not produce a public student directory, but your email suggestion is a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, so I'm not planning on checking in on this in the future. Do what you will. But, I feel a couple of responses are useful:

1. I'm not new. I'm certainly familiar with WP:SPI and may other Misplaced Pages policies I disagree with. Just because a guideline exists doesn't mean that I agree with it. Just because mob rule is "legal" doesn't make it right. I see a lot of vitriol in discussions like this and it makes me sick. It is a duty of the citizenry (of Misplaced Pages or any community) to speak out against things they believe are wrong. Otherwise, I would have just let this pass.
2. I don't care what the guidelines say -- asking a friend of mine to weigh in on a discussion is not sock puppetry or meat puppetry or any other puppetry if I don't tell my friend what to say. Those who know me know are well aware that I solicit the opinions of people that I agree with as well as those that I disagree with so as to have more inclusive discussions and we all benefit from such discussions. Any guideline on Misplaced Pages that discourages inclusive discussions should be ignored. I don't like seeing one person take over an article because they have more time to edit. I don't like seeing AfDs that kill significant contributions to Misplaced Pages that only have three people voting on them (or many voters but no actual discussion whatsoever). Etc.
3. Yeah, I understand circumstantial evidence. Saying I don't turns this into a personal attack which is uncalled for (this is the tip of the iceberg of the vitriol I refer to above -- is it really necessary to attack me too?). Notice I said "that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial", not that it was circumstantial. It's coincidental evidence. They're both in the same city of 2 million. Yeah, right. Kirsten has too much evidence for why she's not John, so she must be John. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they are different people or that they are the same person. I have no insider knowledge. But, I'm certainly not convinced by the supposed evidence and I don't like this process.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review outed them as sockpuppets on August 26. The self-serving arguments with each other and effusive compliments have to be seen in that light. Then they mutually disappear for over a month (ie, enough time for any potential slipups a checkuser might detect to go away), then return. You're not going to get something more rock solid than this case. --B (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is anything probative in the matter. Editing times are certainly probative into sockpuppetry. I inferred that you misunderstood the word—as most people in the popular press do—nothing personal. I'm sorry you felt that it was an attack. Incidentally, since you're opposed to vitriolic rhetoric, I hope that you abstain from claiming that Wikipedians are drowning accused witches in the future.

As for the case, I made similar inferences to User:B above. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@Luke: I hadn't planned to come back, but someone told me you'd responded to me. So ... I accept your apology. I intended my own comments of drowning, etc., to simply be in the vein of the metaphor of a "witch hunt" that had been brought up by others, not to be literal, semi-literal, vitriolic or attacking. Sorry if it appeared that way to you or anybody else. And I'll be happy to debate circumstantial evidence with you on some other page :-)

From all that's on this page, it may well be the case that the accusations are true. As I said, I don't know, but I do know that when I see opinions stated as fact, when I see partial research claimed to be complete and unimpeachable research, etc., it makes me distrust the person who's saying/presenting it. When I served on a jury, the judge told us that if we believed a witness was not telling the truth in one area of their testimony, we were free to disregard all of their testimony (and that statement made a difference in the jury's verdict on two charges). No process is perfect, but I really wish this process was better. I do wonder if there is any evidence that Kristen and/or John could present that would be accepted. I suspect that even if they are innocent, no such uniformly acceptable evidence exists. There have certainly been cases of accused puppetry that turned out to be false. Is this one of them?

RoyLeban (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Kristen has complained that there's no link here to her defence of her actions on her talk. So posting a link. Make of it what you will. – iridescent 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting rebuttal . If they are different people I would assert that she knows John better than John knows himself. — CharlotteWebb 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i find it aht it does not beat hte laugh testthat htis user has so quickly acomplied a detailed set of dilinated separatives between herself and John. i am asssumin g good faith that kristen and john are not the same, but the style of which they argue seems increasingly simular -- i compared x here re: to y here (where x = john and y = kristen) and they are strikingly similar in connotative denunciation. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

further more i declare this kristen eriksen as compared to john254. in this matter, you can see the striking similarities between their edit contributions ratio. kristen has like 46% article contribs to john's 38%, which is only a few percentage points off when revised with the standard mean in these types of cases.

none of this proves byon a shadow of a doubt that they are sockpuppets but it does estlabish a patern of strange and overlapping edits that should be discussed inf urther despite "Nordic goddes" Kristens objections to te contraire. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your x/y examples. Don't they look like standard rollbacks? Only neither of them seems to be rollbacker, and I couldn't find these strings in their monobook.js (note that Kristen simply imported John's). It seems unlikely that they were entered manually. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, satire, Hans. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they both had rollback, which I removed earlier. KE / J. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the response. that was weird for me since it impleid that kristen has an inaccurate tag on her account. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a statistically significant finding. The odds that any two random editors' article contribution ratios are within 8 percentage points of each other wouldn't even meet an 80% confidence interval, let alone a 95% one. There are many good pieces of evidence to suggest that these two accounts are the same person, but this isn't one of them. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i see your point, but it does bare scruitiny that a "new" user would spent so much time on non-article space. from my experience, most acutal new users turn up for the articles and only get involved with user:talk and other administrative space s as a result of their work on articles. users who spend most of thier time geting involved in major adminstratve functions as their first few edits is weird; not necesarily indictiave of sockpuppetry but demands scrutniy nontheless. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People. It's a joke. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for speaking for me user:Cool Hand luke but i can speak for myself. your help is muh appreciated but its geting somewhat irksome. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill out, SJ, it's all cool. There are many aficionados of your postings here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Temp wikipedian category

I removed that one bit from John's talk page and notified the person who placed it. Revert at will, the cat with it's possible 30-day deletion just seemed premature. No opinion on the rest of this beyond that its really unfortunate. rootology (C)(T) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pages of users involved in sockpuppetry are kept regardless. There are details at the top of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

what about User:Crimp It? Shhould he be tagged? iam thinkg yes but i dont want to potentially hurt User:Krimpet by assocation Smith Jones (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, tag it. Easy to note the distinction. Durova 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

User:Crimp_It! == User:Kristen_Eriksen == User:John254

User:Krimpets Tasty Cake == User:Mike_Garcia == Prolific Vandal User:Johnny the Vandal

So does John254 == Johnny the Vandal?

I think the MO fits where he would have one good hand account and have other accounts vandalize the good hand account. Also, John254's contribution in the arbritations could possibly be seen as a form of trolling. Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we have good reason to, we shouldn't be assuming that one imposter == another. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No way. If I am remembering my (now deleted) CU emails correctly, JtV is not even on the same continent as Kristen Ericksen. Thatcher 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • A few weeks ago I initially made the mistake of suspecting "Tasty Cake" was another of Kristen's sockpuppets, which may have led to the confusion. CUs confirmed that it was instead a puppet of "Johnny," who is indeed completely unrelated to John254. krimpet✽ 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It is all part of Hephaestos's plan of getting his revenge on the idiots who populate this website. John Guy Robinson, Michael and JtV are one and the same!!! Mike Garcia: Electric Boogaloo (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Of course, the editor here actually is JtV. And no - John254 is not JtV. JtV is also known as "The Italian Vandal", which should explain things :) - Alison 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • He likes pizza? ;) --B (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • He's the Pope? Thatcher 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • That would explain the sockpopers Smith Jones mentioned earlier. Perhaps he's on to something. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Point of order: the current pope is Nabooean German. Sceptre 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
                • I do like pizza, i can spam Force Lightning with my hands, and additionally KE carries out my unspeakably evil biddings. Wthareyousaying (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Sock?

139.84.82.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) left a trolling message on my talkpage in a thread concerning KE/John. The IP is from LaSalle University in Pennsylvania. If this is the same school that KE/John is coming from, would a checkuser like to do whatever they need to do with it? --B (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have asked Alison to have a look. Viridae 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,  Inconclusive - there are actually no accounts at all behind that iP - Alison 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation content dispute

Hi, I want to avoid 3rr here. A user is looking to insert content on this template which has seen similar issues prior of adding articles regarding sexuality to this template. I may have come across too strong so would like, presuming someone agrees that consensus should be sought here, if someone else would look at this and encourage discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would I be correct in saying this is the diff and Perceived sexual orientation the "disputed" entry? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looks to me like Perceived sexual orientation belongs there, as it is a valid topic when discussing sexual orientation, and perception colours a lot of how sexual orientations are presented and received. //roux   22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to avoid 3RR, don't revert. Seriously, this is a content dispute. You say so in your header, even. This is not the place for content disputes, please try dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have spelled out more. A user who has had a history of being extra bold and perhaps edit-warring in regards to this template is again adding content after it's been removed even though this scenario has been played out out a few times. I would rather not warn and revert them myself as I'm am involved in the issue. Here is the talk page discussion where you'll note a consensus of one. I am seeking that their addition simply be approved first before being re-added. The article in question, Perceived sexual orientation, sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template, IMHO. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. If concensus is that the article, as is, is perfect for the template, then great, if not, that's great too, but let's not edit war over it. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't including the article on the template put more eyeballs on the article, thus driving more improvements? //roux   23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By that theory dozens of problematic articles would already be on that and every other template. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. That particular article was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. That last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved before consensus was that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template i would certainly advise against it. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is an encyclopedic template and topics are not included on it based on their need for improvement. It's not a general-maintenance-consider-helping-out-on-these-pages thing. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes, but this is hardly the first time Cooljuno's participation at the template has become problematic. Are administrators going to do something about it, or are editors who care for our content left with no option but screaming louder, reverting more often? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pageban...?

Oh look, Cooljuno again. I think there is cause for a pageban here. Every time Cooljuno touches this template there's an edit war and an argument on the talk page. See the edit war in October (talk page discussion), this big one in July/August (talk page discussion), and another last March. This POV fork appeared in October when he didn't get his way on the main template. Two previous blocks haven't solved the problem.
The underlying issue is that Cooljuno has very strong views on this topic and how information relating to it should be presented - views which are frequently not shared by any other editor here, the media, or academia. His responses to objections exacerbate things since they're often irrelevant, flawed or just nonsensical . I invite discussion. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think they mean well just mistake the whole working together thing as a mere suggestion rather than a core principle. I'd rather see a stern warning about edit-warring as that doesn't help thoughtful discussion. Sexuality issues, in general, seem to stir the passions in editors so extra caution would seem to make sense. Cooljuno, IMHO, has the markings of someone who's accustomed to more rough and tumble online venues and needs to dial down a bit when on wikipedia. I wonder if a restriction on reverting of some sort may be more helpful? -- Banjeboi 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard revert restriction? One revert per week? I wouldn't be against that. – Steel 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a limit to one revert on pages each day with the understanding that does not allow the same content to be reverted each time over multiple days and the goal is to improve dialog and working with other editors even if disagreements arise. They should also be given support or some way to sort out obvious vandalism and non-obvious vandalism. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert restrictions never apply to reversions of obvious vandalism, from what little I know of them, since they're essentially extensions of the 3-Rev-rule. -Jeremy 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree: after having worked with them before, Cooljuno's behavior around this template has consistently struck me as less than collaborative. Repeatedly inserting fringe opinions, such as the suggestion that pedophilia is on par with homosexuality, then cherry-picking references when several editors have patiently explained your error, is pretty disruptive. With this latest incident, waiting a few days for comments on a proposal does make sense; claiming other editors are "too late" to object after the change has been made is obvious nonsense. I'm sure that more than a few people have simply given up editing that template, given the constant combativeness. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I share the concern that a template talkpage was essentially a battleground repelling the very people who are needed. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COoljuno's behavior is some grand POV push, but I've never been sure if hes' a far right wing extremist, hoping to bring all forms of sexuality repugnant to the masses to an equality with homosexuality in that 'gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and raping kids' right wing meme, or some ultra leftist free love mindset, or he really just thinks all sexual congress is equal no matter what, but he's excessively disruptive, and ought not to be revert restricted, but topic banned from articles dealing with sexuality, interpreted liberally, for a period of not less than six months, to be reviewed then if he requests. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If their userpage is to be taken as is, they seem to be a young lefty of the ultra hippy (or your choice of broad characterization here) with a flair for anarchy. Having had a ban dropped on me like a house on my wicked sister, I'm willing to assume good faith they are trying to express some more radical views and need guidance that bold and civility need to co-exist; that revolutionary actions sometimes help but consensus is actually more radical than being hardnosed and agro about content issues. Also that[REDACTED] is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a social forum to work out contentious issues. I think they may specialize in sexuality issues here but, IMHO, basic working with other editors may be the underlying problem. Even the best editors don't work independent of everyone else in a vacuum. Are they editing in other areas with no issues? -- Banjeboi 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a conduct RFC on the editor before moving to restrictive sanctions? It certainly looks like the behavior is problematic, but if it isn't outright trolling a run through dispute resolution is worthwhile. If that solves the problem, great. And if it doesn't, consensus for community action would be easier to build afterward. Durova 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, however, this would seem a furthering of community time documenting disruptive behaviour and basically airing it summary-style in one place. Their talkpage already seems to do that. I was in hope that this discussion would get them to chill but (sigh) here they are edit-warring about formatting talkpage comments. And an SPA has also made an appearance to !vote which perhaps shouldn't be attributed to them but it's all a bit of a replay from past discussions which became heated battles. I think it's time for a revert restriction, I'm tired of going in circular pattern on these issues. Perhaps others could offer input if their efforts on non-sexuality articles are constructive or if there is a better way to ease up on the disruptiveness? -- Banjeboi 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, dispute resolution isn't a license to misbehave without consequences. If you open RFC and the problem continues or worsens, it would serve as a reason to truncate RFC with a sanctions request. If you'd like, I could contact this editor at his/her user talk and attempt to resolve the problem. It's not very likely that'd change the behavior (although hope springs eternal), but if it doesn't then you'd have an uninvolved party who could certify the RFC. Fair enough? Durova 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to open and run the RfC if you wish but I have spent far too much time trying to reason with this editor. I still AGF they mean well and am reticent to ban in any way but also wonder if investing a fair amount of time/energy into further documenting issues here is the best use of community resources. Undefined sexual orientation and Perceived sexual orientation are both messes that have no place on the template for now. They are some sort of split off Pomosexual which was the source of the first rounds of template warring. Pomosexaul, however, is a reasonably stable - if stubby - article with reliable sources and largely free of glaring problems. The other two aren't. I think their behaviour remains in the extra bold area which I will largely write off as youthful folly, read into that how you will. My hope is that they will be persuaded not to simply stop disruptiveness but instead will be won over to writing good content and building consensus. To me, an RfC would seem to build a scarlet letter for a somewhat young and newbie editor. I think they need edit coaching and revert restrictions instead. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I stand corrected. I just saw on Talk:Pomosexual Cooljuno411's efforts Talk:Pomosexual#Split article?, Pomosexual & undefined sexual orientation that explains more of this. Pomosexual is the article they had tried, many times, to insert on the template, it seems undefined sexual orientation is the new host of some of this content so this is just the latest round of essentially the same issue. -- Banjeboi 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock

I have this feeling that Ingopingo is a sock of Cooljuno411. Ingopingo's only edit at the time I post this, is a support !vote at Template talk:Sexual orientation - the edit war/consensus discussion at issue here - right under Cooljuno's support !vote. Within 2 hours of each other. 2 hours and 1 minute to be exact. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Endless personal attacks from User:Xenos2008

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs) seems like he has not make a single edit the past few weeks without personally attacking someone (mostly me). There is a lot of censorship in his comments, too, which is very agressive. This is impressive for a user contributing exclusively to one article's talk page.

First edit that involves (to an extent) both censorship and personal attack:

For a period after, he was civil enough (although still making bold comments about some sources and national institutions, that might seem offensive to some) but then a debate started about renaming the article. This user starting defend one version of it (although 2-3 days before he chose the other, but that is Ok) and that is when thiings started to get worse. From this point and forth, the user started some very offensive accusations of political motivation and POV (even if there had not been enough discussion prior to POV accusations to determine wether it is POV or not):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Deleting another user's comments:

The peak:

The warning:

And the answer: (malakia is a Greek word...)

Please check this out and act accordingly. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-purpose, POV-pushing account who has made it clear that "truth" overrides "pedantic rules" of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this say about my recent NPA fiasco but, I gotta be honest Bugs I don't see it. Which user do you think is POV pushing? I see heated exchanges but nothing I would construe as being a personal attack. Sure, calling the WP "wanking" is not the best attitude but I saw it as directed toward the process, not the people. Don't tell me I've become jaded? Oh, crap. Padillah (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The repeated accusations of "political motivation", the overall behaviour and this last "malakia" (after the civility notice) are enormously agressive. The accusations of political motivation are personal attacks, I think.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As is implying s/he is the only one on the article's talk page with a brain. Which can be seen here. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, the edit-warrior prince. "malakia" is Greek for "bad kia". Hope that helps. The main problem is that SPA Xenos is apparently smack in the middle of the situation (literally) and that could tend to bias his approach to the subject. However, this appears to be more of a content dispute than anything - such as whether to call the riots "riots" or "civil unrest". Baseball Bugs 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use "malakia" against a person who's not a friend of yours, the word is very agressive and is obviously disrespectful. This was once a content dispute but now Xenos has stepped out of it, "End of discussion, this guy is a government POV-pusher and we're losing our time with him.". He had had a notice for his agressive behavior yet replied with "malakia". It is no longer a content dispute, it has long ago escalated to a series of very negative personal attacks. This user believes he can judge who can edit and what editors believe, or which sources are reliable or not, without providing any reason for it. You first approach, Bugs, seems very accurate to me (the second one is good too).--Michael X the White (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other people of being POV may constitute a form of unconstructive participation in a discussion, but it doesn't violate any serious guideline, and it is not inherently disruptive by itself. It may be seen as a type of ad hominem argument, but the problem is merely related to a value of logic discussion. I understand that Xenos sometimes has a cynical way in responding to issues that are being discussed, but what do you call this: Maziotis (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I had answered in every concern of yours before and "no" (my disagreement) was all that I felt I needed to reply, and not cynical in any way.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what Xenos is doing. Just expressing himself the way "he felt he needed to reply". Don't think for a second I come here to get you into the same "trouble" as you are trying to get Xenos. Maziotis (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't rely on false quotes while pointing out someone's error. This can easily be construed has a question of putting someone's words out of context. He didn't directly described you with the adjective "POV-pusher". And it is not wrong for someone to believe that there are people who should be reminded of wikipedia:NPOV. This is what I mean by "calling someone POV...it is not inherently disruptive by itself". Maziotis (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've summarised the comment (to which you personally agreed). Are you saying that he never called me, Grk1011 and DerBlaueReiter pro-government POV-pushers?? Are you saying that that comment of his says/implies something else? Is "End of discussion" just cynical? It is not wrong to believe something is POV, yet it is wrong to be extremely agressive to others about it. "Political motivation" accusations (especially in the way Xenos made them) are personal attacks.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe people should be free to say in a discussion page that there is currently an issue of wikipedia:NPOV violation. That is not the same as directly calling someone a "POV-pusher". Just as it is not the same to discuss someone having a mother who works as a prostitute and calling someone a "son of a bitch". Maziotis (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that he has made settling the dispute easier. I set up a straw poll to check consensus, but was bombarded with responses about how we can't vote and this isn't a democracy. He, and another user, were unable to simply express their views on the topic and instead felt the need to bash everyone else who commented. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean Michael IX the White, instead?

You just do not seem to get it, do you?? Misplaced Pages is not about democracy!! It is not about what most people want or care about!!--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Maziotis (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll is not democracy or election voting. Grk1011 means that Xenos did not understand what the straw poll was about or pretended he did so because consensus would be against "civil unrest". Yourself Maziotis you start getting agressive now and it's just not worth it.

Well, this proves everything I've said so far, doesn't it??: (check the diff summary: restored version prior to deletion of relevant material by a ND supporter)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never disputed the fact that Xenos should have restrained himself in some situations, and I believe calling you a "nd supporter" in the summary edit is one of them. That still doesn't justify you making false quotes. Maziotis (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not.I have answered to that above.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have responded to that. So, either you have something to say about that, or you just want to again state that you are right and I am wrong. Maziotis (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered fully to that and feel I have nothing more to say.

Why all these personal attacks and agressive stance towards me? Because I have opened the section and discussion to rename this back to "riots"? Is that what enerved people so much?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I interpret your playing of a victim as a form of passive-aggressive attack. I am perfectly calm. Please don't raise suspicions against me. I honestly believe you haven’t answered to the accusation of making a false quote. I find that extremely offensive. You made a sentence and put it in italic and quotes to portray it as an exact citation, when in fact it was not. You weren’t called a “Pov-pusher” after all. That is just what you believe he thinks you are. And there is nothing wrong with that. He is allowed to consider you to be in violation of ]. So, I don’t think that is the same thing. Maziotis (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do I state this is a direct citation? ,--Michael X the White (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not about you, nor should it be. You discuss as much as possible and that's fine. This is about Xenos and his enormously aggressive attitude and censorship. --Michael X the White (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not about me, but I think it should be about you! I stand by what I said. I don't understand why you provided those diffs. I still think that after such a display of contempt, I was well to invite you to read wikipedia:civil. I think you acuse Xenos of things that are a fault of your own as well. Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is his own responsibility if he started replying with personal attacks. The only thing I did was trying to reach consensus. Still, where did I mention this being a direct citation?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote the sentence in "" and in italic. Don't play dumb. You know that most people would see this as a direct quote. If not, then I am sorry, and I hope that you understand that you shouldn't do that from now on. Also, I still think that he has not incurred in personal attacks more than you, and I still don't understand thos diffs with my edits. I stand by what I said. Maziotis (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how most people would see it, nor should it concern me. Admins (to which this is addressed) know to see the diffs and see what he said anyway. "Don't cast suspicions on me"? That's why I gave you the diffs. Did I repeatedly personally attack him? Did I have a warning? Can you provide some diffs?? If you want, you can open up a case for me. :) This here is about Xenos though.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The case about Xenos is a case about you. And I am choosing to envolve myself too, because I was a witness to most of the whole discussion. You raised suspicions about me when you talked about how this must be about you opening up a section in the discussion page. It seems you want to imply we are somewhat insecure about it. Also, your diffs only prove you cynicism towards me, and not any wrongdoing towards you. Maziotis (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this section is full enough with information, concerns facts and evidence for the admins to judge and decide what to do.I am sure I have nothing more to add and I do not wish to repeat myself again.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Although some of my comments were obviously directed at one or two individuals, such as Michael X, the purpose is to challenge the clear POV pushing of those people. I do think that if you put on your personal page how much you admire the current prime minister and support the political party, then your actions will be scrutinised in that light. Therefore, removing references to Karamanlis from the article when it is relevant to the high profile of TV demonstrations, shows an agenda. The real problem is that certain people are trying to define reality, by limiting this article to a few riots in December. Having failed to block the name change, they are now determined to find any way possible to get it back. Why? There is no social science reason to support their claims (that riots do not signfy social unrest!), so I can only assume that there is a political reason. Riots are just random things, they dont show mass anger with a government, so the term is politically less damaging. Sorry not to assume good faith, but some of the users on the page have gone too far to be able to do that. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your own responsibility to assume good faith, no matter what the situations you might be in, and it was your choice not to. You've actually once more proven Bugs' first statement.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who has participated a lot in the 2008 riots in Greece Talk page i have to say that User:Xenos2008 behavior has been quite insulting especially against Michael IX the White it seems that this whole "insult" thing is politically motivated but that doesn't mean that it should pass unnoticed since there have been several offenses of WP:CIVIL, especially WP:No personal attacks, also WP:GOODFAITH and WP:Talk page guidelines seem to be completely ignored by the aforementioned user. So my opinion is that an admin's action is definitely required. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for your brilliant insights. In fact, my comments have been precisely because I do not have any political affiliations or strong views, and I am very aware of certain people who do and also impose them without discussion. I do not see why I have to assume good faith when the evidence is VERY clear that certain edits and especially attempts to rename the page were not made in good faith. Xenos2008 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good admitting that you do not assume good faith. And yet you're still in the same tone:--Michael X the White (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, putting things out of context. Is this a personal attack too? Because I also can't see how I can assume good faith with someone who doesn't seem to show it to me. Maziotis (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Donadio

 In progress

Once again the same user in the same article: White Brazilian. Last week, this user was blocked 2 times for disruption in this article. Now that his block expired, he is back again to the same article, wih the same useless discussion in the Talk:White Brazilian. He's flooding this talk page with his personal opinions and theories about the figures of the Embassies of Italy and Lebanon in Brazil (his theory is that the Embassies are lying). He is frequently changing the article with his own theories, with unsouced informations (he has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view of the subject, and tries to erase the informations about Germans, Italians, Arabs and other ethnic groups).

WP:NOTFORUM -- Misplaced Pages is not forum, but Donadio is ignoring this rule, trying to cause troubles, not only in White Brazilian but in other articles as well. Opinoso (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not "causing trouble", I am trying to discuss the problems with the article White Brazilians in its Talk Page. Opinoso is behaving as if he's the owner of the article. Donadio (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooh, this guy is just trolling. See now the summary of his edit on Rio Grande do Sul: "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul". Good grief. Donadio (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just the usual sort of ethnic nonsense. Most people in Brazil have diverse ethnic backgrounds, and it's all just bickering about what labels to attach to them. Attitudes about this topic are different in Brazil than in the US, so one can't solve the problem the same way one would here---basically this is a content dispute between two parties neither of whom is clearly in the right, and both of whom have been blocked in the past for edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Donadio is a Single purpose account looking though the contribs, if I was still an admin, I would have blocked indef. Can someone do that for me. Thanks Secret 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my account is not a single-purpose one. I have made edits in many other issues, including heavy contributions in the list of Brazilian writers. Donadio (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing here is that User:Donadio was blocked 2 times, in a short period of time (1 week) for disruption in the same article: White Brazilian. Just after his 1 week block expire, the first thing he did was to create another discussion in the same White Brazilian article, for what he was previously blocked. It seems he's not going to stop this. And, yes, he seems to have a Single purpose account, since almost all his contributions are dedicated to find troubles in this same article. Opinoso (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for the first time for breaking the 3RR, which you also broke, using a sockpuppet.

I was blocked for the second time when trying to make what seemed to me common sence editions to the page, such as pointing that there were French and Dutch invasions in Brazil, the population of the towns in the Demography section, the fact that the "other source" that claims that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil is Dieter Böhnke, that the IBGE figures for immigration seem incompatible with the Embassies' claims, that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Frankly, I don't know why I was blocked, all those editions are factually true. The latter was even agreed by you.

Since my unblocking, I have avoided editing the article, and am trying to discuss the disagreements in the talk page. Which is what you are now trying to forbid me from doing. Donadio (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made editions to articles as varied as:

Maria Clara Machado Mayor of Porto Alegre National Renewal Alliance Party List of Political Parties in Brazil Carlos Lacerda Gramado Cristovam Buarque Candomblé Luís Fernando Veríssimo Workers' Party (Brazil) Belo Horizonte List of Brazilian Writers Literature of Brazil Acela Express List of Brazilians João do Rio Wladimir Herzog Fernando Gabeira Cipriano Barata Revolutionary Movement 8th of October List of active autonomist and secessionist movements 1960s in Brazil Roberto Burle Marx Serviços Aéreos Cruzeiro do Sul Portuguese language Lumpenproletariat Murphy's Law Dichotomy Eclipse Petroleum Jelly

Hardly a sole purpose account. Donadio (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the last weeks, you are enterely dedicated with your disruption in the article White Brazilian. The first thing you did after your block period expired was to create another disruptive discussion in the same article you were previously blocked 2 times last week. It seems a Single purpose account. And there are no disagreements in that article, since you are the only person claiming the Embassies are lying about the figures, based on you unsourced opinion and your pro-Portuguese point of view.

Now you are even doing personal attacks, calling me "troll".

Since you were blocked 2 times last week for disruption in the same article and now that you are unblocked, you are once again in the same article repeating the same disruption, it's obvious you are enterely dedicated to it. And it's also obvious that you are not going to stop the disruption until you get blocked again. Opinoso (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a disruptive discussion at all. I have stated all the points of disagreement, in a polite and well-thought way, have made alternative proposals for some of the points, have brought new sources into discussion. You haven't answered to anything.

I have even started a new section proposing a single change: that the well known historical facts of Dutch Brazil and France Equinoxiale be included in the redaction of the page. It seems that you cannot bring any argumen on why it shouldn't, so you are trying to change the discussion from the content of the page into a discussion of Wikitiquette. Donadio (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please. Saying that nobody says "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul can only be trolling. I'm gaúcho, I know what I am talking about. Do you want what? Just google for

• mario quintana gracias
• porto alegre gracias
• grêmio gracias
• tangos e tragédias gracias

selecting the "Páginas em Português" option, and you, and anyone interested, will see that yes, people do say "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul.

Gracias. Donadio (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, this looks like an edit war brewing between not one, but two editors with possible COI implications. I have yet to read through and evaluate all the recent chages to not only the article and it's associated talk page, but also related articles. It looks like all recent edits have to do with Brazil and / or Brazilian-related topics. Edit Centric (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, while this discussion is happening, what I would suggest is for BOTH Donadio and Opinoso avoid making ANY changes to this article, or any related. The first thing that stands out is Donadio's statement that since his last block, he has avoided editing the article in question. This is false reporting, see here, here and here. The very next edit, Opinoso reverted Donadio's edit, citing it as vandalism. (See this reference DIFF of edit.) Our FIRST aim should be to arrest the process of edit warring before it gets as far as before. Next, I would suggest formal mediation. Edit Centric (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to adhere to Misplaced Pages's recommended line: if my edits get reversed, I go to the Talk Page and try to discuss them. Apparently Opinoso has a problem with that; he says that I am "flooding" the Talk Page. But if I can't edit and I can't discuss in the Talk Page, do then I have to accept Opinoso's "ownership" of the article?

I would ask you, if you are going to review those edits, to pay special attention to those of

• January 15, at 15:31,
• January 15, at 18:08,
• January 15, at 19:30,
• January 15, at 20:57.

Notice, please, how bad faith is assumed from the first reversal ("Undid vandalism"), and how two different posters make exactly the same edit, thus circumventing the 3RR.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to bring some Brazilian editors, not called by me or by Opinoso, to this discussion. Opinoso is taking advantage of editors and admins not speaking/reading Portuguese. Donadio (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned those edits (I have been avoiding editing, except...).

One was a correction of a factual mistake; Pedras Grandes is a town in Santa Catarina, not in Rio Grande do Sul. Other was a mere attempt to include the population of those towns in the article. First time I tried to do it, including the population of two or three of them, Opinoso reverted, stating in the summary that if I was going to include such data, I should include them for all of the towns. So I took, perhaps naively, as granted that it wasn't a polemical edit (why would it be, if one thinks about it?) Finally, the third was the reinclusion of the "factual accuracy" banner, which seemed to me quite obvious: the factual accuracy of the article is in question.

The content of the article, of course, I have tried to not edit.

Thank you for your help and patience. Donadio (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the set of Jan 15 edits goes to edit history and proving past issues, but these were taken care of with a block, if I'm not mistaken, and were part of the LAST edit war. What we are dealing with here is THIS instance, and the prevention of another edit war being taken out on the article, and ultimately proving to be yet another detriment to the community at large. Now a question, and this is for BOTH Donadio and Opinoso; would you both be open to a formal mediation process? Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Jan 15 edits, the problem - from my point-of-view, of course, is that I got blocked for breaking the 3RR rule, while Opinoso circumvented the same penalty by using a different IP.

On the mediation... Sure I am. Is it possible to include other Brazilian (or Portuguese, or Angolan, etc) editor in such process? Donadio (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're asking a bit much there, insomuch as the mediation process is more about getting you two working together on the material, and aiding in a "meeting of the minds". As for the edits that you cited, all that this shows is that Opinoso edited while logged in, and then may have committed another edit after logging out of his user account. (Not sure about that one, I don't have access to do SOCK research. All I can evaluate as a "third set of eyes" is the appearance of this.) Again, that is then, this is now.

FOR THE ADMINS - What is the policy for discussions on en.wikipedia, inclusive of article talkspace and user talk pages, where language applys? IMHO, it makes situations like these MUCH easier to mediate / mitigate if English is used. I don't want to "speak out of turn" here, before I would cite that as a requirement within any mediation process... Edit Centric (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hand this one back off to the admin-side now, there's a situation brewing in Alaska, and I have family in Anchorage. See Mount Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. Edit Centric (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck; I hope everything goes OK for you and your people. Donadio (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did a request for arbitration, but Donadio was blocked during 1 week, then I don't what happened to it. I do not know if a formal mediation is the case here. A formal mediation is used when the two parties are neutral and have different point of views, based on reliable sources. However, Donadio, since the beggining is not using reliable sources, but his own, non-neutral theories. The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view. He already reported, with pride, that his grandparents are of "colonial Portuguese" descent, and since then he is trying to claim, with no sources, that most White Brazilian are of colonial Portuguese descent, and that the latter immigrants are small minorities. For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own", which is not the case, since post-colonial European immigration outnumbered many times the pre-colonial settlers, and most of the colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil mixed with Africans and Amerindians, so that most of their descendants are not part of the White Brazilian population.

See the differences between the original article, and Donadio's edits:

After the figures about Arabs and Italians in Brazil, he wrote the numbers are "incompatible with the official data on immigration by the IBGE". Then, he claim that the numbers of Arabs could not exceed 1 million, and of Italians 15 million and that the numbers are "inflate". However, this is his own theory, his own original resource. He probably found these numbers with his calculator at home. There are no souces on the Internet, or in books, to claim the figures are inflate, or that the Embassy is lying.

The point is: Donadio, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information) is trying to increase the Portuguese influence in Brazil and to diminish the Italian, Arab, German, among other. He is not being neutral.

In the Italian case, the user frequently claims that "only" 1.5 million Italians arrived to Brazil. Yes, that's true. But, with his calculator at home, he found a theory that the descendants of these 1.5 million Italians could not be 25 million, as the Embassy and many other sources claim, but "15 million". No sources on the Internet points the figure "15 million". All the sources point 25 million. I have to remember Donadio that Misplaced Pages does not allowed him and any other users to make up theories. Donadio got the number of 1.5 million and used his calculator to find his figure of 15 million, based only on a information of how many times the Brazilian population increased since a date that he randomly choose.

• First: to calculate the present Italian-descended population of Brazil, nobody can use the 1.5 million figure of Italians who came to Brazil, because this figure is counted from 1875 (when the first Italians arrived) until the 1930s, when the last significant groups arrived. Since 1875, Italians were having kids in Brazil (and many kids, because on that time people usually had several kids). Most Italians arrived in Brazil from 1880 to 1900, so there are over 120 years of the mass immigration to Brazil. In 120 years, there are many generations, maybe 6 or 7 and even higher. Then, to calculate the present-day population, the person must include no only the 1.5 million Italian immigrants, but also the children, grandchildren and the many other descendants since the year of 1875. Then, the person must know the periods that most Italians arrived, not only include the 1.5 million all together.

• Second: the person must know the rates of mortality among Italians in Brazil. Not all ethnic groups in Brazil had the same mortality rate. Everybody knows that African-Brazilians had high rates of mortality, because of slavery and poverty. Then, to include all ethnic groups of Brazil with the same mortaly rate is a big mistake.

And also you must know the birth rates among them. I mean, you must know how many kids the average Italian woman had in Rio Grande do Sul in the 1890s (3? 7? 9? 12?). The person also must know how many kids the average Italian man had in São Paulo in the 1920s (2? 5? 18? 20?). Moreover, the person must know the life expectancy of the Italians in each part of Brazil (12 years old? 48 years old? 78 years old).

• Third: Also, how many Italians returned to Italy after some years living in Brazil? How many Italians arrived from Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela or even from the United States to Brazil during the emigration period? How many "Italians" arrived with non-Italian passports? How many arrived illegally? Also, the proportion of Italian males and females in Paraná, or the proportion of males and females in Minas Gerais.

All these informations are taken when a scholar wants to know how many people of the current days descend from a population of years, centuries ago. I'm pretty sure Donadio does not have access to all these informations to calculate how many Brazilians have Italian roots nowadays.

However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Donadio, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.

Different reliable sources claim the figure of 25 million "Italian Brazilians".

• Italiani nel mondo (claims 25 million)
• The President of Brazil, Lula (claims 30 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (claims from 23 to 25 million)
• Itália Nossa (claims 23.5 million)
• Memorial do Imigrante (from 22 to 25 million)

For Lebanese:

• Memorial do Imigrante (7 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil (7 million)
• Embassy of Lebanon (7 million)
• O Estado de S. Paulo Newspaper (6 million)

Then, Donadio, stop with this useless discussion. You are not allowed to take your own conclusions here, not allowed to post your theories. You are not a scholar to determinate how many people of Italian or Arab descent live in Brazil. You are using sources that have nothing to do with the subject to make up theories and create fake figures. Stop it. Opinoso (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what happens if I accept mediation but Opinoso does not? 189.114.16.212 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the many ad hominems above, let me try a further step towards conciliation. I listed 12 points of contention in the article's Talk Page (under "What is wrong with this article"). I think Opinoso is disussing only one of them, exactly the one on which disagreement is stronger. I suggest that we start discussing the points where an agreement is easier to attain. I suggest, specifically, point 5, which I have further detailed under "French and Dutch Invasions". I think the edit I'm proposing is perfectly reasonable, and I am sure that Opinoso can easily accept it. If not, I am willing to listen to his reasons to reject the edit, and, if we can't reach an agreement, I'm also willing to accept a third party opinion, and to give up the edit if such third party opinion is against me.

Deal? Donadio (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practice, the fact that I have accepted mediation and Opinoso has not seems to mean that he is free to continue editing, while I am not. Is this how it is supposed to be?

(Curiously, one of his recent reversals in the Russians in Brazil article. There he seems to be of the opposite opinion: "data" about people of Russian descent in Brazil are inflated. So he lowered the figures from 200,000 to 70,000. Regardless of the stating that they "must be" about 200,000.)

(Notice: I actually agree with him in this one. It's just that it seems he has a double standard here.) Donadio (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone to talk with Opinoso about things like these:

The point is: Donadio, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information)

This is a personal attack. I never said or implied that I am proud of my Portuguese descent. I said that I am of both Portuguese and Italian descent, responding to someone who questioned how could the sum of the diverse White ethnicities amount to more than the White population.

For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own"

This is also a personal attack. He can't know what my motivations are.

his theory is that the Embassies are lying

I never said, or implied, that they are lying, just that they are wrong.

The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view.

This is assuming bad faith, besides being a ridiculous claim. What would the Portuguese have to gain if most Brazilian people are of Portuguese descent? What would Italy have to lose if so? This isn't a war between Portugal and Italy, or some kind of contest to see who "owns" Brazil. It's a discussion about the ethnic composition of the Brazilian population, just that. Donadio (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I would say that Opinoso is testing limits, gaming the system. What he wants to do is to have a final word regarding the subject of Brazilian demography. If anyone disagrees with him, he makes personal attacks, and tries to make it impossible for them to edit the articles. It is not a new behaviour; in practice, he has already made most other Brazilian editors wary of discussing the subject. A quick look at his User Talk Page will show his many conflicts with Dantadd, Felipe C.S, Janiovj, Sparks1979, A.Z., Fsolda, Dali-Llama, SWik78, Domaleixo, Mhsb, Quissamã, Khoikhoi, and Crazyaboutlost.

His comment that "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul is outrageous. It is almost like saying that no one says "y'all" in Texas. It shows his confidence that no Brazilians are even perusing these articles.

What he is doing is the following:

He has managed to make it impossible to me to edit the article. Then he managed to make it impossible to me to discuss in its Talk Page. And while the discussion here was about getting me blocked, he was posting extensively. As soon as the possibility of a mediation appeared, he stopped posting here, and went back to the Talk Page - where he has, among other personal attacks, accused me of "trying to open a mediation". By this means, he is also getting to make my posting here quite inconsequential.

What should I do?

Go back to editing the article, which is useless, since he will revert anything that I write, even common sence things like "the Dutch invaded Brazil in the XVII Century"?

Go back to the Talk Page and try to argue with his deafness?

Quit Misplaced Pages, and warn other people that it is an unreliable resource, because some people are able to establish de facto monopolies on editing some articles?

Call for arbitration? Will anyone hear me, or is it again going to be like talking to the walls?

I throw myself upon your mercy... Donadio (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Misusing Twinkle

I'm just reading what WP:TW actually is and I quote: "several new options to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism." That seems fair when there's a lot of obvious vandalism going on. What I'm not aware of is that Twinkle can be used to revert 6 individual valid edits, which each are open for debate on the Talk page, which some other editors are actually doing. This is not what Twinkle is intended to be used for and it's a misuse of a privilege by editors who have a high Misplaced Pages status such as user:orangemarlin here at 15:52, 30 January 2009. Why do I get a warning when I reverted a while ago 3 edits and someone else uses Twinkle and get away with reverting 6 edits? Can a neutral administrator look into this. Immortale (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, he reverted 6 edits, but they were consecutive and he gave a valid edit summary reason ("POV" - not "vandalism") for doing so. Thus the fact he used Twinkle to do so is somewhat irrelevant. You received a warning because you were edit-warring - repeatedly reverting on the article (also, since it appears that your account is used to do nothing else but edit this article, this would suggest that you do indeed have a single POV). Black Kite 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not POV, but that's open for debate. I don't see anywhere at WP:TW that POV argument is reason enough to use Twinkle. Someone should edit the Twinkle article for that. And yes, I do prefer working on one article at the time because it takes involvement and concentration to read up on all the references and scientific literature. The article isn't finished and in my opinion is not describing and explaining the controversy well. Where does it say that editors have to work on multiple articles at the same time? So next time I can also revert 6 consecutive edits and claim they're POV? Probably not. But hey, you're the boss. Immortale (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what Black Kite said. There is no misuse of Twinkle here because he provided a valid edit summary. If you disagree with Orangemarlin's assessment about the edits being POV, talk to him about it on the talk page. » \ / (⁂) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. Any editor can revert six consecutive edits, from the History page, using no special tools whatsoever, and that would count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. This isn't abuse of Twinkle. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is belief that using twinkle is an de facto accusation of vandalism. In fact, it has keys to state that, but I rarely use it, unless it's obvious vandalism. One of the keys is even "Good faith reversion" for someone who made an obvious error. Twinkle makes it easier to move the editing back to the last NPOV edit. Immortale's edits were strongly POV, and I decided reverting them all was the best for the article while stating that it is POV. Immortale has been edit warring for a week or so, and this is the result of it. Hopefully he can slow down and build consensus on the discussion page. OrangeMarlin 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been sorely tempted to start blocking people who use that "good faith revert" button for gross incivility: the edit summary it leaves is about as good-faith as a slap in the face. --Carnildo (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I rarely use that button, unless it's a really good faith issue like accidentally removing a section while editing, or a grammar error which needs to be reverted and rewritten. Otherwise, I just revert, and explain in the edit summary. Hell, I even use the edit summary for good faith reversions. OrangeMarlin 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I'm not denying that I've put a lot of work in the article but your statement that I've been edit warring for a week or so is false. Besides the 6 mentioned above, I only made 3 edits in the last week or so, all of them valid and accepted by every other editor. In the past I had to get a third neutral opinion (got 2 actually) that my edits were completely valid. I don't have the time to fight every single edit I make. And there is a debate right now from another editor without me being involved about one of my six edits being valid and your revert being invalid. You don't debate with him or her, you just revert. I appreciate the remark by Carnildo, which shows that there are some common sense people at Misplaced Pages after all. Immortale (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin opinions needed

Saint Pancake has been speedied, undeleted, flagged for speedy again, had the flag removed, and had the flag reapplied all today. Can some more admins chime in and help develop consensus for what should be done?

Full disclosure: I was the one who flagged it for speedy deletion as a G10 first, and I believe it is a valid G10. After it was deleted and then undeleted, I tried to start a conversation about the situation—and about NPOV as it applies to redirects in general—at WP:NPOVN, but only 2 people have chimed in (one on each side).

Thanks, Mike R (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted again. G10 doesn't only apply to living people (G10 quote: "it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"), and this is a particularly unpleasant pejorative epithet - used practically only in blogs - the existence of which reflects really badly on Misplaced Pages. I actually don't understand why it was recreated, especially as the recreating admin said "the term is a disparaging name " which is exactly what G10 actually says. Black Kite 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While technically BLP does not apply we should rightly consider the feelings of her friends and family. Leave deleted and salt if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and as said above, G10 doesn't only apply to living people anyway. It can also refer to groups, companies, organizations - in fact really anything that can be disparaged. Black Kite 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per all of the above. This should not be a redirect; G10 applies. MastCell  22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, G10 certainly applies to the dead as well as the living. —Travis 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• G10 does not apply, since the redirect does not "serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject". Likewise per the examples at WP:REDIRECT "Butcher of Kurdistan redirects to Ali Hassan al-Majid" and al-Majid is a living person while Rachel Corrie is not. This is not as cut-and-dried as the above opiners would like to make it. Actually, it is... but in the other direction. Marked this thread unresolved. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Take it to WP:RFD. The discussion at WP:NPOVN shows that there are non-trivial arguments on both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you cannot threaten the deceased, articles and redirects can still disparage a dead person. G10 does apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only does G10 apply, it's a textbook G10. I'll say it again - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". What other possible purpose could the page have? Since the nickname only exists to disparage (it's just an unpleasant nickname used on a few internet blogs and other user-generated sites) then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. Black Kite 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Jclemens, between this case and Ali Hassan is the reliable sources that have the 'butcher' reference. If and when the term becomes widely used and reported in reliable sources there may be a case for inclusion/redirect of this term in/to the article, until then there is none whatsoever. Quite frankly it disturbs me that an admin has such a poor grasp of That's not how I see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Find me one policy or guideline, anywhere, that requires redirects have reliable sourcing, and I'll withdraw my objections. Fact is, if someone had created Saint Pancake as a POV fork with any keepable content, it would have been merged back intoRachel Corrie and the redirect left in place. Really--read WP:REDIRECT; there's simply no support for your position there. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That took me all of 30 seconds. WP:RS says "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies. I have however refactored my sentence as you've requested to avoid any appearance of a personal attack. Exxolon (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)\

Then we have a serious disconnect between WP:REDIRECT which governs the specific case, and WP:RS, which doesn't mention redirects by name. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We do? I've just (quickly) scanned WP:REDIRECT and came across "Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." - this would seem completely appropiate to this case - which part of WP:REDIRECT are you looking at? Exxolon (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a large does of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around. The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for Rachel Corrie, it's not a Misplaced Pages-centric phenomenon. There is really no comparison with the "Joe Bloggs is a loser" example. The Butcher of Kurdistan example is far closer to the point. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the regular editors of the article, we've declined to put the Pancake into the article, it comes up every now and then. Lack of RS, mostly.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and no one in favor of keeping the redirect has argued (that I've seen) in favor of inserting it into the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to expect that redirects would be specifically called out as a form of attack, though I'm sure consensus to add it could be rapidly generated if it becomes an issue. If I created an article named fucking asswipe and redirected it to a person's page, would anyone seriously argue that that wasn't an attack? It's reasonable to argue over whether Sarah Pancake is an attack or not, but if it's an attack, formatting it as a redirect doesn't provide it with some kind of magic armor plating.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your strawman, Kww, is that your example describes someone who uses a non-unique term in a specific redirect to disparage the target. As I've pointed out in the NPOV discussion, no one else is called "Saint Pancake" besides Rachel Corrie, the redirects have been averaging 12 hits a month in 2008, and the use of Saint Pancake to refer to Rachel Corrie clearly has a non-Misplaced Pages origin--thus the redirect reflects a disparaging name for Rachel Corrie widely used in right-wing circles, rather than a Misplaced Pages-specific attack on Rachel Corrie. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you accept that "12 hits a month" is demonstrative of actual usage, it isn't very convincing for a site as visible in search engines as Misplaced Pages is. If a "St Pan cake" link gets a top spot among other "St Pa ncake" links in Google by virtue of being in Misplaced Pages, and therefore is occasionally clicked on, that means it should stay in Misplaced Pages? That sounds dangerously close to indirect self-referencing.

Additionally, that premise is based on a rather faulty assumption - that all of the clicks are indicative of usage rather than someone following a discussion thread. I know I can account for a few of those clicks, and a closer look at the general "stats.grok.se" link you referenced at NPOVN shows that "usage" spikes around discussion of the redirect's validity. arimareiji (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but I've Googled for "Saint Pancake" and I don't see Misplaced Pages anywhere in the results list, so up until today, it wasn'a substantial issue. I agree, though, that this thread has probably brought more awareness of the term than the redirects ever did in their 6+ years of combined existence, which seems the height of irony. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... what other discussions of the redirects' validity? I wasn't aware these had been discussed previously. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check over at the talk page and archives, if you're asserting this hasn't repeatedly been brought up and linked to. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was discussed on that talk page, or the inclusion or exclusion of the term from that article was discussed on that talk page? The latter is common knowledge, referenced above. The first, if true, is news to me. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's news to you, some would-be humorist keeps using fabricated/misrepresented sources to insert such gems as "Rach el Corr ie supporters held a fundraising pancake breakfast" and "known in her official hagiography as 'St Panca ke'". So yes, the nickname does come up along with a cutely-placed redirect to it. arimareiji (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? Anyone opposed to me reinstating the redirects and listing them at WP:RfD? If we're having a debate about it, then it's obvious that WP:CSD do not apply. ANI is not a place to discuss redirects--RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. I have come up with two crystal clear quotations from Misplaced Pages Guidelines that preclude it's existence. The first mandates against it's creation (WP:RS says "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies.) and the second would mandate it's deletion should it be created ("Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.") - Unless the term is mentioned in sufficient reliable sources AND consenuse is established to include it in the article itself then there is absolutely NO case for having the redirect at the present time. Exxolon (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To put it pithily, the name is unsupported by reliable sources, hence a CSD, both as an unlikely search term and prankish vandalism. If it ever becomes widely cited, for whatever reason, that'll be another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Point - "The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for <name of subject>" - I've yet to see you actually come up with any evidence that it is a NOTABLE off wiki disparging name. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

G10; a redirect is mainspace and is not protected from general WP policy. In response to your question of "Anyone opposed?", I would note that five people had already voiced explicit opposition just above the question, and two more since you've asked. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses. Exxolon, Gwen Gale, lack of RS is not a speedy criteria under any circumstances. Arimareiji, G10 is disputed by multiple editors (check the NPOV noticeboard) and WP:CSD is not for things that are disputed. All of those arguments properly belong in an MfD disucssion. Now, does anyone have a policy-supported reason the CSD should stand, instead of being reverted and sent to MfD? Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy - G10 - "solely to disparage it's subject" - which was applied on the 2nd deletion. Exxolon (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, G10 is disputed, so disputed discussions (and it was disputed before Black Kite deleted it the second time) should properly go to XfD, not wheel warring to re-delete a contested CSD. Oh, wait, I just said that above. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Gwen Gale said before your above comment (per timestamps), WP:DRV applies. "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." arimareiji (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's not sufficiently clear: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion." Not "Reverting a speedy deletion is the process to be used, then discuss it." arimareiji (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The RD is a CSD. CSD deletions can be disputed. See WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redaction required

Normally I'm loathe to refactor other peoples comments, but I strongly feel we should remove all mentions of her actual name from this discussion - we're heavily spidered and we could create a self-fufilling prophecy here. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but not in practicality. If any reliable news organization picks up on this when there are much more pressing topics to cover, I'll eat my hat. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly object as well. Rachel Corrie is dead, has been for years, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. The term has been in use since she died, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. There is no reason to WP:CENSOR this thread. As I said elsewhere, I think the fact that this WILL show up on Google shortly is pretty funny--the redirect sat there minding its own business for years, then someone decided it was an "attack page" and pretty soon Google will have more hits on the term. Misplaced Pages didn't start the use of the term, but in the attempting to excise a relatively innocuous appearance thereof, the exposure of its use has been amplified. Classic Streisand effect. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Misplaced Pages editors to forestall this kind of thing. If the term sticks, it'll be echoed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea, the argument that excising the name here will lead to its being spread further doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was actually the other way around, that excising the name from this talk page would prevent it from coming up as "hits" for search engines. But like I said, I'll eat my hat if anyone outside the Little Green Footballs blogosphere thinks this is more newsworthy than what else is going on in the world. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since it appears to be an outcome that Jclemens has been pushing for--or at the very least he believes will happen--then I'd say yes, delete all references to forestall it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CalendarWatcher. Finding it "ironic" doesn't mean I desired that outcome. I've reverted the changes to my comments. The redaction here is pointless censorship, since the deletion review will list both the redirects and their targets anyways. Again, I'm specifically objecting to other editors refactoring my comments. If anyone wants to put in a request for oversight here, great, but as has been pointed out above "Saint Pancake" is regularly brought up on Talk:Rachel Corrie, so it would be rather pointlesss. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I did not use--and can't imagine ever using--'ironic' in whatever debased sense you're implying, I fail to see why you bring it up. I will say that I believe that yes, you do want to spread this mocking insult to a dead person used by fanatics, and given that Google relies upon linking in building up its rankings, using the phrase and inter-connecting it among different pages as much as possible increases attention to it, and that that outcome of using Misplaced Pages to promote it is what you would like. Clear enough? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that WP:TALK#Others' comments provides for such removal only in cases of libel. Unless anyone is asserting libel, refactoring another editor's comments is contrary to accepted conventions of Misplaced Pages behavior. Please follow such conventions and continue to assume good faith, especially on politically sensitive topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% true - WP:BLP allows refactoring/removal from any part of the encylcopedia, although it does not apply in this case. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about 'libel' is pure wikilawyering: I would have thought simple human decency would have sufficed, but apparently not. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront

I bumped into the following thread on a certain rather distasteful site called Stormfront; it talks of attampts to move their agenda into WP. See here. I doubt they can get anywhere but be aware and see if we can track any accounts down for blocking. Blood Red Sandman 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, they think we have some sort of rep system, wherein above a certain percent or points one becomes an admin, and they think the American Economy is strong and healthy. When you're that out of touch, and provide a publicly accessible master plan, eventually you get stopped. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They certainly want to disrupt the vote process by influencing via socks/forum discussion. Well, look no further. It looks to be UKHistorian (talk · contribs) - it's a definite looking at the posts now. See post # 6 and # 8. He has been editing Gavin Hopley & Talk:Gavin Hopley - both of which were deleted but still may need to be creation-protected. Also, the user says he anonymously vandalized Misplaced Pages before. I'm suggesting that there be a block on UKhistorian and perhaps even an checkuser SPI. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, but in fact this is old news - they announced this at least four or five years ago. It means we always have to be vigilant with articles on race, racism, white people, the Holocaust, etc., but we'd have to be vigilent with these articles no matter what ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't of anounced it four or five years ago, because the timestamps for their bright idea are this month, as are the ones on the deleted edits. Maybe other Stormfront users have tried things with Misplaced Pages before - I would be surprised if they hadn't - but this one is new. Blood Red Sandman 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Slrubenstein, in terms of working out the articles, that's definitely the case, but ...what do you mean "four or five years ago"? This appears to be recent as far as I can tell. And it seems that more than one user has recreated Mary Ann Leneghan (User:TheHappyRampager and User:Realitarian). I don't know why they even bother, but I can't help but feel suspicious (again). ~ Troy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is right: yes, it was four or five years ago that I first saw their thread declaring that they would infiltrate Misplaced Pages and start to slant our articles "their" way; they even discussed how to do it in some detail. Late 2004 or early 2005 I think. They were persistent for a while and we did not have as robust a defensive mechanism then. If I rememeber correctly it wasn't too difficult to associate particular Wiki users with Stormfront members. So they're trying it again: we can be vigilant and revert racist nonsense again. Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn;t really look like a really serious effort and as far as I can find there is nothing else similar currently. That place is such an echo chamber, makes my skin crawl. Viridae 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised by that, but you're going to have to get use to it. There are several of forums like that focussed on ...you probably don't even want to know. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares to write them, Mary Ann Leneghan and Gavin Hopley (or at least incidents involving them) both look notable. Based on the intelligence and nuance displayed in the linked thread, I don't think we have too much to worry about with this particular cadre of budding encyclopaedians. Skomorokh 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, we should protect the page. Yes, I know pre-emptive protection is frowned upon. But the article is already balancing on a razor's edge, and we need to keep it from falling off. While we can trust our established editors to work to keeping it balanced, we can't in hell trust Stormfront to. Sceptre 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nyeh. It was delisted from GA, so poof goes the razor metaphor. I'm not surprised, really. The problem with articles like this is that the majority opinion of the subject is presented as fact because there is no proof of the obverse, and any attempts to quantify it as a majority opinion (in this case, 95-99.9%) are often shut out by allegations of adding undue weight. From an article reviewer stance, it breeds terrible prose and disjointed writing because of this partisan infighting, MOS breaches and issues about neutrality: whether we're too sympathetic, whether we're too hostile, whether it's scientific enough, whether it's too scientific (which can happen, say if creationism was described in the first paragraph as "unscientific" without qualification, as opposed to the currently neutral method of saying why it is and who thinks it). That's why we rarely see any articles like this at FA-level, or even GA-level. And the ones that are (for example, Intelligent design) still suffer the problem of bad (or at the very most, less-than-satisfactory) writing. But enough of my soapbox. My previous point still stands. :) Sceptre 03:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jofakēt

I apologize in advance if I am wasting anyone's time here, but I noticed something ... funny, and would appreciate the views of other experienced editors. The above named user is (at least as named) new, appearing here three days ago. Since then, he has made some reasonable edits. However, the vast majority of his edits divide into two types. First, adding weird alternate pronunciations to a cluster of family/sexuality related articles, all of which have been reverted (from 8:54 today to 9:10 today) and a host of votes to delete specific articles (from 16:12 to 18:25 today). Of the few remaining, several are also anomalous, like this one. I am concerned s/he is a disruptive editor ... or maybe playing some very specific gamge ... or maybe just a newbie, except if I were new I wouldn't start off putting templates up and voting on deletions. It's just ... well, funny. I'd value others looking at the users edit history and checking out examples of what I am talking about and weighing in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that familiarity with WP and editing does not constitute proof of sockpuppetry. Perhaps someone could guide this person as far as good editing or direct them to the sandbox (such as User talk:Chergles/vandal sandbox if they want to type something and have it appear. I am not ready to adopt a person as I am an adoptee myself. Chergles (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I make an accusation of sockpuppetry. If you think that is what I meant by "(at least as named)" you have made a too-hasty inference. It is possible that this user has been active as an anonymous user, identifiable only by an IP address, long before taking a name, for example. I have no reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet. I did not mean what I did not write. I did however mean what I did write which is that I see a pattern of disruptive editing that is only noticable when you look at the users edits across many articles, rather than the history of one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit pattern looks sort of familiar to me, with a banned user, so I RFCU'ed. If they aren't who I thought then no big deal, if they are then good spot Slrubenstein. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GWH - in general I am loathe to accuse someone of sockpuppetry or to block anyone, and can't just on the basis of this user's edit history. But for me this is one example of AN/I at its best - only consulting with other long-term users can we distinguish between highly suspicious patterns versus the sometimes ideosyncratic behavior of newbies. If Jokafet turns out to be the latter, I will put a welcome template on his/her talk page and offer some gentle advice. Thanks for looking into this, and I will wait to see what you conclude, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Violet Blue

Could somebody impartial take a look at the talk page for this article? I think that there are some serious BLP issues going on here. This edit, in particular should probably be removed. I feel like I'm probably overly involved in the article, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else would take a look. Thanks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying "we must get it right". A cursory look at the article shows that the alleged BLP violations aren't present. The policy does include all pages, including talk pages. It depends on how carefully we want to follow BLP. Should it be permanently removed (oversighted in WP lingo)? Put into the archives right away? Put into the archives at the usual time? Crossed out? Removed with a notation that it has been removed? Removed with no explanation? Or simply a comment that the original comment does not have references and may be a BLP. Also most talk page comments do not have references so is that a problem? Chergles (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page comment was removed. Aside from the issue of BLP violations, the comment is just an editorial, with little chance of leading toward improvement of the article. Baseball Bugs 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(response to Chergles) Let's stick with the issue at hand. The diff Chunky Rice posted is a blatant, serious BLP vio. The personal details (name, birthday) that the person in revealing are out there in seemingly reliable if minor / primary sources elsewhere on the web, and seem to be correct, so that isn't so urgent. But they are private details that the subject of the article has chosen not to publicize significantly, and I see no reason why we should here. The problem goes beyond the usual matter of poor sourcing, it's that there are direct accusations of a crime and of personal issues by a person claiming to be a witness. If untrue it is quite possibly libelous. Even if it is true, Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. I don't know the process but unless it involves great effort I hope the material can be completely excised from the record, and preferably made unavailable to admins too... if another lawsuit comes out of this, I hate to throw this on the Foundation but it's probably a matter for professionals rather than us volunteers. The only legitimate material on the article page is a fair, informative, biography of her. Anything else is pointless drama, and apparently deliberately so. This is the only edit from the account posting the info, so one can assume it's a WP:SPA created for the purpose. The person claims to be associated with a well-known organization for which she used to work, which introduces even more drama. That account should be indefinitely blocked and we ought to consider banning the editor behind it if there's any more of this... some of those people are technically savvy and probably know enough to troll Misplaced Pages and get around checkuser, so best to nip this in the bud rather than rewarding whoever it is with the satisfaction of having caused drama.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What? No. they made one edit. Plenty of people make an account to make one edit. My father didn't even know that you could edit without registering an account. There is no way I'm going to support an indefinite block on that basis. Send the edit to oversight if you feel it merits it (I don't). Otherwise, they edit was reverted and the talk page/article should be patrolled to make sure we are following WP:NPF. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of editors around here creating accounts to post in their first edit WP:BLP violation of the first order, against people they claim to know personally. The accusations, which I don't want to repeat because that would mean this page has to be scrubbed too, include the commission of a serious crime and um....issues... in both cases Defamation per se. They look actionable if they're not true. She has only recently filed police reports and restraining order requests against another Wikipedian. Is this an editor here to improve the encyclopedia, or for his/her own reasons? quack quack. I don't think WP:BITE requires us to wait for more just to find out. Look at what we have to gain or lose. An unjustified block can always be appealed, and it's not as if the editor is in any position to complain they don't deserve it after that post. On the other hand, if the person is trolling or deliberately defaming a person known to be litigious, letting this continue could cause a heap of unpleasantness. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's a socking attempt to disrupt wikipedia, it is about the crappiest one I have ever seen. Like I said, send the diff on to oversight if you like. But right now you and I have made 4 times as many edits on the subject as that person has. My point about the one off account is that it literally can be someone reading the article, seeing the talk page and making a comment, then never coming back to[REDACTED] ever again (as an editor). We have an astonishing number of 'one-off' accounts simply because it is so easy to try and people don't stick around. Blocking that editor for that comment is not only unjustified, it is pointless. Odds are they will never edit again. If they do, we can block them pretty easily. And, frankly, if the person is trolling, just ignore them. This is the lulz part of trolling, where their troll post causes us to treat this as "serious business" and we run around talking about defamation lawsuits and what not. The comment was reverted. It can be deleted if need be. If the account persists, they can be immediately blocked. There is no need for a three ring circus for one comment. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

True...wait and see. That's why some cool heads are admins and others like me just make dire predictions from the peanut gallery. It looks like it'll probably go away on its own. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alis.Payan is back again

WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan describes our problem child ... long-term anonymous and sockpuppeting vandalism, all from a subrange in the Dominican Republic which she is the only apparent editor using. Today I noticed her inserting herself into the cast of Camp Rock 2, which is one of her historic editing areas.

200.88.94.0/24 was hard-blocked for 90 days the last time, and that expired 11 days ago. I've gone through the last 100K edits and 200.88.94.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is her only case of anonymous editing. Can someone go ahead and reinstate the block? 6 months this time perhaps? It needs to be a hard block, because she is a dedicated puppeteer and checkuser has indicated that she is the only user of that range.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the range for six months - Without a CU confirming that there's socking or that there's no legitimate other user in that range a hardblock seems unjustified at this time. But six months seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed at SPI to get checkuser confirmation.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Katelyn Wyler:The Movie that at least one named account has been created. Anyone care to tell me who created Katelyn Wyler:The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so that I can look into it further?—Kww(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was BreeHills12 (talk · contribs). No other edits from that account ... do I hear quacking? Blueboy96 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do. Either go ahead and indef it, or let me know that you don't think you have enough evidence and I'll add it to the SPI report.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite took care of BreeHills12.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility

IslandShader (talk · contribs) I am bringing this here from WQA. Please check out the contributions here. Warned multiple times by different users and continuing with the uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks. Up to an admin of course, but I think a block is appropriate. At the least, maybe an admin giving a final warning could change this person's behavior. Diffs here: . The Seeker 4 Talk 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After viewing some of his edit summaries, he definately needs to tone down the vulgarity quite a lot, and take some civility classes. ArcAngel (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin has issued a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• comment This may be another sock of User:Historian19; he started editing right after the last sock of Historian19 got blocked and he seems attracted to work over some of same articles. All edits of User:IslandShader (first using 41.249.65.3 and then starting up IslandShader probably need to be rolled back. It is a mess already. Thanks Hmains (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal/activist/anti-Semite

Yes, this guy gets the 'slashie' award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lapsed_Pacifist

Long term vandal/activist/anti-Semite. Has very recently been wiping out information on the War on Terrorism page that does not align with his world view. Openly deletes/suppresses information about Islamic terrorism.

At an absolute minimum, requires a temporary block or an administor warning to deter future behavior. Actually needs longer block.

Has long history of blocks and bans dating back to 2005 over topics pertaining to the IRA. Having been blocked out of that sector, he has now decided to 'champion' Islamic causes. Is highly 'interested' in Jewish topics.

This guy has been allowed to run amok for 4 years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Lapsed_Pacifist

Bounce78 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce78 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific differences that illustrate your point would help. arimareiji (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nazi tactics':

]

War on Terrorism:

]

]

]

]

]

Ethnic cleansing:

]

Iranian embassy siege:

]

'The Holocaust Industry':

] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce78 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bounce78 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see anything meeting the definition "anti-Semitic", although clearly his edits are certainly pushing a particular POV. This is basically a content dispute; I don't see anything specifically requiring administrator intervention here. Black Kite 10:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, she is definitely a POV-pushing disruptive editor. I think it goes beyond a content dispute when there is a pattern of POV pushing across several articles. And many of the edits are pointless as well as unjustified; removing the Hamas and Hezbollah flags from the article on the war on terror for example.

I do think the first edit difference, on Nazi tactics, is anti-Semitic (to identify Israel with the Nazis in the context of a discussion of the Holocaust is a common anti-Semitic tactic. But this is an edit to a talk page and not evident in edits to articles. I would kep a record of edits that fall under WP:ED - edits to articles that is, not talk pages - and see if you can collect stronger evidence of POV-pushing disruptive editing. I think this guy falls short of the threshold, but you can post a notice at the NPOV noticeboard to see if others think she is a POV warrior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice fellas. Bounce78 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Aun mehdi

Would someone with time, patience and kindness please help Aun mehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who keeps writing unreferenced articles about members of his family "by, Syed Mohammed Aun Mehdi". None of it remains in mainspace, and I don't know whether any of them would pass WP:N if they were referenced, neutrally written and not WP:COI - the guy is a n00b and I think he's a young man from India but I'm afraid I don't have time to pick it apart as I am singing in a concert this evening and leaving shortly for a rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a shot, good luck with your performance. --Tom 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I believe that your comment to their talkpage suffices for the time being, but I will watch the page in case they make any requests for help following on from that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a message about this thread and about Wiki polocies on this user's talk page and offered my assistance. I will mark this as resolved for now and see what develops. Cheers! --Tom 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks LessHeard, --Tom 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI...

So as a teenage idiot, I was asked to come here. You guys sort this out please, I'm sick of being civil where it's not appreciated.

Related discussion, I think I put it in the right place (link). --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. There's a contender for one of the lamest edit wars in recent months...! Anyway, I don't think it merits inclusion - yes, Dick has a disambig to Penis because that's the slang in English, but then again, this is the English wikipedia. Should we have a disambiguation page for Phallus to say that it means penis in German? Any number of english words have different meanings in other languages (as I found out the hard way when trying to simply use the english "mackerel" in french), but that's not to say that they are so significant that they merit mention on a disambiguation page. _Gb 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

...which gives the user involved in such edit war to call me a "teenage idiot"? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I could add that, as I mentioned at the other board where I made my opinion shown on the word, other good-faith users have added this definition as a worth-mentioning claim, dating years ago, and they're all being reverted. This is however the first case, from what I know, that anyone took steps to start a discussion on this, and the result was the obvious incivility and attack, and unfair labeling of an user that didn't even bother to give an opinion or reasons on the Geopolitical board. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't give anyone a right to be uncivil, nor did I say it did..._Gb 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding xD, are we now supposed to mention every single meaning of every single slang in every single language?! This is the English Misplaced Pages for pete's sake, and its and encyclopedia not a multi-language dictionary. I personally find AA's behavior here somewhat arrogant. Especially if we remember that certain Romanian users even tried to rename the Pula article to "Pola" because they felt the current name was too "obscene", and even got quite angry when this was refused, stating that "it is a disgrace for an encyclopedia to house such profanity" :P --DIREKTOR 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm affraid you seem a little more arogant than me. But I guess it's all about personal opinions here. And I'm affraid that by your English definition principle, the "Botswana pula, the currency of Botswana", shouldn't belong there either. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from comparing me with cases I have no relation, nor any accord or knowledge of. You probably know better than me that partaining to a population of 22 milion people does not concern a reason for comparison. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse for violations of the law. Further, the Botswanan Pula is a measure of currency, having real, important, tangible effects on how the Botswanan economy and society operate and work. The Botswanan economy is notable. It's far from the slang of a non-english speaking nation, which is rarely notable here on EN.wiki. He's not arrogant at all, you don't understand the policy and views of a vast majority on en.wiki. Not our problem. ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse the incivility, but disambiguation pages on en.wikipedia exist for the technical reason that some terms have several meanings that could plausibly serve as titles of an English-language encyclopedia. This is not the case for this specific meaning of "pula". The right place to discuss this meaning would be under penis, but even there this Romanian term is probably no more worth mentioning than similar words in most other languages. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly added it here for the incivility, with the main discussion on the Geopolitical board, where it belonged. Just that the original notice got derailed badly... --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on the page, edit warring to keep it is stupid, calling people obsessed with penis words 'teenage idiots' may be wrong, but only in regards to incivility, not in regard to facts. teenagers like dick jokes, this is just another. Move on. ThuranX (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "obsessed with penis words" is also wrong. Also, I made my views as not being a joke, it just got derailed as that (and most people start at that premise, as the one that started the incivility, the reverts and obviously, you, with reasons yet unknown to me). As I asked on the Geopolitical board, and on the Romanian word talk page, established Romanian users from both sites should give their opinion there, according to Misplaced Pages policies. There could be, indeed, many reasons for not adding it, but the most widely spread is also the wrongest assumption - that it is just a joke entry, when there are evidence repeated efforts have been made to introduce it a professional way in conformance with even the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And here, NON-Romanian users, who are aware of editing guidelines and policies and unlikely to work from nationalistic biases, can make it clear for you. Foreign words for dick, tits, twat, and chocolate starfish don't belong on disambig pages, or have articles, unless there's a broad body of sources establishing the notability in english-speaking nations. Alternately, we can ask Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians, and others from that corner of Europe to create articles for every slang derisive word they have for Romanians, since slang related to Romania matters so much.ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So...

This is going off-topic too much, is anyone going to do anything about that incivility attack? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As many others have said above, the Romanian slang word should not be on the disambiguation page. Removal of it by non-bot editors could have been handled without comments on the age or cognitive status of the editors adding it; but in all honesty, it's quite minor in the grand scheme of things, and my suggestion to AA is to move on from this issue. -- Samir 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"An idiot" is a cognitive status? Wow, when you put it like that, I don't feel insulted anymore at all. I'm pretty sure others won't if I call them idiots either.</sarcasm, btw> As for the disambig page, I myself removed any links with the previous line of discussion by making this sub-discussion excluslivly, so your observation is, I dare to say, bad-mannered at best. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gosh, I think I'll stop here, I realise now that being called an idiot for no good reason isn't going to get anyone any warn, if I keep this up I might be even baited in a situation when one will probably use the policies to give me a ban. Happy swearing without consequences, ppl. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me be blunt: AA, repeated addition of penis-slang in another languages to a disambiguation page is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Coming to ANI to complain about being reverted (albeit being reverted with a rude edit summary) is a waste of everyone's time. Continuing the discussion here despite everyone telling you that you are wrong boggles the mind. You screwed up, someone was mean to you, get over it. -- Samir 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bait level increasing :-) Sorry, not getting banned for ya, mate. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not baiting you. Don't expect an administrative response or warning when someone is mildly incivil out of frustration. Just ignore, and move on, unless it becomes a disruptive pattern. Read Slrubenstein's post below, which is excellent advice -- Samir 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, a lot of incivility occurs at Misplaced Pages and while it is not nice, anyone who has been around long enough gets a thicker skin. In most cases someone just loses their temper. My advice is: keep a record of this person's incivility towards you and if there is a persistent pattern of incivility take it to the appropriate board (which is not this one). With several examples, I am sure someone there will post a warning; if it keeps happening and the warnings pile up, then someone will take more severe action. In the meantime, and this is sincere, constructive, good faith advice, do you think there is anything that you can do to diffuse the situation? Since you have not attacked him/her personally, presumably you are more mature. Maybe this means you can also find a way to effectively encourage him/her to lay off the personal attacks and focus on the issues. This does not always work, but sometimes it does and it is worth trying. Also, if you demonstrably try to cool him/her down, difuse conflicts, go out of your way not to be provocative, that will provide you with even more evidence to support your case if you seek mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note on his user talk. No, I don't want our friend here to leave here with the impression that he can have a similar go at someone else thinking that he can get away with it. Civility standards on Misplaced Pages are already low enough these days. - Mailer Diablo 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Marcus2

• Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need admin eyes on this, because this has gone on long enough. User:Marcus2 has a serious issue with both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I placed a non-templated message to the user warning him of his behaviour, to which he responded with seeming understanding. But apparently he doesn't get it. He does contribute with some level of value, but his negative behavior, to me, far outweighs any positive contributions. Please, to the admins, review the contribs with some level of depth, and don't just whitewash the issue; there are too many diffs for me to list here. At least one other user besides myself has tried to communicate, so now I would like an admin to attempt communication. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As the other editor who has attempted to inform Marcus2 of these issues, most of it stems usually from his own POV-pushing methods where anyone who disagrees with his take on things is insulted in edit summaries and on talkpages. This isn't anything new but after several years of the same issues coming up time and again and being reminded of the policies he breaks in regards to his editing methods there's got to be a point where it becomes apparent Marcus2 cannot conduct himself on Misplaced Pages, that point was passed for me in early 2007. treelo _radda 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More diffs of the uncivil behavior would help - the one that I followed showed that he was being uncivil, but the argument could be made from the immediately-preceding edit that he was being baited: "You don't act the fool in music articles, why is it that animation articles are fair game to go and be a dick? I'm going to be watching you and I reckon that I could actually get you topicbanned so cut the shitslinging in your edit summaries and talkpage contribs towards other editors who do not agree with you."

Please note that I'm not saying that I know enough context of the situation to assert anything more than a passing impression. I'm suggesting that you provide more diffs because if it's a nasty ongoing pattern, diffs will be easy to find. Without them, I doubt you'll get a serious hearing. arimareiji (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I looked on the links out of curiosity, and I have roughly the same impression. Frankly, I'd remove such battering on my talk page myself from people constantly attacking and bating me if I were in his shoes. Being a little hotheaded, especially when provoked, is not such an unexpected thing (nor does it prove "making harm", because I'm not sure he's the one starting it), and I myself experienced such situations, with diverse results. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the 50 or so recent edits made by the user, most seem to be useful to Misplaced Pages, from removing useless information, to reverting vandalisms and such. My 2 cents as long as I'm around here. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

These are from edit summaries:

1. calling good-faith nonsense
2. POV, who says "the network has gone downhill"?
3. fairly strong tone for an edit summary?
4. idiot?
5. is that an acceptable edit summary?
6. this one, too?

These are from talk pages:

1. is that appropriate?
2. or this?
3. does a disagreement rate this kind of behavior?

Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is ongoing and not just something recent, here's a few more from in the past regarding personal attacks either not specifically directed or towards other specific editors and POV pushing . For his extreme NPOV standpoint and attacking other editors, see this talkpage dicussion. treelo _radda 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ip 81.64.4.97

FYI : On the wp:an/i of wp:fr, sysops pointed out that this IP had been blocked for 1 year there and as a consequence had started to vandalize wp:en. Here is the link : Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the message is : "Est-ce qu'une bonne âme anglophone pourrait prévenir les admins de WP-en du blocage d'un an infligé à cette IP chez nous afin de les inciter à en faire autant chez eux ? Voir ses contribs. Merci. DocteurCosmos (d) 31 janvier 2009 à 15:38 (CET)" Could a god English speaking guy warn the sysops of wp:en about the 1-year block inflicted to this IP on wp:fr in order to convince them to do the same on wp:en ? See his contribs. Thanks. DocteurCosmos."

Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Lucasbfr already got it . Based on a short overview of the contributions, this looks like a good block. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with incivility

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

I am currently having an issue with an editor displaying some serious civility issues and personal attacks, specifically directed at me. I feel that this issue may go beyond WQA as this user seems to feel it is his right to say whatever he wants about any editor, in any part of Misplaced Pages.

User:Tarysky began editing in December 2008. I first came across this user when I edited a page he created about an upcoming Erykah Badu album (New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)). I removed some unsourced material and I was promptly confronted on my Talk Page. Tarysky then insisted on re-inserting the information that he claimed was properly sourced: . Note that the reverting and edits made by Tarysky to this article not only reinserted unsourced information but also re-added some other errors I had found within the article (such as an incorrect album title).

Tarysky's first interactions with me were to leave messages on my talk page referring to my edits as "sloppy" and that I shouldn't be editing the article anyway because I did not create it . When given warnings about inserting the unsourced information, edit warring and an uncivil attitude, I was "dismissed": .

I asked a trusted editor, User:Realist2, to please keep an eye on the article: . Tarysky then jumped in and accused me of making personal attacks: and demanded that I stay off his Talk Page .

Similar unsourced edits were then made to the article by User:JC STARR729, and when I or Realist2 removed unsourced information, Tarysky left messages on our Talk Pages to stop "edit warring": . Tarysky then reverted the article and stated that it "doesn't not need to be reverted anymore by no one" and added a "source" that was nothing but an image of a magazine cover .

Tarysky then decided that Realist2 and I were sockpuppets and proceeded to open a CheckUser request: . As he waited for someone to address his request he continued to add comments and antagonize me and Realist2: . Tarysky's innapropriate comments at Requests for Checkuer were deleted by User:Tiptoety and subsequently reverted by Tarysky along with another accusation and another rude comment . When inappropriate comments were again removed, Tarysky reverted twice .

Tarysky then accused User:Iridescent of being a sockpuppet when Iridescent asked for him to stop his behavior and informed me that I should not be "following his edits" .

Yesterday, 30 January, I reverted some edits I thought (at the time) were without proper sources. This led to Tarysky attacking me on my Talk Page and in an edit summary . A comment pertaining to me was also left on an article Talk Page and when removed by me, was reverted by Tarysky .

I reported yesterday's activity as it was occurring at WP:AIV because I felt that Tarysky should be blocked for his attacks, but did not want to do it as the attacks were directed at me. I was told that AIV was not the appropriate page to report such activity, which is why I am here. Note that Tarysky also had something to say at AIV, denying any wrongdoing . Tarysky then also dismissed a warning left for him by User:Daedalus969 as "personal attacks" and denied that he attacked anyone .

I have not had further contact with Tarysky, although he has placed a "rule" on his Talk Page obviously directed at me and he seems to be doing some damage control today: .

Note that during this entire exchange, Tarysky has consistently denied attacking anyone, while accusing everyone else of attacking him. His claim is that he is "correcting" me .

Lastly, every single warning or attempt at discussion left on Tarysky's Talk Page is promptly removed by him, usually with a snide comment or accusation. This also includes warnings about uploading copyrighted images (which have nothing to do with me):

This is a User that has some serious issues with communicating with others and ignoring whichever policies he feels like sweeping aside. There really is no reason why there should be accusations of bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism or some kind of smearing of his character against anyone who disagrees with his edits. I feel that his actions and belligerence so far have been more than enough reason for a block but because I'm involved in the fracas I'd like some additional Administrator eyes on it, if possible. Far be it for me to bite a newcomer, but this is someone with only about 2 months of editing experience and this is not a helpful way to start out.

Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Eo's analysis of the situation. I haven't interacted with this disruptive editor since the end of the checkuser case he filed against us both. I have my concerns he is socking as well. He repeatedly accused lied, saying Eo was making personal attacks, further from the truth. One big headache. Endorse block, maybe we should request a checkuser of our own too... — R 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In cases of incivility, it is tempting to give a final warning first. But what this editor is doing is so bizarre that it's hard to know what to tell him to stop doing. I suggest that a 24-hour block for disruption is justified, with the block reason pointing to this thread. It seems that any admin who visits his talk page will be accused of being a sock, so warnings may not get much traction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse blocking untill he can learn to act like an adult. Misplaced Pages doesn't need people like this.--Patton 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been correcting his edits when he was wrong. If that's called a personal attacks then beep it. About the sockpuppetry case, him and Realist2 seem to have editted a lot of articles to together. I did a checkuser which was later declined. The only reason why he is doing what he's doing is because he still holds that grudge. Enlight of this, I was adding another album to Erykah Badu's page called "Badu". He later comes and erases it. I go his talk and show him the sources that the album has been released and put in stores. He goes stays "Stay Off My Page" after I have corrected him. And just that, he has been trying to start arguements of stupid stuff and contacting other Users when it really doesn't matter. From that time when I edited the New Amerykah Pt. 2, he tried to take over. Since I knew what was going to happen, I went to other articles. He later follows me to other articles like Storm. I went to his talk and told him to stop following edits and reverting them. The victim is me because everytime I edit some pages, he goes and reverts it. He done this to many other users that I just will not name. The fact is, if I edit a Erykah Badu, he will mess it up.

Now about the images, I was just trying to help. There were Users who was able to help me with these situations. We talked about it on our talk pages. After a while, I stopped adding images. So no matter how many links you put up against it, that was a case of "Trial and error". He acted like it's a big deal.

Now for the checkuser comment. How can you checkuser me when I am the only person doing my own edits. No one is backing me or adding the same thing I am. I going to various/random pages telling what I know and then uploading valid sources.

Now about personal attacks. I have made no personal attacks. However, since when does correcting someone by giving them sources a personal attack. If someone erased someone you added and you know what you added was right, wouldn't you go to that person and correct them. Not only that but in my case, Eo was following my edits to begin with when I claimed him to be a sockpuppet. Tarysky (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tarysky for 48 hours for disruptive editing per the evidence of eo, above. In this case it was fair (I think) to let the editor respond before taking any action, but I find myself unable to make much sense of the response. User:Realist2 left a further comment on the situation at User talk:EdJohnston#The ANI thread. It is astounding that Tarysky has accused three different editors of being socks -- Eo, Iridescent and Realist2 -- who between them have about 150,000 edits. There is a disconnect between Tarysky and reality, in my opinion, and we need to let reality win. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested (ThuranX)

I have been attempting to informally work on a dispute between Arcayne (talk · contribs) and ThuranX (talk · contribs). As part of this dispute I asked arcayne to run all concerns he had with Thuran X's behavior through me so that i could filter extraneous requests (possible wiki stalking). After i made the request to arcayne, thuranx began a wild trail of straw man accusations against me. Any editors attempting to clarify the situation were attacked. I would appreciate a review of my actions to ensure that the initial comment to set this in motion was not inappropriate. here is the comment Below is a rough timeline.

• Arcayne reaches out to me for assistance on an edit dispute
• I reply telling arcayne to assume good faith and that thuranx is acting in good faith as well.
• Arcayne expresses concern of incivil behavior
• i drop a note at thuranx's page asking him to make content disputes about the content, not the editor
• i notify arcayne that I dropped a note at thuranX's talk page asking him to make content disptues about the content, not the editor
• thuran appears frustrated with apparent continued wikihounding(stalking) from arcayne. I drop a note asking that arcayne cease editing thuranx's talk page and instead run concerns through me (an attempt to diffuse the situation).
• thuranx mis-interprets my above statement and accuses me of coming to arcaynes defense.
  • Several other un-involved editors come along and alert thuran that he misinterpreted my statement. Thuran in paranoia accuses them of coming there to protect me
• Thuran again makes a long statement telling everybody that I am wrong and that there interpretation of what I have said is wrong. That I am in fact endorsing stalking and harrassement.
• I again try to clarify my initial comments were made with the itnent of asking arcayne to leave thuran alone. I also warn him that is blatant accusations of bad faith against all editors in the thread may get him blocked (I however intentionalyl do not state that I would block him as that would be a COI).
• again other uninvolved editors attempt to explain that the comment was direected at arcayne not him.
• thuran accuses me of posting the message directed at arcayne on his talk page because, "The reason that conversation is placed here is so that I don't forget that Arcayne has friend in high places."
• I tell thuran I am done sticking up for him as it has been thrown in my face repeatedly and that I am done dealing with it.
• Thuran uses a straw man argument on my above statement saying that I am endorsing stalking and that I am a bad admin.
• I tell thuran that watching problem editors is not stalking and that I am done being involved. Isattre, " Should you engage in any blatantly inappropriate behavior I will block you, no questions asked." and otherwise I am done.
• engages over and over in straw man arguments, implying extremes and things I never said with an edit summary, "go away already, you fascist." tells me to reverse the statements I have made and threatens to take it to ANI.
• I encourage him to take it to ANI.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ThuranX is one of the most overtly hostile editors whose account is still active. His block log does not begin to reflect the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and invective, and AFAIK (though I could be wrong on this) he has never indicated a willingness to abide by community norms. IronDuke 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He has been notified here. Chrislk02 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. ThuranX's aggressive attacks on me on this very page were criticized. He obviously needs to learn how to be civil. AnyPerson (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A block won't do that, though; it solves the short-term disruption but nothing else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps a mentor is in order here, someone (who ThuranX respects) who can block if/when ThuranX gets out of hand and monitor his posts for gross incivility. IronDuke 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a mentor, and you and I have past beefs that prevent you from being at all neutral, so be honest about that. What I DO need is for Arcayne to be prevented from stalking me, and Chrislk02 prevented from acting as Arcayne's bully-protector. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we have had past beefs, this is why I said "In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ..." Thats' why I knew, when I saw this post, that Chris was correct without having to wade througha lot of diffs. Would you be willing to promise to adhere to community norms re civility? Is that possible? It could at least preclude something like a mentor.IronDuke

Another recent discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive57. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is half the story. Arcayne has been harassing me for years on here, and I've repeatedly left pages to disengage with him, starting with Thor (Marvel Comics) and most recently Joker (comics) and The Dark Knight (film). Chris has actively endorsed, shepherded, and protected Arcayne while he engages in a protracted period of wikistalking and harassment, and edit warring. I spent days on talk watching Arcayne continually ignore consensus, and policy, to maintain material that ONLY he felt was germane to the articles. Eight editors on one page, five on the other, all reverted him directly, or otherwise removed his addition. Many, though not all, used the talk page or clear edit summaries about this. I engaged him on talk at length. His responses were the same sort of obtuse wikilawyering others have seen in him before, each followed by a restoration of the material. Here's one early example:, wher Fbunny had just commented on the talk, and instead, Arcayne chooses to open a new section, in one of the oldest moves for gaming consensus, start a new section and act like you don't see the old. I think that's in WP:FLAT section 6, Gaming. When multiple editors present consensus by act and reasoning against him, and he's running close to 3RR, he turns around and warns me about it. I wasn't there at all, but it's a good move that Arcayne enjoys - Strike first, right or wrong. Then he runs and gets his protector, Chrislk02. Lest you think I'm kidding, - Some quotes from Chris: " Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, especially due to your long history of incivility. It is not wrong to follow what other people do, in fact that is what makes this wiki such a great place." After Arcayne escalates a WQA in three places, deliberately NOT redirecting potentially interested editors to one central section. He gets three separate groups of people fired up about me, constantly posting and increasing the noise. Then I get blocked, and Chris sanctions Arcayne's actions. Since then, I've been under Arcayne's "watchful eye", which is really manipulative stalking. I have never represented, contrary to Chris and Arcayne's interpretations, that I think I'm above scrutiny, I simply do not want Arcayne to be the one doing it. That's all I keep asking for. Now, however, I have to ask that Chrislk02, who comes running at Arcayne's beck and call to back him up, also be precluded from coming around at me.

Further proof this is all Arcayne's game to get me? After I stated that I would be unwatching the articles, he completely stops editing them. He doesn't respond to other editors asking about the sections, he leaves the pages. Based on that, I have re-watched them. I am being held hostage to his games on Misplaced Pages, and my options, as I outlined earlier this month, are simple. I can either leave the project, or endure his constant gotcha-games. Neither's ideal for me, because outside of his nonsense, I enjoy what I do here, and I've been doing good stuff for a long time here. I'm sick and tired of worrying about when Arcayne's going to come out with another attempt to get me banned, which IS his ultimate goal here, and unless Chrislk02 is prevented from assisting him, that ban will be quietly imposed one evening when no one is paying attention, as an indef block.

I will admit, I was rude to R Baley for no good reason; it appears he was actually trying to help. But I have no similar good faith for Chris or Arcayne, both have made quite abundantly clear that they want to see me banned. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that, based entirely upon their block logs, that indeffing both ThuranX and Arcayne would perhaps reduce third party editor/admin workloads but it should also be noted that both editors have made very many good contributions to the project. There needs to be a way of allowing both editors (and any alleged supporters) to edit the encyclopedia. The best way would be for both parties to agree not to edit in each others areas of interest and where there is already an established contested article for them not to directly revert each other or interact. I have some experience of formulating such conditions (see here - well, supporting Ncmvocalists work) and wonder if they might be adopted by the parties here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse LessHeard vanU's helpful suggestion. We can't go on like this. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I...I want to weakly endorse Thuran's summary of events here. I don't want to say that Thuran is a charming fellow or that he didn't say the things in the diffs above. But I do want to say that the...coverage of Thuran's edits by Arcayne/Chris is outside the norm. We saw the last AN/I about Thuran, with a number of users (most notably Manhattan Samurai) clearly agitating for him to be blocked. They got their wish, partially because Thuran acutally was incivil but partially because hectoring in AN/I usually achieves its desired objectives. I suggest that editors and administrators commenting here look through the last AN/I about Thuran (the wonderful new search means that I don't have to dig through looking for the link myself) before determining which "side" to come down on. I will also note that LHVU does have some experience in setting up mutual topic bans but that those work best when the users share a minimum of coinciding interests. This may not be the case with those two. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't needed for either of us. All that's needed is a clear statement to Arcayne: "Stop stalking ThuranX, unwatch his page, stop playing tattletale, and remember, he's not always wrong, when consensus is 8-1, and 5-1 against inclusion, then material should probably be out." A simple statement to Chrislk02 that in the future, he should ask another admin to review material he thinks is objectionable instead of doing it himself or coming to me about it, would be enough. This second part is commonly stated here on AN/I about admins and editors they regularly butt heads with.

Check my talk page and my contribs. Outside of those two, I've been FAR more considerate since the last mess. However, Arcayne's deliberate provocation eventually worked. I can't report it, there's an admin endorsing it, and I just kept trying to make him see that there's great consensus against it. Unfortunately, Arcayne went and came at me, got an admin who I know is hostile to me to help, and pushed things back up to AN/I levels again. If not told by the community to disengage, he will do this again and again. Look at the long, contentious problem between Arcayne and DreamGuy. And once Arcayne drives me away, he'll move on to another editor. It's like he's got some passive-aggressive compulsion, which compels him to take on, headlong and unstoppably, any editor who stands up to him at length.

I'm not denying I'm prickly at times here, I had a long row with David Fuchs, who has commented above. However, since then, he and I have settled things, and have worked together on things. Other than Arcayne, and now Chris, I've got no regular editor to whom I can ascribe no good faith. I'm not saying many of the blocks in my log weren't deserved; they were. Some weren't. But this is getting ridiculous. Am I supposed to just unwatch every page Arcayne shows up on? I'll be off the page after a few months of slow, steady, expansion by Arcayne. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no one notified me of this discussion, of which I appear to be a part of. Allow me to be blunt: I stopped watchlisting ThuranX some time ago, almost simply because he doesn't want to modify his behavior, and I have better things to do with my time here than babysit his edits. So I don't. I have not hounded his edits; in point of fact, I only discovered the last instance that resulted in his being blocked because I watchlist some of the pages that apparently he does as well, and noticed his throwing an undeserved beating into a fairly new user. As WQA has had little effect on his behavior in the past, I thought we were at risk for losing yet another user to ThuranX's behavior, so I took the matter to AN/I.
My first interaction with thuranX, more than two years ago, was no more pleasant than the one two days ago. His good contributions aside, his unchanging behavior is problematic. Granted, I've had a bumpy past, but I think I've grown as an editor, especially in matters of editorial interaction. I've seen newer users leave the project specifically because of his behavior, which is largely, 'it's my way, or fuck you'. Prickly doesn't begin to serve as an adequate descriptor.
It was because of this animosity on his part that I sought out the last admin who told me to come to him if I encountered problems. When I saw that the problems with ThuranX were only going to escalate, I needed some advice. Not protection, or preface to reporting him here, as Thuran kept claiming.
I want to stress that blocking/banning him shouldn't be a goal here; it has not in the past addressed his behavior at its core, and he would likely see such as unfair. As well, that might affect his mostly good contributions, turning them ever more sour. As to what would be more appropriate escapes me. I can't see him accepting a civility modification mentor, but maybe that might be a choice. - Arcayne () 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that after making such a big deal of how he was going to be policing me, that Arcayne instead quietly,without fanfare, changed his mind and unwatched my talk page between 6 Jan and 27 or so Jan, when we again came into conflict. He made such a big deal of how he had every right to watch me, supervise and report me, that it would simply be absurd to assume he'd changed his mind silently, without telling anyone. As for his first interactions, I left the Thor page because of him, since then, I've left other pages to avoid him. Arcayne, however, every few months, shows up, picks some point to build contention, and whenever I try to talk about it, escalates, usually by digging in his heels for a few days, then reporting me when I get frustrated with his behavior. You would think I would have learned the just report him even faster than he reports me, but no. each time, I go into it thinking 'this is the time I'll get him to listen to others.' Each time, I wind up reported and hassled. I just don't have any interest in being the aggressor, but I'm no good at not looking like one in the face of his behaviors.

This ist he best way I know to summarize how I feel about him: Arcayne is the kid who pokes the other kid in the back during class, randomly, and not too often... just enough that the kid in front knows that it's coming, but he doesn't know when. Then, the kid in front abruptly turns around and punches the kid behind him, and gets in trouble, and the kid behind knows it worked, and prepares to start all over, because the punch is worth the misery caused. That's what dealing with Arcayne is like for me. ThuranX (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User TCO

TCO (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been repeatedly blocked for violations of WP:Civil, most recently for 3 months by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). After the latest block, I protected the user talk page for the duration of the block for this edit while blocked. Is it time to indef block TCO? Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Naw. Not worth the effort. either protect the page or adjust the block to stop him from posting there and move a long. 3 months is a lifetime on wikipedia. If he comes back and decides to continue to be a jerk, we can indef him. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ernest Peiris‎

Ernest Peiris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ernest Peiris is just shy of his eighth birthday and, while quite precocious for his age, has not made a single productive edit to Misplaced Pages, treating it like a sandbox, requiring regular resources for various CSDs and cleaning up after edits to Ernest. Admin with soft touch needed. THF (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

THF, I am probably one of the squishiest admins we've got, and having TRIED to deal with other precocious little darlings, I can tell you that most often, one of two things is the case: either a) they're not REALLY that young, thus chain-yankage is occurring, or b) they ARE that young, in which case only time--preferably "away from Misplaced Pages"--will result in better editing. You can't teach a two-month-old to cha-cha, and you can't teach an eight-year-old--even a precocious one--how to abide by WP policies. Having said that, someone else will have to block the little tyke, as blocking the younguns still feels like squishing kittens.GJC 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will place a warning on their page (I think I will go for a personal one rather than a template) suggesting that this site is not suitable for their talents. If they don't get the hint then I am daddy enough to remove them for their own good. If anyone is keeping an eye on the userpage then let me know if they need "sending to their room" for a few months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad nobody gave him hand-written warnings before. I have run into some really young editors editing children's TV show articles, etc., and sometimes even younger than him, and they can be productive editors if they know what the rules are. I also suspect it matters a lot whether they have a parent or teacher behind the screen helping them. Also, should we be worried that he's put his name, age, address, and whole family's names out in public? Should those edits be deleted? Soap /_{Contributions} 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably concerned on their behalf. I will watchlist their page, and if there is any response I will suggest removing their details. If there is no response and the account does not edit (and my aged memory suffices) I will selectively remove details anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help reverting page moves

A vandal (I blocked the account) moved numerous pages:

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

I don't have any scripts or such to move them back quickly. If anyone can help, that would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are all moved back. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case that you do need to revert page move vandalism, you can try adding User:Mr.Z-man's move-revert script to your monobook.js: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js'); ~ Troy (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted them all manually this time. I will certainly look at the script, so I have it for next time. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Supparluca

I would like an admin to take a close look at Supparluca's overall editing pattern. It amounts to Disruptive editing. Supparluca's history reveals that for weeks, even months he has almost exclusively confined his edits to the Italianization of place names in South Tyrol, the German-speaking area in Italy, despite opposition from several other editors. Hereby, he seems to be guided by the belief that in any given context, the word "South Tyrol" and its derivants, as generally all English place names based on the German and the Ladin language are to be removed from Misplaced Pages.

(Important background information: Note that WP:placename conflicts (--> Multiple local names) stipulates that, other in the few cases where there is a widely used English name, names in South Tyrol "are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority", which in 111 out of 116 municipalities are German or Ladin.)

His actions include: He persistently changes the names and urls of references, although these reflect the true title of the refence respectively the original place where the source was retrieved (see Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007). Notably, he continued his disruptive actions in the face of repeated requests to refrain from this:

• 22 January: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7
• First request: B
• 23 January: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
• Second warning: C
• 30 January: 13 - see revert again to "provincia"

He systematically replaced the name "South Tyrol" (since 1919) with the anochronistic "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (only since 1948), although the General guidelines makes it clear that in historical contexts the historical names are to be preferred:

• 25 January: 13, 14, 15
• 30 January: 14

Moreover, he moves pages (see here) against the clear outcome of discussions and votes on the talk page (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco) (in April 2007). Note that he had already moved the page for the first time in (August 2007), that time directly against the actions of an admin.

It also does not raise faith in his good faith that he currently nominates categories for change without notifying other users, even though the same topic has just been discussed a few days ago.

I feel that his destructive reverts now put into danger the work on the articles related to "South Tyrol", since it increasingly disrupts the efforts of other users to improve these articles, and forces them into petty quarrels about names. Since his history of Supparluca shows him to do little else than "fixing wikilinks", that is Italianizing names, or moving pages to Italian names, since he joined Misplaced Pages, his overall behaviour is congruent with long-time Tendentious editing as per sentences 2-4). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Grawp to my police department

This is because he is creating usernames with people's phone numbers in it see http://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&offset=20090123234010&limit=500&type=globalauth and oversight-l has refused to delete them. This is not a legal threat, because I have already reported them. 78.145.227.16 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversight can't kill usernames. You need to contact a bureaucrat thru IRC or email or other private means; the rename will remove the issues. -Jeremy 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it mate, good luck--Jac16888 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Since the information about me, for example, is available on my website, they may decide not to throw away the key on this one. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there's a few other things we could pick him up on? Defamation? Disrupting the work of a charity? Disobeying the explicit wishes of the owners and community of a privately-owned website in matters concerning them? I'm not sure how many of those are offences, but there's plenty of other things we could clock him for. We've put up with this for too long. Dendodge Talk 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure racism's a crime, and he must have said something racist (or at least anti-semitic) at least once. Dendodge Talk 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism isn't truly a crime, per se (IANAL). However, the harassment of volunteers via proxy would be. -Jeremy 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can't really win against Anonymous. It's a hydra. Grawp is more of a concept or a legend than a real person. Reporting to the police is really wasting time. Sceptre 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• That may be, but JarlaxleArtemis, the original Grawp, can be prosecuted or sued. Frag, his RL name bounces about quite often. -Jeremy 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, what a load of bollocks! The police really have better things to do than process frivolous complaints. RMHED (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat late where I am, but how about a little WP:AGF? We know a local police dept won't be interested, but that's no reason to insult the reporter, unless we want to assume the worst, which I don't see. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The police? An answer, but not the right answer. The right answer could be knowing somebody who knows somebody who knows a guy named Vito. Baseball Bugs 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL — Kevin586 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Hmm, yeah, but how come the cops who did Operation Buccaneer against warez groups pinned down an otherwise anonymous group of pirates? If the low lifes behind the Grawp mob are seen committing breach of privacy, then it might qualify as a criminal act, and we might have a good reason to put this Grawp menace to oblivion. Anonymous and/or ED sees Misplaced Pages as their nemesis, but what they're doing to us is obviously below the belt, right? Oh, and I suggest that you bring this to the FBI instead of the local police department. The Feds are more adept when it comes to cybercrime, I guess... Blake Gripling (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please can someone speak to this user please: Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs)

He is marking all his edits as minor, I believe in an attempt to avoid them being seen on watchlists. I asked him to stop here and he replied on my talk page with a comment to the effect of "haven't you got something better to do". Ryan4314 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mean he wouldn't comply with your request!!! Outrageous, ban him this instant. RMHED (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Minor says; "The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best to not mark the edit as minor."

It then goes on to list to what is acceptable to mark as minor edit. His response states that he considers edits such as "adding pictures to FA class articles" as "minor", WP:Minor says otherwise and I worry that he will continue to do this. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If this really causes you "worry" then I urge you strongly not to watch any news broadcasts as they are likely to do irreparable damage to your mental wellbeing. RMHED (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RHMED, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute please don't comment. Minor edits are exactly that - edits such as spelling mistakes, typos, whitespace removal etc - anything that substantially changes the article is not minor and should not be marked as such. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole complaint is frivolous. At most this user is sometimes going against a guideline. If their edits were bad then it would be a problem, as it is their edits seem to be good so why the fuss? RMHED (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

if m:Help:Minor Edit didn't exist, then you might have an argument for the complaint being frivolous. but it does exist. actually, what's frivolous is the idea of an editor arbitrarily deciding it's acceptable to pick and choose which[REDACTED] rules to follow or deem optional. the guide isn't that ambiguous. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that this is not the most important issue in the history of the wiki. Still, "a 'minor edit' is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call for review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., 'sp', 'punct', 'format'). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by automated tools, which themselves should be used only in accordance with policy, any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor." (From a recent ArbCom decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I was not aware of that recent ArbCom decision. Would you mind notifying User:Raoulduke47 of the significance of it and WP:Minor please, as I don't think he'll take me seriously, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's relevant or not, but there is a check box in prefrences that when checked makes all edits minor edits. Perhaps the user has that checked, and isn't really familiar with the Help:Minor Edits read. To be honest, I really hope the next big argument in Misplaced Pages isn't going to be a huge debate over whether or not the edit itself is minor or not. There's plenty of drama to go around as it is. — Ched (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is because Wikipedians have their own language separate from the English language. In Wikipedian, minor means who is quoted above. In English, a minor edit is one that isn't major. Some may interpret major as significant re-writing and cutting things out and adding things in. So always take into consideration what you are thinking and what the other person is thinking may not be the same.

So don't just gang up on that other user. Ipromise (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor (Sept 06)
• I have shown him WP:Minor, so he now knows what edits should only be marked minor and why it is bad to mark all edits as minor. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

edit warring, and indirect language used to make blatant personal attacks and uncivil remarks

after i asked User:Nukes4Tots to provide a source for this, he reverted me without supplying a source. since we were both warned for edit warring 2 days ago, i did not want to edit war with him, so i went to his talk page, cited WP:PROVEIT and the reasons why his unsourced claim needs to be sourced, but had already decided to edit war to add back his own unencyclopedic, unsourced, misspelled POV statement. his explanation as to why a source was not necessary was because ANY retard should understand what he's talking about.

• (more "retard" talk!) i guess it's okay to remove sourced content without discussion because your edit summary clearly defines the sourced content as retarded
• he reverts me with "Listing every referenceable agency is a FOOL's errand. Are you for it?" i was for it, since i'm the one he reverted. does that mean i'm a fool?

• he admits, in reference to this nasty edit that "there were some strong words in there (carefully chosen to avoid a direct personal attack) and, yes, I might have been baiting"

• over here, he specifically went out his way to tell me that i'm not a fucking moron: "how the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron." oh good, that clarifies it. he was showing examples of what he wouldn't say.

• and this

• when 'apologising' to an admin for the 'incivility misunderstanding' from a few days ago, he clearly wasn't attacking my language skills personally when he said he would "intentionally avoid words and phrases that anyone without a firm grasp of the english language might misinterpret as a personal attack or incivility" implied personal attacks are only worth half credit, i guess.

in his defense, he claims that i am wikihounding him because i'm reverting unsourced additions to one article we both edit, Glock pistol. i am reverting unsourced/OR additions as per usual, but it's nothing personal about him. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been hounding me for some reason. I've been editing the Glock article over the long term and he pops in and disagrees with a mistake I made. I agreed with him and since he has been hounding me. I've use the "F" word on a few occasions, but have tried to keep it civil with him. It seems a clear case of WP:hounding as I've stated to him on several occassions. It's in his nature to hound other editors as he did with user:Svernon19 and was reported by Svernon19 in this thread: . He also has a history of tedious editing as reported here: . Not sure how civil I am required to be when I'm being hounded. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

here's the diff of svernon realizing he may have jumped to incorrect conclusions as the last message on that same ANI thread, which you forgot to include: ] . and here is the diff from after the ANI thread, when he immediately went to my talk page and wrote In hindsight, I think you were probably right about this one -- I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Svernon19 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Theserialcomma (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• quick summary of edit warring: this unsourced, misspelled statement needs to be removed or sourced. when i tried to remove it and asked for a source he reverted me without providing a source. not wanting to edit war, i took it to his talk page, where he called me a retard and said he didn't need to cite all his sources. then all the other stuff above. i presume that if i remove it again, he will continue to edit war. so hopefully someone else will fix it. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then correct the spelling. I didn't NEED to provide a source when I entered it as it was obvious. A simple google search yielded hundreds of sources. Yet, instead of fact tagging as you should have done you chose to edit war. You're playing it really close to stalking on this one, again. You hound people until they back off a bit then you continue to hound the. I've checked your edit history and you're playing it close to your MO, buddy. It'd help if you had a tiny bit of an idea what you were talking about. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to end all of this DRAMAHZ by just providing sources instead of requiring other editors to look for sources? AnyPerson (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however then I get into phase 9 of a 15 phase harassment campaign. He questions the sources then baits, badgers, reports, misinterprets, ignores, and plays all kinds of games. I'll provide a source if he'll stop editing the article. However, the references are as easy as googling "Compensator" and "Perceived Recoil". He'd have known that if he'd tried. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but.. if an edit is challenged, it's incumbent upon you to provide the source for the edit. Unless it is blatant common knowledge ("the sky is blue" or "water is wet"), you need to back your stuff up. It costs you nothing to provide the source. So. Next time when someone asks you to provide your source, do so and head off these mindbogglingly stupid arguments before they can happen. Sources do in fact need to be cited for anything contentious. So do that. Thanks. Can we close this now? //roux   06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

American spider beetle

A template on the article says "Please note this page will be under revision by University of Toronto entomology students between 22/01/2009 and 12/02/2009. For more information about this project, please see ". The link is a blank user page. Is this allowed? Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools_and_universities_project#University_of_Toronto_.28Winter_2009.29_.28Ongoing.29. We also have a template, {{EducationalAssignment|date=YYYY-MM-DD|link=Misplaced Pages:School and university projects#PROJECT}}, which is meant for this (and supposed to go on the talk page, not the main article). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The watching and editing it allowed and invited. The template on the article is misplaced. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is the first time that I have heard of that page. Schuym1 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these templates permitted on the talk pages? If not, why not? Seems like a great template for reducing redundant questions, which is similar to the purpose of other templates. If it is permitted, it should probably be restored and moved there. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's where they belong, and where they've already been moved to... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My fault. Different colors, different templates, didn't see it. Why aren't we more clear in the one that IS there, which is quite vague? The misplaced one was far more informative. We ought to provide the basic formatting and code so that each project can tag their own, identifying who and what at a glance. ThuranX (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor creating unsourced BLPs, and tagging them as such

I've come across an odd situation; an editor is creating unsourced articles about various footballers, and tagging them as unsourced. See, for example, . I've asked him why he is doing this, but have received no response. I have no idea if the details given about these individuals is correct, or if they even exist, but I thought I'd bring the issue here for discussion. Jayjg 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I do is do a Google search, and if I find nothing to establish notability, I usually speedy tag it A7. ArcAngel (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After having thought about it, I think the correct course of action is to re-direct them to the pro league they play in, as there are few Ghits for each of them. ArcAngel (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I see that it's usually a recreation of a previously deleted article complete with the old tags, sometimes even DB and hangon tags. These articles have nothing in the deletion logs so it might be the creator is hoping new page patrollers will see the tags, assume the article has already been checked and move on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor revealing too much information?

Is This user, a minor, revealing too much information on his Talk page? AnyPerson (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Isn't there a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? ArcAngel (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and left them a message pursuant to the Arbitration case. Tiptoety 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wage Slavery sockpuppetry

On Wage Slavery, there appears to be something amiss. Multiple experienced editors are reverting a rather large chunk of text being added by two apparent SPAs (NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) and MethodstoMadness (talk · contribs)) and a whole host of IPs, all of whom have no other substantial edits other than to this article. The IPs seem to be being used to lure the other editors into edit wars and then turn them in ( and in hopes of getting them blocked. I'm bringing this here in hopes an admin can straighten this out, or at least level the playing field. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for edit warring. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there's a way to check this out with special software. I have no relation whatsoever to NeutralityForever or any of the other contributors. I've been following the wage slavery page closely for a long time. The large chunk of text is not "being added". A few editors decided to REMOVE that chunk of text that had been there for quite a long time. So I and other editors keep insisting that the burden of proof is on those wanting to remove such large chunks of text. It seems a consensus that it is legitimate to delete those sections IF they are not relevant to the definition of wage slavery and important facts associated with it that the VERY editors proposing the deletion have chosen to have in the lead paragraph. I think you'll find out if you examine the definition, that the the parts are very relevant. In any case, the parts should be analyzed and discussed in the discussion page before any such drastic changes. thanks for your attention MethodstoMadness (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MethodstoMadness has reinstated the section here . He also discusses his edits in terms of "our side." Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of NeutralityForever. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He's asking for an unblock. -Jeremy 05:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Mr.Z-man 06:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the evident sockpuppetry by IPs, I have semiprotected Wage slavery for one month. Other admins may adjust this as they think appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerhand

Is User:Pokerhand spam? The original version of the page included links to the pages, the User has removed the links, but the names of the pages are still there. AnyPerson (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like spam, quacks like spam. //roux   05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like G11, deleted as G11. — neuro 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might Be A Problem

...then again it might not. I came across this piece of vandalism and while most of it was just babbling, the part that struck my attention was the part about "Imminent air plane crashes on commercial Boeing and Airbus jets". To me, that isn't something to be messed with or taken lightly. I did a TrustedSource search and the IP is out of Bangkok, Thailand. Not sure if anyone thinks this is worth reporting, but I will leave it up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 08:13

Will handle. Conferring with TSA and DHS. Edit Centric (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Formosa's Law may apply... 88.112.34.160 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything like this is definitely worth reporting, and anyone can report it. What I did, and what you can do, is google Department of Homeland Security, and call the number on the Contact Us page. You may be asked for some basic info about yourself, but don't be hesitant to provide it. You never know, you might just be preventing another 9-11 from happening! Edit Centric (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermittent Personal Attacks

User:Btzkillerv appears to make personal attacks intermittently, getting away with them each time.

The following recent diffs illustrate what this editor has been up to.

As can be seen from the above diffs, this editor has made a number of personal attacks against other editors who have violated Misplaced Pages policy. In the latest and most serious incident so far, User:Btzkillerv viciously abuses an indefinitely blocked editor after a series of vandal edits were made by various user accounts to User talk:Btzkillerv, User:Btzkillerv and Template:User_Manchu_Chinese.

It also seems odd that Btzkillerv labeled User 77.182.67.105 a Hanjian(i.e. a traitor), considering that the vandal edits concerned (by other users) all involved denigrating people of the Manchu ethnicity only.

The question now is "What sort of remedies and sanctions should be applied to stop this type of conduct?" Does the editor involved simply get blocked for a period of time? Or will the editor be banned from editing certain pages? 72.43.122.208 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there's good timing. ^One more Tor node blocked. I'd just point out that I've blocked several other Tor nodes as well as some sockpuppets (User:Manchurianisation, User:Manchurianization, User:Anti Manchu Lobby, ...) who have been racially harassing Btzkillerv recently, and I've semi-protected Btzkillerv's user and usertalk pages as a result. Probably nothing to see here. -- zzuuzz 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards