Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Who then was a gentleman? (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 7 March 2009 (→User:Malleus Fatuorum's lack of civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Sock puppet accusations by User:Rjecina

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Rjecina has a history of accusing other users of sock puppetry without evidence as his talk page shows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11...

Now, it seems it's time for me. First he informs one of his friends that a new vandal is starting an edit war and that his earlier name was User:Toroko . Then, he removes my talk page comment, stating that I am a banned user. . His statement is based on the fact that I used a source that only banned users use. and that I am from the same city as a banned user - although I don't know how he knows which city I'm from. He is then stunned when other users question his assertion that I am an old user's new SPA . Then he calls me disruptive and provocative and files two ANI threads against me on two different boards at the same time. He calls me again disruptive and SPA in his threads and kindly asks for a ban on me.. When two other users comment on his thread, one of whom he previously identified as my SPA in his report, he claims that both of them are my sock puppets.. Finally, he adds that there's enough data for checkuser but he doesn't have time.

I asked him several times to stop his accusations, but he continued anyway.--Bizso (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like quite an edit war you got into there at Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rjecina was removing talk page comments in spite of having been warned for that two times already.--Bizso (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rule #1 on sock accusations: Put up or shut up. (i.e. file your WP:SSP or STFU)

Rule #1 on edit warring: except for clear vandalism, no excuses. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's a socket puppet? Is that using a wrench as a puppet or something? MuZemike 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I am picturing the unholy bastard child of this after having sex with this...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I could just see it lurching around Misplaced Pages groaning 'Kill meeee...' HalfShadow 04:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:D Ok, in other words SPA, or sock puppet account--Bizso (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• spew* Jeez, Jayron, I wish you'd warned me to set down my tea first. Sorry about the stains on the 'pedia now. I'll wipe that up in a minute.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is funny that I have not edited wiki around 60 hours and I am again under attack because new things which are only now discovered :)

Because must important thing about this accusation are my actions on talk page of Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary ....

If somebody has been reading all discussion between me and user:Patton123 he will notice that when I speak about removing comments of banned user:NovaNova and not about user Bizso. Then I can speak about my checkuser demands against other user, but if anybody will look users which I have "attacked" he will see that 90 % are forever blocked.

We are still having few questions about user which is rewriting history of Hungary without knowledge of Hungarian language , which is weird and which is together with few IP users knowing every my edit ? This is weird or stalking, because I do not understand how this 3 users have discovered my demand on two ANI threads on two different boards at the same time ? This is mystery :)

For the end if I do not make mistake policy of wikipedia is that banned users after banning are not having right to edit and edits of this users (after banning) are not reliable and because of that are deleted (blanked). I am wrong about this policy or ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of users of whom puppets you have had banned, according to your trophy list as of April 2008, was two and another two users failed your checkuser request. I wouldn't say that's 90% of those who you have accused before and since then. In addition, with regard to the comments you were deleting let me quote from an earlier thread about you:

"On the point about Rjecina deleting banned-user contributions, I was not on this occasion complaining about that, though I have said elsewhere that he sometimes "throws out the baby with the bathwater" in his obsessive pursuit of sockpuppets while contributing very little in the way of sourced material etc" Kirker (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Insults again

--Bizso (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, I would drop right now and be more concerned with the proposed solution the admins are discussing below. Unless you want to be to in violation of said proposal at this moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to second some of that. His Hungarian account also "changed" a good spelling to a bad one. Squash Racket (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of this. We are not going to debate what may or may not have been done on his Hungarian account. I think one more statement from Rjecina about how someone is a banned user without a shred of evidence and I'm blocking indefinitely. This has gone on long enough. Either continue to believe that everyone who disagrees is the same banned user or this stops this right now. Not one single talk page goes anywhere sensibly because everyone is "a banned user who should be ignored." I warned Rjecina in September here and nothing has changed. Every single article that Rjecina is just an idiotic war. Can anyone explain to me how the edit-warring at Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary has anything at all with the completely unsourced article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that User:Rjecina has removed this comment from the discussion. --Bizso (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and removed it as a personal attack, which is what people should do. //roux   17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't write the personal attacks in the first place. Removing it helps, but doesn't excuse the original behavior.

Proposed solution

I think we're all sick of seeing this. So here's what I suggest:

1. Rjecina is categorically prohibited for a period of one year from accusing other users of sockpuppetry in discussion. If s/he really thinks someone is a sock, s/he may visit WP:SPI as every other user does. Each instance of unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation to be met with escalating blocks per the usual pattern. Same goes for abusive use of WP:SPI.
2. Bizso and Rjecina are held to a strict 1RR for a period of six months when it comes to editing any Europe-related articles, broadly construed, and when it comes to reverting each others' edits. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the six-month period.
3. Rjecina and Bizso are specifically forbidden from bringing each other to any admin noticeboard (AN, WP:AN/I, etc) without gaining approval from a neutral and uninvolved admin first, for a period of six months. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the six-month period.
4. Bizso and Rjecina are to be held to a strict civility probation for a period of three months, especially in regards to each other. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the three-month period.

Thoughts? //roux   17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose' Here you go again, Roux. You're not "we" or a delegate of Misplaced Pages. I'm not tired of the issue brought up so would others be. I see your typical habit of using the bare and unconstructive expression like "sick of" and proposing a drastic suggestion not actually solving the core problem. You're quite good at inflating the issue into a drama as always. Besides, this issue is more fit to RFC first before such making the drastic decision. I don't want to see another victims by your more harsh private probation than any ArBCom probation. Since you've heard a lot "do not act like an admin" (not in a good aspect), so don't.--Caspian blue 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this a fairly reasonable proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not a two-sided issue. There is Rjecina on one side, and several other users on the other (now me). I have not informed other users about this thread who are also being accused by Rjecina of sock puppetry and for other reasons.--Bizso (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support this proposal. These users seem to be stirring up lots of Wikidrama. Oren0 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal but would add that going on calling anonymous users "Washington IP" or whatever other term is used (see User talk:138.88.15.10) should be discouraged. It's irrelevant and has an obvious purpose. Separate question: I've been somewhat involved in the sphere (and definitely with Rjecina and helping Bizso here). Outside views wanted but would people be ok if I considered myself neutral and uninvolved? I'll ask Bizso and Rjecina to respond here as well. If they disagree, then I'll ask others to block if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the way you "helped" me was that you briefly explained to me what the required format for an ANI thread is.--Bizso (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this unduly harsh on users with almost clean block logs, especially point 2, the part with Europe-related articles, which would effectively put them both on almost constant 1RR. Although I know that 1RR is good practice for every wiki editor and I adhere to it, it's too much to ask from someone as new as Bizso and Rjecina is probably not even aware of this thread. Admiral Norton 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that both commented just above at the section that started this, I'd find it hard to believe they aren't at least aware of this thread. However, in another sense, is this really outside the scope of the WP:ARBMAC decision? In my view, it's entirely possible for an outside admin to justify discretionary sanctions based on their conduct already. This is being much nicer because they clearly have been disruptive for a while now. We should at least indicate anything proposed here there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh definitely, this is all ARBMAC stuff. Whatever we come up with as the best form of intervention can be enacted in that framework without the need for further bureaucracy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that this is subjective to ARBMAC (what a badgering way to deal with Balkan people, but too late to comment anyway), but isn't this a sort of killing a fly with hand grenades? There is definitely a consensus that something should be done here, but 1RR for 6 months is over the top IMO, especially on all Europe-related articles. So far, the dispute is apparently related only to articles about the Croatian medieval history and I don't see the point of disallowing Rjecina to revert vandalism on Croatian cuisine or disallowing Bizso to curb unhelpful edits at Budapest, as these are obviously not points of the dispute. If a separate dispute evolves there, it should be treated separately, as focusing on the user instead of the dispute can't solve the problem of the dispute, but solve the problem of the user, i.e. chase him away. Admiral Norton 15:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I am tired of your bad faith attacks on my edits. You are saying that I have called user Bizsco puppets of banned user. This is false like many similar your attacks (do you need examples on noticeboard ?).

Banned users are not allowed to edit and edits made by banned users are not reliable. I have blanked from talk page all edits made by puppets of banned users. user:NovaNova is puppet of banned user and I am removing his comments from talk page (this is banned user which comments are I removing). Bizso has discovered and restored this comments and again I have removed comments. This has been puppet which I am reverting. Maybe we can start new discussion about this wikipedia policy ?

Articles about Croatian history are having around 20 confirmed puppets of user:Velebit + many, many blocked users from Washington. About this problem 2 administrators in 2007 have created policy WP:RBI because "he's on a dynamic IP range and strikes from a different one every time".

When we speak about puppets can our administrators expert tell me if this is puppetry + harrasment ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Norton cannot be considered neutral in this case as he is a strong supporter of Croatian line editors, therefore I would like to request he not take part in the decision process any longer. Thank you. "This is false" Rjecina stop right now and scroll up to the beginning of this thread--Bizso (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My involvement in this dispute stops at a short conversation I had on Bizso's talk page and I don't think my opinion is so much swayed that I can't participate in this discussion. However, I don't plan on running around dealing blocks to people no matter how this proposal turns out as I'm generally against it and I don't consider myself neutral enough. Admiral Norton 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Build the web again

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

Please can someone with time to look at the issue in some detail come and sort this out (WP:Build the web). It is ridiculous that a group of determined cynics, even including an admin, are allowed to continue this campaign of edit-warring against consensus and reason.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again Kotniski is telling his version of the events. What is ridiculous is that a couple of users can claim a "consensus" between them to dismantle a seven-year-old guideline, and keep maintaining this claim despite numerous parties disagreeing with them, clearly demonstrating that there is no consensus. If anything, his continual reversions of the article are what bear investigating. -- Earle Martin 09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once agin, Earle is simply lying, I don't know how else to describe it. It is not a "couple of users" and it is not "dismantling" a guideline, it was merged with others to make a much better one. Earle and the others are simply craeting noise to distract people's attention from the fact that consensus was reached, and recently confirmed, in detailed and reasoned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. To quote an edit summary, "you can't just get rid of a seven year old guideline after 40 hours of discussion on an unrelated talk page with no community notification". You proposed the merge on January 9th, and did it on January 11th. That's not enough time to qualify as "detailed and reasoned discussion" on a guideline of this age. And now a number of editors have found out about your merger after the fact, and are unhappy. That is not "creating noise". The "couple of users" are you and Tony1, who can be seen in the edit history of BTW repeatedly demoting it despite having it pointed out to you numerous times that until a dispute over a guideline is resolved, it retains its status with the addition of a "disputed" tag. -- Earle Martin 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was done after many weeks/months of discussion, and everyone was very happy about it until someone decided that it would suit his immediate purposes (no doubt from somewhere in the Kafka-esque workings of the ArbCom date linking case) to undo part of what had been universally agreed. And to say it's just me and Tony is simply untrue and you know it - you were part of the discussion where the decision to merge the pages was confirmed, and you know that there were far more than just two people, and you might also have the integrity to admit that our arguments were far stronger (instead of just leaving the discussion when you can't answer them, only to return later with nothing new to say). Really, I've never seen anything like this before from experienced editors and admins - when something's been decided, we accept it and move on. OK you can try to develop a new consensus based on rational argument, but it's totally disruptive to simply deny all knowledge about the consensus that has been reached. This is the same attitude, as far as I can tell, that has led to the date linking issue still not being settled. Whatever people decide, just refuse to accept the consensus. Make noise; admins won't look at the details, they'll just assume each side is being as bad as each other and you stand a good chance of getting what you want. This isn't how WP should be working. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: you two stop sniping at each other and start providing diffs. //roux   16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs would you like? That there was unanimous support for the merger can be seen from the discussion at WP:Linking (and the most recent archive). That there was strong support to keep it merged can be seen from the current WT:Linking. That Earle and co have been made aware of this can be seen from later exchanges there and at WT:BTW. That they have nevertheless kept reverting to the non-consensus state can be seen from the page history of WP:BTW. That they are not even attempting to discuss or provide counter-arguments any more (except the traditional "no consensus" nonsense) can be seen by the absence of such. It's not a case of one or two diffs. If you want to sort it out, you'll need to spend a bit of time investigating and discussing.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide specific links to those discussions. A past revision of the page would be fine as opposed to just a diff--something that shows the discussion specifically. What you're saying is like saying "There was a discussion on ANI, go spend some time investigating." To put it more bluntly: support your position with specifics or walk away. Thanks. //roux   16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• See link to the discussion from October in my comment below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was "unanimous" support because many believed you (myself included) when you said a poll had already been conducted on the merger itself. What you failed to mention was that the poll was held over a span of 28 hours (proposed at 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC), closed at 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)), involved maybe ten editors, and was not even advertised on WT:BTW (meaning people who watchlisted that page weren't even aware of the straw poll!). That's not consensus, that's a hijacking. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. One is that many of the disputants here are the same folks involved in a current ArbCom case. (And yes, so am I, although I haven't heard of this dispute until now.) It does seem that this flame war is growing into a forest fire. Second, at the top of the Talk page of this policy are links to the user pages of a number of Wikipedians who stated that they endorse this policy: I'm one of them, & I haven't heard of this "consensus" until now, probably because no one involved bothered to drop a note to ask me to participate in the discussion. I wonder how many of the other Wikipedians in this list were asked to participate; had this been done it would support an assumption that a Good Faith effort had been made to find a consensus based in the larger community, & not just in one faction of an ongoing, er, feud. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus brought together both factions of the feud; it's just that one faction has suddenly decided the status quo doesn't suit them. And the question is not whether anyone endorses this policy; it was merged, not demoted. The question is whether there should be two or three separate guidelines on the same topic, telling different sides of the story, or just one comprehensive one with all the information. If you want to argue for separation, please do at the appropriate place. But here is the evidence asked for:

1. That consensus for the merge properly formed after long, detailed discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context/Archive 7#Idea for merge (as a continuation of other threads on that page: search for "merge"), partly continued at WT:Linking (all threads down to - and don't be misled by this title, it was about a temporary problem that was soon settled - "Please reverse the merger")
2. That the merge proposal was advertised at BTW for months: this sample diff (note merge pointer at top of page), and the actual merge was announced there: WT:Build the web#Specific merge proposal, and attracted no opposition from anyone at that page (this redirecting edit remained stable for over a month)
3. That the recent discussion on the topic (advertised at Template:Cent and well known to all involved parties) confirmed, or certainly by no stretch of the imagination tended to overturn, the previous consensus: (the thread "Resurrect this guideline?") - this was substantially how it was when the edits referred to below were made
4. That several editors, being aware of the above consensus (since they had participated in the discussion), continued to edit the page against that consensus by restoring the very {{guideline}} tag that the discussion had concluded was inappropriate: , , , , , (I admit my previous edit may have been wrong there, but still no justification is given for restoring the guideline tag as well as the disputed tag), , , , .

Restoring from the archive (trimming some off-topic and own comments). Please can someone either deal with this or tell me why action is not appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose it might help if I said what action I was asking for. The admin will make up their own mind, of course, but I would have thought a firm note left on the talk page stating that the page was merged by consensus, that the text was restored for discussion purposes, but that it should not carry any tag as to its status (e.g. as a guideline) until consensus is reached to add such a tag.--Kotniski (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that no admins did anything should be your answer here. This really has hit the point of WP:FORUMSHOP; you're continually reposting this dispute until you get the answer you want. Move to re-archive this discussion forthwith. //roux   17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what other forums I'm alleged to have posted this in. (I raised a general question at one other place, that's all.) If admins have looked at this and decided that action is inappropriate, then I presume they would say why. Since they haven't, I presume they haven't looked into it yet, so no-one is in a position to say whether it's appropriate to archive it or not. I spent my time getting together the evidence when asked - the least the admin community could do is respond to the substance of the report.--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The general, and reasonable, assumption is that admins have looked at it and decided a) no action necessary, and b) commenting just creates more drama. If only 25% of active admins have ANI on their watchlists, at least two hundred pairs of admin eyeballs have seen this. //roux   07:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen, yes; but looked at, probably not. In cases where no action is necessary, it is normal to say so and say why, suerly?--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that more absue has broken out on this page WP:Build the web (see today's history). Now we're seeing date links being added to the guideline (totally without consensus as should be well-known to everyone), and still all attempts to remove the guideline tag or restore the consensus redirect are being resisted. The text of the page was specifically restored for discussion purposes only; it should never have been re-marked as a guideline, even a disputed one - this is totally against consensus and principles of good faith. (More trouble is at Template:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and Template:Guideline list - I've attempted a compromise there, maybe it will stick.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we all sit down, relax, and realise that we're arguing over whether or not we link dates in an encyclopedia on the internet? Seriously, the tensions here are not justified by the stakes. — Werdna • talk 09:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about that (date linking isn't even the main issue here). We're talking about whether a consensus decision can be made to be respected without our having to resort to canvassing all the people who came to that decision and asking them to come and join in an edit war. If consensus means nothing, and only willingness to fight is allowed to count in determining the content of our encyclopedia or its guidelines, then we create a battlefield. People like me, who genuinely work towards consensus time and again, and act on it when it is achieved for the betterment of WP, will not stick around. I hate this fighting and the fact that I've been drawn into it, and I also hate the implication that I'm "on my own" because I haven't tried to draw other representatives of the consensus view into the quagmire. I genuinely expected some support from admins over this, and hope that when someone has the time to look into it in detail you will see why I am very concerned and upset about this. --Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not about date linking, can you explain your edit here, where you remove something from BTW related to date linking?

As to consensus, two admins have already tried to explain that there was not enough discussion for there to be consensus to merge BTW with MOSLINK and CONTEXT. Yet you persist here trying to force your "consensus" (which was decided in 28 hours, on an unrelated talk page, involving mostly MOS regulars) instead of attempting something involving wider community involvement (or simply dropping the matter entirely, to be addressed again at some later date if you feel passionately about it). You also seem bent on edit warring over this (I won't lie; I've edit warred with you over this, but you seem to have been more active on WP:BTW in trying to keep it at a version you prefer). Please drop this and move on to something productive. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which two admins you are talking about, or when this happened, or why you say that it was decided in 28 hours when it happened over months as the link I have provided shows, or why you ignore the fact that the decision was confirmed when wider community involvement was sought as the second link I have provided shows, or why you think you have the right to keep a guideline tag there by force (albeit with a disputed tag, but the combination of these two tags normally implies something quite different) when there is not anything even approaching a sign of consensus that it should be there. If you think it's not important, then you might consider dropping it yourself. (But if we are going to do a WP:SPIDER act, then there couldn't be a more aptly named page, I suppose... )--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The two admins could quite posibly be User:Earle Martin and User:Werdna coz' if you look carefully they both have said to slow down and check.  rdunnPLIB  11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a single uninvolved admin has opined on WT:BTW about the lack of consensus for the merge (could have swore there was a second one, I'll look again later): 15:39, 4 March 2009 02:25, 5 March 2009. And yes, discussion was held over 28 hours (it was archived and wrapped in an uninviting "discussion closed" box). The second discussion, the one started after you'd written your merged page, seemed to indicate that the decision to merge was an accomplished fact and that what was being discussed was the finalized wording. Now, unless you're of the mind that 28 hours is sufficient to overturn 7 years of guideline status for this page, I suggest you back away and come back to this again in a few months time when the dust has settled. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No time to discuss further in detail now, but Earle Martin is not a neutral admin, Werdna didn't say anything about consensus, and the link clearly shows discussion over months not hours.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As no-one can agree on whether a concensus had been reached or not, shall we just start again rather than letting this just drag on....  rdunnPLIB  15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have just fallen for the spiralling consensus trap. This is exactly the result "they" want. If consensus is against them, they just dispute the consensus. Since consensus cannot be precisely defined, no-one can prove it exists without applying a bit of judgement, so it's always possible to keep the argument going if you want. If no-one with authority is prepared to step in and say stop, I judge that there is sufficient consensus here to do this and we will now do it, then effectively we are not ruled by consensus, we are ruled by the law of the edit warriors' jungle. In most cases it comes down to the same thing, but in this case we can clearly see that it hasn't (the page has been protected with a tag on it that consensus would never have placed there), and we should correct that. To fail to do so is to treat cooperative members of the community with contempt, and ensure that we gain more and more edit warriors.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, I judge there is sufficient consensus to block the warring parties. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed  rdunnPLIB  17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

a few things (all to Kotniski)

• a) who is "they"?
• b) If consensus is against them, they just dispute the consensus. Since consensus cannot be precisely defined, no-one can prove it exists without applying a bit of judgement, so it's always possible to keep the argument going if you want from an outsiders view (ie mine) it seems like the argument is going in circles.
• c) the concensus as you say is clear and others not therefore cancleing each other out (hence my above suggestion)
• d) If no-one with authority is prepared to step in and say stop
  • Werdna did say "Can we all sit down, relax,"
• e) we are ruled by the law of the edit warriors' jungle. the law is to do it with a CLEAR consensus (which it hasnt happened(see point c))
• f) (no deliberate offence intended) and ensure that we gain more and more edit warriors to the untrained eye it seems you (indirectly) include yourself may i point out  rdunnPLIB  17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, we still don't quite understand each other, but the page has been protected now anyway, so further discussion is continuing there. Closing this report.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Xristina Prete

Doesn't rise to the "simple, obvious" vandalism standard of AIV. Xristina Prete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account devoted to adding references to a cancelled Lindsay Lohan album, "Spirit in the Dark". She was given final vandalism warnings by several editors. I noticed that no one had ever explained to her exactly why her edits were being considered vandalism, so, when she did it again after a final vandalism warning, I dropped a note explaining why. Her response was to deface the redirect page (which I silently reverted), and today, she's back adding that album into everything again. .—Kww(talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Although not an admin myself I suggest a block per final warnings....  rdunnPLIB  11:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it would seem ample warning has been given. Vincent Valentine 04:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ParaGreen13

This user has been making bad faith edits based on the race or ethnicity of the article's subject. Please see the following edits:

Also, please see the edit summary left by the user for to John Ireland (actor):

This user has been warned in the past for similar edits, on October 10, 2008 and October 17, 2008. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the John Ireland edit is probably fine; I don't see any sources in the article supporting the assertion. That being said, the edit summary is problematic, and the diffs you linked to above are likewise so. That being said, one of the edits is three days old, one is four days old, and the other is almost a month old. Is there a current problem? //roux   19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit itself to John Ireland is not the issue–the user's use of "queer" in the edit summary is the problem. Terms such as "queer" and "negro" are highly offensive. Edits made within three-four days is current. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By 'current' I meant 'is still going on'. Nobody's going to do anything about edits a few days old that haven't been repeated since being warned. //roux   20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor seems to have gone steeply downhill over the past month. He has been replacing "African-American" with "black" or "negro" in articles for over a year now, but in the past month about half of his contribs are problematic, including things like this as well as numerous offensive edits and edit summaries. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont see anything in the myocardial one except a weak argument, however it looks like he has been warned repeatedly about the 'negro' thing and should be blocked, at least for a short time, to impress upon him the seriousness of his actions. untwirl(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the user's to his own talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak argument? He inserted a bunch of talk page material (i.e., personal opinion) into the article about heart attacks. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, sorry, my bad, i thought that was a talk page. double underline my opinion to block, then! untwirl(talk) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time? I see no problem here except a witch hunt in the making. Caden S (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How is asking for something to be done about someone posting offensive terms on the Misplaced Pages a waste of time? Try replacing the discussion from the word 'negro' to 'nigger' and you'll get the idea, except the former potentially has a lot more room for offense. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as stated on your user page that you are a strong supporter of free speech and anti-political correctness, do you not think you may be a little biased? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←I'll also link you to this from 2008 where I warned the same user for the same abuse. It is clear that this user is here to cause offense to people of African-American decent, or at least has a lack of common sense (not a personal attack, just true) regarding the offensive this term can cause. I'd support action being taken. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with something called a dictionary? I suggest you take a look at one. Furthermore, do you have proof the editor is here to cause offence? I believe your biased take is the real problem here. Censorship is very evil. Caden S (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about let's stop sniping at each other and discuss the issue here. //roux   22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not an editor who I respect. I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda. You are wasting your time. I see right through you. Caden S (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cease the antagonising. I don't want to take sides but that is out of order, Caden.  GARDEN  22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'll give you the chance to remove those comments. You may wish to re-read point #3 here for why. As for 'politically-motivated', you'd be hard pressed to find a single edit out of ~15K that is even remotely politically motivated. So now we have that out of the way, why not get back to the actual discussion?

viz. User:ParaGreen13 seems to have two editing issues:

1. Removing 'African-American' in favour of 'Negro' and/or inserting 'Negro' when ethnicity is not actually being discussed or indeed relevant;
2. An inappropriate edit summary.

In terms of #1, the accepted and preferred nomenclature among people of African descent (at least in the USA) is 'African-American'. There is simply no good reason why a word which is widely perceived to be offensive should be used. In terms of #2, it was offensive on its face. //roux   22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not being uncivil and I am not attacking you so please spare me the threats. I'm being honest with you but you can't handle that. I will remove no such comments. Caden S (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that "I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda" is self evidently uncivil and an attack. And "I am a victim of the monster known as, 'Political Correctness'. I believe in the Freedom of thoughts" is political motivation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please calm down CadenS else I will block you for incivility off this thread alone.--VS 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'm very much familiar with a dictionary. Let's have a look at the definiton of 'negro' (link). Do you see the bit which says 'sometimes offensive'? Please make yourself familiar with a dictionary before accusing me of being unfamiliar of one.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone, not helping. Please strike the non-content parts of your comment.//roux   23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, but I do feel that this user should learn the importance of not accusing until ensuring they are correct. Struck, per request, anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, and thanks. This sort of subject is always a minefield, so best to stay as on topic as possible, I think. //roux   23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to inform a fellow editor that an ANI report has been made against them. The editor who filed this ANI failed to inform User:ParaGreen13. I have just notified him of this report. Caden S (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Caden. Glad someone around here makes some sense. As for the use of "queer", granted that might be a little offensive. Not really the intention though. However, even here they refer to themselves as that quite often, so how much of a problem is it really, unless there's a political correctness convention in force? It's actually not as bad as some things you could say about homosexuals. And I refrained from saying them. I think the point was made about the actor, John Ireland. I thought it seemed like one of those "outing" type lies, considering his record. Like with Tom Selleck a few years back. That's bad form. As for the negro issue, I've already explained that before; Not offensive and not meant to be. It's a foolish assumtion to assume the reverse. 13:55 PT, 3-5-09, ParaGreen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not take this as a personal attack, it isn't, but I need to clarify my opinion here. Firstly, pardon me for refactoring your comment but I think you should say "not offensive in my opinion". You cannot say that it is not offensive, because it clearly is to many people. If you just took a few moments to search the internet and read some dictionaries, you'd note that consensus says it is offensive. If you took a few moments to research into African-American history, you'd also note the widespread offense it has and does cause. You have to appreciate other people's opinions because not every removal of an offensive word is due to censorship, it's down to common sense and decency. If you further more change articles unnecessarily from 'African-American' to 'Negro', I will have no problem with reporting you straight to ANI again because in my honest opinion, it's downright unacceptable and verging on racism. The same applies to your remarks on homosexuals. Feel free to disagree, but this is my position on the matter, any issues feel free to bring them up here or on my talk page. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not 1950 ... the word "negro" is always considered offensive. In fact, it was likely offensive in 1950, but it was legally "accepted". In 2009, "negro" is not accepted by anyone, anywhere (unless you're a skinhead or wear white sheets to meetings). It is, and has been, a racist and degrading term. If you want some references, I'll find you references quite quickly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclonenim is saying on user pages that the use of 'Negro' is somehow 'against the law' and 'could get Misplaced Pages sued'. That is patently false and misleading. Misplaced Pages is not censored for content, there is nothing "illegal" about the term "Negro", and no such suit would stand up in court. I need go no further than to mention the existence of articles like "Negro league baseball", which is what it was called and there's no getting around it. Having said that, the casual use of "Negro" is now considered offensive, and should be avoided in wikipedia except in context (as with Negro League baseball). Baseball Bugs 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly wrong about that, and withdraw that statement, but it was a minor point in my argument. Somehow CadenS seems to think I'm personally attacking him, calling him racist, which simply isn't true. What I have said is that ParaGreen13's actions of removing, as you put it Baseball Bugs "out of context", the word 'African-American' and substituting it with 'Negro', could be considered racist. I have no issue with pages in context, try and quote me saying I'm against that, but when random pages about African-Americans are essentially being damaged with an out of context offensive term, that needs to be dealt with. See User talk:CadenS and User talk:Cyclonenim for more background. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing "African American" as a descriptive with "Negro" is Stephen Colbert style vandalism and should be reverted on sight. Baseball Bugs 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Parappa664

Parappa664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"New" user today, immediately goes to various user talk pages and starts causing trouble. What could this possibly be? Something to do with hosiery, perhaps? Baseball Bugs 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bet he's a Yankee fan. PhGustaf (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing a fan of the Gas-House Gorillas. Deor (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm... Could be! Baseball Bugs 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Their talk page is... interesting. The first messages appear to be warnings dating back to February 2007. However, the only edits to the page occurred in the last two days. Dammit, kids these days: if you're going to fake a history, at least fake a respectable history. Interestingly, their most recent edits have been to the sandbox, so maybe they are just new and confused? Worth keeping an eye on, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick look shows that they have in part copied their talk page from the bottom section of this IPs talk page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Audience applauds. I'll have that sausage, thanks!) Well spotted. Still no less bizarre, though I am leaning towards the "using their talk page as a sandbox"-view. That still leaves the "using Baseball Bugs's talk page as another sandbox"-problem, but hopefully it won't recur. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it happens again, they shall incur my merciless wrath, as dispensed by the wikipedia god known as RVV. Baseball Bugs 19:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And then you're going to type mean things at them until they cry. HalfShadow 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When you find something that works, you stick with it. >:) Baseball Bugs 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

However, after fooling around in the sandbox for a little while yesterday that user (or at least that logon) disappeared. Maybe we should have warned him about the k-wik-sand. Baseball Bugs 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They have reappeared, and want to become an administrator. This flag once was red_deeds 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. Hey, let's just make everyone an administrator. Baseball Bugs 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If a guy with ZERO edits to any articles were to get adminship, that would certainly be a record no one could break! Baseball Bugs 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

German machine guns & submachine guns: 8 queryable move requests

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals contains 8 requests by User:Koalorka to move 8 articles about German machine guns & submachine guns to a form with a space in. These requests are in the form e.g. "MG42 → MG 42 — WP:Firearms concensus, space provided. — Koalorka (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)". But where is this concensus? Special:PrefixIndex finds no relevant pages with names starting "WP:Fire" or "Misplaced Pages:Fire". When these guns were made, it seems to have been official German military usage to leave the space out. See User talk:Koalorka for warnings and a blocking against him. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms might be the place to start looking. Bencherlite 10:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that ANI is not the appropriate venue of first resort when dealing with non-vandalism move disputes. Take it to the relevant WikiProject first, ask the mover questions on his talk page, discuss it on the articles' talk pages, etc. The point of WP:ANI is to deal with incidents that need administrator intervention, and this one certainly does not. --Cyde Weys 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments erased at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I've had a comment erased three times by two different users at this page who said it wasn't aimed at improving the article. My comment was in relation to another user who requested a source that the Second Amendment was considered a civil right. Although I considered the request somewhat trollish I was happy to oblige. The New York Times had that very day referred to the NRA as the country's first "civil rights" group. The topic of discussion is relevant to the article because whether we call the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment a "civil right" is relevant to the article. My comment was removed, but the request for sources and the rest of the discussion was left in place. I have another concern which is that the topic is controversial and POV could be inserted by manipulation of the talk page. Otherwise it's a small issue. I can see why the other editors didn't think I was serious in my edit. But I was. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

give them a talking to about being overzelous (my npov: it does have something to do with it)  rdunnPLIB  16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I ditto the complaint about long term problems of editor incivility harming the encyclopedia at that article. A neutral referee, if one could exist, might help. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "Bill of Rights", ja? Baseball Bugs 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

However, the term "civil rights" as it's used really has to do with denial of equal protection under the law, which is more about the 14th, 15th amendments. The Bill of Rights probably has more to do with what we now call "civil liberties". Baseball Bugs 00:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment in question was not in regards to words published in an article in the NYT. Rather, it was a statement about a crossword puzzle clue for a 3 letter word that Cdogsimmons felt by the clue must be "NRA". The answer to the puzzle had not yet been published. The editors in question (I wasn't one of them) felt that a comment about one editor's opinion on what the word might be on this clue was non-relevant to the article, or was, at most, Original Research, being that the answers to the crossword puzzle hadn't yet been posted. The whole edit war on this went back and forth, with Cdogsimmons edit warring with a couple of editors who felt that his comment had no content relevant to improving the article in question, but, rather, was likely simply a soapbox statement that didn't belong on the talk page. This hardly seems to need a neutral referee to judge whether or not a talk page should be a soapbox for espousing one's opinion of what a 3 letter word might be in that day's NYT's crossword puzzle to push a POV. Much ado about nothing. Yaf (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And what was the actual answer to the clue? Baseball Bugs 22:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Activity by User:Scripturalreasoning

I'm reporting disruptive activity on the talk page of the article scriptural reasoning by user:scripturalreasoning. This user has speculated openly about my identity and place of work in an attempt at harrassment. I would be grateful for adminship. Thelongview (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a hint of legal threat over on WP:COIN. Verbal chat 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting FALSE and personally harassing statements made by user Thelongview who has repeatedly made allegations of my fabricating statements which have been made by the Trustees of an organisation and, and uploading material to websites of which I am NOT the IT officer. See here I have repeatedly asked him to withdraw these false and untrue statements for which he has no evidence, but rather there is evidence to the contrary. He has refused to withdraw these FALSE personal statements and accusations about me:

"I have not removed any material which is reliably referenced. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk now has a page in which the views of Scripturalreasoning are faithfully reproduced. References to 'trustees' (whose names or affiliations nowhere appear on that website) are spurious: the website material was clearly mounted online by Scripturalreasoning. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk, whose material is mounted by Scripturalreasonining, is not a reliable source. Thelongview (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not a registered charity. Thelongview (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)"

I have responded to some other FALSE statements by user Thelongview at COI

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already instructed user Thelongview to desist from making false statements exactly one month ago.

*I do not own and am not "responsible" as the IT person in charge of the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ This is registered in the name of, hosted and primarily managed by another colleague - I contribute certain SR study materials. Those "responsible" for its content are the Trustees. Please stop making false statements. Thank you. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"SR Study materials" are translations and sacred texts from the Bible, Quran and commentaries on these sacred materials, contributed to the Scriptural Reasoning work of the Society alongside the contributions of various other colleagues -- as may be seen. He has continued to make false allegations despite my requesting him to stop.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WP:COI/N:

WP:U violation reported for review by relevant admins. -- samj _in 17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:OUTING above ("Thelongview WHO IS EMPLOYED as a X of Y, and a lead member of Z") even after User:Thelongview recently explained that "I am concerned to preserve my anonymity on Misplaced Pages, and as things stand it is looking as though I might have to abandon work on the article on 'Scriptural Reasoning' in order to achieve that" is also rather problematic. -- samj _in 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:LEGAL threats mentioned above(retracted) and WP:COI related violations of various policies it seems intervention is required. -- samj _in 17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scripturalreasoning may fit the description of an account that's "considered disruptive and may be blocked". The question is whether it exists for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the Scriptural Reasoning Society. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what is going on here because there are lots of undercurrents. As far as I can tell, the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a British entity that may consist of a single person; I haven't actually seen even one name associated with it, except the copyright holder for the web site. It should be contrasted with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, an American entity that has identifiable members and is notable in various ways. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am also very unhappy about how close this editor has sailed to the wind in regards to our policy on outing. I think he has gone too far. I am glad to see that he has agreed to change his/her username. dougweller (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the fundamental issue is that there are two groups claiming rights to this name, and they each consider the other illegitimate. Obviously, we're not going to judge that. We may need an article for each of the organizations. DGG (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The position is not complicated. The Scriptural Reasoning Society is a registered charitable project of the Interfaith Alliance UK which references it. The nine Trustees of the latter organisation are listed on the Charity Commission website. It consists of four groups, including the SR Oxford which is sponsored by the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies whose head leads that group, SR Camden and SR Westminster all sponsored by the Camden Faith Communities Partnership (a Christian minister of which is a convener of the SR Camden), Liberal Jewish Synagogue (a rabbi of which is also a Trustee and leads the Westminster Group), Liberal Judaism (the Society's registered address, and a rabbi of which is a Trustee and lead of the Camden group), St John's Church (another convener of the SR Westminster). It has meetings every month in various places of worship, which dozens of people come to, and has a membership of over 200 --- contrast that with the tiny number of 37 who are members of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group. The SR Society has a Board of Trustees which are the same as the Interfaith Alliance UK, it has a Coordinator, an IT officer and local coordinators. NONE of these people are ME. The FALSE statements made or implied by user Thelongview are particularly galling, since his colleagues and boss have actually met with the SR Society's coordinating body, and I have met this chap as well. These facts are therefore all PUBLICLY KNOWN. The false statements which have been repeated by user Thelongview despite my repeatedly requesting him to desist from making, constitute clear harassment -- are outrageous and Administrators must act on the false statements being made. Why has this not happened?

My own position is clear. I have said before in an earlier edit that:

"Also, for the record, I have no "loyalty" at all for the Scriptural Reasoning Society as an institution/structure, despite my having contributed a lot of work to it. My loyalty and commitment is to certain values of parity, equality, truth and non-exploitation in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning as a whole (whichever group does it). The SRS can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, if there is any hint of its Trustees and officers abandoning those ethical principles to which I am passionately committed"

If you read the Discussion Page for the article, you will see clearly that my position is consistently that the WP article Scriptural Reasoning has been used by user Thelongview and others to advertise and promote the practice of Scriptural Reasoning, make exaggerated claims for its size and innovative nature, and one particular group in particular. My position is that that Scriptural Reasoning is nothing particularly novel, there are many other organisations (JCM Conference, Limmud, Lambeth Palace Building Bridges Seminars) which have done virtually identical types of interfaith text study work, and the great majority of references to the article are from exactly the same tiny group of 37 people who are all involved in the active promotion of Scriptural Reasoning. All criticism of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning has now been suppressed by Thelongview --- Therefore, it is the CRITICISM of Scriptural Reasoning (NOT ITS PROMOTION) to which I am committed, so that hardly constitutes promotion of any Scriptural Reasoning organisation (SR Society or otherwise). Misplaced Pages NPOV requires an article to contain a balance of viewpoints -- including critique -- and I am astonished that Administrators would allow such promotional and advertising bias to go unchallenged. I am INDIFFERENT to the listing of the Scriptural Reasoning Society and its various activities --- it is FAIR CRITICISM of Scriptural Reasoning, NOT PROMOTION to which I am committed. As Administrators, you surely cannot allow the article to become a promotional brochure for the practice of Scriptural Reasoning by those whose very job involves promotion of SR. --Carpathy2009 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not complicated indeed, and also completely beside the point, which is user misconduct. I have indefinitely blocked Carpathy2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs), for being a single purpose account who uses Misplaced Pages solely to promote a particular WP:TRUTH, coupled with substantial user conduct concerns as outlined by others above. I'm fine with review and, if need be, any change to or lifting of the block should other admins assess the situation differently.  Sandstein  21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunate that they didn't heed the multiple complaints, warnings, and requests to reform. They may get the message now - hopefully they can reform into a positive contributor - but for the time being, this was appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History of quaternions

Lingx91

Another in my list of "how on earth is this guy still around?" editors, I present to you Lingx91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Series of nasty warnings, and, so far as I can tell, an unblemished record: every edit he has made has been reverted, and every article he has created has been a hoax. Is there really any reason to wait longer before the indef he will inevitably receive?—Kww(talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Review welcome, but with a couple months of hoax articles and vandalism kicking around, I think this was the right approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling we've seen this editor before. I brought an issue here about an editor adding numerous future films and albums to numerous articles through numerous IPs. The issue was kicked back and forth from here to SPI, back here and back to SPI. There was never a meaningful resolution. Were the deleted articles mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sher'Quan J (section) (Disneymania 8 and Sher'Quan (feat...)) created under this same user name or another? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Both were created by Kielz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also created, surprise surprise, Sher'Quan Johnson (among a half-dozen others). Boi91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another in this little hosiery drawer. It's obviously a sockfest. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lingx91 has been created to sweep for related accounts.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Manhattan Samurai socks

Crepe King (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and La femme Wiki (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are definitely him. If a CU can be bothered, there's usually a bunch more in the same IP drawer. Thanks and best. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way → :-) Tiptoety 23:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for SPI. These are obvious socks of a banned user. One has been blocked, but the other (Crepe King) has been not. There is no need to waste time on SPI with banned users that are this ducky.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tippy is right, but it's obvious enough for me to block Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Frehley 0

Someone just apply WP:DUCK to this account being a User:Big Boss 0 sock/meatpuppet already and block it. User has done nothing but troll Misplaced Pages with his urls of youtube videos and message me on my talk page. — Moe ε 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuked. -Jeremy 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of site protectioning

user:YellowMonkey protected the site A. R. Rahman indefinitely diff. The reason he has given is Protected A. R. Rahman: one anon defying consensus ( (indefinite) (indefinite))

The discussion on the issue can be found here: Talk:A._R._Rahman#91.130.91.92 It is all about the inclusion of a regional award ceremony called Filmfare Awards in the lead section as well as in the table of discography. The dispute is about the notability of Filmfare Awards.

Why I report this: The long time consensus for this page was only to include National, State Awards and International Awards which are truly serious and hence worthy to be mentioned at the A. R. Rahman article. So the summary explanation of this protection had nothing substantial in this regard. It's not me who was defying consensus, but Bollywood soldiers like Sh* and Jagged85, who still insist to take these controversial Awards into the lead section by degrading official State Awards. The long time consensus was stable until these two Warriors arrived with Filmfares in their luggage. If you look in YellowMonkey's talk page, you can easily find a connection between Monkey and Sh**. You will easily come to the conclusion, that Monkey intentionally did a "small favor" to his old comrade. This is the way, the article looked all the time until A. R. Rahman won his two Oscars with very minor differences to previous versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A._R._Rahman&diff=273654746&oldid=273653684 Filmfare Awards were mentioned only in the Award section, not in the lead or in the big table. And here is the "consensus" YellowMonkey is talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/A._R._Rahman Filmfare is in the lead in the first place. The table is spammed up with these Filmfare magazine Awards.

--91.130.91.92 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Protection looks appropriate to me. Consensus may change, but you won't be able to force it through edit warring. Keep working on productive discussion on the talk page. You shouldn't need to edit the article while the discussion is ongoing, because there are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. Kafziel 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• What I find funny is that this anon reverted things repeatedly by everyone who broke his POV. He claims that one film award function must be removed while it is the most prominent and veteran in India (because of personal biasness which I won't explain here), and although other editors assumed good faith, proved the importance of the ceremony, he kept continuously reverting the edits of anyone who dared to re-add it. And this "long time consensus" this anon is talking about is just his invention, no such consensus exists and is not likely to exist. Apart from this, the state awards are not notable at all, and this is something he does not try to disprove. I consider his repeated reversals (which contradict consensus and basic facts) plain vandalism, so YellowMonkey was extremely kind. Apart from this, the article was heavily vandalised since his Oscar win. Shahid • 06:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over redirect

Could another admin look over Dan Schlund and Talk:Dan Schlund and please help sort out the mess. There appears to be some sort of edit war over whether or not to redirect the article to Jet pack or not. There does not appear to be any consensus one way or another, but both sides appear to be just reverting each other back and forth. I see no evidence of a redirect discussion which determined a consensus to change the status quo, however there was a recent AFD discussion closed as no consensus. It appears the article was already protected once to stop the edit war, but as soon as the protection was lifted, one of the parties immediately resumed. What do we need to do about this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can reprotect it if people really think that is necessary, but protection will have to expire at some point. It looks like there is discussion (and the most recent revert doesn't seem all that recent, unless my clock is off) and he issue may simmer down by itself. Though the two participants in the edit war could stand to be a lot nicer to each other. Protonk (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point, I think that protection is not the issue. We need to perhaps discuss the behavior of the editors involved in the dispute. It does not appear that any attempt was made to resolve this dispute on the talk page, and those involved seem to be undergoing a pattern of "leave a nasty comment, then revert to my version". Just want to see what others think about this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggest a polite but firm warning about edit warring, and then someone monitors.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's probably a reasonable assessment. I'll also note that the comments on the talk page (while present) have been less than encouraging. My main comment was related to the timing. Unless either or both of the editors went to bed, they seem to have not persisted in the edir warring. No comment on which version should be 'preferred', but the reverting doesn't seem to be ongoing. There may be (As the editors involved assert) some longstanding problem between those two apart from this content dispute. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has been protected a second time: by Xymmax indefinately. That should at least force the parties to talk, rather than merely to sit around and wait for protection to lapse, as appeared happened the last time it was protected. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that someone is around to review the protection, this seems like a good application of IAR. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am watching the article, and it looks like atleast you and Xymmax are as well. I would guess, between the three of us, we can have the good judgement to observe when reasonable consensus has been reached. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef protection is a bad idea, especially as it doesn't force discussion, as the two editors refusing to discuss the topic were the ones who wanted it the way it is now. I'm sure they'll be fine with it being locked in their preferred version and not having to come up with any reliable sources, prove notability, etc. I don't recall indef protection being at all standard procedure. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On top of the indef protection, I should also point out that a couple of admins have taken it upon themselves to repeatedly remove a comment on the talk page that they seem to have a problem with, just because it points out the fact that the supposed "Keep" vote on the first AFD actually had more delete votes than keep votes and is at best a "no consensus", not a "keep". For some reason my pointing this out has caused Protonk to threaten a block. The admin enforcement here seems more than a little draconian. They claim they want discussion before they'll ever unlock the article but are removing discussion and making threats that impede discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Indef protection prevents those intending to edit war over the redirect from just waiting things out. It doesn't mean "infinite". That article shouldn't stay in a protected state for long, but if consensus can't be found, it will. As for the message on the talk page, I'll be perfectly clear. The editorial about the keep close of an almost 2 year old AfD doesn't belong on the top of a talk page. If you like, you may contact the original closer to tell them that you disagree with their close. You may start a discussion on the talk page (in a section) as to why you feel that close was inappropriate. You may take either or both of the closes to DRV. But you may not use the top of a talk page to voice your opinion about the close. Since I won't protect the talk page to prevent you from doing so, my options are limited. I may topic ban you from the page, but I don't want to do that. So I'll be clear. If you (or anyone else) persists in reinstating that message, I will block the offending editors for a sufficient period of time to prevent disruption to that page. Period. You are welcome to argue that such a position is draconian. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked DreamGuy for continuing to insert commentary at the top of the talk page for that article. Review is always welcome and appreciated. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Magalona

Someone needs to take a look at this page, reports that person has died, edit warring, vandalism, etc etc Marek.69 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted, though being totally unfamiliar with the subject, help will be limited. Given the huge number of sources, it appears the death is true. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blast from the past: likely block evasion by User:Jacksbernstein

• Richard Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 207.233.48.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article, which has a long history of socking by a banned editor trying to sanitize it in 2007 (see ), now has a SPA IP edit-warring to add WP:PUFFy reviews of Toluca Lake theater productions and add details misrepresenting cited sources about the subject's attempted murder trial. RFCU is of course impossible, but some help on this WP:DUCK -- either through page semi-protection or blocking the IP -- would be appreciated. THF (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse?

Not sure where this belongs, but some newly-registered 'user' wants to harass me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious malicious impersonator, blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing user talk page deletions

(and now the bot is actually stopped. –xeno (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

User:MZMcBride has been deleting old talkpages of IP users for quite some time now, and the process is at this very moment still ongoing. Some editors have however had their problems with these deletions. Most of these talkpages are indeed utterly useless after some time, however, for some ongoing, coordinated vandalism cases, these pages are very useful.

I have given MZMcBride yesterday such an example, where 2 talkpages were deleted (the only 2 in a range of 15 IP talkpages). Both were deleted (and I have not seen from MZMcBride's answer that he located which two were the two users that were warned). One of them would not have been deleted under the current settings (scanning the talkpage for spam/promote/promotion), one still would. Deletion of these two talkpages is a loss of, for us, important information (making these old spam cases completely dependent on admin intervention).

This morning I have been spending on working out some other cases. One of them is coming to completion, here User:Beetstra/DeletedTalkPages#XWiki_spam_range. The spamming is current, the pages are not up for deletion (yet). The spam case is cross-wiki, about 15 IPs have been used here for the spamming. Some have added links, some only promotion. 4 have been warned here by various users, but only one of these three contains the word 'spam' in the text (i.e. a normal spam warning, three others were either custom warnings, or vandalism warnings). It is therefore my conclusion that the current run, besides doing quite some 'good', will still remove also valuable information. I have therefor asked MZMcBride to stop immediately. My question was at 14:05 (updated at 14:07). My clock now reads 14:24, and the deletion is ongoing. I think the bot is running unsupervised, and suggest to block the editor for a couple of hours, and will do so if the editor does not stop after the nudge that this has been reported here.

I am not around too much in the coming days, not sure if I can follow up on this soon. I grant any other admin the full right to undo my block if needed. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be raised at the ongoing arbitration case, perhaps as a temporary injunction. –xeno (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked. Mangojuice 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, to elaborate on Mangojuice's comment there, he was blocked by the same for 24 hours, as he did not seem to be responding and was therefore assumed to be letting the script run while AFK. —Anonymous Dissident 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the arbitration case. I am not sure if this is directly related, and this part of the WP:CSD policy is still actively discussed. Part of the discussion on WP:OLDIP is still not come to conclusion, though CSD#U4 is part of policy. Deletions are in principle in line with the current policy, but in this way still too prone to mistakes. --Dirk Beetstra 14:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that U4 had made it through; as far as I can see, it hasn't? –xeno (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice that, this should have stopped earlier today: diff. --Dirk Beetstra 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ah, k. –xeno (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this would probably fall under the arb case scope, which is fairly wide. –xeno (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it, at least in part, concerns his unmonitored usage of bot scripts, so yes, I think this falls under the branch. —Anonymous Dissident 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, FWIW. –Juliancolton 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, no one had filed a proposal for temporary injunction. I have done so. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#Temporary_desysop_of_MZMcBride. Durova 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Committee is voting to support a lesser injunction. Looks like this thread can be closed. Durova 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride is requesting unblock. Durova 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And has been unblocked. Ready to mark this resolved now? Durova 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride was unblocked, but the deletion script was never stopped, so as of this moment it is still going. Dragons flight (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-blocked MZMcBride, although it was promised that the script would stop, it was still active. I have to leave, please feel free to unblock MZMcBride when the script has stopped. Thanks. (I have also un-resolved this thread). --Dirk Beetstra 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dirk: Looking quickly at your page, a couple of comments:

1. Listing the IP talk pages there stops any deletion of them. This is the absolute first thing I asked A. B. to do when she came to me in January regarding old IP talk pages. I'm quite frustrated about that.
2. Looking at the results, it appears to be 750 IP addresses. Nearly 90% (perhaps more?) don't have a talk page at all and never did. The few that do look like either (a) simple vandalism (e.g., Special:Contributions/68.227.85.13) or (b) would have been skipped due to being warned for spamming. There be something that I'm missing in my cursory look-over, but this appears to be an issue for maybe 3 out of 750 pages?

As I said, I'm quite frustrated that this list is only now being compiled when I brought this up weeks ago and was told that no type of list was able to be compiled. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MZM, this is not the place to fight about that. I have always said, that most of these pages can safely be deleted, but some of them are proof, or are support for other actions in wikipedia (blacklisting of links being one of them). The list of 750 is for that. The first 250 give you full support for deletion, I have even listed several there which have not been deleted, but which can safely be deleted (that is flaw one in the criteria)! The second 250 give 4 talkpages, of which, under the current circumstances, 3 would be falling under the current policy (in a year, and when this list would not be pointing to them). My point is simple, your criteria for deletion are incomplete and the way you determine which to delete is seriously flawed. Several editors were questioning the deletion, you proceeded. Several editors told that you already caused damage, you did not help in repairing, you proceeded in deleting more. You asked for examples of talkpages which are useful, there are some examples.

Listing all IPs is not an option, that is not a way for us to keep track of it, it is an unworkable way forward, where would I get the data now for a case which may emerge next week, in the meantime you delete thousands of pages? --Dirk Beetstra 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting of CD Keys in Windows XP

Not sure if Misplaced Pages cares or if this is the right place (sorry if it isn't), but I wanted to point out edits:

• Number 1
• Number 2

by Whwebsolutions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those are the user's only edits. While I'm not sure whether the CD key actually works, I don't think Misplaced Pages should aid in piracy.

I'm not sure what to do about it other than revert (maybe the revisions can be blocked from being viewed?), so I just wanted to let an admin know.

--Zabadab (Talk) @ 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert as vandalism, warn, if he continues doing, report to AI/V for blocking. Misplaced Pages does not aid in piracy and has low tolerance for that kinda stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that that's a well-known and blacklisted license key. Not saying that it isn't vandalism of course, but there shouldn't be a need for oversighting and all that. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Functional Decomposition Methodology

This article is at AfD as being OR and SPAM. In my !vote I pointed out that the only reference, to the author's employer's website, didn't mention the subject. He has now corrected the reference; but that makes things worse, because it is now clear that the article is a straight copyvio. The AfD debate is leaning towards a redirect, because the subject the title refers to could be notable; however it has also been proposed that the title redirected from should be slightly different from the present one. I considered tagging the article db-copyvio, but am not sure that would be proper with two days of AfD to run, so I am seeking advice here. My suggestion would be: speedy-delete the present article as copyvio, and make a new redirect from Functional decomposition methodology (proper capitalisation) to Functional decomposition. The AfD debate makes the background clear. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible unauthorised bot?

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

Creating five or six pages per minute, a short while ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think their contribs are fast enough to be a bot. J.delanoy_adds 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles seem like the kind we want, why not do the normal thing and go ask him or her about it?--Jac16888 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the bot policy is not that unauthorised scripts are fine if they're doing good work. It says that unauthorised scripts are... erm, unauthorised! I am not an expert, and wanted further input - talking to the user ("the normal thing"!!!) isn't likely to produce a useful answer = they'll never admit to using a bot even if they are...

Sorry to bother you all, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? -Djsasso (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about someone's behaviour, you're always going to be told to talk to them first. But a glance at their contribs doesn't look like a bot. Probably preparing articles offline or in a sandbox. WilyD 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I found it difficult to understand how someone could create ~6 decent articles per minute over a sustained period of time. Assuming good faith is great fun, yes, but to deny the very possibility of bad faith is rather foolish IMO. I still have no clue how this user is managing to do it, but I have clearly stated several times that I am not clear about whether it is a script or not, and that I am not an expert. If you think I've behaved badly, I unreservedly apologise, and am now marking the issue resolved before anything anything else happens. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant assume good faith in messaging him and not assuming he will deny it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles consist of basically the same content, so using a simple copy/paste, one could easily create 5 or 6 stubs per minute. Juliancolton (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith of TreasuryTag ;-) If I saw that, I'd probably be suspicious too. Absolutely nothing wrong with being cautious. Don't jump on his back (referring to no one in particular) just because the guy came here for some guidance :-) Scarian 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall initiated against MBisanz

Brrryce (talk · contribs) has instigated an administrator recall request against MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alleging that his deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) constituted an abuse of his admin tools. I have been asked to clerk this process, and am posting this notice here pursuant to MBisanz's recall policy. This policy stipulates that if five administrators meeting specified criteria endorse the recall request within 48 hours, MBisanz will either resign adminship or initiate a reconfirmation RFA. As I am posting this notice at a number of locations, I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Allow my bad faith to come through here, but an editor who made one article, and oddly enough may indeed be the person in the article (bringing up, WP:COI & WP:AUTO just off the top of my head) is upset that an admin make a, in my opinion, GOOD deletion, and wants that admin recalled? Yeah....something's fishy here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, MBisanz's deletion looks appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As some people seem to be unwilling to read - ahem - I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall - ahem... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That page is for discussion regarding MBisanz's use of admin tools. Comments regarding the AfD in question and the validity of the situation are fine here. –Juliancolton 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think deletion review would even be a better place for that.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that'd be here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to point it out that directly, since WP:CANVASS isn't far away... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is however a good place to say the "being open to recall" basically opens the door for this type of nonsense. Chillum 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not really nonsense. User wants an admin recalled for alleged abuse, fine. User alleges abuse, now needs five admins to certify. Five admins don't certify, no recall, issue ends in 48 hours. No big deal, no drama, why worry? Community-instigated admin recall is a very good thing. We have the ability to grant someone the support for the tools, therefore the community must have a robust and community-driven process for having those tools removed. RFA is community based; you don't have to go to arbcom to get the bit. //roux   20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think MBisanz should be recalled. While I do not always agree with him, he is usually fair and reasonable to deal with. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No admin should be recalled over the deletion of a single article, particularly when the deletion was appropriate. MBisanz has always been a model administrator, and that hasn't changed here. Hersfold 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested - Nextheisman

Nextheisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have indefinitely blocked Nextheisman (talk · contribs) for repeated plagiarism and request a review of that block and the term. My block message may be viewed at User_talk:Nextheisman#Blocked_for_plagairism. On January 10, I deleted around 15 or so articles, which had all been copied from other sources. At that time, I warned the user that he or she would be blocked if there were any further infractions. Subsequent to that time, he or she has submitted at least three articles (now deleted, though a new unrelated version of one of them has been created by another user) that were copyright violations - Bear Pascoe, Troy Nolan, and Larry English. (The source of each is listed in the block message) None of them were exact copy/pastes of the source texts, but rather, select sentences were copied. (Pick any word from the middle of a sentence in his articles, search the source, and it's word for word the same, except for changing "he" to the person's name, changing punctuation, or something similar.) I submit this block for review. --B (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually verified anything you said, but assuming it's true, I endorse the block. We can't have this type of unrepentant behaviour, corrupting the 'pedia with copyvio. –xeno (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. KillerChihuahua 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-fest at User:Jimbo Wales

I came here becuase of a problem at Jimmy's user page. Someone with a ton of socks hs been vandalizing Jimbo's user page for 13 hours. I think this might require admin attention. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for a period of 1 day. Scarian 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's User:RMHED, who has moved on to doing this (he was previously creating malicious pages with this same theme). Anyone think maybe that 30 day block ought to be extended? Whoops, it's already been done. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Any CUs around to clear out the drawer? KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's vandalizing Jimbo's talk page. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Should RMHED's Right to Vanish be revoked, and his Talk page be restored? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was restored a few days ago after the latest spat of edits, and is blanked only as a courtesy. Everything else is viewable. seicer | talk | contribs 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Paulista01

This user is edit-warring and removing sourced informations from article Portuguese Brazilian. He was already warned and is now using sockpupet IP number to keep edit-warring. He already broke the 3RRR. Opinoso (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Opinoso, normally we'd deal with 3RR concerns at WP:3RRN, but for simplicity's sake I'll deal with it here. This revert of yours doesn't look like it's reverting vandalism; adding a dubious tag is certainly normal practice on Misplaced Pages. But I do see that Paulista has been edit warring. As he is a new user I'll assume good faith of him and leave him a message informing him of his actions. If you require any additional assistance, please feel free to message me personally, friend. Scarian 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just block him and his IP for avoiding 3RR. It certainly looked like an intentional log out. Mfield (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh what the fuck? Scarian 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't have sworn. Anyway, Mfield, would you consider lifting the block? I left the guy a huge paragraph advising him on what not to do. The guy is clearly new and we shouldn't be biting their heads off with a block at every sign of trouble. Scarian 21:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting your message (that you were obviously typing at the same time as I was blocking, if it had already been there I would not have done it), I unblocked his username and left his IP blocked. I agree on not not biting and hopefully he will have learnt not to log out next time to get around a warning. Mfield (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mfield. I really appreciate it. :-) Scarian 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not assuming good faith, since the informations he is removing are sourced, moreover, with several reliable sources. Since he is edit-warring with different users, he was warned but keeps removing the informations, he should be blocked. Opinoso (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon Vandal

Out of the 9 edits done by User:96.252.15.37, each of them have been done to vandalize a page.Beast from da East (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

IP warned. If it continues, warn and take to AIV as needed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock notice

Due to the ongoing disruption caused a the number of IP socks likely belonging to indef blocked user Swamilive (talk · contribs), I have placed a 1 month rangeblock on 216.211.0.0/17. This is in addition to the 1 month rangeblock placed on 216.26.208.0/20 as previously mentioned in this ANI thread. Considering that there was no objection to the proposed rangeblock here and that Apparition11 provided some pretty conclusive evidence that the Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal and Swamilive were one and the same (see the contributions of 216.26.223.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), I went ahead. /17 blocks are not frequently applied, but a look through the contributions across the IP ranges yielded very few recent edits and little collateral damage. Let me know if there are any concerns. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nec532x

I posted a WQA here: , and was advised that admins rarely visit that area. I think the behavior exhibited by Nec532x on my talkpage warrants admin action. He is impersonating an actual Navy SEAL and attempting to vouch for someone who is not. He has attempted to add this person to the List of Navy SEALs and because I have removed him I am now being attacked. Atlantabravz (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Nec532x (talk · contribs) for 1 week. Personal attacks of that intensity warrant immediate action and some time to cool down. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this username be allowed to continue?

An editor using the name User:Jim@findagrave.com made a change to an article and his username immediately caught my attention. When I looked at his talk page, I saw that he had been blocked at one point for spam in December 2005. The account posted a request to be unblocked in October 2007 in order to change his username to one that doesn't include a website email address. The unblock was granted here. However, the editor did not appear to file a request for username change . While he did not make other edits after that until today, the point seems to be that the reason he was gave to be unblocked was not honored plus the edit made today was to a Find-a-Grave template. I don't know if the account should be blocked based on this or not, but at the least I'm not certain the username itself is allowable, since it does use the website name within it. I'll leave that to adminstrators to determine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reblocked the user. They were clearly told that the last unblock was for the express purpose of changing name. Mfield (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dig this! He wants to change his name to "GraveGuy". Baseball Bugs 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he needs something more light hearted and a little less grave? (groan). Seriously though, is GraveGuy too close for comfort? Mfield (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He's really in deep on this one. P.S. His request was decline. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Looks like he might get resurrected. Baseball Bugs 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum's lack of civility

User:Malleus Fatuorum is making personal attacks on others at User talk:MBisanz/Recall, including, but not limited to: Has the perception that admins are "a higher power, out of reach of common mortals" somehow dissipated while I wasn't looking then? 'Cos I can still see it from here, You can if you want to make yourself a laughing stock., Oh dear. I'll just leave you children to your fun then. Perhaps a few adults will pop in later. When I pointed out WP:NPA to him on his Talk page, his reply to me was: Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse., at which Ottava Rima chimed in with more personal attacks on me. Malleus Fatuorum then continued with I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've been dragged through WQA a couple of times that I can remember, but I'd never bother to do it to anyone else. It's just a pathetic waste of time; "Mummy, Mummy, Malleus was rude to me." Live with it bitch., As far as I am aware, I have had zero dealings with either one of these editors. Am I wrong in thinking that Malleus Fatuorum's comments are inappropriate? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for convenience: User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:03, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't. A lot of people think the same way. Some are above and beyond the civility policy here. I suggest you ignore him if he attacks you or makes rude comments about you. Majorly talk 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus has been blocked twice in the past for incivility. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please add some diffs to that (so we aren't searching through the history to review them). My experiences with MF match what you are describing. Have you informed him of this thread? Protonk (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)The link provided by Equazcion shows everything Malleus has been saying, as well as his notification of this thread. Honestly, how long are we going to put up with that ridiculous behaviour? //roux   00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would take action in this case, but I just finished disagreeing with him, and being told that I have his pity. I will leave it to another to decide. An uninvolved admin will give less recourse for the user to blame others. Chillum 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Who then was a gentleman?: Could you please provide diff-links for the quotations above? Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

, , . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Based on my dealings with this user at the recall page, I've found him difficult but not uncivil. That is, until I read his comments at his talk page, which are plain unacceptable. User has been informed of this thread. See this discussion on his talk page for that, and most of the comments referenced by the OP. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:09, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me to be rude, but not a personal attack. Suggest referring this matter to the Wikiquette board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. If diff-links are provided for the above personal attacks I am going to block straight away. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal - 12 hour block for Who then was a gentleman?. The block is for disturbing Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava, please consider stepping out of this dispute. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was accused of making personal attacks by this user. A glance at the page would show that I never made any attacks, personal or not. Thus, this user is dragging in me into this for no reason. I have better things to do. That means that this user is disrupting the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Awesome, my first accusation of sockpuppetting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who then was a gentleman? (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I would note that I already struck it as your two sig lines ran together so it looked like he posted the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If someone has that much time to really be bothered then chances are they aren't working on the encyclopedia and are probably not contributing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a nice diff: "I thank you for your advice, but I will contribute where and when I choose, not at the whim of prebusecent children/The wikipedia definition of "personal attack" appears to be an observation with which a bunch of hormonal teenagers don't agree."(in response to being asked not to insult people)... I think this guy needs another NPA block, longer than 12 hours. Chillum 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chillum: As I wrote above, if diff-links are provided, especially for "stick it up your arse", "laughing stock" and "Live with it bitch" I am going to block straight away. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Stick it up your arse, live with it bitch. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:17, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It really is about time something was done about Malleus's rudeness. It's such a shame a productive editor like him has to resort to childish personal attacks when people happen to disagree with him on issues. This is by far not the first time he has engaged in rude behaviour. The comments on his talk page were utterly disgraceful. Something needs to be done. Majorly talk 00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am involved, and biased, but can we please remember blocks are preventative not punitive. Pedro :  Chat  00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to ... persistently making personal attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards