Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 30 September 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Viran reappears as "Flight Of The neo" with his vengeance

Flight Of The neo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as the first new incarnation of the yesterday indefinitely blocked Viran.

See archive of previous incident and Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He redirected the article Theory of relativity to his newly created vengeance article

And another newly created nonsense page, created earlier as Flight Of The Phoenix

It looks like he had prepared for this from way before his block. Probably some kind of experiment.

DVdm 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Decision made easy by the edit summary "Because ems57fcva called me crank on Admin noticeboard and DVdm laughed at me on his talk page. I seek apology from both. Also see Absolute Velocity Of Light. This is Viran." -- llywrch 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny and sad. Should we add another his name to our favorite flower's list of bad words? ;) 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs)

I don't get your cryptic allusion to "our favorite flower's list of bad words", but I agree with you about the "kind of funny and sad" -- especially since he's posting messages to Jimbo on his talk page. I don't know why he thinks Jimbo would read that particular Misplaced Pages page; I can't get the man to reliably read my emails to him -- & I've met him. (Maybe that explains why. :) -- llywrch 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sairilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a new instance of Viran, also started on 23-sep.

• Edit summary referring to his "question to Jimbo Wales"
• Edit summaries of recent contributions.
• "I hope you understand reason behind my constructive vandalism" on RHaworth's talk page.

DVdm 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, as before, the edit summaries made it pretty easy... SQL 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And, it appears that he's back...

Sairiliyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SQL 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Per request. . .could somebody? (link) R. Baley 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Done/nevermind R. Baley 10:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin should probably check out Viran's user page history (link to their comment on my talk page) R. Baley 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theory_Of_Relativity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed_of_Gravity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DVdm 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<moved to the right>

If you people check properly, it didn't began with vandalism. It began with my insistence to include my explaination to second postulate of SR. Some instances which can be termed as vandalism were aimed to block my sockpuppft account.

This is message to DVdm. I am usenet sci.physics 'Abhi'. I really felt sorry when I learned about Stephen Speicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins, has Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked? See last entry. DVdm 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out...". DVdm 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that funny, there is nothing he could do that could cause admins nightmares, or even use more than 5 minutes of there time--Jac16888 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The newest four are now blocked. SQL 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also check #9 (the IP) and #10 on Viran's user page? R. Baley 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's related... Odd, the IP is owned by Opera software . Looking more closely at it. SQL 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hi, I am rather new here. I was watching all this viram stuff. I do appreciate administrators for blocking such vandals. Hopefully my contributions will not be vandalised by such vandals.

Thanks to administrators once again.

virash 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restored blanked section, added the notice the user left when blanking) SQL 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Virash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Preparing userpage like before - DVdm 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This, aside from being mildly annoying, is highly amusing. Talk about telescoping... Spryde 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a hell of a lot more of them, all of them are blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Request block for personal attack

Okstateguy987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is new account that has edited only one article. This person has removed sourced informaiton. and also added unsourced information to the article.

They have received 4 warnings about this, two from me and two from another editor. They have not once replied to these warnings, nor have they ever used the article Talk page to discuss any of this content. More importantly, they have not changed their ways.

Today they posted on my talk page saying, "You're a complete tool. ...Oh, and how about you spell Reid's name correctly? If you're going to even pretend like you know what's going on, you can at least do that." I do admit to making the typo, but there is no excuse for calling me a "complete tool". I consider this a personal attack from an account that has made no constructive edits.

I request Okstateguy987 be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. Johntex\ 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I left two stern final warnings. Rlevse 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That should help greatly! Johntex\ 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User 122.163.***.*** Vandalism

A user at varying IP addresses in New Delhi, India, all beginning with 122.163, has repeatedly deleted any edits by user Cullinane. For the vandal's background and motivation, see User_talk:Cullinane. For specific examples, see user contributions of 122.163.102.246 and the Sept. 28, 2007, history of the article Logical_connective. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've range blocked for a week, I hope I did it right. :) Maxim_(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone may need to let our cousins at the Spanish Misplaced Pages know. He is adding his theory there and linking to his Geocities site. I reverted once with a "Geocities is not a reliable source" but my spanish is weak for anything further! Spryde 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa's frequent 3rr violations

User:Taharqa was today reported by me for 3rr violations on the Race and ancient Egypt article. Report can be found here. Here are the 4 reverts:

• 1st revert: 11:23, 28 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 28 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:06, 28 September 2007
• 4th revert: 12:53, 28 September 2007

This is the warning given prior to violating the 3rr. 11:57, 28 September 2007

This user has a very long history of violating 3rr and has violated the rule a total of 8 times in the past 5 months. The user ignored my warning that he/she was violating policy prior to making the 4th revert. The user called my report "misguided", shifted the blame to me, and also called my warnings "irrelevant chatter".

The Race and ancient Egypt was protected (at my request) due to the disputes that were occurring there, and thus User:Taharqa was never blocked. I am of the opinion that this user will continue to violate 3rr in the future if violations of policy are not enforced. This user has not admitted making any mistakes and I think that in order to prevent further violations of the 3rr this user should be blocked for a duration commensurate to the users previous violations of the policy. The longest block was for 5 days. Wikidudeman 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

When edit-warring and disregard of such elementary rules as WP:3RR have became a sort of habitude, the question must be posed if we are not in presence of a pattern of disruptive editing, and that's a problem. Maybe a RfC on the user would be in order, and if the problem persists after that, a request to the ArbCom.--Aldux 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a quick look at Conservapedia

Hi all, there is a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and I stumbled across the article, saw all the leftover stuff, and reverted it back to before it was mangled. Didn't notice that he is off his block for 3RR and has already violated 3RR (4,5,6RR) within a few minutes (as has the IP who has been trying to deal with the edits in question). Since I've reverted, I'm now considering myself involved and am refraining from enforcing another 3RR block or protecting the page. Here is a diff of the edits being made so you can see the kind of POV I'm talking about. I would have posted to AN/3RR, but this is an ongoing thing and perhaps a stiffer response should be considered. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍

a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. - I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or not... Raul654 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I'm talking about Conservapedia's article on en.wp, not Conservapedia itself. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, I went to indef him, but Flyguy649 had already given him a 48 hour block. Raul654 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Raul654 said. ;). 48 h block for a second 3RR violation. If people feel that is way to lenient, feel free to extend it. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 _contribs 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments he uses in edit summaries, is there any likelihood that this user will begin to conform to the NPOV policies? ThuranX 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: If a user is making edits such as the above, and leaving "last warnings" on IP editors' talk pages whose contributions annoy them (e.g., diff), what is the best way to deal with that? I want to make sure some recent-changes patroller doesn't make a knee-jerk decision to immediately send the IP to AIV if it should ever happen to make a real mistake down te road. Should I request speedy deletion of the IP's Talk page (and under what cirteria), should I simply rv the contents of the page, should I strike it through and leave and explanation, or what? --Dynaflow babble 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC) It looks like the warned IP made three genuinely silly edits to Conservapedia over a short stretch of time, and Wafulz has left a short explanation on the Talk page, though he left the two "final warnings." Would anyone object if I replaced the contents of the IP's Talk page with a {{uw-npov2}}, listing Conservapedia as the article in question? --Dynaflow babble 03:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't object, seems sensible to me. Thanks for the quick response, Fly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to a week for personal attacks on that anon if no one noticed yet. If he comes back and continues to POV push/revert war/attack after that I would recommend indef. I don't think that IP deserves any warnings. I would hardly call changing "by the radicalised and liberally biased mainstream media for perceived factual inaccuracies" to "for its numerous factual inaccuracies" an NPOV violation. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the IP deserves a warning -- just not two big, "immanent doom" ones -- for these two bits of silliness. --Dynaflow babble 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to come and amend my comments - I missed those ones. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I only looked at the 3RR. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to investigate Nashville School of Law and IP=69.245.45.165

Hello, I was directed to this page earlier tonight from the "Report Vandalism" page. Can someone look at the recent change history behind Nashville School of Law and confirm whether violations have occurred? I've had an anonymous user (who was previously warned back in June) make reverts, twice in 24 hours, to edits that in my mind were legitimate and in conformance with Misplaced Pages's viewpoint neutrality policy. My own edits are documented at significant length on the Discussion page for the same entry.

No reason was given for either of the reverts except for a terse message in the history that appeared to be a personal attack. Additionally, I will admit to being new to Misplaced Pages, so if I ran afoul of anything, please let me know, and I will make corrections accordingly. But at this time I feel my own actions were taken in good faith. Thanks, Witzlaw 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-Admin)Looking at the history, it appears that this is less of Vandalism, and more just a difference of opinion, of which i have no idea is the more accurate(although yours has more references, which is a good thing) which should be resolved through the talk page, bearing in mind that the 3-revert rule states that you cannot revert an edit more than 3 times or you will be blocked--Jac16888 04:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Does an Admin concur with Jac16888's finding? Also bear in mind the following: 1) I've already resorted to the Discussion page, but our anonymous editor refuses to go there. 2) I've reverted twice and our anonymous user has reverted twice. Right now, it's anonymous' turn, so apparently his reversion will be the first to violate the policy. Witzlaw 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the Ip's first edit was a rewrite, you are the one reverting them, counting it shows that he/she has reverted once, and you twice. However if they refuse to take it to the talk page, then hopefully another editor with knowledge of the us school system will be able to make a judgement--Jac16888 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree with the last assessment. Anonymous' initial action was not a rewrite, but a verbatim copy-and-paste from an earlier version of the article, the one that came just prior to my rewrite. Is that not effectively a revert (so that we each have two)? Mind you, this anonymous user has already had a history of abuse--in fact, (s)he even received a final warning on his talk page for prior vandalism on multiple entries. Under these circumstances, must I be compelled to negotiate with him? Regarding the other point you made, I don't know if there is a third-party neutral that can look at this--seems there were relatively few edits by anyone between last June and until now. Witzlaw 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't aware his edit was a revert to an earlier version, so yes you are both on 2 reverts. However, regardless of vandalism in the past, which was last seen in June, you must assume good faith, vandalism in a users past is no real reason for ignoring policy. Just be patient, clearly he/she is not editing right now, so just wait for a 3rd party to come along, which will happen soon(fingers crossed) as this board is watched by many editors and admins. I do apologise that i can't help with the content itself, i have no idea how the US school system works, the sections are mostly meaningless to me--Jac16888 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But could this be vandalism?

Jac16888, thanks so much for all of your timely responses. Could I point out one other thing that I just noticed? On the Nashville School of Law article, if you do a compare between the version timestamped 24 September 2007 (20:59) (that's my original rewrite) and the version timestamped 29 September 2007 (01:35) (apparently, IP's 2nd revert) (DIFF), IP deleted an entire section unrelated to my edits ("Accreditation and Bar Passage Data"). I didn't even write that section...at the moment, I don't know who did. Since that's an outright deletion of a significant slice of the article, wouldn't that count as vandalism, regardless of what might be said as to my own edits? Other points well taken. Thanks again, Witzlaw 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection

I've protected the article for one week. Suggest working things out on the talk page and taking issues to dispute resolution. Durova 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Review User: Metros Editing History of Constantly Shadowing User: Hoopsworldscout Edits

I still continue to receive what I believe is unmerited harassment due to possible personal and/or political reasons from user Metros. He does not respond to any email that I have sent to him, nor any discussion on any page that I have made.

See page TODD FULLER. I added text “He is a pilot with about 100 hours….” with valid external, unbiased source, and Metros adds an NPOV warning tag. I have add the following text to the discussion page, so I copy for you below b/c I am fearful Metros will delete or revert this text once again:

"Self Added But Only With Valid Outside Sources (from page Todd Fuller)"

Subject has added text but only with valid external sources. See JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY, both articles have NO sourcing for some or all of their text, and have also been self-edited, but no NPOV complaint is established there. Please see User Metros editing history, he has displayed evidence of personal attacks due to possible personal and/or political reasons by reverting multiple edits on multiple pages edited by user Hoopsworldscout. See: SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSPORTATION and CHARLOTTE as examples. Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. See SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANPORTATION page. User Metros immediately deleted that page when it was created, possibly due to political reasons. I re-established the page. Several users voted to remove the page, albeit, based on improper reasoning. Administrator JREFEREE ruled that it was a valid page, on the “articles for deletion” (established by Metros) talk page with plenty of proper sourcing, yet use Coredesat deleted the page once again. Misplaced Pages policy states that an article may not be deleted simply because you don’t like the “politics” about a group or its purpose.

He also, after deleting this article once, and after admin Jreferee ruled it was a valid article on the articles for deletion page (which User Metros) established after I reinstated article, proceeded to add editorial opinion pieces as sources attempted to cast the group Sensible Charlotte Area Transporation in a very negative fashion.

It is deeply unprofessional to edit and delete text on Misplaced Pages or harrass a user just because you do not like their politics.

I urge you to take necessary steps to curtail user Metros unwarranted and unfair behavior.

Regards,Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin response)1. re the Todd Fuller article, i believe that the auto-biography tag was justified, and not added purely because of the pilot thing, although Metros could have handled it better by discussing it with you rather than just giving you warnings.

2.Although Jreferee is an admin, he/she didn't "rule" that way, it was simply a comment they made regarding their opinion, Cordesat ruled it should be deleted, whether that was right or not i don't know

How can they be harrassing you if they aren't responding to you?

--Jac16888 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros is harrassing me because he follows behind virtually every article I add or edit, and undoes many valid additions. See above. For example, once again please review articles JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY. These article have multiple statements with absolutely no referencing, and they are self-edited by the person or staff for whom the article is about. Do you see Metros going behind and deleting unreferenced text on these articles?

Also, on Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation page. Note that user Metros said article should be deleted a second time, after Metros deleted it the first time. Then, after admin JReferee said it was appropriate to have this article, b/c Jreferee said an article's existence is not based on whether you like the article - user Metros then proceeds to add editorials (opinion) articles as references.

How the heck does Metros get away with this, are we reducing Misplaced Pages to a tabloid driven by power hungry users like Metros? 75.181.35.199 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the editorials the first time. Jreferee did, actually. He added them, then you removed them and replaced them with editorials of your own. I simply reverted your removal of the text. Metros 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User Metros, if what you are saying is true, then why did you initially delete the article, and speedy delete at that, then decide to go back and edit the article? My sources were from the NEWS sections, not editorial opinion columns. Hoopsworldscout 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it because it show no notability for the organization. A valid speedy deletion that was later supported through the AFD of the article. Metros 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Profanity and Vulgar from a WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR So this is what we allow Misplaced Pages Administrators to get a way with??: "20:55, 25 September 2007 (hist) (diff) DHMRO‎ (are you f-in' kidding me? your Canadian website is the XM radio website?! stop this BS now) User Metros" (Sept. 25th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopsworldscout (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the page was basically a hoax page and Metros was removing information discovered to be either misleading or an outright lie. Honestly, I would be much less civil in my summaries if I found an article which was basically a sham job trying to claim something they are not. Spryde 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax page or no hoax page - this is irrelevant. What is relevant this is public domain, for the world to see. Would an editor or writer of a newspaper such as the New York Times get away with putting that text in print?? Hoopsworldscout 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John adding possibly libelous material to David Hicks article

User:Prester John insists on adding material to this WP:BLP on David Hicks which is not properly referenced, and possibly libelous. Here's the DIFF. User:Prester John is adding text which says the David Hicks is in the Taliban and al Quaeda, but we can't say things like that unless they're properly sourced. If a 3rd party claims he's in al Qaeda, then we have to say "3rd party says he is in al Qaeda", not "he is in al Quaeda".

The Talk Page discussion has been going on for some time about this, but User:Prester John is being disruptive by editing but not participating in the community discussion. I also wrote on the Misplaced Pages:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board (scroll to bottom of page) on why I think the material is libelous.

User:Prester John has a history of edit warring on this David Hicks article, has been previously blocked for being disruptive on the David Hicks article, and a history of going through the Wiki articles of Muslim people to make them look bad.--Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The material I think could be libelous is still there on the article. A revert to a previous edit will correct it. However, I'm concerned with 3RR rules to do it myself. Thanks, --Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again admins are subjected to this users gross misrepresentations. There is is virtually nothing in the above that statement that is correct or even true. Lester shoul be blocked for blatant lying, wasting time and failing to understand even the basic tenents of Misplaced Pages. 'All references in the comprehensive David Hicks article state he was a member of the Taliban and trained with al Qaeda. Why? he admits it himself, freely. He has written about his Taliban experiences to various members of his family, has described events in great detail to both the Australian government and the United States government. reputable news organisations such as Reuters and AP and the Australian ABC have many, many articles which describes his involvement. What is truly astonishing is that the only person in the entire world who denies he was a Taliban member is Lester2. I have descibed the situation to him, and his complete misunderstanding of WP:BLP on his his talk page yet he still seems determined to try and smear me in this forum. Prester John 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference that was provided next to the text did not satisfy what the text was claiming. The TV program treads very carefully around the words, and asks as a question "is he in al-Qaeda?". Then they play sound bites from some people who think he is. But that's not good enough for an encyclopedia to say "he is in al-Qaeda". There's a fine and subtle difference in wording, and the TV station is playing it safe, whereas we're not. If we had to use it, we would have been better attributing the claim to the person who made it.

And apart from whether the contents are libelous, it completely disrupts the process of collaboration and consensus to bypass an on-going discussion on the article's talk page. And it's also disruptive to edit-war, which is what was happening. This disruptive behaviour has been happening on the David Hicks article a lot lately--Lester2 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the dispute but have been watching it as it has a tendency to erupt, and has done so a few times before. As the man himself is not presently in a situation to defend himself for one year (it's explicitly prohibited by the conditions he signed to get out of Guantánamo) and everything is filtered, it may well be a WP:BLP violation to publish that something is true when we only know what is claimed. It is however valid to state that something has been claimed, and who by. It should be noted that User:Prester John and User:Brendan.lloyd were both blocked 2 weeks ago for edit warring on this very same article. Furthermore I fail to be convinced by diffs like this that a serious intention to resolve the dispute exists. Orderinchaos 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous WP:ANI report just days ago ANI Archive also for disruption and edit waring + a stern warning from Admin user:Eagle 101 on the talk page here --> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks warning against edit warriors who don't use the Talk Page first.--Lester2 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the original ref did not support the statement, but I just replaced it with a link to a USA Today article that directly states "He trained under al-Qaeda, met Osama bin Laden and served with Taliban forces fighting a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks". There's no longer a BLP issue here because we have a reliable source stating this. If other sources can be produced which contradict this claim, then I'd of course be open to rewording, attributing, or moving this statement. - Merzbow 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation about the subject wasn't supported by the initial reference provided. Merzbow recently added a reference that does support the claim, Before deleting the initial poorly referenced accusation, I wrote my intentions to delete it on the Talk Page. I don't know why User:Prester John didn't join the community discussions back then. Straight to edit war as first choice instead of talk page, like some kind of sword fight with the opponent. This whole issue could have been resolved on the talk page if 'Prester John' had been willing to join in. I'm sorry to have bothered the Admins with it. --Lester2 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The deliberate misrepresentations by this editor are really starting to get tedious. He knows full well that I addressed his concerns and directed him to references here, directly on his talk page! Is he seriously suggesting that because I took his issues directly to his talkpage, instead on the article talkpage, that I am not involved in community discussion? His entry above misrepresenting my "joining in", or in essence lying, on a forum such as this shows an astonishing amount of bad faith, and should earn him a block. Prester John 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Prester, the personal message you sent arrived after any edits I made to the article. All I'm asking you to do is use the article's talk page first. Your current style of reverting without discussing is upsetting people all over Misplaced Pages, For example, today on the Australian Greens party article. Same thing. --Lester2 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:68.163.65.119

Please note the following diffs: , , , and . There also appears to have been some edit-warring here as well.

The user has been warned on his/her talk page, but I am also suspicious that this IP may be an alternate of a registered user (see my last post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are specific parameters for running a checkuser. If you can make a case that this editor evaded the block I imposed, please do so at WP:RFCU. Durova 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, thank you for the reply. I noticed (I took a short wikibreak the last day and a half) that of the three accounts (two registered, one anonymous) I am suspicious of, one is blocked and the other two last edited on the 27th of September. So, it may, on second consideration, be unnecessary; however, these accounst and IP have been disruptive in a variety of ways, so it probably would behoove someone, i.e. an admin, to keep an eye for anything. Best in any case (sleep time for me as it's 3:15 AM now!). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If problems recur I'll reblock as necessary. Thanks for keeping on top of this. Durova 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Irishguy refusing to discuss actions

Hi folks. Below is the text of a discussion I had with Irishguy regarding his deletion of some external links. This text is excerpted from here.

The discussion was ended when Irishguy deleted my most recent response

Part of the history of this is that early in the discussion I insulted Irishguy (called him a 'dick'). Unfortunately this caused him to get his "back up" to the point where he's not willing or able to discuss the matter rationally. My hope is that any admin reading this will either tell Irishguy he's being unreasonable, or alternatively will explain to me where my reading of WP policies is incorrect.

Excerpt from Irishguy's talkpage removed. Its still in the page history if anyone wants it. Spartaz 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, my last response above was immediately deleted by Irishguy, and that's where things stand. RedSpruce 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be upset if you called me a "dick" too. You could get blocked for a vio of WP:NPA and incivility. Irishguy is right, you can't post or link to sites that are copyvios or require a fee to use. You told you this and you kept pushing. Unless I'm missing something, I'd say just let it go. I've also let Irishguy know this thread exists, which you should have done.Rlevse 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hang on a sec. Linking even to potential copyvios is unacceptable, yes, but there' no rule against linking to subscription-only sites, just as JSTOR or Grove Music Online. I use Grove for reference non-stop. Moreschi 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes sites requiring subscription and registration are to be avoided, see WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. Rlevse 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect are you familiar with the contents of JSTOR and similar services? Without the right to link to them most of our science articles would be severely crippled. EconomicsGuy 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL applies to links that are not citations. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct pay site links can be used for refs, but not elsewhere. I that impinges the science articles, well, I didn't write WP:EL.Rlevse 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was stupid and reprehensible of me to insult Irishguy. This dispute probably would have been settled in a matter of minutes if I'd stayed cool. Thanks for notifying Irishguy of this thread. Since he is deleting everything I post to his talk page, apparently without reading it, there wasn't much hope of me doing that myself.

As I point out to Irishguy above, there is no evidence that the site in question includes copyright violations, and ample evidence that it does not. As I ask of Irishguy above, if there is a WP policy prohibiting external links that might contain copyright violations, please point me to it. It seems unlikely that there is such a policy, since it would exclude the entirety of the world wide web. RedSpruce 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment on WP:EL, only to say that I presume this conversation was moved here based on my recommendation here: , a malformed RfC on Irishguy that RedSpruce filed yesterday. It seems this discussion has taken place in several places , , . I thought here would be a last, good place for Redspruce to come for consensus on inclusion of his link(s) regarding WP:EL, not his campaign against Irishguy. Into The Fray /C 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for discussing this content dispute; please use the article's Talk page or EL's Talk page if the dispute appears to emanate from a discrepancy in the policy. --ElKevbo 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are you asking administrators to do? This looks like a content dispute to me. --ElKevbo 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the RFC. I echo ElKevbo, this dispute does not require admin attention at this time. Spartaz 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought some brief attention and a comment from an admin might be enough to bring this to a close. I also thought this might be a good place to complain about an admin refusing to discuss his actions. The WP:EL Talk page makes sense as a place to discuss EL policy. RedSpruce 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy isn't exercising admin authority here and should be treated like any other user. They are well within their rights to stop responding to repeated questions on the same subject. You are at risk of flogging a dead horse here. Admins do not have any authority to resolve content disputes. If you require further advice on external links raise it on the talk page of EL. This thread is now disrupting the admin board and should now cease. Spartaz 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About the prohibition to link to registration-only sites... I have started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:External links. --Iamunknown 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of todays Featured Article "Saffron... etc.", oversight required

I have indef blocked the vandal, but it remains in the history. Since it gives a persons name and telephone number it should be oversighted. I'm off over there, but if someone can get it done quicker I would be grateful. LessHeard vanU 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be grateful if someone else would - since I have given up on the bollocks that is the email oversight shambles; I wanted to report an incident, not investigate my fucking email setup... LessHeard vanU 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the relevant revisions and mailed a request for oversight. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the intemperate language, I was in something of a rush.LessHeard vanU 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SueBrewer

User User:SueBrewer has notices on her talk page and user page indicating she is a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely blocked. However, the user is still editing. This edit indicates that the user ought to be blocked? Stephenb (Talk) 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the template. SueBrewer isn't a proven sockpuppet at all. That's not to say this isn't an obvious troll account. Someone block please.--Atlan (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for incivility, WP:NPA vio, and disruption. I'm not convinced it's a vandal only account as claimed at WP:AIV. Rlevse 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but I do know it's an account with an agenda on this "homophobic Misplaced Pages".--Atlan (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, she isn't proven a sockpuppet - yet. Davnel03 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extending to one month based on this diff and other info: . Rlevse 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:66.19.34.140

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to bring this, but I seem to be engaged in a slow edit war with User:66.19.34.140 and a handful of other IP editors on Theta Nu Epsilon. A few different editors (including myself) have tried to ask the IP editor to cite specific facts, rather than just relying on an External links section, but all of out changes get reverted (see , , ). My request that the users follow WP:CITE have just gotten my accusations of being a sock puppet. (See and ). I'd bring this to WQA, but since I respond there regularly, I wanted to avoid a COI. Best, --Bfigura 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" . He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've informed Rex of this post. Anyway, you are right. The point of talk pages is to discuss, and anon's are not excluded from this. When you consider that IPs are actually less anonymous than accounts, the whole argument is frivolous. Someguy1221 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin), I have added a message to rex's talk page informing him that he is incorrect. I find it strange that such a long term editor is unaware of such a core-policy--Jac16888 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous IP wasn't entitled to discuss. They're not entitled to vote. Which is what this anonymous IP kept doing. Rex 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you completely remove my comments for the first two times? Also, again, this is not a vote. 84.145.195.64 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to !vote, too. Someguy1221 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to "!vote"? What the hell does that mean?Rex 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A perfect opportunity to employ the new shortcut WP:!VOTE. Joe 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a mere reference to the fact that admins are free to ignore vote counts when deciding the outcome of a discussion. It's the arguments that are important, not their origin. Everyone (short of banned users, of course) is free to engage in discussion. Everyone is free to cast their vote, and admins are free to ignore as many unsubstantiated votes as they want. Someguy1221 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someguy is, of course, correct, but even were Rex's pronouncements accurate, they would nevertheless tend gratuitously toward the uncivil and acollegial. Although I cannot imagine that this behavior, though less-than-ideal, should merit anything more than, for instance, Someguy's friendly corrective—there doesn't appear to have been any significant disruption, and it doesn't seem that a block would prevent any future disruption—I suppose it should be noted that the community have, in the past, looked with disfavor on Rex's occasional incivility and that, in view of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the community have, from time to time, undertaken to block Rex for that incivility. I don't expect that anyone should think a block to be in order here (even in view of what some might perceive as a pattern of disruptive incivility), and I surely don't suggest that any broader community discussion should follow, but I raise the issue only in order that those who have in the past suggested that the community consider further action (e.g., a ban, which I would of course oppose) might note anything else that might be relevant. Joe 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And still you keep taunting and insulting me, Rex "Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid.Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)" 84.145.195.64 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Rex. If he persists with removal of comments from talk pages, he will be blocked again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex, anons can vote. But the closing admins often discard their votes - the more reason not to get stressed over that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be why I'm confused right now. Nevertheless this whole - tiring- ordeal has inspired me to take some action against this.Rex 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

The two reversion of the IP's comments are also in violation of his 1R parole again. Is he limited to one revert per page per week or one revert per page per day? At least here are the other examples I could find of two reverts per page per day within the last seven days. Edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2. Sciurinæ 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to 1 revert per article per week. Which I monitor closely.Rex 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after having checked your 'more than 1 reverts', I advise you to take a closer look. Edits only qualify as reverts when they're (near) identical. Clearly, not the case. Since when is adding a dozen references a revert? Rex 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm..... you are cutting it pretty close. One can argue that you are breaching your 1RR parole with these edits, so I would advise you to thread carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

tread carefully. Gtrevize 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24h also means overstepping 1 revert per article per week. Also, there are clearly two reverts (in whole) in case one, while in case two and three you did not only revert but change other parts as well, meaning it is still a revert, or the whole revert parole would make little sense. Here's the link to the parole and another shortcoming becomes obvious: you were to explain your content reversions on the talk page. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus moves name of Picasso painting to make his point about Potsdamer Platz

Rex Germanus is so eager to delete anything German sounding from Misplaced Pages that he did not hesitate to move the Picasso painting Dora Maar au Chat to Dora Maar with cat to Dora Maar with Cat in order to prove his WP:POINT at Talk:Potsdamer Platz, his desired move to Potsdam Square. -- Matthead      O       21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a French title by a Spanish painter. What does it have to do with German? --Golbez 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it is Rex' obsession that no titles on en-wiki should contain German elements like Platz. He now apparently started extending his campaign to French just so people cannot say "but, there are also French titles, why not German". This is a textbook case of drawn-out WP:POINT. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Not only he breached the spirit of his parole, he is also disrupting WP with unnecessary moves. One more incident and the user will be blocked for one month (last block was of one month, reduced to 12 days after discussion in this board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said many times before ... I do not specifically target German. German contributors are just 1000 times more likely to use German titles because they either think English hasn't got the proper word, or because they don't know the words. Also, I only speak English, Dutch, German, and a bit of French so the range I'm able to translate or know whats being meant is limited. The cat painting, was not WP:POINT the IP presented it to me, I found numerous references to the English name and c'est ca. Rex 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled over the move without seeing the discussion here. I have blocked Rex for 24 days, doubling his previous 12-day block, since I believe in the educative virtues of the exponential of base 2. If this goes against the plans of the admins here, do feel free to adapt it to your liking.

I'd like to stress that the block is not only for the blatant WP:POINT, but also to honour the whole career of this contributor. The number of calls for a more civil language, more civil behaviour, more constructive actions, etc on his talk page speaks for itself. I believe that people should be here to serve Misplaced Pages rather than utilise it; from my observations, this user either wants to use WP for a personal crusade, or is so deeply deluded that he mistakes his chronically disturbing edits for constructive behaviour. In both cases, I find his contributions to be more of an annoyance than an asset. The signal/noise ratio is just too small.

Of course, should my block be based on incomplete observations, or should this block happen in an inconvenient timing for a rehabilitation attempt, do feel free to adapt it. Rama 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block. This user comes over as a right time-waster. --Folantin 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in this discussion, i support this block too, especially after seeing this racist comment about the entire German nationality , aimed directly at another user, although Matthead did not help the situation by being uncivil, and by starting an AFD on one of Rex's articles in the middle of an incident.--Jac16888 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm the response you quote was a reaction on Matthead (the guy who listed this thread) calling Rex explicitly a racist. I do not seeing Rex comment - "Germans are not a race" being a racist remark; but more as a response on being called a racist. I think Matthead is out there to get Rex, and he seems to be clever in trolling Rex into uncivil behaviour (the deletion suggestion of a harmless article (Lodewijk van Beethoven) and the aggressive response on who-ever dared to comment for keep seems to be merely anact to "get even with Rex, and get him banned". Indeed after calling Rex a racist he came running here to get Rex blocked on losing civility. To be honest, if I look what happened here I agree Rex went too far; but he was provoked by Matthead, who did not even was reprimanded. I would suggest the blocking admin(s) to investigate User:Mattheads behaviour in this case, and block him too; for the same length as Rex. Arnoutf 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the "Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned." comment Rex made earlier is also highly inappropriate. That said, it takes two to tango, and both Rex and Matthead showed little reluctance to join the dance; though Rex really seemed to go the extra mile here. 84.145.229.133 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although perhaps the first part of the comment is understandable, but the second part "2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes" in regard to germans, is undeniably racist. However, i do agree that Matthead should be investigated too, since he seems to have only being trying to inflame the situation.--Jac16888 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Rex's block history I sadly can only support the block. Despite numerous blocks for 3RR, WP:POINT, incivility and even an ArbCom case he regularly falls back into his old rut; Rex has made a good deal of good contributions, but he seems to be unable to let go of some old, bad habits, and I'm at a loss how we could get the message across to him in any other way, as all other means of normal discussions and even ArbCom invocation failed to do that. 84.145.229.133 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why he hasn't been banned for good. His admitted anti 'german(ophone)'s and his 'nationalism scale' are both clear indicators that he operates from a POV mindset. A look at his block log shows he's not going to change his ridiculous agenda-driven behaviors. His Dutch genetics are better comment above indicates that he doesn't act against German titles out of genuine concern for the project, but because he's a flat out bigot. Throw him out, lock the door behind him. Why do we keep coddling trolls and jerks? This whole problem of '4 warnings in propmt time' 'steadily escalating blocks and if one's missed we must start over' and all this stuff, it's bullshit. Throw out persistent, unchanging, unchangable trolls, vandals, and POV warriors when it's clear they won't change. a dozen blocks in increasing time lengths and he keeps being a bigoted troll warrior. Throw him off. ThuranX 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. Whenever I've seen this editor at work it's almost always been in the middle of a tremendous ruckus, usually over some hair-splitting point. He's clearly got a bee in his bonnet against the Germans and he's here to push his POV. Time to show him the door. --Folantin 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User is now demanding an unblock, based on the fact that an uninvolved admin did the blocking. No doubt, if an involved admin had blocked, he'd be complaining then too. ThuranX 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy close?

User:After Midnight speedy-closed this MfD minutes after I opened it, apparently under the mistaken impression that I was requesting a change in policy. My argument is that the pages nominated for deletion are a violation of existing policy. Would someone mind taking a look to see if the speedy close was appropriate, and offer an opinion? I've already discussed with After Midnight and we couldn't reach an agreement. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this is here instead of DRV as I requested, but from the time stamps, it seems that this may have been destined as such. At any rate, for further details of my opinion, people should see the discussion at User talk:After Midnight#Speedy close of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. --After Midnight 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I too believe this discussion would be more appropriate at the talkpages of either RFPP, PPOL or PT. In full disclosure, I do have my own personal saltlist. MfD is usually appropriate when there is a reasonably clear dispute about policy - let's have the dispute first. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone disagree that someone who regularly works OTRS issues has a legitimate use for a private saltlist, under WP:IAR if nothing else. My argument in this case is that the specific pages listed for deletion are a pretty clear violation of the protection policy. (Well, Navou's just has one title on it, I put it there because it was in the list.) But WP:PROTECT is already pretty straightforward about the circumstances in which cascading protection is to be used, I don't think we need instruction creep about private salt pages if people comply with the existing policy. Individual pages that contain inappropriate protection can be deleted on a case-by-case basis. Videmus Omnia 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to keep the salt list so that I can clear it out regularly, I can't do that over at PT. I don't personally believe in indefinite salting, thats my reasoning for the page. When I get home, I may post something somewhere. Lets discuss this. Navou 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is MfD. I do not think it should have been pre-empted by a speedy close. I urge AfterMidnight to simply revert his close and open it again in the interest of avoiding overcomplication. DGG (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this. This was all a WP:POINT nomination of my handful of cascading protected pages which Videmus Omnia simply disagrees about because he wants me desysopped. There are only three article titles that I keep on User:Ryulong/PTL because not of ownership issues, as Videmus Omnia brought up in the MFD, but because they're ridiculous titles and rumors that I've heard throughout my reads of other websites. And the RFC (that he also brings up) was under cascading protection for reasons I've already told him. And it certainly did not stop any RFCs from happening. The primary reason it was in my list is because I forgot to remove it once the sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson were completely dealt with. I thank After Midnight for his speedy close, because this harassment by Videmus Omnia is just getting ridiculous now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Ryulong, that's a bad-faith accusation of harrassment. I specifically said in your RfC that you shouldn't be desysopped. And I haven't interacted with you at all since your RfC except for two conversations on your talk page, hardly harrassment. Please assume good faith, this is just a disagreement. Videmus Omnia 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly where is the policy that says admins can't maintain their own folders for cascading protection? This looks like trying to use an xFD debate to force through a policy change and that needs wider discussion within the community as a whole. The close pointed you in the direction of the correct places to discuss this. Spartaz 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I've said already, I am not asking for instruction creep on private saltpages. The policy is already crystal clear on when cascading protection is to be used. The nominated pages are in violation of that policy. Can we please have the discussion on whether this is correct at the MfD page instead of here at WP:ANI? Videmus Omnia 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I, there is nothing stated in the protection policy that mentions (let alone forbids) the use of any administrator keeping a page of protected titles as a subpage. Out of any of my cascading protection subpages, there are currently only 5 entries on User:Ryulong/PTL that are pages that have not existed, but that I am positive should not ever be made because they are complete and utter rumors or the creation of someone who just wants to use Misplaced Pages as a free webhost (User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach was created as an easy way to delete all of the BJAODN pages once the MFD was complete, and the cascading protection was just an idea afterwards to make sure that they weren't recreated at that location).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach contains a number of pages that were unrelated to the BJAODN MfD . :P -- Ned Scott 03:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything at Beach was deleted and undeleted through the massive wheel warring that occurred. I copied the logs into Microsoft Word, did a replace, and then pasted it. Also that ended up being unprotected shortly aftewards. If anything, that can be deleted, but it might be necessary for historical purposes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be tagged with the BJAODN banner, which categorized the page, which is why it got deleted/restored. The point remains that no one took the time to stop and look at what they were deleting or restoring, or if it was actually related to said MfD. At this point I'm very much off topic, and it's not that I'm mad at anyone, but it was just one of those things that got under my skin.. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I think I've been pretty clear that I feel that I was within my admin discretion to close this and that if people diosagree with that, then we can discuss it at DRV. Unless someone is asserting that I acted in bad faith, I don't think that this is a topic for ANI. --After Midnight 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving to DRV, then. Thanks. Videmus Omnia 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrouni's departure

His leaving reeks of fishyness with the weird request to show up in the next 1.5 years. He also says he is on an "epic quest and seems to be almost obsessed with becoming an sysop. According to User:Silver seren's talk page, he appears to be only concerned with "looking good" at RfA. Since Kkrouni is already assumed/associated with User:Cowboy Rocco who is known to have many sockpuppets, maybe this should be looked into further. T Rex | talk 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit odd, I went through the talk pages, and he said that he would return under another name, and apparently left clues via accented letters on Marlith's talk page. I went through the history, and it seems like he did this by accenting characters in the order "ymkr" and "my mom". Neranei (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of redundant articles

Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

Reasons:

1. Covered material already in Misplaced Pages under American cheese and Processed cheese;
2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

Here, here, here and here

Other information about Cody:

1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Is anybody ever going to block this guy for disruption? This is at least the third time that I know of that this guy has been reported here, and nobody does a thing. Corvus cornix 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy is interesting: his contribution list doesn't list *one single* edit to a talk page - not even his own. (Checked the last 2 months or so). Hard to have a dialogue... --Alvestrand 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said at least once before, this is clearly User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Codyfinke6#Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also tagged as a sockpuppeteer.  Mirandargh  03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:PHG

PHG (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-pushing and tendentious editing since early September, and all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed: (RfC he is ignoring) (mediation offer he has declined)

• He is trying to claim that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299/1300, and he has been inserting this information in multiple places around Misplaced Pages.
• He's also been trying to claim that there was a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols. We've been discussing this extensively at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, with multiple archives just within the last few weeks, but he's resisting all community input and continues to edit war.
• I tried an RFC, but he's ignoring that too, or he just creates another dozen threads on the talkpage with counter-accusations and personal attacks. I have repeatedly offered to take things to mediation, but PHG has declined.
• I've also tried posting for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and multiple WikiProjects, but it's such an obscure point of history, it's difficult to get many people commenting. Plus we're trying to "prove the negative," that no, the Mongols did not conquer Jerusalem.
• PHG also keeps muddying the waters by adding more and more information (much of it from medieval primary sources) to Franco-Mongol alliance, to the point where the article was over 150K in size, making it very difficult for anyone else to read it unless they wanted to devote hours to sorting through it. He even tried edit-warring to keep me from archiving the talkpage.
• He seems in clear violation of WP:OWN. When his material is changed, he often reverts the changes, but when other sections are added, no matter how well-sourced, he deletes them as "original research".
• He has also been resisting all attempts to allow the article to be split to a smaller size, and further confuses things by issuing multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him (calling them vain, incompetent, a liar, vandals, etc.), and he's so good at Wikilawyering, and he types so much text, it makes it even harder for other people to sort through.

From what I've been told, he has used these tactics at other articles too, using multiple primary sources, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and, perhaps scariest of all, creating articles that look like they're well-sourced, and then pushing them through to Featured status, but in actuality he's either sourcing them to unreliable sources (like primary sources, hobbyist websites, or marketing copy on the back cover of a book), or he's twisting what sources say. For example, he created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and nommed it for FA within two weeks of creation, even though it had gross errors of fact (like about this absurd "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" between the Mongols and the Knights Templar).

Things have now escalated to the point where he's creating other articles to push his biased POV. He created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, which I moved to a more palatable Mongol raids into Palestine. Then despite resistance at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Disputed, he today made another article, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, which I tried to redirect, but he just reverted me.

In my opinion, this has gone well into the realm of WP:POINT now, as he is creating multiple POV Forks. He's also pretty much "camped" on this subject, not working on anything else (just look at his contribs, for weeks). Now, I'll freely admit that I'm actively involved in editing this topic, so I really need some non-involved assistance here. What should the next step be? Thanks, Elonka 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How about inventing a totally new guideline, which I am terming Block and Proxy; Go for a short term block of PHG and request a third party evaluate PHG's references and contentions and to argue for PHG's edits? Edit per the consensus then arrived at, unblock PHG and request their comments. Outright reversion would result in extended/indefinite block.

or

Simply block PHG outright (term to be determined) for violation of OWN and POINT, review PHG's contributions and adopt any that appear to be reasonably sourced? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that most of this is way over my head given lack of knowledge of the subject. I am concerned by the creation of Mongol conquests and Jerusalem given that it appears to me looking at the the contributions to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (especially the responses to the RfC) that the consensus seems to be that the sources do not support any conquest of Jerusalem having occured in the period in question by the Mongols. It seems I 'm not the only one worried by the development - see this page move by Danny . This probably should be investigated further - especially by anyone with knowledge (or access to the relevant sources) about the period in question. WjBscribe 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some diffs of personal attacks would be an easy matter for administrators to deal with. POV pushing is difficult to deal with, but incivility is straightforward. Tim Vickers 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True, there are some user conduct issues that are easily judged superficially, whereas this requires a much greater depth of analysis. Given that administrators have no greater editorial authority, these sorts of problems where content and conduct are not readily separable are much more difficult to deal with in a satisfactory manner... WjBscribe 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing can be dealt with step by step. It's tedious, yes, but not impossible. Let me begin with this coatrack article: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. If the editor continues tendentiously inserting the same Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories give appropriate user warnings, and if he ignores them, request a block. - Jehochman 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(update) I am concerned that PHG is trying to further confuse the matter. The AfD so far is a resounding "delete", but PHG has now moved the article to yet another title, Mongol raids on Jerusalem, even though the AfD is still in process. He's also stripped a lot of the Jerusalem-related information out of Mongol raids into Palestine, and is instead stuffing the article full of other information that he's copy/pasting from Franco-Mongol alliance (I'm not sure why, perhaps to make it even longer and more difficult to follow?). I'd recommend:

• Reverting Mongol raids into Palestine back to its original state before PHG started messing with it, and
• Moving Mongol raids on Jerusalem back to Mongol conquests and Jerusalem while the AfD is running
• Somebody non-involved telling PHG to just go hands-off on this topic while the AfD is running, and go work on something else for awhile?

I'd do it myself, but don't want to get into yet another revert war with PHG, especially since things are already confusing enough.  :/ Anyone else want to handle it? --Elonka 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. I only expanded your article Mongol raids into Palestine with more information about the Mongol raids in Palestine, can't you see? (it used to be 99% Jerusalem only, but now content properly reflect the title, with new material on 1260, and 1271 campaings). Is it unacceptable to expand your own articles now? Also, the change to Mongol raids on Jerusalem also reflects your comments about "Conquests" being point of view, so I am merely following you here. Best regards. PHG 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to the Defense

Dear all. So, here's the other side of the story now. Elonka has been adamant in denying a Alliance of the Frank with the Mongols, inspite of numerous reputable sources describing this event. Let me remind here I am the creator of this article, as well as most of its content.

• Article name: Elonka lost a vote by a far margin when she first tried to have the name article changed (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move)
• Article content: she forcefully insisted that these were "only attempts at alliance" despite numerous sources to the contrary, and used a 3:1 discussion to claim "consensus" and engage in multiple reverts for her version. I have always accepted her version, but only insisted that both views be represented (inclusionism): "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance". She recently lost her 3:1 "consensus" however, which became a 2:2, as there is only one editor'comment from an ancient discussion, which supports her stance.

Now, to answer the specifics raised by Elonka:

• 1 The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb, and Elonka has been deleting it: here.
• 2 Tens of scholars do consider as fact that there was a Mongol alliance with the Franks, and there is ample explanation and referencing about that in the article Franco-Mongol alliance. Elonka initially claimed that all this was false, but had to acknowledge all the references were true, after doing her own research. She still insisted on branding this as "attempts towards an alliance only", but she is now only supported by one other editor on this point, and User:Srnec has come with a nice compromise, which I have adopted.
• 3 Elonka claims personal attacks, but these are essentially non-existant. I did say I doubted her competence when she claimed that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank, an historical absurdity to anyone who has the barest knowledge of the subject. That's about it. I declined once mediation, as the discussions were becoming endless and Elonka was loosing her argument anyway (the title), but I will accept mediation gladly should it help the matter.
• 4 Elonka has indeed made a post on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but it is leading nowhere, as her point is slim, and goes against quantities of major sources.
• 5 When there is contention, I believe the best solution is to go into specifics and support everything being presented (and challenged) with reputable sources. When the article, original an 80kb piece came inder attack from Elonka, I simply developped the specific and the references (300 now!), which I guess is quite fair. She now sees that her argument is contradicted by a huge quantity of sources... but now claims I have been floding her with such information.
• 6 I believe I have always respected Elonka's edits, when they are sourced. The article being in dispute, my position (and that of several other editors) is that it is too early to slice it, and that discussion about factuality should be resolved first.

Now, I have my own concern about Elonka's editing. She has consistently been deleting references sources that she dislikes (fully detailed in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance for those who are interested). She consistently corrupts sources to fit her own point of view (same Talk Page). I think we should faithfully respect sources, and balance contradictory opinions by reputable sources in a NPOV manner.

Fundamentally, I think this is essentially a matter of Elonka being unable to lose an argument. She will go as far as corrupting sources and attacking her fellow editors on a board such as this one. She has been attacking this article (Franco-Mongol alliance) from the beginning, and now has a hardtime backing from her initial position and recognize she may have been wrong in some way. I am a longtime recognized editor of Misplaced Pages, and I am afraid Elonka's behaviour is highly POV, partisan, and quite unbeneficial. According to her TalkPage, she seems to be a quite controversial editor, who is putting a lot of emphasis on self-promotion. There seems to be a lot of ego at work here. Best regards to all. PHG 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

User:Elonka/Work1 has proven a fecund field of aggressive ultimatums aimed not at resolving anything, but at getting opponents blocked, too often successfully. WJBscribe again provides the illusion of third-party review: it is supremely unlikely that he arrived here unprompted.Proabivouac 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I provide "the illusion" of nothing. I reference a page move, takpage discussion and admit to not having the necessary knowledge of the area to make any judgment. I am frankly tired of you (someone who has been exposed as having made long term use of a sockpuppet to evade ArbCom sanctions) running around attempting to smear everyone else who has, by contrast, edited this project in good faith. Your increasingly desperate need to show misconduct on the part of your critics has become tiresome and fankly disruptibe. The deleted page contains a draft of Elonka's post here - I'm not sure why you flag it up so dramatically. Your contribution here is intended only to stir up trouble - back off. WjBscribe 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am seeing a clear pattern where User:Elonka first tries to delete references and misinterpret sources to fit her point of view (numerous clearly documented instances on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), and when she looses her argument escalates into major general accusations on such pages as this one, slandering her oponent. Regards PHG 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by PHG

PHG has moved Mongol conquests and Jerusalem during its AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem). This is disruptive and looks like an attempt to evade a consensus to delete the article.- Jehochman 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Regards PHG 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rodsan18

The user is tagging multiple articles that they created for deletion based on the fact that as they work for the UN they should not be the ones to write them. It this an acceptable reason. I'm sure the user is acting with good intentions and not meaning to be disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who is affected; a particular group is making issue out of these due to confidentiality reasons. - Dragonbite 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of all the deletion templates. Until this matter is sorted out here, please do not reinsert the templates. I do not doubt your good intentions here, and I am assuming good faith, but let's allow the matter to be sorted out rather than getting into a revert war. Your reasoning is, quite frankly, baffling to me. Are you saying that there are people at the UN who are making an issue about the existence of these pages? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Dragonbite 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At a quick scan, a lot of these articles look to be of dubious notability anyway. ELIMINATORJR 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple you missed, RepublicanJacobite. As for the dubious notability I agree, but isn't dubious notability a case for AfD (or possibly {{prod}} rather than simply blanking and adding a non-standard speedy template? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who had actually deleted a couple of them (I've restored them until this is worked out), I'd say that regardless of the template applied, lack of assertion of notability is sufficient for speedy deletion, full stop. The ones I saw really didn't assert notability. But, given that it's contentious, I've restored 'em to let someone else look at them. - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am affiliated with UN too. Writing articles about UN-related subjects need permission (for me). I was informed. So I suggest Misplaced Pages itself, if the community wants to retain these articles, send permission request (for images too for all language Wikipedias) by contacting Ms. Renu Bhatia, Deputy Executive Officer, Department of General Assembly and Conference Management by sending email at bhatia@un.org. Thank you. Please send me a copy (cc) via my email only. - Dragonbite 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's going to work... the bell has been rung, and they're in the 'pedia. If the images truly were appropriately licensed when uploaded, we don't need permission to use them. We certainly don't need permission to have a bio of someone on the 'pedia, either. I still believe notability is not asserted for most of these, but that's just me... - Philippe | Talk 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if deleted from Misplaced Pages some are still available on the mirrors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles were actually based on third-party sources published. But why can't just respect request by original author. Thanks. - Dragonbite 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with those above who question the notability of many of these individuals. I had the same thought as I was reverting the speedy requests. The notability, it seems, is rather a different issue, though, than the question of whether we need "permission" from the UN to have articles about some of its employees. Could they not all go to AfD as a group and let the matter of notability be sorted out there? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works Rodsan18. We don't need to ask permission from the UN to talk abotu a subject in Misplaced Pages. It's not our duty to contact you; it's the UN's duty to contact the foundation if there is a complaint. ⇒ SWATJester 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While true, I don't find that relevant. The {{db-author}} is a valid speedy deletion criteria. From the couple of articles I have looked at, he's been the only contributor (cats, linking, & formating are not substantive edits). What is the basis for ignoring our speedy deletion policy and keeping the ones that no one else has contributed towards? -- JLaTondre 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that this seems to be primarily an issue between the U.N. and its employee(s). There doesn't seem to be any outright gross violation of WP policy with the articles, so an appropriate judgment of what's best for the encyclopedia needs to occur. That said, both lack of notability needs to be given due weight and the db-self request ought to be a robust tie-breaker in favor of deletion. If they're truly notable, someone will add them back. Studerby 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 is a criteria for when administrators may delete things immediately. It is not a criteria for when they must do so, absent other considerations. This issue came up in respect of another user very recently. Sam Blacketer 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please just respect deletion request: CSD 7:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - Dragonbite 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A deletion request is not the same as a deletion order. It is perfectly legitimate for an administrator to decline to delete an article even if it meets several speedy deletion criteria. Sam Blacketer 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an order but it still needs to be respected nonetheless? - Dragonbite 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who want to look over the articles should see User:Rodsan18#United_Nations-related_subjects. This is the set of 35 articles that are listed there as being related to the UN. My view is that a number have notability, and others don't. Perhaps this might be acknowledged by setting up a group AfD for the ones that lack notability? Once the articles have been created, copyright has been released and there is no reason to go back. It's only a question of notability. EdJohnston 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the position you're in, please understand that we're trying to figure out what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If the articles that you submitted are notable and appropriate, we can't just go around deleting them all willy-nilly. If they're not notable, then we sure as heck need to get them out. The issue between you and your employer is not something within which we care to be involved, probably. As Studerby said above, we're trying to make a judgment upon what's best for the encyclopedia. In my case, I'm leaning toward speedy-delete on the ones that don't assert notability and AFD for those which are of questionable notability. My guess is that most of them will end up deleted. - Philippe | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A group AfD is exactly the suggestion I made above. I think it is the best way to put this issue to rest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? I think Misplaced Pages should be sensitive to security problems; may I suggest office action? The Evil Spartan 00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the notion of "security problems" comes from, to be honest. I'd agree with RepublicanJacobite here - group AfD for the apparently non-notable entries. Or for all the entries; let the WP community decide what's notable in WP terms. I'm not sure that {{db-blanked}} appies in all cases either. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This has never occurred to me before, but surely the very idea of CSD: 7 violates WP:OWN, since, the moment they hit save, the article becomes free to all, and surely by existence of CSD 7, except when mistakes are made in the name(even though a re-direct is more appropriate), they are breaking WP:Own, by assuming they are within their rights to have a page deleted because they want it to be--Jac16888 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the deleted content is still available to admins, and complies with GFDL. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to delete anything. Everything ever published is still recoverable, unless it has been oversighted. If there are no other significant contributors, and the deletion would not harm the encyclopedia, I see no problem with honoring the author's CSD request. If someone else feels strongly about a specific article, they can request a restore, and work on it. Dean Wormer 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will argue against that idea. When one nominates a page for speedy deletion, they're still leaving it up to others (and/or the deciding admin) whether or not the deletion notice stands, or if the article gets deleted. The original creator can place a hangon notice, or another editor can merely remove it. --健次(derumi) 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I note belatedly we're discussing G7, not A7. Still, some other editor or admin could remove the tag if they feel the article should stay. --健次(derumi) 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view, and I should stress this is merely an opinion not a decree of any kind, is that these are borderline notable people at best (and probably not), that the articles were created in good faith under circumstances that nevertheless give rise to conflict-of-interest questions, and that the original creator is making a good faith request now. I see no special reason not to honor that request. I would be very concerned if we get into some kind of weird "gotcha" mode where someone has created an article that perhaps should not exist, and only decide to keep it because they want it deleted. If any of the individuals are of any super special notability, I am sure someone else could create a brand new article from scratch.--Jimbo Wales 10:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been bold and deleted all the articles that IMO qualified for deletion as non-notable biographies. The following biographies remain;
  • Jeffrey Tao
  • Alberto Reyes
  • Elisabeth Heyward
  • Pavel Palazhchenko
  • Igor Korchilov
  • Jean Herbert

and the following non-biographies.

• • United Nations Interpretation Service
  • United Nations Art Collection

Some consensus to what should happen with these is now required. ELIMINATORJR 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Were this an AfD I'd be saying "delete" to all but the two non-biographical articles, for what it's worth. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

US Petrochemical

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldchem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the last version that was deleted (it's been deleted 8 times now), it was deleted because the article did not assert notability. However, I'd say it's quite marginal, and probably needs a few reliable sources added together with a bit more background as to the importance of the company. ELIMINATORJR 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• The issue is now, at least nominally, at DRV. Joe 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Misplaced Pages policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason Removes tags and has ignored requests to discuss UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format ]. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The War (documentary)

I think there is a problem here. Not sure if it falls under the spirit of BLP (I know it isn't a biography) but the controversy section on the article is longer (twice as much?) than the actual article and the documentary hasn't even fully air. I am bringing it to general admin attention as it may get further problematic in near future. -- Cat 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph (about profanity) as it appeared to be partially original research. I think it was cited to this. The citation just said "Newsweek, September 24." and did not give a title. "The War" tends to get lots of hits in the Newsweek archive, though that article was the most likely one. All it says is that some affiliates complained and they are producing 2 versions; it makes no mention of assumptions of what cities will play which version, has nothing about the etymology of FUBAR, and there is no evidence of widespread criticism based on the Newsweek article. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop User:MartinBot

it's too buggy, see -- ∂ 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

4 bad reverts from yesterday listed there, is it still doing bad things now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Most recent edits look good, however there's a few bad ones: ,, . ~Eliz81 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

these bad reverts are from the last hour. -- ∂ 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. And he's been blocked indefinitely by User:Akradecki... that's what you get for reverting an admin, naughty MartinBot!! ~Eliz81 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.132.138.68--Block evader

IP address blocked one day for vandalism, promptly evades block and continues vandalising as 72.132.135.30. Primary target is Pashtun Mafia. Both IP addresses are registered to an ISP in Richardson, Texas. Can an admin deal with this? Thanks. NASCAR Fan24 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• He appears to have been blocked, and the page semi protected. Dean Wormer 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review request - ScottAHudson

Hi guys, I have blocked ScottAHudson (talk · contribs) for a week following his disruptive editing to Big Brother (US)-related articles. He has some fairly significant WP:OWN issues and, as his contributions show, steadfastly refuses to use talkpages for discussion. I have blocked Scott on a previous occasion for harassing Betacommand, a block which Crazytales reset for IP-socking. As I don't think I've ever blocked the same user twice, I'd really appreciate a review just in case someone thinks I haven't got my head screwed on tight enough. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I had a quick look at the AIV report made against this user, and it seemed like a block was necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this block was a necessary action to be taken to prevent further disruption. -- Anonymous Dissident 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. A clean block of appropriate length, considering behavior over the last month. Dean Wormer 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thank you. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny

This user is currently on what can only be described as a unnecessary rant. I was "wiki-friends" with this user in the past, but now am reporting her here. User would like to leave Misplaced Pages. She has left vulgarity on my user talk page, as well as the admin Phil Sandifer. She is clearly trying to get blocked (based on edit summary she left here. User should be blocked and her page be deleted (at her request; she already tagged it for speedy). I am concerned that this user may continue to vandalize/act uncivily Misplaced Pages unless she is blocked. - Rjd0060 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this report, her User page has been deleted. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done from here, as far as her vandalism and vulgar edit summaries. - Rjd0060 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in an hour. I don't think a block is necessary at this point, but I will block her if she makes further disruptive edits. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was point out this erratic behavior and WP:AIV directed me here. I see that this page says I should notify her of this report, should I do that even though her user page has been deleted and her user talk page has a "RETIRED" tag on it? - Rjd0060 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She socked in order to use profanity: , and was open about it. Even if she's trying her best to get blocked, maybe we should oblige. The Evil Spartan 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was not really a sock, per se. Same IP though, as she is my caretaker/nurse. And logged in while I had left the room. I had logged out, and she logged in, and I thought I was still logged out. Truth. But, I understand if I am not believed as there are so many liars on Misplaced Pages. Jeeny 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite dramatic. She should go on a week long Caribbean cruise with ScottAHudson. Dean Wormer 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She may continue to vandalizeact uncivily as she is clearly waiting to get blocked/banned (as evident from a number of edit summaries including this one. - Rjd0060 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe she could find Dexter in the Bahamas. Funkynusayri 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably inappropriate. Dean Wormer 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate trolling. ThuranX 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks (violation of WP:NPA and WP:civility)

I am compelled to post here due to several personal attacks and borderline harassment by User:PelleSmith. I have tried my best to engage in a discussion with this user but unfortunately it has always ended in rude and uncivil behavior including personal attacks. I will try to point out a few examples. Here ] he clearly was clearly uncivil and attacked me by calling my edits "absurd". He has further stated that although HE KNOWS that he is being incivil he still wants to make that comment. When I respectfully asked him to behave in a civil manner and avoid personal attacks, he commented that he will CONTINUE with his incivility and personal attacks until 'I stop frustrating him'. ] He has displayed several more instances of borderline incivility. In the past he had resorted to name calling by starting a sections like "Amateur Hour" and "Amateur Hour Redux" on Talk:Islam in the United States where he accused me and some other editors of being "amateurs". I did not report this incident at the time to allow him a chance to change his behavior. However it seems that it has persisted.

I have respectfully asked him to behave himself and act in accordance to WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF and WP:NPA but instead of trying to correct his behavior, he keeps asking me to report him to the admins if I want to. Here are my comments on his talkpage ]. All he does is to ask me to 'report him to appropriate venues' just because I pointed out his incivil behavior in reply to his post on the article talkpage. ]

In addition to PelleSmith, User:Alarob has just made a personal attack on editors here. ].

I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with other editors views, but personal attacks, bad faith convictions about others, not respecting consensus and stonewalling using wikipedia process like making someone reply to the same point over and over isn't really in the spirit of a true wikipedian.

I would appreciate if you take some action to stop this menace and restore the civil atmosphere. NapoleansSword 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real attacks here, just invocations of WP:SPADE. The only possible exception is the "absurd" remark and even that one is the mildest of attacks. A quick look at the article and its talk page suggests a serious need for improvement, regarding both content and the behavior of involved editors (including yourself, I must say). Raymond Arritt 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:CIVILITY? And I would appreciate if you point out where I displayed incivility? Yes, I agree, the article does needs improvement. NapoleansSword 05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alarob's claim that those who disagree with him about that article are sympathetic towards the murder of Muslims in the US in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks is certainly incivil. His mention of race is also bizarre since two of the people he is attacking are not white. Arrow740 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes true. He has further said that he made those claims after 'discussing' with his friends and neighbors (off-wiki) about us. Hardly good faith. Again I do not see how User:PelleSmith's behavior cannot be considered incivility when he HIMSELF has agreed that he is incivil and would continue to do so at 2 different places. PelleSmith says: "I've been less than civil a few times, I'm not going to pretend to be a saint, but what you are trying to do isn't going to work." and "The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. S/He also justifies his behavior on confrontation and says that he/she will continue it by saying "when you start dealing with the problems presented by this information in the entry instead of dancing around them I'll stop being frustrated. Until then ......" (The links to all these statements are above). NapoleansSword 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The Saudi Arabia page has been all but blanked out and its history has disappeared. Can admin please look into this? -- Slacker 08:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was page move vandalism. The Evil Spartan 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs)

I've just blocked Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs) for 24 hrs for vandalism, however I'm not 100% sure if it also violates the username policy. (If not, why not?) It seems to be a vandal-only account, does anyone have any reason not to expend it to indefinite? — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent like 10 mins cleaning up his vandalism, but no one responded to my report at AIV. I didn't know whether to also report him to WP:UAA because I didn't know whether copying Wily on Wheels was an offense. However, this is obviously a SPA and should be blocked indef (Which is what I thought you were gonna do...) so no quarrels from me. Anyway, just my 2 cents. :) Spawn Man 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised the days featured article, and other puerile amendments over a range of subjects. If it is a SPA per Spawn Man I am at a loss for what purpose... Fairly obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. Only other consideration is that this is their first day, difficult to ascertain what their intentions are. I support an indef block, but keep account creation open - if they want to reregister and actually contribute then let them. LessHeard vanU 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying you're wrong, but they must've been here for more than one day to become familiar with characters such as Willy on Wheels... Spawn Man 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.LessHeard vanU 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked indef. Possibly a throwaway single-use account, but best to take the road of caution with VOAs, in my view. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I was asking myself why it wasn't indef blocked, after reading the discussion.... -- Anonymous Dissident 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Posnaniensis

User:Posnaniensis' account was registered on 2007-09-29 and the first few Special:Contributions/Posnaniensis edits there to rename articles into Polish equivalents, , , . What is discouraging that this move campaign was made without proper attribution in regards with WP:RM, there were made no arguments for move, move itself was not registered on RM board, etc.( therefore I removed these move "requests") It looks like this is the single purpose account, and might be a meatpuppet case, as this user did recently ask for help User:Piotrus and confirmed, that he's not able to contribute in English on his userpage. May I ask contributors to take a closer look to this contributors edits. Lokyz 09:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Death2

Something strange going on here... Death2 created Carl-Michael Eide, then later nominated it for an AfD ((Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl-Michael Eide). The only responses there were from someone noting that Death2 had created the page in the first place, and me saying "strong keep" as the individual is clearly notable. The AfD was concluded as a keep. On the page itself, a while back Death2 had removed a link to a relevant interview on the grounds that the website hosting it asks people not to link to it without permission. As websites have no legal control over who links to them and as WP:EL doesn't comment on the matter, I felt this was a poor reason not to include a relevant link and I returned it to the page. Now I'm getting flamed by Death2 (User talk:Bondegezou#Delete), who I note has been previously blocked for being uncivil. What's the appropriate course of action here? Can I remove Death2's flame from my Talk page? Is there any guideline over webpages that ask not to be linked to? Can an admin get Death2 to be less aggressive? Bondegezou 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Igor "the Otter"'s anti-Semitism

I consider this a gross violation of AGF and CIV; Igor the otter is resorting to anti-Semitic attacks to push his point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only case he's done that? Use "subst:uw-agf3". Rlevse 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Igor was "discouraged" from editing the Holocaust Denial article by JP Gordon. I think that Igor is basically a troll. Have a look at that talk page. He has been warned and blocked by ad min before.: Albion moonlight 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange editing by User:Hindu_boar

Hindu-Boar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} to quite a few Bollywood images, most (all?) of which seem to have OTRS permissions. Perhaps I need to stock up on good faith, but it seems very strange to me that a new editor would do nothing but add speedy deletion tags to images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the source (Bollywoodblog.com) does not allow their images to be used for commercial purposes. What is the problem for removing the correct license tags I placed on the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog. Check the source says {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} and then check the license provided on Misplaced Pages which is is not the same. The license on Misplaced Pages cannot be verified, there is something fishy about it and it caught my attention. You reported me to Administrators? Why? Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert my edits without first checking my claim? Seems to me like your upto to something. You should not revert other people's edits before checking their claim, it does not matter if someone comes out of no where and the first thing they do is add correct license tags. This is not strange, everyone who starts editing on Misplaced Pages starts this way.--Hindu-Boar 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about AGF Angus McLellan. It may be unusual for a newbie to recognise and tag non-free content, but Hindu-Boar should probably be given a barnstar or something instead. Speaking of AGF, the evidence is that these images are not freely licensed. Can some OTRS person check and explain this? -- zzuuzz 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements at Isotretinoin

I know ANI isn't the right place to report this but I just don't edit here much anymore and I don't want to write a whole RFC. An anonymous user has been adding unsourced statements to isotretinoin over the past couple months, claiming for instance that the medication's current dosage is recommended "for unknown reasons". Other claims include that low dose treatment is just as effective as the dosage approved by the FDA, and that high dose treatment is 4x to 8x as expensive. The anon has removed citeneeded tags and totallydisputed tags repeatedly without adding any references, and they have reverted any attempts to rewrite the article in a less opinionated fashion.

If someone can please take this over, or at least explain to the user of WP:CITE "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor," it would be appreciated. Thanks. Rhobite 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor who keeps removing 'fact' tags from the article seems to use a different IP each time, so there wouldn't be anyone to block. Since there are no recent IP editors who appear helpful, semi-protection of Isotretinoin might be considered. (At least, no IP editor has added a reference during the entire month of September, though some have added claims). EdJohnston 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears's fifth studio album

Some hyper-enthusiastic Britney fan has changed the title of this article to Blackout without any sources. The article itself has been changed back to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, but not the talk page. My concern is that since the Blackout article is tagged for speedy deletion, if it is deleted, the talkpage for Britney Spears's fifth studio album will somehow disappear too. Can someone who is more technically inclined than I am please lend a hand? Thanks. Jeffpw 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards