Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:32, 28 June 2008 editAKMask (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,957 edits Redirect-philic user: typo← Previous edit Revision as of 21:10, 28 June 2008 edit undoX! (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators23,642 edits Bot malfunctioning: cmtNext edit →
Line 233: Line 233:


::::: Ok, now THAT's really scary. I assume someone's informed the bot operator of this discussion (and he really needs to make sure that IP editing doesn't happen again). -- ] (]) 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: Ok, now THAT's really scary. I assume someone's informed the bot operator of this discussion (and he really needs to make sure that IP editing doesn't happen again). -- ] (]) 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry about that everyone...It ran for a while, and worked...I don't have access to my bot code though, because the onyl computer that can access it is without internet (A power outage last night knocked out the internet in my dorm). ]] 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


== Plagiarism software == == Plagiarism software ==

Revision as of 21:10, 28 June 2008

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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. (archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

    I try to avoid this page, but seems this is the only option. I speedy closed the above AfD, as a previous discussion was closed four days ago. However, "Killerofcruft" has disagreed, and reverted my close, twice now. I find this to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate help in the matter. Thank you. Al Tally 12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Can you answer the notability questions he has posed? Baseball Bugs 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Let's be clear about this - I became aware of the article after reading about it here on AN/I today, before that I had never heard of, edited or had any connection to the article. I carefully reviewed all of the sources and found that there is not a single mention that is not either a listing, by the author itself, trivial or entirely unconnected to the subject matter. There are literally NO Reliable Sources for this article - it is not notable in any way shape or form. It exists and that's it. Generally there is a gentleman's agreement (and as far as I'm aware that's all it is - a suggestion not a policy) against re-opening AFD so soon (and I'll confess I missed the fact that it had been AFD's so soon) but my understanding is that is to stop involved parties using the AFD process as a weapon to hit each other over the head with. I have come to this article cold, I have reviewed it, I have searched for reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources, I cannot find any non-trivial sources. On that basis, I have made a good faith use of process. If this is closed, I'd like someone to be specific about the minimum period I'll have to wait because as soon as that is up, I'll just AFD it again - again in good faith, because of the lack of notability and the lack of reliable sources about the subject matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    You'll list it, without regard for the current state of the article? Assuming that it currently fails RS now. That hardly sounds like a good faith nom to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry - obviously I meant with the qualification of if the sourcing remains the same. apologies for any confusion caused by my brevity on this matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Although I don't typically care for rapid re-noms.. and even though IMO KoC's username has a dash of implicit bad faith, which I also don't care for... my inclination would be to let the AfD play out. The article has major notability concerns, and the previous AfD only really dealt with the COI concerns.
    However, DilligentTerrier should weigh in before any decision is made. He has been involved with the cleanup of the article and his opinion would definitely count for something. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    This prior AN/I section re Killerofcruft should be noted. Similar behavior is continuing; the issue is not notability of the article but incivility, which is particularly a problem in AfD where tensions tend to be high. Koc acknowledged being a "returned user having exercised his right to vanish" which explains how a new account is suddenly so active in such a manner. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Can you point to my incivility in that AFD? please be specific and provide diffs. Your constant accusations and bad faith attempts to slur my name are getting tiresome. If you have problems with my activities here - open a RFCU, if you have a problem with any particular edits of mine - bring it up on the relevent article talkpages. in all cases, provide diffs and don't throw around accusations you are unwilling to back up with specifics. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't claim that it was in that AfD, though I have not reviewed it. It's here in AN/I and elsewhere. Example: the response immediately above. The effect of my post was
    • (1) To connect this report with the prior AN/I notice,
    • (2) To separate the issue of conduct from that of notability, which is not an issue to be resolved with AN/I, ordinarily, AN/I being designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, but some are easily distracted. I.e., an editor might (this is not necessarily a present claim against Koc) be grossly uncivil or disruptive in, say, proposing an AfD that is a proper AfD, i.e., the article is actually not notable. More to the point, an editor might close an AfD in a manner ultimately found to be improper, which is then reverted by another instead of (a) discussing it or (b) going to DRV. The second is considered to require the first, and both are preferable, and sometimes even required, in lieu of using reversion. Edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue. *Any* revert without discussion, where the reason is debatable, is arguably edit warring. and
    • (3) The editor has been uncivil, repeatedly so. My response is a graduated one, which has not yet reached the level of requiring proof; however, everything I've said could be backed with diffs, and will be if I come to the conclusion that it's worth the effort. At this point, I'd only suggest reading the prior AN/I report, which contains examples, and the User's Talk page and contribution history. Next step is to formally warn the user on User talk:Killerofcruft, that the user had not been formally warned was one of the arguments against block in the prior report; I'm refraining from doing that myself, at this point, but I will if any reasonable editor suggests that I take on the task.
    At this point, my comments are discussion, of user behavior, not a formal attempt to sanction the user. Koc narrowly escaped being blocked in that last AN/I report and I had nothing to do with that; in fact, my comments probably helped reach the conclusion that action against the user was not yet warranted.
    So that's a "no I'll just keep making accusations" --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Accusations, no. I'm not making accusations, generally. I point to evidence, sometimes I present obvious conclusions from the evidence, typically quite solid ones (though I make mistakes from time to time, and I try to apologize for them promptly when they are pointed out). However, what Koc considers "accusations," yes. Consistent with policy, guidelines, and the welfare of the project, I will continue to comment on what I observe, as part of the essential process by which Misplaced Pages regulates itself. There are now two AN/I reports in as many days over Koc behavior, involving different users, with no sign to me that Koc recognizes that his behavior is at all problematic. The first AN/I report, referenced above, was closed with a comment that it should be sufficient as a warning regarding his edit summaries (though more was mentioned in the AN/I report than that). Subsequently, Koc commented that it was closed "because it was a lot of crap." I would call that defiant disregard of a warning.--Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    just so people don't think I left this hanging - I will make no further comment to abd - it just seems to feed ... well whatever this is suppose to be. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    The first AFD was handled improperly, as it resulted in a keep but without a discovery of whether adequate sources exist. The second one should probably run- the first one wasn't useful. Friday (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'd say it was procedurally correct. It just so happens that nobody had much to say about the notability and verifiability. I still feel uncomfortable with starting an AFD so fast after the last one was closed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Too many aliases in this discussion. In addition to KoC, Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs). Unclear what that means. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    As for the article, I've made my comments on the talk page and in the AfD. There's no third-party confirmation of notability. I've tracked down the unlinked citations in the article. (See the talk page and AfD page for links.) The cited articles are on line, and they're very, very brief mentions of the article subject. This is self-published original research by a new editor writing their first article. The article looks better-cited than it is until you find and read the citations, and discover there's almost nothing there. I was planning to send it to AfD in a few weeks, after allowing time for it to become clear that it's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    There are now at least 3 editors on that second AFD who are saying "too soon to renominate", totally ignoring the point that the original AFD ignored notability. Thus, this apparently self-promoting and dubious article will likely get retained. Misplaced Pages at its finest. NOT. Baseball Bugs 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    The inventor of the language and the main author of the article seems to bang the lid down on this one --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Without commenting on the RS or notability issues, the 2nd AfD should be procedurally speedy closed. The first AfD had its chance at the article and to renominate four days later is disruptive as it takes time and energy better spent on writing and improving articles. This also points out the need for policy on a minimum interval between nominations. A collaborative project the size of WP has to have process, or it won't work. Keeping an article that may, or may not, be notable enough does infinitely less harm than violating process, in spirit or letter. The editors voting to keep in the 2nd AfD (due to unseemly haste to renominate) understand that problem and are correct. If the article is still believed to be inadequate later on, come back in three months and renominate. Also, Killerofcruft as a username seems to display an inherent bias toward deletionism. — Becksguy (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Getting the right answer is more important than some arbitrary time limit between AFDs. As pointed out, the first AFD ignored the sourcing issue, for some reason. Friday (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    If sourcing was so important, it should have been included in the 1st AfD. It had its chance at the right answer. It's not about arbitrary time limits, it's about minimizing the disruption to Misplaced Pages. We have an overwhelmingly large number of AfDs, more than anyone can keep up with, even in their areas of expertize. Renominating because someone wants a second (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) shot at an article, especially within short time periods, just adds to that massive problem. And four days just boggles the mind as disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Becksguy. The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Killerofcruft has it right. If the subject is self-promotional and not notable, then the first AFD is irrelevant. The "you had your chance" stuff is childish. Getting it right is all that matters. Baseball Bugs 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    And according to my count, the previous AFD had a grand total of TWO "Keep" statements aside from the original author. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article, and the "you had your chance" argument doesn't hold water. Even without bringing up notability, it was teetering on being deleted. Baseball Bugs 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that we should take the time to get it right. That includes working on the article to find reliable source, sometimes it isn't obvious, and, in fact, it may not be obvious to the original author. The claim, above, that the inventor isn't aware of RS and therefore it does not exist, is a non-sequitur. Now, for me to find out the truth of this, myself, could take hours of research, on a topic where I have no knowledge. This is a community project, and we take advantage of community resources. It takes time. For this reason, when an AfD closes without consensus (which was the case here, in fact), immediate renomination disrupts the process of improving the article. Yes, it was "teetering on being deleted." Should we keep it teetering? I'd say we should give it a month. It survived AfD, and debating notability doesn't find sources for the article. Patient work does. Sometimes RS exists and is not googleable. If no RS appears in a month, nobody would be questioning the renomination. It is only that it was done a few days later, by a newly registered "returning user who exercised his right to vanish," an apparent deletionist from the user name, that is the problem. That user edit warred to keep the 2nd nomination openm which was the cause of this AN/I report, which got distracted by the notability question. User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name -- may indeed be right about the article, but what's the hurry? What's the problem with taking the proper time and following the proper process, which does not include edit warring? --Abd (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't argue for "speedy" deletion. But if the author himself can't find a reliable source for this article, then what likelihood is there? Baseball Bugs 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    In the last two days something like (and this is from skimming) >80% of Abd's edits have been a) about me or b) have involved subjected I was already editing or discussions I was already involved in. At least 3 of those edits were removed as personal attacks. People asked me to tone down the edit summaries - I did that. People said my name could cause problems - I changed it. I have no problem with people querying my actions - when asked on my talk page, I have answered. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like he's out to get me. Maybe it's in my mind but I honestly feel he's following me around try to cause trouble. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why is this content dispute on ANI? People have a right to bring a rightful AfD if they so wish, they are entitled to their (IMHO rightful) opinion that this should be deleted and IMHO no-one should ever be on ANI for creating an AfD in good faith, just because the complainer on ANI disagrees with it. If Crufty's name is ensuring he's harassed, then maybe he should be encouraged to change it, but apart from that leave Crufty alone!:) Sticky Parkin 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps Sticky Parkin should look at the beginning of this discussion? It was brought here because User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name to User:Allemandtando -- was edit warring with an administrator. The discussion, which was originally and properly about user behavior, was sidetracked into what should have been a question resolved through ordinary process (discussion and, in this case, DRV, if discussion fails -- but discussion wasn't tried -- unless an AN/I report is "discussion"), that is, whether or not the article is notable. Above, Allemandtando dashes some hopes that he is going to change his behavior as well as his name. He's done a number of things worthy of comment. The appropriate thing, when comment is made, isn't to challenge the comment but to examine the behavior. He claims to have done that, and we can hope that he does, but what do I have to do with this AN/I report? Or, for that matter, the one filed yesterday? If I were "out to get him," the number one thing I would have done would have been to warn him, so that his behavior would then have been promptly blockable. I'd have, by yesterday, filed an SSP report, just in case, and I'd have taken several matters to AN/I. But I didn't. I see now that he has also withdrawn the problematic AfD nomination, and a compromise seems to be in the making. Good move. I haven't pursued him and I have no plans to. However, given what's come down, I do plan to keep my eyes open. I'll grant, it is not easy to recover from the level of negative attention he has drawn in the few days since he registered; offenses that might not raise an eyebrow otherwise can result in a block. But he's not in danger from me, personally, only from the consequences of his own actions as seen by the community. Which I do not think blockworthy, yet. As was the conclusion from the last AN/I report, he can be considered warned. User:Arcayne may have played a role in calming the waters, for which he is to be commended; let's hope they stay calm.--Abd (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Note that Killerofcruft/Allemandtando has withdrawn the AfD nomination, but reserves the right to renominate in eight weeks, pending the addition of sources. I endorse that compromise. Will a uninvolved admin/editor close as withdrawn by nom, without prejudice to renomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, as there are other delete or delete/userfy votes, it isn't automatically closed if withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    If I were to adopt a "negative" kind of username, it would be along the lines of "Killerofcruft" -- something like "Death to spam". Several of us will be watching that article, so its author had best come up with some sources, or he'll be hearing about it again soon. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not up to the author alone to come up with sources. This is our project, not his. In any case, if the original attempt to close the AfD had not been interrupted by edit warring, there wouldn't have been those delete or delete/userfy votes at this time, and we'd either see an adequate article down the road a bit, or another AfD, this time a proper one. AN/I didn't work this time: properly, seeing the rapid renom after close, without going to DRV instead, the user involved should have been warned about edit warring, and the AfD promptly closed by a new administrator, avoiding a whole lot of wikifuss. Next time, please, administrators, don't allow a proper AN/I report -- and this one was proper on the part of User:Al tally, who reported instead of edit warring, himself, -- to be derailed over content issues, as this one was from the beginning by Baseball Bugs, who asked Al tally a question about notability that was, for our purposes here, irrelevant. The user could be right as rain about the notability of the article, and the edit warring still not permissible.--Abd (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sometimes the spammers and self-promoters win. So far, they've won this one. Baseball Bugs 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    A note on the players in the AfD:
    Have I missed anyone? --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    ← I think things are getting too muddled here. Really, the 2nd AfD isn't out of process. The nominator was unaware of the first nomination and, in good faith, nominated an article with no reliable sources for deletion. Now, if we want to be slaves to process, the correct procedure would have been to close the 2nd AfD, file an appeal at DRV stating that the 1st AfD did not have enough participation to get a result and that it should be relisted to gain a consensus. Which would wind up either re-opening one of those AfDs, or creating a 3rd one.
    Rather than tying ourselves up in red tape, I'd say it's more effective to simply let this AfD run its course. The final decision could be appealed at DRV if you really wanted, but I'd say it's frivolous. If the article is kept, it should stay for at least a couple months before being renominated. If it's deleted or userfied, there's no reason it can't be written (or undeleted) later with proper sourcing. Process may be important, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but I think this is a case that calls for it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Even now, the article's defenders are working feverishly trying to prove notability, i.e. trying to find some shred of evidence that anyone besides the article's author has ever heard of this computer language. Baseball Bugs 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ummm ... at 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) you said on the AfD page "Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable". So now some folks are actually trying to improve a Misplaced Pages article. Whatever perverted mischief will they think of next ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Excellent. They must have heard me, then. :) Baseball Bugs 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sigh. As it stands, article neither passes notability or sourcing areas. When the creator of the language is struggling on that area, surely the common sense answer is just to delete and userfy, some experienced admins helping the creator of the language to work on the areas of concern. If those areas are addressed then put the article back into mainspace. Or would that upset peopleby removing the lolzdrama? Minkythecat (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Several comments combined:
    1. The 2nd AfD is not only out of process, it's an abuse of process and a bad faith nomination, especially after being properly closed twice by an admin. It's a rogue AfD and compromised.
    2. And no one here is willing to abort it as either improperly continued by Killerofcruft/Allemandtando after reverting an admin twice, or as withdrawn by the nom, or both.
    3. I would think that Al Tally as an admin would have been supported here and given the help he requested against an editor that clearly, willfully, and knownly abused process. I find that lack of support troubling.
    4. The content issues in this ANI thread are absolutely irrelevant and just muddle and derail this thread. This page is about behavior, not content, as it says at the top of the page. The content related comments should be in the AfD, such as it is.
    5. Between this thread and the AfD, there are ten editors with process concerns. Some of us with major and highly serious concerns. To allow this abuse to continue is infinitely more damaging and disruptive to Misplaced Pages than the existence of one article that may, or may not, be notable.
    6. The number of editors and their comments indicate that there is a real community concern about this nomination process. I don't think this issue is going away soon.
    7. And no, it's not about drama (or lolz, which is a horrible word), it's about process. It's the social contract that we have to follow to make collaboration possible in such a massive project. Otherwise, it's anarchy, as exemplified in this AfD nomination.
    8. As to ignore all rules in this case: Does anyone really think that the ends justify the means, when those means are clearly wrong and against WP core values?
    9. Although I assume good faith as to Killerofcruft/Allemandtando's intentions to improve WP, I (obviously) disagree with his methods.
    10. To paraphrase Col. Jessup, as played by Jack Nickelson in A Few Good Men (1992): We follow process, son. We follow process or Misplaced Pages dies. It's that simple.
    Becksguy (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    What a mess. What went wrong? The original author of the article was writing his first article, about his own work. The first AfD was over the wrong issue (COI rather than notability), and didn't get much attention. Then, the author of the article provided a number of plausible-looking references without links. It took about a week of digging by multiple editors to check those references. Upon examination, they turned out not to support notability; most had been generated by the original author of the article. By then, in the second AfD, multiple editors had already looked at the article, saw that it appeared plausible and had seemingly good references, or noted that the second AfD was too soon, and voted to "keep". That's how we got here. No one is really to blame for this. --John Nagle (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's a good summary, although I have my own different opinions on who is to blame. Several editors who should have known better have not done right here. We'll be needing someone to close the AFD who can focus on the relevant issues without getting sidetracked by handwaving arguments. Friday (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

    Moved to subpage; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

    Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

    Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

    I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see , , and ). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 (T / ) 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Misplaced Pages" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    We have tenure? Awesome! SWATJester 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? --Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    (keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: and . Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: , , etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps, and I appreciate your comments, but I really have not done much in the way of warning users other than with the anon-vandal welcome (in my over 20,000 edits, there's maybe a handful and none that I can easily find at present) and I was honestly stunned by his reaction as usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I did not add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child," which I believed merited some kind of civility warning and I thought I was going with the lowest level and tamest one on the page. Also, before giving him the warning, I did not check his edit history to see how long he's been around. In any event, it really is not that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I did not demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Plus, it is frustrating that someone would react in such a manner, because as you know, sure I may disagree quite strongly with editors in discussions, but even though say you and I have had some strong disagreements in AfDs and DRVs, I still occasionally look for somewhere where I might be able to help you or get along a la User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Vandalism to your userpage so that it is clear any discussion disagreements are not personal or anything. I have done such things for a number of editors I have disagreed with. I guess it would be nice if some of those with whom I disagree would also take these kinds of proactive steps. I appreciate that you responded nicely in the aforementioned case: User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Re:Vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am unaware of any policy saying that editors cannot ask an admin to resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I politely, formally and civilly asked Cryptic to resign his admin position. I did not attack him, make over the top accusations or use any manner of hyperbole. It was a simple, formal request. He is free to ignore it. However, GRBerry, I am looking for a policy which might be titled "Non-admins are forbidden from asking admins to return their position", but I cannot find it. Can you point me to it? If it exist I shall offer a full retraction and formal apology to Cryptic. Bstone (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Bstone, going around politely, formally, and civilly asking admins to resign their bit, (or asking editors to leave the project, for another example) is neither constructive nor helpful, policy or no policy. Where I agree with you is that it's allowed. Policy doesn't prohibit you from being civilly rude. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with point 1 totally, and did not intend to give the impression that I'm advocating swift action. I just think that this issue should be considered unresolved until it is addressed by Cryptic in due course. Editors above are saying, for example, "we all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that." It should not end at that. As a community, we should be unwilling to "agree to disagree" with Cryptic's implicit position that block was justified. I think most reasonable people would be content to let it drop if and only if Cryptic acknowledges that it was in fact a bad block, but this feeling that "it was a bad block, he's unblocked now, get over it" is unsatisfactory. If Cryptic refuses to acknowledge that the block was flawed and should not have been made, it should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee, and ultimately a steward. HiDrNick! 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I doubt any admin goes around with a smile and a get-out-of-one-bad-block-free card wondering when to play it. Sysops get pulled in six different directions at once. Administrators get headaches, catch the flu, stay up until the wee hours trying to get stuff accomplished on Misplaced Pages. On the right side a chorus yells don't you edit articles anymore? while each time the sysop starts a GA drive other people tug at the left sleeve. Admins are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon when dinner is about to burn in the kitchen. Slicing the Gordian knot isn't enough; admins are expected to remove it surgically. And in return for this unpaid labor, they sometimes get compensated in curses or worse. After a while--being human--chances are an admin will flub something once. If it becomes a pattern, yes, the community addresses it. But flubbing something once is called being human. Durova 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    See what Durova said: "If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC." Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. The block wasn't a particularly defensible thing in this instance, although it could be argued that the templated warning, while understandable, wouldn't likely win friends. I think the trout might be the best option here for this single instance, but, if it were found to continue in the future, an RfC would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    What you're addressing here, John, is a report of a second instance (unrelated to Le Grand Roi's template warning and block). Avruch 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ouch. I stand corrected. The comment by Roguegeek could stand a lot of better information as to what the specifics of the matter being discussed are. However, even taking that second instance into account, we still have only two instances. For the step being requested here, that might be a bit extreme. Although ArbCom would definitely be an option here, and I don't want to speak for them, I would think two could still be marginally acceptable, although some sort of formal notification of his conduct being specifically called into question would be reasonable as well. If a third instance were to arise, particularly after specific warnings regarding such conduct are made, then there would be much less question or defense of such action. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    At a quick glance, the Roguegeek block is related to several pages like this being deleted numerous times and Roguegeek re-creating them each time. But Roguegeek's talk page history shows a distinct lack of activity around the date of the block, May 3, 2008. Some discussion is here but I see no hint of pre-block warning. Roguegeek's deleted contribs (admin only) show re-creation edit summaries of "why are my own templates being deleted?" which are a little sad. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not real fond of how that went down. User templates deleted, the user not understanding why and re-creating, twice, three times, four times, still no discussion - and then block. No deletion explanation (until after the fact), no block warning, not even a note to say that the user was blocked! Peculiar at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Honestly, all I'm looking for is understanding and have gotten zero help from the user in question. And yes, I was upset about the block with no discussion what so ever. I just happen to stumble upon this conversation and thought to myself, "hey I have a similar experience." I'm still actually needing some advice that I'll take to a different discussion page. I just thought it'd be helpful in this specific discussion to show a little more history from a complete separate instance. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Admins are here to serve our editors and readers, not vice versa. One inappropriate block (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is bad, two (Roguegeek) is unacceptable and then stonewalling Roguegeek's requests for an explanation takes it all over the top; I'm losing confidence in Cryptic's suitability to be an administrator. --A. B. 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see now that Cryptic did respond to Roguegeek although I still consider the block to be very out of line. --A. B. 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have a vague memory that there was some central discussion about deleting such "voting" templates, but I may be wrong there. That's beside the point, though. Cryptic absolutely should have communicated with Roguegeek about all this. Unless Cryptic can point out where this was discussed, why he blocked, and why there was no follow up, then there is a problem here. Admins have to be approachable, otherwise the whole system breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    My concerns here do extend beyond the incivil reaction to a polite request and the subsequent block when I warned him for his comment to me, which again I got from Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace and I went with the Level 1 for "Personal attack directed at a specific editor," as I thought apparently incorrectly it would be the tamest reaction to go with for what I thought was a first time thing. In actuality there seems to be some kind of longer-term frustration he has regarding Deletion Review discussions. For the larger context, please note that Cryptic blocked himself for a month on 2 April 2008 under the rationale of "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet". Several comments in Deletion Reviews this year seem to confirm that. See for example "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?," (seven editors arguing to keep in an AfD is not "near complete consensus" and the crux of the comment focuses on an editor rather than the article under discussion), mildly sarcastic tone, says "Utter disgust" as part of his comment, note edit summary, says that "It physically pains me to complete this mangled review request," claimed clear consensus in DRV that ultmately closed as relist for an AfD that ultimately did not result in the article being deleted, "Like, y'know..." seems confrontational, use of "lazy" seems unnecessary, and calls the AfDs "nauseating" when again the article ultimately was not outright deleted. You'll note that I did not participate in a number of those DRVs, so it is not just a him and me thing by any means, but rather what seems to be increased frustration with DRVs in general. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see where immediate admin action is called for. However I see reasonable evidence that Cryptic's conduct as an admin has been questionable in at least a couple cases. Taking this to a user conduct RFC might be a better venue than here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've raised my primary concern at User talk:Cryptic#Your block of Roguegeek (3rd May 2008). The previous discussion can still be seen at User talk:Cryptic#Vote templates. From what I can tell the sequence was that Cryptic deleted a series of user templates, and when they were recreated he blocked instead of trying to explain why they were deleted. After the block had expired, the user (who seems not to have realised they were blocked until after the block expired) came back and asked again, and Cryptic then explained and pointed to some deletion discussions. The problem is that this was all in the wrong order. From what I can see, the block was a heavy-handed way to get a message across. If Cryptic can explain his actions, we may be able to avoid a user conduct RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, let's not rehash any of this any more until Cryptic is active and can respond. Like everybody else, I too have some concerns about the two incidents in question -- but without Cryptic being here to respond, this is just a pointless pile-on. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    one of the requirements for being an admin is not to have excessive sensitivity to personal criticism. anyone who would block after a relatively innocuous template, with a background of incivility otherwise to confirm its not an isolated incident, should be desysopped. the Tango arb case cited is very much to the point here. Further, this admin is one of the few remaining ones without email enabled, and it's deliberate. I don't accept his excuse of privacy--the same reason applies to everyone, & the rest of us tolerate it. If he doesn't trust gmail, there are alternatives. (
    As for the matter giving rise to the block, personally, I've been templated several times, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, and I can;t figure out why it should bother me very much. If our templates are too rude, it is a matter that affects everyone. After all, why shouldn't established editors follow the same rules as everyone else and get the same warnings if they do something that an editor thinks wrong? If we want to prohibit it, we should try to adopt a policy decision to that effect, WT:DTTR is just an essay, and I hope and expect it wouldn't pass. If someone wants to take it as policy, it even says: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." so its not just a block in a personal dispute, its a block without any support in policy either.
    Sure, let's wait for a response, but the only response I think likely to improve the situation is a long wikibreak or surrendering the mop. DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    His refusal to respond to any of this stuff is quite telling, I think. Wizardman 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Bot malfunctioning

    Can someone please block User:SoxBot VII? It's adding dozens of inappropriate tags to redirects and refuses to stop. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Example: repeatedly adding uncategorized tags to redirect pages.
    In at least one case the bot also edited from an IP address.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    The bot's user page claims that an edit to User:SoxBot VII/Run will shut the bot down, but this does not work. The bot's owner is on vacation until the 29th.--Srleffler (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe it takes a short while. It's stopped for now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked. Anyone can unblock at any time if they are happy it is fixed. Viridae 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Whew. It's a bit scary when they do that. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Note: the bot has continued to make edits under the IP 91.198.174.201 despite this block. --Mars2035 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, now THAT's really scary. I assume someone's informed the bot operator of this discussion (and he really needs to make sure that IP editing doesn't happen again). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry about that everyone...It ran for a while, and worked...I don't have access to my bot code though, because the onyl computer that can access it is without internet (A power outage last night knocked out the internet in my dorm). Soxred 93 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Plagiarism software

    Does anyone know of a good free plagiarism software program? I haven't been able to find anything on the net, and as we have a user who has detected multiple episodes of plagiarism in articles submitted to DYK, that project is effectively at a standstill until the regular updaters are able to find an effective way of detecting plagiarism. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Pick random sentences and google (thats what turnitin does effectively). Also compare sources to sentences. Viridae 07:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see the user who was picking up the plagiarism has just retired from Misplaced Pages after I threatened to take him to AN/I for breaches of wp:civil. So I guess it's "business as usual" at DYK for the time being. However, I think the user in question raised some legitimate concerns about plagiarism, and I'd still like to get hold of some free software if anyone knows of any. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just one last point to be clear: you threatened me for finding plagiarisms, and that was the threat: you would and will accuse me of anything in order to stop my pointing out the dreadful state of this project. You don't want to hear it, or know it. You would rather spend your time and efforts finding something against me than working to find the plagiarisms. I'm not leaving because I'm worried about an incivility accusations, what could be more incivil then be found guilty of claiming another's work as your own and then passing out rewards for it? I'm leaving because Misplaced Pages honors copying from others and claiming it as Misplaced Pages's own.
    I just found out about the Triple Crown award. I told you there was a reward for DYK. It's very obvious to an outsider that this is the result of a frantic contest, a quest for prizes, not quality. Do you want to guess how many plagiarisms I found in Triple Crown Award winners so far? And, interesting enough, not just in DYKs. a couple in GAs. So, at least you're in good company on Misplaced Pages.
    You don't need software to find plagiarisms, you need English language reading skills and familiarity with encyclopedias. I write lay articles on technical subjects for a living. I read encyclopedia articles and similar articles in journals and books that are on technical subjects for a general audience as part of my job. After the first dozen or more DYK plagiarisms that I spotted, I just started picking them out, left and right. The first ones I found I knew instantly they were plagiarized. I only found two articles that I didn't think had plagiarisms in them, and these in the last 24-48 hours, and they both held up to a quick scrutiny. Every other article I reviewed may have taken some time, but it wasn't really that hard. Just time to find where the lines were copied and pasted from. It's so obvious anyone who spent any time learning the skill of writing can find them. And, you have some more waiting in the queue.
    It's not a threat of my incivility, it's a threat to me that if I keep bringing up the problems I will be banned--effectively that is a ban, because I can write, and I find it disgusting that someone would take the work of another, claim it as their own, then show it off for a cyberspace reward to their assumed name.
    --Blechnic (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blechnic, if you are feeling threatened, then please feel free to email details of plagiarism you have found to myself or any other administrator. Neıl 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just for the record, here is the very last message Blechnic received before retiring. Not exactly a “get the torches and pitchforks" thing. — Satori Son 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's fucking shameful is what it is - I'd suggest that if people think they aren't get a response when they detect plagiarism, then they inform the people being ripped off - once they start hammering on the foundation's door - people will be less inclined to look the other way. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    For what is is worth, a lot of discussion has taken place recently at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism, prompted by Blechnic's earlier threads about plagiarism, which Gatoclass may not have been aware of. I would encourage people to participate in that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    UNINDENT

    I'm not sure if I understand the nuances in this discussion and I'm only trying to be helpful. I've always found the online tool at to be very useful in finding plagiarism. Its a free tool offered by a commercial site. Justin talk 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Is there anyway to incomporate this into a template so you can easily click on it (like the statistics template that shows blocks, or amount of edits, etc)? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Btw, there is a problem with that site: "The maximum of 10 searches per month has been reached for this site. For more searches, please sign up for a Premium account. More information about this message.." Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Why doesn't the foundation speak to one of those companies and see who'd like to supply us a license in return for a bit of free publicity? or is this like how universities deal with plagraism, where we all make a lot of sound and hope that we don't have to look too closely at the problem? --Allemandtando (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Adding warning templates to article talk pages

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved – Take this to Dispute Resolution for content issues. If the IP-hopping is bad enough to warrant a check to see if Sindhian is a sockpuppeter, file a Request For Checkuser. With that said, I'm closing this trainwreck. seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    At ongoing edit warrings at the articles far left and Communist Party of India (Marxist), User:Sindhian (one of the parties of the dispute) has placed warning templates (intended for user talk pages, {{Uw-delete3}}) on the article talk pages, threatening his oppenents with being blocked. Moreover he consistently makes false claims of vandalism and false claims that he will post reports about this (, ). Is there any possibility for intervention by other editors against this disruptive behaviour? I have tried to reason with him, for example on the vandalism issue, but so far to no avail. --Soman (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I left a note on his talk page about the inappropriate use of the user warning templates. It looks like he was just confused in regards to that.
    Regarding the remaining issues, it looks like he is being very aggressive with the criticisms and controversies sections, but it also seems like he does have some sources. ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes, but before I look deeper to see if there is disruptive editing and/or edit warring taking place, do you think there is a possibility of rewording the content he has proposed so that it is more neutral? Or is he using unreliable sources and/or taking the sources out of context, in such a way that the content could not be refactored in a neutral manner? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
    On a related note, it appears Sindhian (talk · contribs) and 192.11.225.116 (talk · contribs) are the same person. For now, I will assume good faith and assume he just forgot to log in or something, but we should keep an eye out about this in case he uses the IP to circumvent the three-revert rule. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Jaysweet, I am new to this forum and am still learning, so may have made some mistakes unknowingly and would like to apologise for that. Please understand I am not reverting edits but just the the deleats by 'Soman, Ism Shism and other annon users' who seem to be working in tandem to escape the 3R rule. I am being ganged up against as these people take turns in reverting my edits. Kindly look into the history of Soman and you will see that this game has been played with many other editors in the past making them leave in frustation. I kindly request a detailed investigation to ensure this type of harrasment to editors is not repeated.
    There is also 121.6.209.24 (talk · contribs), 192.11.225.118 (talk · contribs) and 121.6.209.24 (talk · contribs), seemingly the same as Sindhian. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh dear, yes, that appears to be the case. Well, he seems to be inactive right now. I would say, continue to try to get him to engage on the talk page, and if he continues to revert without discussion, let me know. If we count the IPs, he has been dangerously close to WP:3RR on occasion. Even if he doesn't cross 3RR, edit warring without discussion on the talk page is not permitted. Let me know, I will try to engage him, and we'll go from there. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    At the very least, based on the article history and apparent IP sockpuppetry (whether or not by Sindhian) and vandalism, I have semi-protected Far left for a short time. Hopefully, a more stable version will expedite resolution of this content dispute. — Satori Son 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good call. My gut tells me Sindham is not IP-socking on purpose, but it's hard to be certain -- semi-prot will prevent us from having to deal with that issue altogether, and we can focus on the other problems. Thanks Satori! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    While editing articles I have also experienced these issues with Sindhian. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sindhian just made yet another reversion at Communist Party of India (Marxist). I think this is the 4th or 5th revert, so definitely already in violation of 3RR. I have issued a 3RR warning, and if he/she reverts again, I will report to WP:ANI/3RR. (I do not tolerate 3RR under any circumstances, as I feel it is downright poisonous to the collaborative principles of Misplaced Pages) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm going to lunch, so if he/she reverts in the next hour or so, somebody else will have to make the report :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have forgotten to log in some times but did not delibrately do it as I use two computers. My issue is that Soman and some other users have been blanking my complete edits with little pretex or frivelous reasons, I am just reverting them back. Soman is supported by 'Ism Schism' and other annon users. Please see the discussion. If you look at the history of CPI(M) page you will see that Soman and other people have been blanking entire edits and this has resulted in some good authors leaving and their work lost. Kindly count the number of times Soman has blanked edits and he seems to have some annon users and others supporting him. Intrestingly he always removes edits which are not favorable to CPI(M). The result is the CPI(M) article has become completely onesided and a lot of intresting material has been deleted and editors lost. Sindhian (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have explained my causes for my edits in the respective talk pages of the CPI(M) and far left articles. I have tried to engage Sindhian in discussions on the issues, with limited success. Sindhian's edits at wikipedia is limited to whitewashing the BJP/RSS articles, whilst filling the the CPI(M)/far left articles with endless ranting, a fact that points to that his sole intention with editing wikipedia is pov-pushing. A lot of the problems are typical newbie errors, like faulty use of references and errouneous claims of vandalism. I have several times been accused of pov-pushing, I let my own actions be judged by others. --Soman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Calling "endless ranting" is a personal attackSindhian (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sindhian's latest move is to reintroduce deleted passages of a banned User:Hkelkar sock from the January 2008 edit war. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Everyone, please. This noticeboard is not for mediation or dispute resolution. I will repeat what I have told Sindhian: I strongly suggest filing a mediation request with the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. The MedCab is staffed with volunteer editors who are extremely experienced in this sort of dispute resolution. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Harrassed

    'Soman, Ism Shism and other annon users' who seem to be working in tandem to escape the 3R rule are deleting well referenced articles in CPI(M) and far left. I am being ganged up against by these people and they take turns in reverting my edits. Kindly look into the history of Soman in CPI(M)and you will see that this game has been played with many other editors in the past making them leave in frustation . I kindly request a detailed investigation to ensure this type of harrasment to editors is not repeated. Sindhian (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    You may have missed my suggestion above. Please consider taking this to the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal or some other Dispute Resolution process. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Satori Son, these people will say and make it look like it is a content dispute. This is vandalism where a froup of people take turns in blanking sections which they feel are not good for the image of their party. They force the editor to revert more than three times and get him banned. They harrass and discourage people from writing and have compromised the NPOV of most of the articles Indian political parties. Some administrators aslo seem to be supporting them. They are waging a political and propaganda war here. Since my allegations are serious and have serious impact on the NPOV of Misplaced Pages, I again request a serious investigation preferably by someone who can be trusted to be neutral. Please look into the edit history of CPI(M) to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talkcontribs) 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sindhiam, Misplaced Pages is NOT the place for POV pushing. You continue to push your POV on numerous articles and editor's talk pages as well. Original research, and your personal opinion, are not what you should insert into articles. Editors have tried to work with you, but you must contribute as well instead of claiming harrassment and/or a conspiracy against you. Nobody is that important. Please review Misplaced Pages policies further as that might facilitate you making valued contributions to Misplaced Pages. Good luck and happy editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ism schism, I am not pushing my POV. If you look at my edits carefully I have clearly used words like allegation and referenced these allegations. I am trying to make these articled NPOVSindhian (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hi,

    Definition of Vandalism according to wikipedia is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Please understand that I am appealling against an organized vandalism by a group of people who have a history of compromising the NPOV of the CPI(M). They take turns in deleting and blanking the page and frustating the editors. I looked into the history page and realized this has been going on for many years and a lot of editors and their edits have been removed.

    Since no action has been taken against them and the victims have been penalized I suspect they may be overtly and covertly supported by some adminstrators.

    All I am asking is to do is look into the history of CPI(M) and see the pattern and vandalism for yourself.

    I have read many articles on Wiki and have seen that almost all articles provide space for the opposite point of view. Why is the opposite point of view getting deleted in CPI(M)Sindhian (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    'Ism Schism' wants to enjoy this moment of triumph by being sarcastic, which displays his contempt for other contributors. CPI(M) is an extremist party involved in massacre and violence. This is a fact and an opinion of a vast majority of people in India. And this fact and opinion is missing from Misplaced Pages. It seems CPI(M) propaganda machinery has taken over the wikipedia, where it is stopping people from writing a truth which is determental to it. I am also speaking for the victims of CPI(M) whose voice seems to have been gagged in the CPI(M) ruled states as well as on Wiki. In fact if you look atthe contributions to Indian political parties on Wiki, you will see that all any one opposite to CPI(M) has been harrased, banned or chased away and his contributions deleted by a gang of people. Sindhian (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you want wiki to be a balanced encyclopedia please ensure that the contributions are not controlled by a gang. The proof for this allegation is there on the History of CPI(M) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talkcontribs) 03:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Sindhian (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Take this to Dispute Resolution. With that said, I'm closing this trainwreck. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Serious allegations from IP 24.90.201.232 at American Renaissance (magazine)

    Anon IP 24.90.201.232 keeps reinserting very serious allegations about the editors and admins of Misplaced Pages at the American Renaissance (magazine) article herehereand here. Not sure what to do with this, but it may sound like something the legal department might want to look into. Just reporting it for appropriate admin attention.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's not entirely true - the anon user is reporting that the magazine in question has made those allegations (which, apparently, it has). It's verifiable, it's referenced, and the user has reported it correctly. Nothing much wrong there (other than the use of primary sources and/or whether that particular story is notable enough to be included in the article, but those are hardly matters for urgent admin attention). You're right, the legal team might want to deal with the magazine itself, but I don't think the IP editor is doing much wrong. Waggers (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I brought this here thinking this might be a way for this to be rbought to the attention of the legal department. I agree that the edit seems sourced (I won't susbcribe to AmRen to check it was actually said), but it seemed like a direct attack on Misplaced Pages, its editors and its admins. What would be the best way to bring this directly to the attention of Legal? (Meaning what AmRen has said)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    that material is actually irrelevant in terms of that article and should be removed on that basis - because it's not about the subject but about a 3rd party and it would be coatracking to stick it in there. It belows on one of the criticisms of wikipedia article - if anywhere. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not necessary to subscribe to AmRen to read the article. It's available here . You need a fairly strong stomach to get to the end, as it's pretty odious stuff, but in a nutshell, it says we're a bunch of lefties conspiring to hide the truth about many people, events and issues for reasons related to our political agenda. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I need to wash my eyes after reading that. Ugh. We might want to ensure that there are editors and admins watching the articles brought up in the article and the comments section. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Both what the anon is adding and what the anon is removing appear to be a POV-push of some kind, both against wikipedia and in support of that magazine. Baseball Bugs 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    To bring an issue to the attention of the "legal department", you may e-mail Mike Godwin at the address provided at his user page. I would note that there does not appear to be anything in the AR article over which the Foundation might bring a cause, and that given the inclination of the Foundation to promote and protect free expression the Board would never counsel legal action in a (relatively innocuous) situation like this, even did the text present something actionable (as the instant text, I would emphasize, almost certainly does not), and so I might offer that you need not to write Mike, but you surely may, of course, if you like. Joe 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW, I asked for advice about this material at Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Criticisms in articles about critics. The responses there were that the material should be kept short, if at all. It'd be more appropriate in the "Criticism..." article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's also worth noting that the author of the article, Nicholas Stix, has a history with Misplaced Pages. Last year there was a user with a few IPs who was constantly adding references to Stix and his work, almost all published in blogs. Because of the appearance that the editor was Stix himself, I posted a notice on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6#70.23.199.239. Note also that there was once an article on Stix which was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Stix. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Where am I meant to be looking for help?

    Ok, let's try this again. I'm unsure of where the correct place to report this is, so if this is the incorrect venue, please let me know so I can put it in the correct place.

    IP editor 158.230.100.102 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made the same edits to the Space Wolves* page, which adds what looks lie POV ("Space Wolves are the best" type thing) to the article. He has been repeatedly asked to discuss the edits on the talk page and/or supply a reference for the addition, but has not yet responded, either on their talk, or the articles talk page. Some examples of diffs: . I had reported it to WP:AIV but it was probably to early to be classed as vandalism.

    The same edits have also been added by Ashleythor8sxd (talk · contribs), though I'm assuming that's the IP above logged in. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    * Yes, I know the Space Wolves article, and the 40K/Warhammer articles in general, are to "in-universe" - the 40K project is slowly going through them, transfering them to a 40K-specific article, and wikifying the ones staying here.
    Don't worry it will not be in-universe shortly... --Allemandtando (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ouch. Well, the article looks much better now, and I believe this will resolve the edit war. I worry this is not exactly what Darkson was looking for, but it's an outcome.. and like I say, the article definitely looks more like an encyclopedia article now. Marking as resolved.. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Disagree with marking this resolved - although I've no issues with what's done to the article, it still doesn't answer my question of where I should have been looking for help. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 08:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Doing vandalism in Ashley Tisdale's pages

    The member IntoCreativeJan is doing a lot of vandalism in Ashley Tisdale's pages (singles and albums), delecting sourcered informations (like Billboard sources for example) and clean up the pages. He is just doing it because he/she HATES the singer. So, I want that Misplaced Pages block this user. Thanks. Voices4ever Talk 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Could you please some diffs as to this alleged vandalism? Also, I have alerted IntoCreativeJan of this thread. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I looked at it briefly, and while I don't feel ICJ is vandalizing, I am concerned about ICJ's aggressive use of warnings (goes straight to final warnings on numerous occasions). --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Actually the only one doing vandelism is you and you other accounts which include 'Triping'. Even Gimmetrow the admin agreed. You have been adding not reliable and unsources chart positons and not to mention reverting over 16 edits made to remove you fake false information. When you do not agree on the edit you seem to call it vandelism when it is not merely considered that. And you kept on adding fake references that do not even mention she song or album. And not to mention the amount of vandelism your other account Triping has done. The Billboard refernces for charts that are not official in the end all of the charts listed add up to the Pop 100 Billboard chart which is mention already. So stop you vandelism and delecting claims. If you revert anotehr edit made on those page, you will end up being blocked just like you previous accounts.Prepelos Talk 13:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Question: Both Voices4ever and Prepelos used the highly unlikely typo "delecting" when they mean "deleting." I am having a very hard time bending my fingers in such a way that I can make this typo by accident!  :) Was this a copy-and-paste issue? Or is there something more sinister afoot here? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    No that was a typo by accident. Voice4Ever always uses delecting when she/he means deleting. That is because Voice4Ever is Spanish. Look at the history pages for the articles and you will find that Voice4Ever always uses delecting and his other account Triping, where he always uses vandelism when he diagress wth the edits.Prepelos Talk 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've been following this. There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing on Tisdale related pages by multiple accounts. ICJ isn't the only one. Some of the deletions are justifiable, but contrary to what Prepelos says, often content is deleted claiming it's not mentioned in the references, when it is. It's difficult not to see this as disruption. Gimmetrow 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I feel sorta awkward asking an admin this, but... if you're not going to take action yourself, do you have diffs showing sourced content being deleted with an edit summary saying it is not sourced? That might help.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
    I've had past conflicts with ICJ / Prepelos. Anyway, here are sample diffs: ; also check this history: . There's another complication, too. Sometimes the deleted chart references are pages which change weekly. Even if they don't currently mention the work, they presumably did in the past, and should be updated with an archive.org link or some other archived page, rather than deleted. But that takes effort, and this involves a large number of pages. Gimmetrow 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, first of all I'm a brazilian, not a spanish. Well, I agree with some edits by ICJ and Prepelos, yeah. But, they always delets chart performances (all with reliable sources like Billboard), tracklistings and more informations in the article. I re-added some chart performances on this article but I know that they will delet it again soon ¬¬. And my another account is MSoldi, not "Triping". Voices4ever 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    The IP 81.159.124.141 is deleting informations too. For example, he deleted the chart performances (with references) AGAIN! Voices4ever 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    WTF?????? STop lying Voice4EVER> Check Voice's history page and check Triping's. See the similarieties in edits and removal then go to V (album) and see what the two users ahve abused. They keep on rmeoving information which is referneced and saying that it is not relibale and all of that junk made of just to make Vanessa's album look like junk. Triping and Voice4Ever ate abusers. They should be blocked and even if the chart positions do change every week THERE IS NO proof that the album was in that chart in teh frist place. And what is the truth behind this blog site ACharts.com. I do not see how relibale it is. And V (album) keeps on reducing because Triping and other anonymous names REMOVE the stuff. This is serious abuse made by Voice4Ever. And i don't bother looking. WTF????? Vanessa is my idol. And Voice4Ever is reducing more Vanessa pages because of fan jealousy, get over the fact Vanessa is WAY more popular and successful that you blonde nobody. With a so not successul album i mean what the heck it just got gold. Pathectic. Amd all of the wikipeida admins are fooled and only concerned about one user. WTF?? Do you actually think that you can fool me and the world who read this site. I get who this works. Misplaced Pages is the most not relibale place in the net. People can post references that dont mention the thing and get away with it. People can post referneces from FANSITES about what Ahsley wears and what perfume she has on for he said. Pathetic. You peopl should pay mroe attention to the real vandelisers and abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FortyFootEcho (talkcontribs) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Um, at this point, there are so many freaking socks I have no idea who is who! (Either that or there's like five different people who all have nearly identical spelling problems edit warring over the same information in the same articles...) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've protected Headstrong (album) for two days. If anyone objects that I may have protected a preferred version, any admin is welcome to change it. Gimmetrow 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Now, I'm laughting. First of all, the album V is Gold too. And I'M NOT THAT TRIPING! I just removed repeated informations on Vanessa Hudgens's pages. If you LOVE Vanessa Hudgens, care her page, not Ashley's. Found more informations and put it in that page! It's not necessary delet chart performances in Ashley's album page. FortyFootEcho, you looks a kid. Voices4ever 17:03, 77 June 2008.

    Comment: As an uninvolved editor of long-term good standing who stumbled on this, I would like to note that I have checked FortyFootEcho's contributions, and they seem to primarily be intentional deletions of and alterations to sourced information to make it inaccurate, along with edit summaries attacking other editors for just such actions. I believe you are dealing with a sockpuppet belonging to a troll. --GoodDamon 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Checkuser  Confirmed sockpuppets,
    1. IntoCreativeJan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. Prepelos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. FortyFootEcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. BrendaSongLOVER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    5. GimmeLuna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    6. GossipGFan1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    7. BrendaSongISSEXY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    8. Sise2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    9. Gimmeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    10. Closerflicekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Also lots of logged-out editing from British Telecom IP addresses. Thatcher 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    • And, as long as we are cleaning out sock drawers,  Confirmed that MSoldi (talk · contribs) is a sockpupet of Voices4ever (talk · contribs), involved in the same Ashely Tisdale nonsense. And also be aware that Headstrong neiva (talk · contribs), another Ashley editor, is in the same city as Voices4ever, although on a different ISP. What makes this particularly unusual to me is that although it is a large city, it is in a non-English speaking country, so presumably the number of people who a) speak English, b) edit the English wikipedia and c) are fans of Ashley Tisdale is likely to be small. Thatcher 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Tag team image blanking at Keshub Chunder Sen

    The following anon IPs have been taking turns in removing an image of the subject from the article Keshub Chunder Sen.

    The anon IPs also resort to personal attacks in their edit summaries, and talk page messages. Can someone please rv the blanking and sprotect the page? This blanking has been going on for quite some time. --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, you have been changing more than just restoring the image. Was that your intention? Are the other changes non-constructive too? If your focus is the image, I would start by just restoring that... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Alright, I'm going to make my 3rd (and last edit until tomorrow) by just restoring the image. Let's see what the anon ips react to. Please keep an eye on the article. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


    As expected, the anon IPs simply blanked the "image only" edit again. This time, they used a throw-away single purpose account. See diff. --Ragib (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User Karabinier

    Turkuun (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Karabinier's talk page is full of warnings about blatant copyright violations and the few sections I checked in Military of Estonia support the concern that too many of his contributions are copy&paste and non-free images. Another his article, Military of Estonia is a compilation of copy&paste from this page. Could someone remove those violations? Is there some automatic tool to check for copy&paste? Turkuun (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've been following this fairly closely. It seems the copyright issues only concerns a few paragraphs, however facts and figures published by Estonian government websites is public domain under Estonian copyright law. In any case the correct response would be to re-write the paragraph in your own words, rather than deletion. However Turkuun has been massively restructuring the article, removing subsection titles, moving paragraphs around mixing it up. I tried to restore some logical structure but he again merged and mixed many of the sections . Others are not convinced that Turkuun's edits are moving the article in a positive direction and his attitude seems to be excessively combative and confrontational. The end result is that the Estonia article is being excessively churned. The best response here is to fully protect the article for a week so that some concensus on article structure can be arrived at on the talk page before any major changes. Martintg (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    United States House of Representatives blocked

    143.231.249.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for repeatedly removing information from Steny Hoyer. Hut 8.5 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    The Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Committee needs to be notified then--Jac16888 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It would be indeed, and I have just done that. Could someone please unblock the IP? Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    No, we don't protect pages to stop a single account. Blocking the account is correct. Protection is not correct. Jehochman 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I was the one that blocked the IP for 24 hours. Seems straightforward; I think its unnecessary to protect the page. Also, I reported the block immediately afterwards as required. Maybe a heads-up on my talk page would have been prudent ;-) (ec with Jehochman) Tan | 39 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) Besides that, this I.P. is a long-term abuser across multiple articles. Blocking is very clearly the appropriate instrument here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course the IP is a serial abuser. It is one of the ones used by the thousands of workers at the House of Representatives. Chances are each time it's editing an article, it's probably a different editor. Blocking this IP has a similar effect to issuing a range block. Risker (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Viewing its editing habits, we see a frequent return to several of the same articles, including Hoyer's. Besides that, if the I.P. is so dynamic, why does this one, of the hundreds or thousands assigned to the House of Representatives, stand out as an abuser? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    The IP is not dynamic, it's a proxy, used by evewry single staffer in the House of Representatives. Horologium (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, this would be the part where I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about, then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    (ECx5)I think that the section that was repeatedly removed (resulting in the block) is a potential BLP violation. The source is a blog citing another blogger, and it's pure partisan venom from a firebrand blogger upset that Hoyer is not far enough to the left for her liking. The block itself was within policy, since there was no discussion from the congressional IP address, but someone who is a bit more objective than I should take a look at that section and assess its validity. (NB:I have no use for Jane Hamsher, and consequently am not able to objectively assess that section myself). Horologium (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    The section that was repeatedly removed is the whole Congressional Reputation section, with references to the NYT, WP, Saloon, The Nation, RollCall, and many other newspapers. Most of it also looks very unexceptional to me... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Most of it, yes, but I think Horologium is right that some of it needs removed. I see at least one link to a blog, and generally speaking, blogs + BLP + politics != good encyclopedia article.
    Anybody feel like combing through it? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    (EC)That first sentence (with the citation from Politico's blog) is the one that I am concerned about. As I noted, their blogger is simply repeating an opinion from Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake. The rest of the paragraph is not a problem, IMO, but that first sentence might need to be jettisoned. Horologium (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have reviewed the entire section, and concur that the first sentence with its reference (it's a blog quoting another blog) does not meet our sourcing requirements, so I have removed it. The rest looks good, the sources match the content, and they are generally considered reliable sources. Risker (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I changed "collaborated", which is definitely a loaded word. The section about Hoyer's relations with lobbyists seems to be a bit slanted, but I'd like to see some more eyes on it. The facts are there and verifiable, but there's a definite POV in the verbiage used here. Horologium (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Child with rainbow flag photo - BLP issue?

    Perhaps I'm missing something here but aren't both article uses of a child holding a rainbow flag violating BLP policy? (120px|right)The two articles are Rainbow flag (LGBT movement) which, to me, is problematic to imply that this young child may be LGBT which is likely controversial and arguably unverifiable. The other article is Homosexual recruitment which infers that someone recruited this child which seems pretty problematic on a few levels. Banjeboi 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I was on my way to remove it from Homosexual recruitment but Allemandtando beat me to it :) There is zero justification for including it in that article.
    It is a little less cut-and-dry in Rainbow flag (LGBT movement), since that doesn't actually imply anything other than showing the flag, but I would lean strongly against inclusion there either. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed and let me explain further my removal - It's very problematic on Homosexual recruitment because that article says that it about the practice of convincing someone to identify as LGBT. Anyone got any evidence to say that minor (and living figure) *identifies* himself as such? because I haven't (and hell I was *at* that gay pride march). --Allemandtando (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It doesn't show the flag clearly, so it's not a good candidate for the flag article. Using it in the other article would be OR, as it implies a conclusion that cannot be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Could we crop out the child? The image wouldn't be good quality but...... Dendodge .. Talk 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    There are already much better flag images on that page. I think it is probably best to just remove it.
    And really, if we need more non-free pictures of rainbow flags... I mean, that seriously can't be a problem, can it? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I went ahead and removed it. Generally, I think images of non-notable children should be avoided if possible. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Should we IfD this for WP:BLP?...... Dendodge .. Talk 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good point. I'll do so now. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c)I'm thinking more a speedy delete. Not being used on any articles, can't for the life of me think of one it would be useful for. Get rid of it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Argh, it's on Commons, and I do not have an account there, and there is no way I'm setting up an IfD without Twinkle helping me ;D IAR-delete is not out of the question, but I think a couple other folks (preferably admins) should chime in with agreement before we pull the trigger... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
    Articles regarding children in parades or LGBT gatherings would be fine but I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be better images available. I just didn't feel the current uses were acceptable. Banjeboi 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    All the puffs on wiki and we don't have a rainbow flag between us? for shame for shame... --Allemandtando (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    See gay shame. Banjeboi 21:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Isn't this slightly of topic?...... Dendodge .. Talk 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Outdent. Just a bit. I do thank the quick response of everyone and consider the matter resolved. I'm not sure deleting off commons is needed but won't oppose it either as photos with minors, I believe, are held to a higher standard. Banjeboi 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    This issue certainly raises a red flag. Baseball Bugs 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well i think WP:BLP needs to be updated with specific information about images and this is another good case where seemingly well-intending editors erred and could use some clearer guidance. I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements. Banjeboi 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Personality rights should (and probably does) cover situations like this. Even though this picture was taken in public (which normally means the people in it don't need to give their consent) there may an issue that the image's use is unfair to the child in it. Saying that I'm not sure that would be accepted as a delte argument at commons - but it should be another basis (after WP:NOR) for it not being used in Homosexual recruitment--Cailil 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, the personality rights issue, as well as law protecting children's privacy on the internet (potentially) should preclude us using this picture for either purpose. Thatcher 13:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    We should probably add something regarding these concerns to WP:IMAGE--Cailil 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think WP:BLP is more appropriate as the WP:IMAGE content is more about style and licensing issues. Banjeboi 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe this was a kid who was out to help support his daddies or mommies? It reminds me of the whole hullabaloo over PBS daring to broadcast an episode of Buster's Travels (or some title like that) where the cartoon rabbit goes to a tree farm in Vermont (which happened to be run by a lesbian couple with a very charming little girl) to learn about maple syrup. Can we please resist the urge to delete because we ZOMG think of the children. Really, the paranoia is misplaced here. Please see WP:PANIC before doing anything rash on commons. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Generalmesse using socks to circumvent todays 48h block URGENT

    ENDORSE Editor is now destructively editing articles including GADA 601 and Goose Green, some of the few examples of British and Argentine editors working constructively on Falklands War topics, as well as articles related to the North African campaigns. Justin talk 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have fully protected the article for 72 hours, and suggest a semi-protect when that expires. I have indef blocked Saintsarecomingthrough, and upped Generalmesse's block to 1 month. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Kudos to the admin who has protected the page, I was just preparing a report for a page protection request. The rapid response is appreciated. Justin talk 09:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    For any admin watching this, list of suspected sock puppets is here Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd, I've just added user:Topmalohouse that has been used to canvass none-involved editors over night. I suspect this editor will have many more in reserve. Justin talk 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Busy boy, another suspected sockpuppet user:Historyneverrepeats Justin talk 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Atlanta Braves

    Resolved – IP address has not returned since I installed User:Jaysweet's suggestion. Baseball Bugs 04:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Seems trivial, but we've got an IP address insisting on removing the fact that the 1994 season ended by a strike, thus leaving the impression that the Braves "finished" in second place, and thus implying a break in their divisional win streak. Hence it's laying the groundwork for a POV-push. He won't address the points I made on the talk page. Not sure what to do at this point. Baseball Bugs 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I gave the editor a 3RR warning and reverted -- however, I would recommend that you change it to a footnote. There seems to be precedence for this, e.g. New York Yankees seasons. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good idea. This kind of depends on what the IP address' motive is. His argument is that "nobody else does it that way", but so what? The Braves are a special case because of the division-win streak. I'll see what I can do about a footnote. Thanks for the suggestion. Baseball Bugs 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Done, in both the main article and Atlanta Braves seasons, where the IP address had made the same gripe. Baseball Bugs 22:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hills Have Eyes documentaries

    Resolved – I've closed it as a merge. RMHED (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Hi. An IP notified me about this afd. I think it should be attended by admins that are more experienced with Afd closures. Thanks.--Lenticel 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Copyvio editor has returned

    Resolved – User warned, I'll watch his uploads. User blocked. BJ 01:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Indef blocked Tasos90 (talk · contribs) who uploaded lots of commercial images (with no EXIF) claimed as PD-self has returned as Lav90 (talk · contribs). Same area of interest, username, lack of talk interraction, upload of obvious images that are copyright violations etc... Would someone do the honours to the account? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Template:Di-no license

    I tried to restore this template so it's consistent with the other di-templates, but Carnildo continues reverting me, citing only "Restore human-readable version". I don't want to have an revert-war, but I can't see a reason having one template inconsistent with the other templates. AzaToth 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree, IMO it reads better in the non-"human-readable" version. ffm 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    My experience with running ImageTaggingBot is that fewer people are confused when my version is used than when the standard version is used. It gets even better when you remove the garbage from the bottom half of the template. --Carnildo (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Carnildo. "His" version is much more usable for newbies who do not know how to tag images for copyright. The ff's version may be more pleasant for eyes but less usable Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    All di-templates have always been targeted towards the image, not the newbie. AzaToth 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The bottom "garbage" has always been there for admins to use, if you want to change that common behavour, perhaps you should open up a project for changing that behavour. AzaToth 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    All di- templates should preferably be converted to {{imbox}} since all image templates have been standardized. I fact, I never saw AzaToth's version before... but it looks horrible. {{deletable image}} seems completely redundant. — EdokterTalk13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    {{deletable image}} is in fact using {{imbox}} AzaToth 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I prefer AzaThot's. Carnildo's version can give the uploader the mistaken impression that any image can be saved, by just finding some copyright tag and putting it on. In the worst case, this will lead the clueless (or bad-faith) uploader to just select some false tag at random. We should be realistic: If uploaders provide no copyright information, in 99% of all cases it's because it's a copyvio, and deep down in their hearts they know it. Fut.Perf. 14:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The template doesn't look any different. What's under discussion is how the template is made up; Do we have a readable template (in source) using imbox directly, or use an intermediate template, which doesn't make any sense as the text is fixed anyway? — EdokterTalk15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, then we're talking about different things. I thought you guys were talking about this difference in wording. Fut.Perf. 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fasach Nua

    This user has already been discussed at AN here, but no real solutions were found. After continuing the disruptive behaviour, I issued a block (for full details, see this version of user's talk page). The user has since declared in multiple places that this block was based on lies and bad faith. Out of curiosity, I asked the user where exactly I had "lied", and in return I got a fairly civil, if not cryptic response. I replied, and then again got called a troll. This user has unfortunatly learnt nothing from their block, but I have: it appears that critisism towards this editor is often met with acusations of trolling, lying, and buckets of bad faith. This is in addition to the root problems this editor has, namely the constant removal without discussion of images they feel fail NFCC - a perfectly valid cause at first glance, but destructive when you consider that it is often done without discussion, repeatedly (thus violating 3RR), and abusivley (in my case at least). There are two issues here: this editor's behaviour and interpretation of the NFCC rules; and this editor's abbusive response to any challenges. Any help or input from other sysops would be appreciated. TalkIslander 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User notified of this thread here, notice very, very promptly removed here. Without an accusation of trolling, suprisingly enough. TalkIslander 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    I would add that the user has tended to taken an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use and run with it, IfD'ing a lot of images for removal. He has specifically noted his opinion that essentially, certain types of articles don't deserve images. Were this hyper-deletionist editing behavior to occur in article space, the user's pov edits would likely draw the attention of numerous RfCs, AN/I complaints and resulting blocks. The sheer number of IfDs across a lot of articles allows the user to escape cursory notice, though the user was in fact blocked for this sort of behavior before. Fasach Nua has not learned from it, and continues to edit as before. I affirm Islander's comments that the user seems intent on a razor-thin interpretation of NFCC that consensus has not intended. - Arcayne () 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    I also have to say that FN has repeatedly shown himself to be disruptive despite broadly based condemnation of his approach. His interpretation of the use of non-free images is excessively narrow. He refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with other editors and will not consistently afford them a fair opportunity to challenge his views in open forum or through established process. There is a clear disdain for other contributors and frequent references to the process of developing concensus as being little more than "mob rule", which is incredibly anti-community. He plays the rules that suit him and ignores the rest. Its appalling to have to watch one petty duel after another and the ongoing assault on other editors views and contributions. Anyone who has to consistenly accuse such a large number of others of trolling, wikistalking, lying, etc. should really be taking a hard look at what it is they are doing. I'm not sure what can be done, but its something that I suspect will be an on-going nuisance, because although its papered over by a veneer of correctness, at its core there is an unhealthy and distasteful well of disregard for others. Wiggy! (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    I wonder how long it's going to take for him to get banned. I think he's had ample time (six months) to change, and he's not. Sceptre 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I share Wiggy's frustration over what can be done concerning FN's behavior. Maybe a limiting of the behavior, so as to protect the project might be part of that resolution, such as a limit as to how many IfD nominations he can make, while at the same time attempting to counsel the lad as to the more accepted interpretation of our image use policy. However, that is me, trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As evidenced by the dust-up over at WProject Football this last May, FN has shown himself to be an adept editor who is not some newbie. He has a history of repeatedly engaging in pointy behavior and failing to follow consensus. If we give him the strongest warning possible regarding an impending ban, it just might help to rein in his more extravagant efforts to push a pov. I am not entirely convinced that the user is irredeemably beyond our assistance. He clearly knows how to edit, and I am of the impression that, if properly guided by someone FN can respect, he may yet be a positive editing influence in the Wiki community. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    My thoughts are that, judging by previous behaviour, anyone who tries to warn him will just be instantly labled a troll, and I see no way around that. TalkIslander 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    The alternative is to remove him, and thus avoid the need to warn him. I think that's a bit much, but he has served to piss off just about everyone who comes into contact with him. We are a community, not his parents; if he doesn't think he needs fixing, then we can't parent him. We can kick him out of the clubhouse, though. - Arcayne () 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    (untab) Not sure I entirely agree with what your saying, but it's undeniable that something needs to be done, and I cannot do anything, as I'm too involved. I don't wish to give this 'editor' any more ammo. Help from another administrator needed. TalkIslander 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Anyone? Someone's else's input would be greatly apprecaited... TalkIslander 20:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    (taken from archive - this has yet to be resolved) - other opinions/points of view needed... TalkIslander 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It appears that there is no appetite to discuss this matter, but there is also no objection to the 24 hour (now long since expired) block. Without (wishing to) look too deeply into the finer details, I would suggest a general warning that further disruption similar to that which prompted the earlier block will result in an indefinite tariff. I would suggest that the warning, and certainly the enactment of such a block, may galvanise any comment that may be provided in this matter. If there is no third party reaction, then the warning sticks and - if there are further problems - so does any indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    This guy is an out and out disruptive user, irrespective of his 'motives'. He is operating on a one man mission, a la Black Kite. Hell, perhaps he is one of BK's 'throwaway' accounts. I'm afraid to say it, but there does not seem to be any admin willing to step up to the plate here, and knock this guy out of the park. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    In fact,it is precisely this sort of incident that colours the admins in their current colour. There are usualy plenty of them willing to pile in for easy incidents, but when it comes to stuff like this, they are rarer than rocking horse shit. MickMacNee (talk)
    You guys are NOT going to succeed in getting rid of a user whose legitimate efforts at enforcing copyright policies you dislike, simply by screaming loud and long how "disruptive" he is. In fact, the above two postings by MickMacNee are the best example illustrating why Fasach Nua will not be blocked for what he does. A block warning, and a very serious one, goes to MickMacNee, for blatant personal attacks and disruptive campaigning. Fut.Perf. 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please get your facts straight, copyright policy has nothing to do with it. This user is operating outside of policy. Spamming IfD with nominations that are clearly intended to be pointy are clearly signs of a disruptive editor. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Being called a "disruptive user" by MickMacNee is possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. Mick, go and read WP:SOCK, then go and read our image policies, and then come back when you've got a clue. Oh, and thanks for informing me I was being discussed. Oh, you didn't. There's a shock, eh? Thanks, Black Kite 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nah... BlackKite even opposed one of Fasach Nua's IfDs; can't be him. — EdokterTalk14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Not to mention that (a) it clearly isn't the sort of thing I do - even my "throwaway account" stuck rigidly to our rules and policies, and (b) Fasach Nua has been here ten months longer than me ... honestly, you'd think people would check tyhe obvious first. Black Kite 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I believe the following falls under disruption:

    • : Removing infobox with image, thus triggering a db-orphaned at Image:Kristy wright in 2004.gif.
    • : AFDing an article on the basis that it is a "non-free image gallery" and that the article was "non-notable" -- which was quickly overturned on the basis that the article was notable. The images were not tagged for being improper in any such event, and I cannot see a reason why they should be. It may be overloaded with copyrighted images, but that is another issue in itself.
    • Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 26‎: Listing various images at IFD without tagging the image. seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. Nominating an XfD, in good faith and with arguments based in policy, even if it later turns out not to meet consensus, is never disruption. The image in the Kristy Wright case was non-free and obviously replaceable (living person), hence an open-and-shut case; removing the infobox was the right thing to do because it contained nothing but the image. And tagging images on their pages has never been a requirement, just a courtesy. Fut.Perf. 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you people. Right, it seems that a number of people feel that some kind of action is indeed necessary. However, I really cannot perform any action, be it a warning or block, except perhaps if the overwhelming consensus is to do as much. It really would be better for another uninvolved sysop to step in and deal with this. Do we have any admins who are willing to take a look, or should I resort to going door-to-door to some admins whom I find very helpful? TalkIslander 08:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • To be fair, the recent ArbCom bruhaha might be distracting quite a few. Perhaps a door-to-door prodding might be called for. FWIW, I agree that this user has been on one of the worst fairuse pogroms I've seen in a while, many of which are just totally beyond the pale in terms of being incorrect. Wikinews gave these kind of loosers the boot, high time we did the same here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have warned Fasach Nua for infering, or at least appearing to, that you are a troll. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 28 June

    2008 (UTC)

    I would take everything Islander has to say with big grain of salt. We have a history, Islander and I, and I know that he has indeed engaged in troll-like behaviour with me and inappropriate use of warnings/blocks. Other admins have had to step in and give him "advice" to lay off. Take it for what it's worth or don't take it at all. I had a username - no secret - and scrambled my old password due to dealing with Islander. Consider me a "character witness" or not. At the very least, I would suggest that Islander not personally pursue this issue with this user. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    someone forgot to unlock a talk page?

    I reverted what looked like a biased edit from User_talk:Feta, but I couldn't explain him the problem with the source because his user talk page is indef blocked to prevent abuse of "unblock" template. However, his block log only has a 24 hour block for incivility which expired more than a month ago and he hadn't edited since then. Please someone check to either unprotect his talk page or indef block him instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the note, I've unprotected the page. Nakon 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I came back from checking a few of his comments, and I would like to ask an admin to review his edits and consider blocking him for biased edits. I mean, he is making biased edits on silly stuff that looks like the same clumsy withewashing that he was doing on a greek-macedonian source. This indicates such a deep subjacent tendence to bias everything that it's almost unbelievable. Also, he is making broken AfDs and broken IfDs. Notice that this last IfD has a similar pro-greek anti-macedonian pro-FYROM bias to the edit I reverted. I mean, every edit I checked was misguided and/or unsourced like this edit changing what is an easily verifiable and known fact, ant to mention being convinced that jewish rule the whole planet and also wikipedia, and that "wikipedia is a good means to promote jewish propaganda against EVERYONE", someone needs to either advice this user or block him.
    I urge an admin to go through his history and check carefully for greek-macedonian bias problems and lot of bias problems on general, and advicing and keeping an eye on him after warning him.
    I have not warned him of his thread on him because I would like a more experienced user to approach him, since I am not sure on what to tell him. Maybe this should be moved to WP:AN for better discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Arthur Fagen spam

    I'm not sure where to report this. The promotional biog. of an opera conductor called Arthur Fagen is appearing appended to a series of pages: John Avison, Omer Létourneau, Stanley Saunders, Keri Lynn Wilson, Samuel Wong and possibly many others. It can't be removed because the text does not appear in the edit window. Can somebody have a look? (Shepbot has just done a run through these articles though it seems unlikely that this is related to the spamming in any way.) --Kleinzach 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fixed - the text was inserted in to {{Conductor-stub}}. --Golbez (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah! Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately the text is still there - except for the first article John Avison. In that case I seemed to get rid of the spam by deleting the {{Canada-musician-stub}} even though this had no text attached. --Kleinzach 00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hard refresh the pages. You probobly have it cached. Viridae 01:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Have you looked at the pages? What can you see? (I did refresh and got rid of my cache as a matter of course). The spam is still there. --Kleinzach 01:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah nothing there for me. Add &action=purge to the end of each pages URL and load the page. Might work? Viridae 01:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Didn't work, but interestingly If I log out and look at the page the spam disappears - it reappears when I log in. --Kleinzach 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well that would indicate it isnt the page, its your browser. It will go away eventually? Viridae 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I rekomend clearing your caches et al. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Transnistria edit war

    Resolved – It's Bonaparte again. I should have known! - Alison 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Martin compaq has been edit warring on this template (see history here and also changing other related philatelic topics despite warnings and requests to discuss. Several of his other edits are also pushing his POV regarding Transnistria. I have already left a 3RR warning on his talk page but it is beyond my capabilities. An admin told me that there have been socks around this topic. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oops, User:Alison has already indef blocked him as a sock. Thanks anyway ww2censor (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Help with User:64.41.7.95, please

    Can someone please give me some advice on how to deal with this editor? They started editing on June 17 and came to my attention that day when they made a serious of extensive copy-edits to the article Casablanca (film): , , , and . Although these edits were not vandalistic in nature, they were unnecessary and, in fact, did not improve the article, and they were reverted by myself and another editor.

    I then took a look at the editor's other edits, and found that most of them (actually, almost all of them) were of the same nature. They did not vandalise, but they left the article in distinctly poorer condition than before they edited. Clear and straight-forward language that was in no need of extensive editing was replaced with stilted language and convoluted constructions that were more difficult to understand. Occasionally, actual errors were corrected, but always along with a general diminishment of the article's quality.

    There have been other problems as well. In this edit, in the article on Herpes simplex, the medical term of art "presenting" is replaced with a construction using the word "present". In this edit, to the article on the film Go Tell the Spartans, the words of a direct quote are changed, and my reversion (after notification to the editor of the error) was reverted by the editor.

    The editor also has a habit on inserting a blank line after a section header, so that the edits they make cannot be directly compared to the previous version -- for instance, here.

    I have tried to WP:AGF, and have left a number of messages on the editor's talk page suggesting that their edits weren't helpful and that they should re-evaluate their editing, but the response I have gotten is that my first message was deleted, any reversions I made that I brought to their attention were themsevles reverted, and my user page was briefly copy-edited.

    If these are good faith edits, then I believe someone (besides me) needs to let this editor know that their changes are not improving the articles, and guide them in how to properly edit. If they are not good faith edits, then this is a particularly insidious kind of vandalism, because it will pass muster to the casual eye, while doing damage to the project. I haven't reached a conclusion as to what they are, I just know that I'm concerned that this editor is not responding, and is continuing to edit in the same manner.

    I thank you for any assistance you can provide. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    This user is clearly trying to copyedit the articles in question. If you think that they are not making improvements by doing so, you should try explaining specifically what you think the problems are, rather than reverting with no discussion and telling the user to leave the project. It is hardly surprising that a new user will choose to ignore such rude messages. --bainer (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's an interesting take on it -- where did I suggest that the editor leave the project? I said that they should rethink their editing, and I stand by that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I echo what bainer has said. Reverting with no discussion and making vague and problematic comments does not help.

    • Example (in the first edit you made on the anon's talk page): "The changes you're making to this article are not helping to improve it. In some cases they are distinctly inferior. The same is true of many of your edits to other articles. I suggest you rethink your editing."
    • Example (very recently): "You need to stop editing articles on subjects you have no understanding of...I will continue following your editing."

    This is not at all helpful, or impressive, and is not something many people (if any) would approve of, and therefore, I'm not at all surprised at the IP's response, and I gather neither is anyone else. AGF, and remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

    To reiterate; If you think that they are not making improvements by doing so, you should try explaining specifically what you think the problems are. Engage in more collaborative discussion, and show mutual respect for other contributors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, this seems to me to be increasingly typical: someone comes with a serious concern, and the response is to totally ignore the substance of the complaint and turn on the complaining editor with accusations of incivility. When, exactly, did this become the headquarters of the politeness police?

    Look, I agree, civility is important, but competency is much more important. And, yeah, all right, I do get a bit annoyed when bad or incompetent editing messes up perfectly reasonable articles, and when I start to get a whiff that darker motives may be involved, I get downright cranky. Whaddya gonna do? Change human nature? People who work hard on something naturally want to protect it.

    Rather than trying to create homo Wikipedius, who smiles through the day and is always unfailingly polite, why not focus on something more relevant, like building a reasonably competent online encyclopedia for people to use, and that means focusing much more closely on what is done rather then on how it is done. It also means paying more attention to substance than to superficial matters of intrapersonal interaction.

    It's my opinion that any reasonable editor who spends the majority of their time in articlespace would recognize this editor's work as being generally deficient - but perhaps I'm wrong. We'll never know one way or the other, though, if someone doesn't take a relatively detailed look at the editing in question (the way I did, by going through the edits in the editor's contribution history one by one -- there aren't that many of them), and examining them closely for their quality. As I said above, these are edits that will easily pass a casual inspection, you have to actually read them and compare them to previous versions in order to get the ways in which they hurt the articles they're in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 11:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ed, civility and competence are not mutually exclusive. Several users have suggested that you try a more constructive approach with the editor in question. Seems reasonable. Give it a try. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    DYK update warnings

    We've had a discussion over finding a solution for delays in DYK updates, on basis of which I've created warning templates that would be updated to indicate the proximity of an update and the need to complete nominations and the update. Now the question is, and I feel that this status template should be maintained here as well, so that any/all active admins can keep an eye on the updates - a legitimate view expressed was concern about cluttering this page with too many things, but as DYK is a part of the main page I think its proper upkeep is an important function so it is justifiable to host this status template here. Any thoughts? Vishnava talk 06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    To be clear, the main template that I'm suggesting posting here is {{DYKUpdate}}. Vishnava talk 06:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Has anyone ever thought to use {{editprotected}} to get their attention? I don't know how fast that is updated but it would seem like another way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    98E is back

    Resolved – Tiptoety 16:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have had to log out to post this, because this kid keeps on following my contribs. Anyway, User:Haymail is a sock of User:98E. The contribs are obvious: he is trying to follow up on a conversation we had on commons (), the same type of articles are edited, he follows around my contributions, and shows the same characteristic cluelessness and sockpuppet denial (see User_talk:71.233.232.196, commons:User_talk:71.233.232.196). I am particularly annoyed, because I have been trying to keep the connection between my two accounts somewhat quiet, but he keeps going around blasting it (doubtless this was the purpose). I categorically refuse to file a WP:SSP; we've been feeding this troll for years, and I won't do it anymore. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Haymail blocked as obvious per WP:DUCK. Tiptoety 07:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    And.. he posted a unblock request. Tiptoety 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    CU confirms that Haymail is Besuto (also blocked as a 98E sock) and Intfictexpert, whom I have just blocked. Sam Korn 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Edit-warring at 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

    There appears to be an edit war at 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season, see the history of the page. Some of the edit descriptions in particular appear to be quite uncivil. This appears to of been discussed here, but the IP's seemingly have ignored consensus. A request for protection was put in yesterday, but so far there has been no answer. D.M.N. (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I requested the page protection because of regular edits by a number of IP addresses (which all come from Malaysia I believe) which revert edits that myself and Asendoh have carried out, which were discussed on the talk page, and consensus reached. I don't have a problem in principle with the content going back in, if that is what is agreed on by consensus. However, despite numerous attempts to get the IP(s) into the discussion, they have consistently failed to get involved, or even bother using edit summaries to explain their rationale. Consequently I asked for page protection (and admittedly asked for the wrong type). Hopefully Administrators can see that we have done all we can to encourage people to join in the discussion, but that they are steadfastly refusing to join in, and that the page protection can be enacted as requested. Ged UK (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Please block

    Resolved


    Can someone please block 220.237.214.228 (talk) again, a persistent long-term vandal. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I only see one (very snarky and unhelpful) edit in the last 10 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Although, to be fair, the IP was blocked for 7 out of those 10 days... Bencherlite 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    If it starts up again a month-long break would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, this is a very long term, very slow thing that's kind of hard to get a grasp of just from glancing at this particular IP's contribs. I probably shouldn't have bothered with this report. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's on my watchlist now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Insult by administrator PMAnderson

    Resolved

    Hi everybody!

    PMAnderson is insulting other users (non-native English speakers, precisely ) calling them "aliens".

    here

    As you can probably tell, I have had enough. If any editor supports this who actually has English as his native tongue, do let me know; until then, I utterly oppose this effort by aliens to rewrite the English language for their own convenience.

    I don't think such a person is appropriate for beeing an administrator. :((( --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Alien can mean not native. In this case not a native speaker so it might not be as bad as first thought. However bad choice of words. Have you notified them of this thread? Or tried to clarify what (s)he meant? That would be the first step. Viridae 10:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, it reads as if he was using "alien" to mean "foreign" and not the extraterrestial meaning. I'd ask him, in case. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Pmanderson is not an administrator. D.M.N. (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    WP:WL. this is not an "incident". The complaining party is apparently thinking of Aliens in a sort of wry confirmation of Pmanderson's point :) dab (𒁳) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is not an incident. The word should not have been used in the context, and tne sentiment was somewhat hostile to good faith, but I don't think the user meant any harm by it. Orderinchaos 14:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    This is unnecessary. I linked to alien (law), as Abto would have seen if he had clicked on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Attention to organized disruptive gangs

    I was editing the CPI(M) and I observed that there were a number of people who would just blank or delete my well referenced and relevant sections on frivelous reasons. I would just undo the delete but then another user would come and delete it. Within a short time and after three reverts I would become liable to breaking the three revert rule or I just had to wait for another day to restore the ruthless delete. It was frustating because I was a single person fighting against a group. Initially I thought it was edit war and a number of people were just protective of an ideology. I looked into the history of the page which goes over three years, I was shocked and horrified to see what has been happening here. It is not just edit war but a well planned an organized ploy. Many users before me had their well written and relevant sections deleted and in frustation they either stopped contributing or got banned for violating the three revert rules.

    This has not just been happening on the CPI(M) site but also on most of the other articles on Indian political parties and groups. As a result if you see most of the articles on Indian political parties look onesided and have lost the NPOV therefore compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages articles.

    I am therefore requesting you to investigate and see for your self the disruptive pattern. And since many contributers have been banned I suspect some adminstrators are also involved.

    I will not be surprised if i also get banned for raising this issue. So far despite many request for investigation I have been asked to take the matter to Dispute Resolution which cannot provide resolution to the problem I face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talkcontribs) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jaysweet has volunteered to look over the edit history of the article, starting in a couple of days time. In the meantime I am getting tired of seeing Sindhian bringing up this matter on yet another forum. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. Sindhian, I have briefly looked at the edits in question, and while some of the information is sourced and relevant, the general tone is inappropriate and I have serious questions about some of the sources. Also, I am beginning to agree with Soman (talk · contribs) and others that a separate "allegations" section may not be appropriate for a political party.
    At this point, you will either have to:
    1. Educate yourself further on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, in order to understand why your additions will need to be rephrased/reorganized/scaled back;
    2. Find another unbiased editor who is willing to assist your; or
    3. Wait until Monday.
    Further forum-shopping will reflect very poorly on you and your proposed changes. I trust you'll refrain from that in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User VintageKits breaking terms of probation?

    Resolved – Insomuch as this is being talked about at WP:AE, not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Discussion going on at WP:AE; please avoid crossposting. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Vintagekits' edit here referring to a murder carried out as part of the Troubles as an "honourable deed" seems to be a blatant violation of item 8 of his probation: "For the three month trial, he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Misplaced Pages (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles."

    I attempted to ask Vintagekits about this directly on his talk page to make sure I hadn't somehow misunderstood the intent of the comment (although it seems crystal clear to me) however he deleted my question and flat out refused to respond to it in a civil manner leaving me with no other option but to come here as per the terms of his probation. -- ExNihilo (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Technically, userspace isn't mentioned in the item - but it does say anywhere on Misplaced Pages and in edit summaries and, as such, I support some form of punishment...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    For reference: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), warnings and responses (see the intermediate revisions)...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    To be exact: warning,removal by VK (with accusation of sockpuppetry),revert by EN,removal by VK,revert by EN,uncivil removal by VK,VK warning EN about 3RR...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. 1 != 2 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Why the "sic"? DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    It means quoted as it was, despite the spelling. See sic. 1 != 2 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    It wasn't spelled incorrectly, Brit-Eng spells it with the "u". Duncan Hill (British editor) was commenting that US "corrections" of Brit English is superfluous. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Get off yer high horses - the man just died today have a bit of frickin respect!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please remember WP:CIVIL ('frickin' can be seen as unnecessary bad language)...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Are you for real?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)And why don't you show some respect for the man Crip murdered - calling him a 'pest' and his murder an 'honourable deed' will make his family feel great won't it?...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please recall WP:CIVIL (over-use of italics can be construed as sarcasm, which is unnecessarily rude). --Badger Drink (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm real...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Block and ban proposal

    This is a clear probation violation. Item 10 thereof (10. If he breaks the terms of these conditions, in any way whatsoever, he will be banned from editing indefinitely.) calls for a ban from wiki. I've blocked him and propose the ban be invoked. — RlevseTalk14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    His response on his talk page was "You are joking right!?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — RlevseTalk14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Re above, no I'm not joking. I totally agree with this stmt from above "Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable(sic) deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. 1 != 2 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — RlevseTalk14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good call - I fully endorse a ban...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm about to endorse, but is this also a violation, creating a redirect to an article that he's banned from editing? D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    As it's related to The Troubles, yes, I would have to say. — RlevseTalk14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    What are we running here? what's our core business? Is it producing a encyclopaedia or is it running a virtual rest home for people who cannot get along with others ? At this stage, the sheer amount of time he takes up, clearly outweighs his value to us in performing our core business. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'll take that as a ban endorsement. — RlevseTalk14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    You Sure can and let's make sure of that - endorse - his prohibition is clear and explicit - and that edit is clearly going to create wikidrama around his prohibition. I have seen no signs that he suffers from any form of mental deficit that means he cannot understand his prohibition and therefore I can only conclude he made such an edit because he likes the drama. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's hard to understand what VK was thinking when he made that edit to his user space. He had to know that that was obviously a violation of his agreed probation terms. The community gave him a last chance and he's just thrown it back into the community's face. I endorse the indef block. It will be interesting to see how ArbCom react to this--Cailil 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Copied to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, make all further comments there...... Dendodge .. Talk 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    The community set clear standards, which were not obeyed. Enough is enough. Endorse. 1 != 2 15:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    IMO a week long block would be appropriate but a longer one let alone an indef block is completely OTT. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agree. Especially worrying here is that the nature of the comment (a perfectly valid view IMHO) appears to be a factor in the eyes of some; rather than whether or not this breaches the "conditions" and if so was that clear to Vk. Folk need to park their political POV when assessing this. Sarah777 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Calling a murder "pest control" is a "perfectly valid view"? It may well be in your worldview, but it isn't in most people's, and it certainly isn't here, ever (not to mention that it was from a user who is on probation in that particular area). Black Kite 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I endorse the ban. Dusti 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I endorse a ban as well, his comments above certainly didn't help his case. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Honestly... putting that on your userpage violates the probation terms (yes, the terms don't specify userspace, but that's a technicality). You agreed that if you breach them, you get banned. Endorse Alex Muller 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    The fact is, he knows that his views on this subject are controversial; he knows he's not supposed to inflame things about them; and he did something that was clearly designed to provoke a reaction. Endorse. Dr. eXtreme 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    POV

    Hello can someone please tell Hudavendigar (talk · contribs) to stop adding unsourced pov to articles. I counted a total of 5 times he has added unsourced absurd content to controversial articles. Some examples, , , he removes all reliable sources and adds absurd things that do not have references or are not third party. This page is more proof for bias, . --Namsos (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:AlwaysOnion

    This user moved his talk page into mainspace here. Can an admin please move it back? --Atlan (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

     Done Tiptoety 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:74.73.198.254‎ and User talk: Citizen Dick

    I don't know how serious this is, but User:74.73.198.254‎ made some threatening posts to me on my talk page after I reverted some vandalism on User talk:Citizen Dick. I believe he may be connected to 74.73.195.174, who was just unblocked today and was also vandalizing the page and had a similar history of vandalism and personal attacks. What concerns me is he posted my real name and town on my talk page, and when he was temporarily blocked for 31 hours, decided to post it on his talk page which was later protected temporarily. If someone could look into this, see if its dynamic IPs or whatever, I'd appreciated it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    They're gone now because I asked oversight to remove them, but they should still be visible in deleted contribs.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Redirect-philic user

    User:Mac has been creating a bunch redirects that seem to be unnecessary. (Clean Car Challenge and Strategic Energy Technologies seem not worthy of redirects to U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids and Energy policy of the European Union respectively.) Can someone with the tools and knowledge see which redirects need to be deleted and do so? I have also warned the user about not creating links in pages that go to themselves... Brusegadi (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    The clean car challenge was a major announcement by John McCain about specifically plug in hybrid cars, and Strategic Energy Technologies seems to come up whenever European matters are discussed on C-SPAN (yes, i really do watch it, im a nerd). The redirects seem to make sense (at least the 2 you linked). -M 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Help with User:63.215.29.135

    Resolved – Blocked IP for 3RR.

    He's adding unnecessary images and trying to recreate a non-standard section called "Banner routes" that I deleted in the U.S. Route 27 in Georgia. I notice that he has been warned multiple times about vandalism, but I don't know if this really qualifies as that. It's disruptive, but is it vandalism that can simply be reverted on sight? If not, what recourse do I have here? Is this blockable disruption? S. Dean Jameson 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think these edits are unencyclopedic, but if you want to debate this, please see WT:USRD/STDS. On the fact of the undo edits, you have both violated the 3R rule... Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Really? My first edits were simply removing a couple of odd images he entered. My last two were removing the "Banner routes" section. How is that a violation of 3RR? Am I misunderstanding something here? S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Also, the "banner routes" section was simply a bulleted list, with some text about a certain route going "by a Super Walmart" and things like that. How is that encyclopedic according to the link you provided? S. Dean Jameson 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didnt look at the very first undo. It could stand to be cleaned up and referenced, but the way it was presented was not very encyclopedic. Possibly see if you can find a ref and then create the section with a more clean layout. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't want to risk 3RR by making any more edits, and he's still at it, reverting my cleanup. As he's just come off a vandalism block, I guess I just assumed that what he was doing would be classed that way. S. Dean Jameson 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have blocked the IP for continued edit waring and a 3RR vio, 72 hr timer. --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Do you think it would be acceptable for me to remove the now empy "banner routes" section he recreated? Or would that put me on the edge of 3RR? I'm not a highway expert, so I'll leave it to them to recreate it in an encyclopedic manner, if that's what they think is best. Never mind, you already did it. Thanks.S. Dean Jameson 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic