Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 7 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Possible POV tag spamming?

On 1 December Murat inserted a POV tag and a Cleanup tag into three different articles: and and .He did this without leaving the required note on their talk pages describing what he considered to be unacceptable about the articles. I removed the 6 tags, saying in the edit summary that they should have been accompanied by an explanation in the talk page detailing the alleged POV content (here is an example ).

Murat then complained about my removal of the tags to Nishkid64 and also inserted a subsection in each article, titled "Disputed Objectivity". Into this subsection he placed identical text and and . That text did not point out any specific examples of POV bias in the articles. The text also bore no relation to the articles subjects - for example, Justin McCarthy is a person, not a "Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history"! However, on the basis of that off-topic and copypasted text, Nishkid64 reinserted the POV tags into the three articles, saying that an "explanation had been provided" and that my edit summary was "bickering" (here is an example ).

In the light of Nishkid64's "bickering" comment, can I have confirmation that I was right to remove the tags the first time around because they were invalid without an accompanying talk page explanation. Secondly, what is your opinion about an editor inserting POV tags on the basis of what another editor has posted? Shouldn't the editor who places the POV tag (Nishkid64) be the one to explain why the POV tag is there? Thirdly, does that copypasted and off-topic text added by Murat constitute an acceptable explanation for inserting a POV tag? The addition by Murat of these tags and the copypasted text appears more like a case of "I don't like it", rather than a serious attempt at addressing actual POV material. Meowy 16:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You might have assumed good faith and asked him to clarify why he placed the tags if the reason was unclear prior to their removal, though his reasonings seem a bit off, probably shouldn't have been cut and paste and while appropriate to the one on the city, they should be clarified for the other two. My guess is he feels that somehow something in those articles is related to the PoV problems he sees at the city article.--Crossmr (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't POV tags have to be used with an accompanying talk page explanation? I removed the tags not because of lack of clarity over their placement or because I disagreed with the allegation of POV bias, but because they had no explanation at all, not even an edit summary explanation. BTW, Murat's comment was also not appropriate for the Bitlis city entry - it has almost no "Armenian history" content - I think he may have intended it for the Van_Resistance article, which he also placed a POV tag on, or some yet to be tagged article. Meowy 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A POV tag should be used with a comment on the talk page, but no where in the template or documentation does it say it's required. The template does say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." A better way to have approached this would be to drop a friendly note on the user's talk page saying something like "Hi, I didn't see a explanation on the talk page for the POV tag. Could you please tell me what you think the problem is so I can understand? Thanks!" --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to say here that it is required, the word "must" is used, quote, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". That page also says "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag". If the addition of the tags were not justified, then I was justified in removing it. Any words contained in the tag are irrelevant if the use of the tag is not justified. Meowy 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good catch, it sure does say that. Still, if an editor only sees what's on the tag and the documentation, how would they know? A friendly question on their talk page will get good results most of the time, and doesn't take much effort. The few times it doesn't, at least you know you're dealing with a jerk. :)

Since you don't know why the tag was added, how do you know you were justified in removing it?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Well, other than just wikilawyering...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags are there to initiate discussions to improve articles. If nobody knows why a tag was added, there can be no discusson. In such a circumstance there would be no justification in having that tag and the tag should be removed. But I accept your suggestion about first making a suggestion in the editor's talk page - I'll try that in the future. Meowy 21:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From that page, "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." It's clearly apparent that Murat believes the article is bent towards an Armenian POV. Let's stop arguing about tag additions and go to the talk page and engage in a dialogue with Murat. If, in a few days, he still doesn't provide specific points that he considers to be POV, then I will remove the tag from the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What Murat believes is only going to be an issue when Murat starts to provide some examples of the alleged unaceptable content! He didn't do that when placing the tags. Yes, you are right that if he continues not to provide specific points then the tags can be removed. The total lack of any points, of any reasons for having the tags, was the reason why I removed them - so my removal of them in that situation was not "bickering" (calling them that did not calm the situation). I'm pleased that you say you will remove the tags in a relatively short time if no specific points are provided, and I will engage with any issues raised in the talk pages. Meowy 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a how-to guide. Not binding policy. Since its not binding policy you should have left a note rather than remove them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That comment as it stands is just an invite for any drive-by tag spammer to tag whatever he/she has a grudge against, with the knowledge that no explanation needs to be given and nobody will be allowed to remove the tag for several weeks. But, as I said, I accept the advice offered earlier. If the same situation comes up in the future, I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page and if there is no response after 24 hours, I will remove the tag. Meowy 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spammer? What uninvited commercial product was he selling with his addition of the NPOV tag? My comment is that if you find a tag added without explanation drop the person who left it a note. you don't have to leave it there for weeks, but if a couple days pass or they edit and don't address why they left the tag there (whichever happens first) feel free to remove it. Nowhere did I say you should leave it there for weeks.--Crossmr (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I complete agree with Meowy above. Unless a POV tagger is prepared to indicate on the Talk page that they're open to discussion of the supposed POV they believe the article is biased towards, drive-by tagging is inappropriate, as the tag clearly says. Meowy was perfectly justified, and, by past standards, correct in removing the tags, and Nishkid should not have restored them without an explanation of his own, or from the original tagger. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I restored the tags on Murat's promise that he would provide an explanation for the tag addition. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First I want to thank the fellow who warned me that this discussion was raging here about me and my constributions without me being able to make a case.

Above all, these tags were placed by me, and I am not sure why I did not do it before, after long and long discussions on the talk pages of these articles as anyone can see. To claim that these POV tags were placed without "any" specific explanations seems to lack any good faith and also an insult to our intelligence in the light of lengthy discussions and outright removal of any of my attempts at injecting a bit of balance into these articles. After months of attempts and edits, none of my contributions to these articles have survived, and Meowy is wondering (genuinly?) why these tags were placed? My complaints to numerous folks about this harassemnt and activities of the Armenian gang have had no effect by the way. In fact the only tangible result has been restrictions on me. More is attempted here.

In spite of this, I have gone back and added still a separate heading "Disputed Objectivity" on the discussion pages of the three articles (there are a lot more). Yes, it was done at the same time and some of the "copy-paste" has gone awry, but that seems to be a technicality and pure cosmetics, a side issue, not related to the argument here on why the tags are there in the first place. Still after Nishkid64 has requested, I have repeated under these new headings most of what I had complained about in the previous months. Specifically! More is coming. There is really only one party who has not displayed any good faith here, only one party whose concern does not seem to be the content and its quality.--Murat (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuous harassment of other editors and referencing falsely sources

Rjecina is involved into these incivilties for a long period of time - even after being publicly warned by Misplaced Pages's administrators. Evidence and behavior is here:

a) Throwing claims falsely calling upon valid sources

If Helsinki Committe for Human right is saying that Serbia has been puppet state in period 1941 - 1944 then Serbia has been puppet state false claim thrown here proven as false by other editor here

It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list false claim thrown here proven as false by other editor here - the same false claim is repeated here even after getting the warning above -

are making clear difference between 6 camps and all others false claim thrown here - not supported by any reference counted by him/her

b) The same person had thrown a great number accusations against other editors calling them baselessly sock-puppets. See

, ,

The best description of this un-ethical behavior is given by a few administrators' warnings:

You need to find other ways to occupy your time than making a lot of these sorts of requests. And you could stand to work on your general approach to editing and interacting as well... it's not as collegial as it could be. I think Ricky spoke rather harshly to you on your talk page, but I find myself in general agreement thematically. Too much of this is not productive, and is wasting the time of others. Please consider different approaches. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

or from:

Don't try to be a smart ass. I told you then and I'll tell you the same now: only Thather knows what likely means and that's it for me. Don't act like I'm suggesting unbanning everyone else. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. My issue is that you claim EVERYONE you disagree with is a sockpuppet of somebody. My patience with that line of arguing is at an end. Frankly, your user page is ridiculously aggressive and I believe a massive violation of WP:USER. I would suggest you tone it down and stop treating this like a battleground. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

which this person Rjecina keeps ignoring. I suggest an indefinite block of this account - for deliberately disrespecting the Misplaced Pages code of conduct and harassing other editors - even after receiving multiple warning coming from other users and administrators.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gosh, a Washington DC Verizon user complaining about Rjecina, who could that be?. Thatcher 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, that is entirely uncalled for. Either you have sufficient evidence to block 72.75.xxx or you don't. Last time I checked, you were telling Rjecina to back off on this one. As far as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, our policies require us to AGF and not smear other editors. So it might be appropriate for you to either block this IP based on your checkuser results or well-grounded suspicions arising from them - or restrain yourself from such allegations. The first will result in the immediate closure of this thread based on your evidence; the second will result in my very substantially adding to it in the very near future, as I too am mightily tired of Rjecina. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Smear"? Overreact much? I think our Checkusers are entitled to a little sarcasm. John Reaves 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think so, John? On what grounds do you think that sarcasm is helpful here? As I've said, either his checkuser results are sufficient to block this IP or they are not, in which case AGF applies, and we are required to apply as much GF to IPs as to other editors. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I tell Rjecina to back off? And AGF does not mean I have to put blinders on and lower my IQ by 40 points before responding. In any case, Velebit has not edited from a logged-in account in a long time, making a current checkuser report useless, not to mention the fact that Verizon has dynamic IP addressing. For your part, would you care to suggest just how many people (1) live near DC, (2) subscribe to Verizon, (3) edit Misplaced Pages, (4) edit Serbian topics, and (5) have a beef with Rjecina? (1) and (2) are very large, (3) quite a bit smaller, assuming there are 10,000-20,000 active editors at any one time, and (4) and (5) likely narrows it down quite a bit. I would take claims of abusive editing more seriously from a registered, long time user than from an anonymous IP who shares considerable similarities with a banned user. Thatcher 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that is your view then I don't quite see why 72.75.xxx is still around. Heaven knows how many times I've seen the IP address had his ass hauled over to RFCU by Rjecina. Regarding your last point that "I would take claims of abusive editing more seriously from a registered, long time user than from an anonymous IP", yes, I'm on it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As per Thatcher suggestion I've clicked http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Velebit and, then, found

WHOIS RECORD

4.249.6.252

OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc.
OrgID: LVLT
Address: 1025 Eldorado Blvd.
City: Broomfield
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80021
Country: US

66.217.131.125

OrgName: PaeTec Communications, Inc.
OrgID: PAET
Address: One PAETEC Plaza
Address: 600 Willowbrook Office Park
City: Fairport
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 14450
Country: US

70.239.22.239

OrgName: AT&T Internet Services OrgID: SIS-80
Address: 2701 N. Central Expwy # 2205.15
City: Richardson
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75080
Country: US

71.252.101.67

OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc.
OrgID: VRIS
Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr
City: Reston
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20191
Country: US

Going further, I've clicked http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Velebit - so, this Thatcher in order to support his friend Rjecina marked likely a number of users. May I ask him - 'likely' means guilty? Of what? (4) edit Serbian topics, and (5) have a beef with Rjecina? Holocaust is a Serbian topic? have a beef with Rjecina resulting automatically into conclusion that behind the beef is always the same person?>
So, cristal ball of a checkuser (who cannot see, not he is allowed to see by the law, any data behind the IP address randomly assigned to an internet user) tells us 'clearly' that the same person used four different accounts moving around the USA just to tease some checkusers? --72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no point to argue here with people like Thatcher. He will block you - for sure after reading the above. Rjecina has some other supporters of her dirty business among adinistrators - Ricky and EyeSerene. I am preparing an article about holocaust denial and defamation of Einstein's name applied and 'elaborated' in the Ustashe and Template Holocaust articles - by the same Rjecina and company. Got some initial support from the Anti Defamation League people. I am going to post an initial version of the article on my user page before sending it to the Anti Defamation League - all comments are welcome.--I am Mario (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See the subsection below. I have blocked Mario following this threat (and earlier ones). The incivility would be enough but the repeated threats make it beyond the pale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:I am Mario blocked

I've had enough of the legal threats from User:I am Mario. I have blocked him indefinitely following both here and here and the mess at Jimbo's talk page from last month, I've had enough of him. He was already blocked 48 hours for accusing everyone of being a Holocaust denier and he clearly has no interest in anything but insults. If he rescinds his threats and actually starts being civil (in retrospect, threatening Jimbo that you are going to go to newspapers claiming everyone is a Holocaust denier should have gotten him blocked). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking for outside views since I'm one of the multitudes that he's threaten to go public with, making me biased in a way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just from reading the above, good block. He needs to stop assuming everyone disbelieves in the Holocaust's happening - hell, I'm generally close-to-the-vest on Wiki, and even I generally believe the majority of the Misplaced Pages population (not all of it) acknowledges that the Holocaust happened. -Jéské Couriano 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't assume everyone disbelieves the Holocaust. Just those who disagree with his view about how should be organized. The other editors there that he agreed with (who all edit at differing times on the exact same very specific subjects and have been consequently blocked for warring in other ways) weren't a problem for him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked an IP that claimed to be his friend for 31 hours after he posted legal threats and screeds against Ricky. I suggest keeping an eye out for more, just to be safe. -Jéské Couriano 21:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And the IP's got an unblock request up, but he's just reposting the bit that got him blocked: User talk:72.75.20.29#Blocked. -Jéské Couriano 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And even though I probably shouldn't have, I denied it. His First Amendment arguments are groundless and I hope other admins would back me up on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd, WP:UP

I wouldn't mind if at least one other uninvolved person took at this. I've protected User:Zahd for 24h because Zahd has passed 3RR on said page (as it's his userpage, I figured blocking would not be productive). Specifically, this was his last edit. Now, he is claiming that it's OK because he commented the worst parts out. I kind of, uh, disagree. Also, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#User:Zahd. This disruptive editing is getting mildly annoying. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing left besides the "hello" on my userpage was the short, terse statement "There is a God." Sorry, but I fail to see how this violates any reasonable concept of rationality, decency, or personal boundary to express a concept in four words; as awful, depressing, and ominous though those words may be. -Zahd (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It violates the neutral point of view rule. Baseball Bugs 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's erm, my user page. WP:UP doesn't seem to support Crustacean in this notion that even "there is a God" should be viewed as offensive enough to blank. -Zahd (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that was a joke, right? You forgot your smiley. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure, Zahd and I both edit the abortion article. That out of the way, Zahd probably should be slapped with a long term block in hopes that (s)he'll either get bored or learn to be a more productive editor. Zahd and Misplaced Pages are at cross purposes. Misplaced Pages informs its readers about a wide variety of topics (tries to anyway), Zahd wishes to sermonize on abortion and the right to life.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an inherently offensive expression by itself. It's the way he's using it that's the problem - i.e. to "make a point", and as a direct connection with his contentious editing history. He's apparently also under the mistaken impression that he "owns" his user page. Baseball Bugs 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not "sermonizing" to be pithy and or exact, or to represent an under-represented side in the course of balancing articles in accord with concepts that people actually use. For example the word "murder" isn't even once mentioned in the abortion article, even though its the actual term my side uses to refer to abortion. It's absence is so because there's a sickening kind of bias going on here. NPOV might be something people need to read up on again. So, is the problem is that my editing is POV, or that the POV I openly state allegiance to does not need representation? I am finding only bias and disruption in my critics. -Zahd (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite pointy to me. I don't really care what goes onto his user page, if he wants to announce his POV and let everyone know he's here to push that way and to check his edits, it doesn't matter much. If he's crosses the line, he'll get booted. However, his edits seem to be pushing the boundaries to try and cause disruption. Am I forgetting something, or is this post a reedit of something that was deleted? He seems determined to get his licks in. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What you seek, you find, Zahd.--Tznkai (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

... huh. Didn't even see that subpage. Can an uninvolved administrator delete or userify that?--Tznkai (talk)

I've marked it for speedy deletion - or at least I think I have, as I've never marked something for speedy deletion before. I think that's supposed to trigger it to show up on a list somewhere, and then an admin can decide its merits, so to speak. Baseball Bugs 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. That is the second time, too. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Baseball Bugs 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Abortion (under some conditions) is lawful, therefore is not murder. Same goes for capital punishment and warfare. I happen to oppose all three, and I might want to label all three as murder. But the law rules. Baseball Bugs 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is exactly that, and you are right in that "the law" rules. But the reason abortion is called murder is that it is "unlawful" according to God's law. Man can do what he wants only to find out later that God disapproves. Now of course God may have no place in your life, but for the majority of the world that holds certain beliefs, His law is quite relevant. To repeat the point, it represents an unfortunate and despicable kind of bias that editors here remove that terminology from an article. That's not to say that the article should say "this equals that," but to simply report "these people say this is that." It's NPOV to attribute it. Yet that concept is still being removed by editors pushing their point of view. They just don't like it, because it goes contrary to their views, and nor do they like the simple words "there is a God" even on someone's own userpage.. -Zahd (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Actually from recent memory, it seemed like your response to having your edits reverted was to post your personal beliefs on your talk page, which apparently most editors took as your rebuttal and dismissal of their edits based on your own POV. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They can 'take it' anyway they want to, as long as they don't in their quest to promote their atheism, go out of their way such as to stomp on an opinion or fact on my own userpage. They would not do so if they were not in fact acting out of bias, connected to their biased dislike of my editing. -Zahd (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER. You don't own your userpage. It's not a blog. Furthermore, disagreeing with your POV is not pushing atheistic values, and assuming anyone who finds fault with your edits is biased isn't a really good way to start around here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:USER. It still is not apparent how the simple statement "there is a God" is somehow improper, such that people have to go out of their way to abort it. -Zahd (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're trying to make a point, which is against policy. Baseball Bugs 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As well, you're presenting it as fact instead of belief (as noted below), and further than that you were also including the two other obviously unacceptable statements, even if they were commented it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

American law is the supreme law of the land. Religious doctrine is not. The statement "there is a god" is merely an opinion, not a fact. "I think there is a god" is a fact. Baseball Bugs 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we Trust??" Some Wikipedians, one or two, don't actually live under "American law" and thus might be less interested in American law, and more interested in UN law or even higher law. -Zahd (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I =/= place to argue about God or abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we trust - all others pay cash". >:) Baseball Bugs 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the userpage edit was disrupting Misplaced Pages. This offtopic-leaning discussion here seems more disruptive to me than the userpage, but perhaps that's just me. Please, everybody, relax, policing userspace tends to inflame the situation, and is rarely productive. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've already stated why I feel it was, and the discussion is really only mildly off-topic. This user has attempted to provoke reaction with his userpage on multiple occasions, and it's getting tiresome. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)The conversation has certainly devolved into this off topic nonsense argument about God's existence, but the userspace edits were disruptive, needlessly confrontational for an account working exclusively in an already controversial article. Furthermore Zahds insistence that good faith edits are done because of offense to assumed atheism is problematic, and potentially insulting to any of those editors are not athiests themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many pages that contain references to the editors' religious beliefs. That's not the issue. It's the in-your-face that's the issue. It's a bit like a child who's told not to touch someone else, so they stand as close as they can to the one they're told not to touch, and proclaim innocence. Baseball Bugs 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we are supposed to be working on an encyclopedia here. If he wants to write offensive nonsense on his userpage, I don't care. List it for MFD or something and get it deleted in total. If he calls out a specific user or is otherwise generally disruptive with it, then that's different. All I want to know is 'how is he on the encyclopedia?' Frankly, if this section is typical, I'd say the drama he's creating isn't worth whatever good he's doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suggested that Zahd try a good, old-fashioned, modest userbox instead of the polemic, and even helpfully gave him a link to the "political" userbox gallery--but he ignored my advice. The fact that he blatantly ignored five editors at User_talk:Zahd#Your_user_page (let alone violated WP:3RR) by reinstating the polemic strikes me as borderline uncivil. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see what the difference is if I say "there is a God" which is all I left on that page (and yet you somehow take offense), and a userbox which says the same thing. If formatting is the issue, I can put it in a nice little box for you. Finally, I'm glad to see people defending my ability to say something personal on my userpage "If he wants to write offensive nonsense on his userpage, I don't care," even if they are referring to a statement like "there is a God" as "offensive nonsense." Kuzma offered some common sense: "I don't see how the userpage edit was disrupting Misplaced Pages," which is correct. My statement on my userpage "there is a God" isn't so much "disruptive" as it is offensive to people who find God to be offensive. -Zahd (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the argument against my edits has changed dramatically. First it was "extensive discussion not related to Misplaced Pages," which it wasnt. Then it was "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages" which it wasnt, as these were brief statements. Then it was "polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" which it wasn't as "there is a God" isnt actually attacking anyone. Even the more "offensive" statement which I removed "choose life or eat death" wasnt attacking anyone, as the policy stipulates. The final argument, promoted by Baseball (above) is that the phrase "there is a God" is offensive or disruptive because of how it is phrased as a fact, instead of as an opinion. This criteria isnt actually mentioned on WP:USER, and well, that wraps up my summary of the critics. -Zahd (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets not pretend "there is a God" is the part that was causing the problem, the rest of the comment, about God hating abortion and eating death is what took a simple statement of belief "There is a God to an anti-abortion polemic.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I removed that other stuff did I not? -Zahd (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you simply repost your userpage without the part that you've commented out, I'm sure no one will give a damn and this will fade away. But you've chosen to include that part regardless, even if it's hidden away. For what reason? And again, you don't own your userpage, and other editors can edit it if they take exception to it; if you decide to exceed 3RR, it's treated like any other 3RR violation. (And, as I asked before, and is not directly related to why I protected the page: would someone take issue if an atheist added "there is no God" to their userpage?) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CC wrote: "But you've chosen to include that part regardless, even if it's hidden away." If its "hidden away" from everyone's sight, why make an issue of it? And again, you don't own your userpage OWN is policy dealing with articles, not userpages. In fact its first statement "Don't sign what you don't own, makes it clear: We own comments on talk pages, and anything on our userpages is implicitly understood to be our own. "Other editors can edit it if they take exception to it" Ive explained how people have given varied and changing reasons cited from WP:USER, and how each one is false. "tak exception" to what's on my userpage isnt on WP:USER. I would not "take offense" if an atheist stated that. I would of course then regard them as an atheist, for what that's worth.-Zahd (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC/OD)I think we've all gotten off track here, Zahd's comments about believing in God aren't the problem. Making it out to be so is missing the point. I doubt anyone would have even noticed if that were the only concern, as lots of wikipedia users have similar infoboxes. The problem is that you posted your belief as a statement to your POV on abortion, which you freely admit above you have. That's the part people seem to find pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that stating my position openly is somehow considered to be a problem. It does'nt affect how I apply NPOV in editing articles. The issue was that people took offense at a concept of God, whether that view is expressed on my userpage, or stated in article talk, to remind people there is actually another side to abortion other than "do you want fries with that?"-Zahd (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, your belief in God is not the issue. ANI isn't the place for that debate. Dayewalker (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you said "The problem is that you posted your belief as a statement to your POV on abortion, which you freely admit above you have." I took this to mean you are citicizing my openness, and are suggesting that closeted people are more successful on Misplaced Pages. I suggest closetedness serves the pro-abortion point of view, and that sunlight as always remains the best disinfectant. -Zahd (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're not arguing the merits of your POV. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but you are. You are saying that the statement "there is a God" should be taken as an offense.-Zahd (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it should, that's not an argument on the merits of the statement, but on its potential offensiveness. That is also not what I was responding to; I was responding to your comment (note how threading typically works in discussions). I will now cease communication with you through this thread, as it is clear that you are attempting to provoke reaction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Zahd, you've accused every editor you've come into content conflict with on Abortion of being Pro-choice partisan hacks (feel free to correct me if I've overstated) Your POV and displaying your POV has most definitely affected your ability to edit, especially in your ability to get along with other editors and form consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to nod in agreement with every abortionist I run into on Misplaced Pages?-Zahd (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about what your abortion position is on the wikipedia, and you shouldn't care about the positions of others may be. User space is supposed to be a simple, creative space to fill in information about yourself, as long as it doesn't become a soapbox from which to preach to the unwashed masses, as this clearly was. WP:UP#NOT is pretty clear here. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every pro-choice person is an "abortionist", Zahd! That's the kind of language and attitude that is the problem here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, with the misinterpretations. I did not use "abortionist" in the sense you are reading it. Read it again. -Zahd (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may, I seriously doubt this is going to get anywhere. Zahd seems committed to making this discussion about his belief in God, and not about his admitted POV. His talk page has been protected, so the offending comments are gone. This seems like a good place to stop, and not keep the endless debate going. Dayewalker (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a God. -Zahd (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"There is a God" itself can stay. The rest needs to go. —kurykh 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it would be interesting to see, on his user page, some proof of that assertion. Baseball Bugs 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about if I just pray for you instead; "proof" requires faithlessness. You just might be someone who needs it. -Zahd (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let him put up whatever he wants, list his page for MFD and then block him if he edit wars to put it back. Otherwise, go do something else as he's probably more amused by this game than anything doing in article space. I frankly hate the idea that other editors can just go and say "ok, you can keep this language but not this one" on someone's user page. Someone could come by and tell me that I shouldn't have this section on my page but it may be offensive to the people I disagreed with, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. If this doesn't stop, I'm going to archive this section under IAR or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a God, just like there is a Santa Claus: purely in the imagination of children and those who hold on to childish beliefs. Spotfixer (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that some people need there to not be a God, because, well... He's bringing an ass-whooping with Him. -Zahd (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While you're praying for me, I'll be praying for you also. Baseball Bugs 05:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:) -Zahd (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When God gets a user page, he can feel free to announce his own existence on it. Until then, however, the problem with a statement like "there is a God" is that it is incompatible with statements such as "there is no God" and "there are twenty gods," either of which other editors may believe to be true. But the statement, "I believe there is a God" is perfectly compatible with "you believe there is no god" and "he believes there are twenty gods." It's fine to personalize your page within reason, but the statements that Zahd was adding, in the way he phrased them, are divisive and run counter to the communal and cooperative atmosphere of Misplaced Pages. They also do not communicate anything to the effect of, "I am here to help write a balanced, NPOV encyclopedia." Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If God started editing Misplaced Pages, he'd be booted for WP:POINT, WP:V, and WP:RS. Of course he could just superuser the whole thing and take it over, but that's not going to happen. And while we're at it, I still can't find in WP:USER where it says that a statement on one's user page must be phrased in the opinion sense, rather than in the factual sense. In fact I'm sure you are taking a policy we use for articles, and misapplying it to user pages. Yes, I'm certain that must be it; you're misquoting the very policy you've insisted that I read. It's time to unprotect my userpage, as there's no valid or justifiable reason for it to remain locked. Fear of what I may write there, notwithstanding. -Zahd (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the userpage was only protected for 24 hours... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A dissatisfied user's complaint

I am now going to do some complaining about my 72hr block by Gwen Gale, which was overturned on review. The story is this:

Gwen Gale, gave me a warning for refactoring a comment made by PalestineRemembered on the VillagePump(policy). As far as I knew, the only thing I had done was change a subheading into regular text that was outdented, the reason being that I did not want it to appear that a thread I had introduced had ended at that point. When I denied refactoring, Gwen Gale blocked me for 72hrs.

There are a number of problematic factors in the block:

1. Gwen Gale did not explain to me what was missing; and, since I had not intentionally removed any content, and thought I had not, it was normal for me to deny the accusation.
2. She went from a warning to a block without my having done anything. Instead of explaining what was missing from PalestineRemembered's edit, so that I could correct it, she assumed bad faith and blocked me.
3. She said that the block was necessary because she "saw a risk of ongoing disruption to the project" ; although as can be seen from the VillagePump thread there had been no complaints about disruption from anyone
4. Gwen Gale has edited against me on issues involving Israel/Palestine, so her intervening for PalestineRemembered by blocking me seems particularly problematic.
5. Even if I had refactored PalestineRemembered's edit, since that edit was completely off the topic of the thread, and since there is no particular WP rule against refactoring, there was no grounds for that block any how. Her claim of "disruption", without showing there had been any disruption, can in this case be an indicator of her having apparently developed a personal hostility toward me.
6. There is also an additional problem with the unfounded accusations made by Gwen Gale against me because I edit under my own name. That means that anyone who does a Google search will easily find these accusations which make me sound like some sort of god-damned wiki-criminal, perhaps no better than a common pick-pocket. I am not some weird vandal, stalker, or troll. I make rational edits that are sourced and verifiable. I have no objection to users using Wiki-aliases, but I would nice to get a minimum of consideration, and it is disgusting for users to make unfounded accusations against those using their real name, while they hide behind an alias. For instance, this is the edit by PalestineRemembered that Gwen Gale accused me of refactoring . Although I did not intentionally remove any of this, I think it is a baseless and disgusting insult, that it no justifiable reason to be on the VillagePump, and think Gwen Gale would have been better advised to remove it, rather than protect it.

End of complaint. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a specific rule against refactoring comments made by others. I don't have the link handy. Not commenting on anything else said here. // roux   18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to defend Gwen here. Malcolm on his own talk page wrote, "I have said more that once that in a more perfect world someone as computer incompetent as I am would not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages." After finally convincing him that he had actually removed content, Gwen continuously offered to unblock him immediately if he would promise to refrain from refactoring talk pages, since he is clearly not capable of doing so without causing disruption. Instead of simply agreeing, he dismissed the damage he caused as deserved by the editor whose comments were removed. It's easy to see that the same thing is likely to happen again in the future. (Obligatory disclaimer: Malcolm believes that I am biased against him.) Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The block has already been overturned, so what exactly do you want? --Tango (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two things that come to mind. One is that I would like a promise from Gwen Gale that she not act in administrative capacity in issues that touch on Israel/Palestine disputes because there is reason to think that she is far from neutral. Another thing, which I think I made pretty clear, but which should perhaps go to the VillagePump also, is how accusations are directed at users who edit under their own names. It should be a little closer to WP:BLP, there can be criticism but not speculative or unfounded nasty accusations. It is common courtesy, something which many avid internet users tend to forget.

The thing is, unless it is either of a blatantly offensive/racist/ethnic/etc...nature or if it is your own user talk page, you have no right to alter the words of another user, anywhere at any time. Period. Not if they disagree, not if you think it is off-topic, or whatever. Other users can judge off-topicness for themselves, and choose to respond or not respond as appropriate. And this holier-than-thou attitude regarding people who use their real names vs. people who do not is getting very old, very quickly. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a statement that's blatantly and extremely offensive, typically it is edited out with a signed comment explaining why. Other than that, besides simple restructuring of indentations to make the flow clearer, the standing procedure is that editing others' comments is strictly forbidden, even if it's merely to fix a spelling error. Baseball Bugs 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To defend Malcolm, he was only trying to unindent somebody else's comment, which is not forbidden. Neither is moving a comment that has been placed in the wrong spot. But he screwed up the edit and accidentally deleted material, thereby causing the problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that Malcolm Schosha in future pay more attention to doing things "by the book", otherwise you just leave yourself open to trouble. Suggest that admin Gwen Gale in future recuse herself from warning or blocking Malcolm Schosha; this latest overturned block means that the presumption of fairness, regarding this particular user, is impaired. As far as removing the so-called "Arbitrary Section Break" inserted by User:PalestineRemembered is concerned, doing so was exactly right, though the execution may have been faulty. Quoting from the edit summary by User:Werdna: "confusing and annoying section header. It doesn't actually achieve anything, and it's confusing because it's an h2 not an h3." In particular, removing or downgrading that insertion did not violate the prohibition against editing others' Talk page comments, being a matter of simple housekeeping.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if all he had done was take away the section header, that would have been OK. Section headers don't belong to the commenter, and are subject to change. He should have left it at that. Baseball Bugs 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The block was unnecessary, since the warning seemed to be sufficient (he didn't understand he had removed content, so he denied it, but I think its clear that he was just not seeing what he'd done). I don't see any need for Gwen to recuse from issues involving the IP conflict or Malcolm, I just wish Gwen would be slower on the block button in all cases.

To Malcolm - people don't get blocked multiple times in a few months period for no reason at all. You need to start being more careful. Learn to edit Misplaced Pages as it is, and not as you'd like it to be. Change in this community takes time and effort, like anywhere else, and things don't improve via demands and protests. Avruch 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, no matter what some users may think, in the real world reverting a WP edit more than three times in a day is not a crime, nor does it indicate moral depravity. It is true that some users do not fit in here very well, and since I have decided that is so of me I do intend to cut back my editing here, if not end participation all together. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You did refactor talk page comments. If you find this "disgusting"...you need to find a new hobby. This is just an online encyclopedia. --Smashville 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed talk page content that was clearly off the topic. If you think I am going to apologize for doing that, you are very wrong. The rules clearly stated that the talk pages are not to be used as discussion boards, they exist only to discuss improving the article. As for my needing to find a new "hobby", you are certainly right, as I said above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You did it and you admit to doing it. So why do you have a problem with getting in trouble for it? --Smashville 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's meaningful that Malcom didn't agree to stop refactoring comments, when I offered to unblock him. Malcolm has been warned before about refactoring talk pages. He does this to muddle and blank negative comments about his behaviour. Given his background with other editors and long experience with edit windows, I don't believe he deleted the content by mistake. I believe he tried to mislead me after the warning. After the block, he put up help tags and more posts saying he had not removed content. When at last he couldn't deny the diff, he called the content he'd deleted "bullshit," which I think speaks for itself. By the time his block was reviewed, that thread on Malcolm's talk page was a tangle. Going by an email reply the unblocking admin later sent me, I think the unblocking admin misread Malcolm's talk page and misunderstood what had happened. I think the unblock was a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just trying to change the subject. If you were bothered by my accedentally deleting some of PalestineRemembered's rant all you had to do was

1. restore the material and give me a warning (which you did), or
2. explain what was missing and then wait to see if I restored it (which you did not do).

The promise you wanted, after you blocked me anyhow, was a stipulation you added later, and in my view it was just an added requirement intended to cover your own problematic action. Also, in what you write above, you have assumed my bad faith. This exactly what I was complaining about in my original statement. What gives you the right to speculate about my motives, and make such accusations against an editor using his real name, while you hide behind your wiki-alias?

Moreover, you claimed I was being "disruptive", when no one at the Village Pump, where this happened, complained about that at all....not even PalestineRemembered. So where did that come from? Who was it that complained I was disruptive? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone sent me an email. When I saw you had removed a negative comment about yourself, I warned you. When in reply to the warning, you denied having removed content and told me to back off, I blocked you as a disruption risk. I then exchanged posts with you in which you carried on denying you had removed content. When you at last acknowledged that you had removed content, you called it a "bullshit edit" but at least having gotten that acknowledgement, I became hopeful and offered to unblock you if you'd agree to stop refactoring comments. In answering me that you would not agree to stop refactoring comments, you said, "You are asking me to make this promise to hide that you have blocked me improperly," which is when I left the discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" sent you an e-mail. Well. Hmm. Of course, I knew that there is nothing about this on your user talk page, because I looked. Was this via Misplaced Pages user e-mail, or is this someone you are in direct e-mail contact with? And, why was this done in a way to hide the discussion, instead of by the usual way on talk pages? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just what was this risk of disruption? Anyone who looks at the thread of discussion can see that I remained civil in every case, including when I took some very uncivil comments. Why are you presenting me as being on the verge of going out of control, when anyone who reads the thread can see that was far fro the case? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's about enough of this. Does it matter how she found out about it? The fact is that you did it. There is no need for you to come to ANI and cause drama when the situation was already mostly resolved. It's time for you to back away from this matter because it's clear you have no intention of doing anything constructive with this thread. --Smashville 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that I was blocked for "disruptiveness", and I have yet to see any indication that there was a disruption. All that happened is a small part of an edit got removed. I had no idea. You, as well as Gwen Gale, are assuming bad faith, but that was not put to the test. Well, why not. The situation was not dire. I gave the link to the discussion, above. The situation was calm. PalestineRemembered made some accusations against me, and I replied calmly. More calmly, I think, than him. I would like to get some specifics from Gwen Gale about her accusation. But it was done by e-mail. Why by e-mail? She has made a lot of accusations. What is that based on? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's really simple:

1. Did you remove comments made by someone else? Yes, by your own admission.
2. Is that forbidden by WP practice and policy? Yes.
3. Did Gwen Gale have a reasonable belief that you would do it again? Yes, because you refused to acknowledge that you'd done it, and then admitted that you had.
4. Given the above, was it a reasonable block to prevent disruption? Yes.

Gwen isn't going to lose her sysop bit, and she's smart enough that she has taken any valid criticism out of this situation and internalised it for future events. So..

5. Is any further admin intervention needed? No, this should be marked resolved.

// roux   22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what you just said. Can I also point out that when you admit to doing it, it's not assuming bad faith for anyone to ignore the fact that all of a sudden you decide to deny doing it? You are very clear on what happened - you admitted to it, you mentioned it in your initial complaint, you've mentioned it on other user's talkpages. The fact that you now decide to play dumb is not going to be tolerated. Drop it. --Smashville 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Sure later I saw that I some stuff got lost when I reverted an edit, but not for a long time. I thought it was a mistake. Actually, I still don't understand exactly what happened. When Gwen Gale said I had refactored an edit, I denied it because I had no idea that it had happened. I denied it because I was sure I had not removed anything. I thought she was wrong. Its called a mistake. If she had assumed good faith, and showed me exactly what was gone, I would have restored it myself. I had, in fact earlier, changed a subtitle to outdented text, and was careful to make sure nothing was lost. It seems that later, when PalestineRemembered reverted to the subheading he also added a paragraph. When I reverted again, that got lost. I did not realize that even could happen. Why would I be careful to keep everything the first time, and remove something the second time? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You have it wrong. In fact, so far, no one has shown a rule against refactoring talk page edits. But that is not even the issue because I was blocked for "disruptiveness." But where was the disruption? In fact the editing situation was calm. All I have heard from Gwen Gale is that there was an e-mail. Why an e-mail? Moreover, since she did not point out the deleted material to me, I I had no way to understand the problem, or to fix it. She just made a flat statement, without showing me the problem. I had no idea. I denied it because I thought that was correct. But if I was blocked for disruption, I do not think it too much to ask to see what she thinks was disrupted. The editing situation was calm. Where was the disruption?

I am saying to this too: I did not come here to edit Misplaced Pages so that I could get my name dragged through the mud. I do not think I am asking too much that other users not make speculative negative accusations, defamation, accessible to anyone doing a Google search. The WP guideline is WP:assume good faith, and this whole issue involves a failure exactly there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. You broke a rule. Deal with it. No one is dragging your name through the mud. In fact, the only reason we are still discussing it is that you refuse to drop the matter. --Smashville 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What rule did I break? Editing a comment? I was careful not to do that. Was there a mistake? It seems so. Why did I get a 72hr block for a mistake? If Gwen Gale had explained, I would have fixed it. But the block was for "disruption." Where was the disruption? Look at the thread. Show me disruptive behavior. Everything was calm.

There is this, that applies to PalestineRemembered's edits, not mine :

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

* Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Not a word about the problematic nature of that. Go figure.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(out)You broke a rule--you removed comments made by another person. Something you have been warned about doing before, so you cannot pretend you didn't know it wasn't allowed. Doing things that you know are not allowed is de facto disruptive. // roux   23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• There has been the unsupported accusation that I broke a rule by removing comments. The users who have been repeating that should either show me the rule that forbids removing off topic material from talk pages, or stop stop making unsupported statements. As I have said, what was removed was an accident; but, because the material was off topic, removing it was (in any case) specifically allowed, as is stated on WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. I am copying the most relevant item from the WP:Talk page guidelines:

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• The material that was deleted was a small part of an edit by PalestineRemembered on a thread on the VillagePump. Article talk pages are for discussion to improve the article. VillagePump discussion is for improving Misplaced Pages. The material in question was PalestineRemembered's criticisms of me, and has absolutely nothing to do with improving WP, and they should be removed. However, since Gwen Gale asked me not to remove it, I did not. But its removal would not have been a violation of WP rules even if I had done it intentionally. That did not stop her for blocking me anyhow, for 72hrs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A gentle reminder to all: Be civil toward each other. Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Kingturtle. Who has been uncivil? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, at best, this block was a clumsy bit of overkill, aggravated by a lack of communication. "Risk of disruption?" Okay, any admin who thinks that is a good reason to block should probably be desysopped for the exact same reason -- risk of disruption. Gwen, if you have had content disputes with Malcolm before (and I don't know if that's true), you should refrain from blocking him, for any reason. I can't tell you how harmful it is when admins use their powers for that purpose. I also find people's insistence that any kind of refactoring of comments is somehow a major wiki-crime. It isn't generally encouraged (though there are debates about what is an isn't acceptable), but a 72 hour block for it is far from sensible. "Improper" is putting it mildly. Yeesh. IronDuke 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had any content disputes with Malcolm. Rather, I helped him get his account re-established after he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He removed negative comments about himself which had been made by another editor and then, when I warned him about it, Malcolm denied having removed the content. He had been warned before about his highly misleading refactoring of discussion pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Do you have any idea what Malcolm is talking about, in terms of content disputes? As for the refactor, I don't see any good reason to doubt that MS simply made a mistake and removed more than he wanted. And it appears (correct me if I am wrong) that you blocked him before he could explain it was a mistake. IronDuke 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was this in which she argued against an article I nominated for deletion, and which had exactly to do with issues in the Israel/Palestine dispute which was a factor in the block also. (By the way, the article she argued in favor of does not have a single thing in it to establish notability.) There was , just before the block, this -- in which she was arguing against me, and made it clear that she also wished I would go away and not get involved in the Israel/Palestine dispute in the Hummus article. There is also that she actually blocked me for disruptiveness, but could not produce a complaint against me because she said it was an e-mail communication....which I consider problematic. As far as I could tell everything on the Village Pump (where this happened) was calm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've been trying to mediate, off and on, for months on the talk page of the black hole of lame edit wars which is hummus. More lately, Malcolm has dropped by to make some comments there, but I'm not aware of having ever gone back and forth with Malcom over edits to any article in the main space. As for his removal of the negative comments about himself at VP, I've gotten to know his editing history over the last five months and I still don't believe it was a mistake. My take is, he got caught the other day making a misleading muddle by refactoring and removing content from a discussion and has tried to make a further, misleading muddle out of what happened ever since. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, having different views in an AfD is hardly a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, people do get pretty sensitive over I-P issues, so I think it's best to avoid even the appearance of COI. And it seems pretty easy for you to have simply said, "Malcolm, here is the comment you deleted, please put it back," and waited to see if he would. I can't see any actual disruption to the project of any measurable significance to what had been done up until his block. FWIW, I do agree with you about the sinkhole of lameness that is the Hummus edit war. Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pita. IronDuke 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The time when I was warned previously about talk page deletions was on the Anti-Zionism article, when I removed some chat that had nothing to do with the article; and in that case too I was warned by Gwen Gale. Truthfully she had always been very helpful to me, but when I became involved in articles having to do with Israel/Palestine issues, she started to oppose my editing. (I am logging off now, so anything further from me will have to be tomorrow.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I've never had a dispute with Malcolm over article edits. As I've also said, many times, Malcom repeatedly denied having removed the content from VP. It was hours before he admitted having done so. When he had done, I offered straight off to unblock him if he'd agree to stop re-factoring talk pages, but he answered by saying I was only trying to cover up a bad block, so I left the discussion. By then, the thread was such a mess, I truly believe the unblocking admin, all in good faith, misread it and misunderstood what had happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do see content dipsutes on articles in this area. You seem like a reasonable person, so I'm sure you meant no harm. But the effect of this kind of thing can be harmful. I've taken a closer look at the sequence of events, and it gets a bit more disturbing, as I read it (correct, please, any errors of fact I may have made). You opened a new section on refactoring here, where you say "You've been warned before about refactoring comments, if you do this again, you will likely be blocked from editing.." The next edit is the one you link to above. AFAICT, it is not MS "repeatedly" denying it, but denying it once. The next edit on his talk page is you blocking him. Note that he did not violate your warning -- he didn't refactor anything else, merely stated (in error) that he had not removed text. If you really felt that strongly, you could have posted again, "Malcolm, I insist that you acknowledge/reverse what you did, or I will block you." I'd be uncomfortable with that, as refactoring talk page comments is rarely a blockable offense. But it would be better than what you did, which was to block him without warning. IronDuke 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing other editors' good faith comments from project pages isn't allowed. Malcolm got caught doing this and is now stirring up whatever kerfluffle he can, to make editors forget this happened, it's what he does, it's why he re-factors talk pages to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Appalled

Someone just came here wih a valid complaint and got treated like crap. All he wanted was an apology, nothing more. The edit he was blocked for was constructive; all he wanted to do was keep the discussion together, but he messed up. This is why WP:IAR exists, so people can do minor constructive things like moving someone's comment into the right place to improve wikipedia in spite of what the rules say. I've had comments on deletion discussions moved below the comment they were in response to. Roux and Smashville, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, your behaviour was appalling.--Patton123 16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You showing up on my talkpage to harass me--when you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about--was appalling. Doing it again after being explicitly told not to was even worse. My behaviour here was fine--believe me, had there actually been a problem with it, someone who actually knows what they're talking about would have said so. // roux   21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

^This^ PXK /_C 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What valid complaint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also wondering what valid complaint...? --Smashville 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Equally surprised. The removal of an ===arbitrary section break=== is not within the spirit of "refactoring another's comment" that is discouraged by the Talk page guidelines. There was not real removal of content. Moreover, the "break" did seem a bit unseemly considering the discussion was not that long prior to the section break. Moreover, the editor who added the section break had been blocked around a dozen times and coincidentally the section break seemed to give greater prominence to his (comment) critique of Malcom's editing habits. A block was wrong, a fortiori for 72 hours. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Real content was indeed removed, which is not allowed. After being warned, Malcolm aggresively denied removing any content. The block was based on this utter lack of acknowledgement, which I saw as a likelihood the disruption would carry on. The length of the block was drawn from Malcolm's block log. After being blocked, Malcom carried on denying he had removed any content. When Malcolm at last acknowledged he had removed content, he called that content a "bullshit edit". However, having at last gotten that acknowledgement, I became hopeful and offered to unblock Malcolm (having already offered to unblock once before), if he would agree to stop refactoring comments, but he didn't want to agree to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"The block was based on which I saw as a likelihood the disruption would carry on". So Malcolm was blocked for likelihood of disruption, but not for disruption itself? Where did I see it before? Anyway, I don't think people should be blocked for future offences.M0RD00R (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you may not like it (and that's certainly your right), you might read WP:BLOCK which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users" So yes, blocks are based on the likelihood of future disruption (based on past behavior and statements). If there's little liklihood of future disruption, why block? It wouldn't accomplish anything.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) By policy, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Malcolm had been disruptive and his unwillingness to acknowledge that he had removed the negative comment about himself meant there was a strong likelihood this disruption would continue. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we stick a cork in this topic now, or do you think this can be simplified further? HalfShadow 01:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if any good will be accomplished discussing further. That said, it's pretty clear that this was a troubling block, made more troublesome by a lack of acknowledgement that there could be anything wrong with blocking a user one had prior dispute with without warning for an unusually long block. Some sense that patience would have served the situation better and led to less drama would be good. IronDuke 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very little good in discussing further; at what point do you think the arsonist requires apprehending? When they are buying petrol, bottle, cloth and matches? When they put the petrol in the bottle and stuff the cloth into the neck? When they light the cloth? When they throw the molotov cocktail?

Or when the house catches fire? What part of "preventative" are you having difficulty with? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your analogy is extraordinarily apt, of course. What MS was doing was the exact wiki equivalent of arson. </sarcasm> He was warned, did not violate the warning, but was blocked anyway, on a pretty flimsy pretext. I'm getting a good sense of your ability to write with rancor, but perhaps you could take some time to focus on what I actually wrote -- all of it -- and less on over-the-top sneers. As for "preventative," given that GG was wrong and doesn't admit it, would that require an emergency block to keep her from doing it again in the next 72 hours? (Hint: the answer is "no.") IronDuke 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption from User:Bayrak along ethnic lines

Most of this user's edits so far appear to have a pro-Arab, anti-Iranian slant that does not work entirely within the framework of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Here are some examples I can pull up:

Trying to edit articles along original (and frankly, incorrect) viewpoints (that if a man is a Seyed then he must be an Arab): see Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#Isn't he Arab!! In that section he was warned , yet he decided to try it again on December 5th Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#the fake sayed...

Patently absurd attempt to deny that Azeris can have Iranian nationality: azeris are not iranian/persian. That he chose to attempt this on the article about the Supreme Leader of Iran (who is a prominent example of an Azeri with Iranian nationality) suggests that Bayrak is just trying to cause trouble.

Sometimes he removes tags without adding a source Other times he will tag and/or remove material without any attempt to look up the issue, usually in order to remove claims about people being Persian faaaaaaaaaaaakeeeeeeeee that is not translete & all his works in arabic he is not persian. He might add "arabic" without providing a source they were arabs. It is curious how his double standard organizes itself along ethnic lines...

He might even repeatedly remove sourced material without sound explanation if the material asserts that something is Iranian:

AGF violation with regard to original images: fake......... He remove the image (of Iranian girls in Kuwait) because he happens to doubt its veracity but makes no attempt to contact author or otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. It seems bad practice, and that it is also applied against an Iranian presence (since he denies that there are many Iranians in Kuwait) fits into a troubling pattern of ethnic warring.

This list is hardly exhaustive. The apparent ethnic motivation for much of this disruption is quite a manner of concern. It seems unfair on constructive editors that this behavior can continue unchecked from a user who has shown little desire to become a constructive editor. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to this, he said everything perfectly. Let me just clarify one thing. He does go on the talk pages. He is never persuaded from the view he took before going to the page. He ignores arguments and points we make sometimes, doesn't even acknowledge that we made them. And last but not least, he persistently pushes his views if we disagree. The entire thing is frustrating. --Enzuru 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And even so, he only goes to the talk page in some of the cases. At Ossetians, for example, where he repeatedly removed the multiply-sourced (and fairly uncontroversial) fact that they are an Iranian people, he never took the issue to the talk page, even after being asked: questionanswer. But as you have pointed out, his participation at the talk page yields no fruit anyway. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the diffs of tag removal, which I agree are a concern, some of the other complaints here are pretty vague, without clear evidence, or citing very old evidence (those diffs about removing sources are from months ago). For example, can anyone provide a diff that shows a recent case where there was a clear talkpage consensus, and Bayrak editing against that consensus? If not, this really isn't a matter for ANI. I'd recommend some other step in dispute resolution, such as starting a thread at the Ethnic/Cultural conflicts noticeboard. I'll also have a word with Bayrak about the tags. --Elonka 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather recent. --Enzuru 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Khomeini situation is also recent, particularly his decision to continue the same ridiculous thread even though he was warned against it. The Khamenei edit was also within the last few days. The disruptive behavior is evident in both older and recent edits; you might say that it is characteristic of his Misplaced Pages career, unfortunately. It hardly seems reasonable to go to whatever instruction creep noticeboard over a lone wolf. He obviously he knows the rules, since he cited them when removing information he didn't like. That he then violates them for his own ends betrays an underlying lack of respect for Misplaced Pages rules, not a lack of understanding; having witnessed his repugnant double standard it is difficult to accept claims of innocence or misunderstanding. I emphasize that we should not be misled by these tactics, as it only prolongs the disruption and the frustration of genuinely well-meaning users. We have tried discussion, explanation, and warning to no avail. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

in arabic wikipedia we do not Accept the complaint from I.P i dont know here if they do because behaind the I.P always plots --Bayrak (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Arabic Misplaced Pages. WP:AGF --Smashville 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing when a user provides an example of his own inappropriate behavior by his response to a thread about his inappropriate behavior. Bayrak, you might consider actually presenting a defense to the charges against you, instead of attacking me (or any other user) without sound reasoning. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got the relevant articles (Khwārizmī, Ruhollah Khomeini) added to my watchlist, have added a couple comments to the talkpages, and will keep an eye on the edits of Bayrak (talk · contribs), 67.194.202.113 (talk · contribs), and Enzuru (talk · contribs). If other admins agree, this thread can probably be marked as resolved, perhaps "Situation is now subject to admin monitoring, no other action required at this time." --Elonka 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the only admin who has opined on this matter so far, and your response (asking for "recent diffs" even though they were already presented) suggests that you do not fully understand the case at this time. It is important that we do more than we have already done for he has not responded appropriately to our reactions so far. We could use a few more administrative opinions on how we should respond differently to this case depending on what direction it takes from now on. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you would like administrators to do? --Elonka 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to be harsher with him than you have. Your message on his talk page treats him as if he just doesn't know any better, which is hardly the case. Do not give him the benefit of the doubt. It is wrong to assume good faith at this point, since he has shown understanding of the rules only when they were convenient to him; this precludes a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and reveals that he does not care for the rules but rather is advancing an agenda along ethnic lines, using the rules when they help and disregarding them when they do not. Any words he may now try to hide behind (blaming poor English skills or newness) should be taken with a grain of salt because the evident double standard speaks against his claimed innocence and ignorance. What you need to communicate is that the ill nature of his editing so far is now clear to all, and thus any further transgressions will be met with a block since he knows better. I've already warned him to this end but he, of course, did not care, and even boldly continued the very disruptive thread that I had warned him against. As an administrator, you may be able to scare him into compliance, but it must first be clear that you are not misled by his attempts to dodge around the true nature of his misbehavior. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as though those who are resisting the rather absurd edits of editor "Bayrak" have received far more of a "tongue lashing" of sorts, than the actual culprit at hand. Bayrak very well understands the rules and purpose of Misplaced Pages, and only claims ignorance when the situation suits him. The bottom line is that Bayrak has an agenda that is clearly anti-Persian/anti-Iranian in nature, and is attempting to use the English language Misplaced Pages to advance that said agenda. He will no doubt continue this behavior until some action is taken. The Scythian 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see nothing is done, and I'm sure he's quite emboldened that an administrator is asking us for a consensus on an article that has historically had a strong consensus against what he wishes. --Enzuru 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, amusing. Particularly since the Azeris are partially Iranian, at the least. I'll keep an eye on this fellow. If he doesn't make any productive contributions he'll be banned before too long. Moreschi (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough, he has decided to push the disruptive Khomeini thread further . Just block him at this point; there is no point tolerating further trolling and stupid games from him. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Theserialcomma - Wikihounding

A bit of background: theserialcomma filed a checkuser on Ryan Holiday for sockpuppetry. Ryan Holiday said he would voluntarily close his account, and its been inactive for three months. On some of the articles he's edited, RyanHoliday provided a link to his blog in the external sources.

Recently, I noticed that theserialcomma has been combing through RyanHoliday's past edits and removing any instance where he linked to his blog. Here are three examples: . He's edit-warred over removing two of those: .

I know blogs are usually not considered a reliable source, and in this particular case present a COI, but the three blog entries in question seem credible (one is an interview with the translator of the book). Here are the blog entries RyanHoliday has linked to: Entrenched Players Dilemma, 4th Generation Warfare, and Mediations: Interview with Gregory Hays.

I posted on theserialcomma's talk page that I believed this to be a violation of WP:WIKIHOUND, and he thought I was misreading the policy. Since this couldn't be settled with simpler avenues, I figured I'd bring it here. Svernon19 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong, did you not like the "simpler avenue" answer received from the {helpme} 30 minutes before you posted this ANI ]? and your original threat was that you'd report me if i continued removing the blog. i haven't removed it since, but you still reported me. that seems a bit disingenuous to me. personal blogs are just not reliable sources in this case. sorry Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not that at all, I just didn't see the {help me}. I also think that this is a bit more thorough than the {help me} you posted. The way I saw it was that we had a disagreement over an issue, so I brought it here. Svernon19 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view, blogs are generally unreliable per policy but if it a blog has an interview with an individual, that's different. Usually, we are discussing blogs for what the authors of the blogs say. On the other hand, this can qualify as spam. Now, I understand (and perhaps even agree) with the removals at Meditations and Fourth generation warfare since they were just being used as external links and could possibly be spam. If there was something from the interview worth adding as a source (like it was being used at Entrenched Player's Dilemma), I think it's inappropriate to just remove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Upon review of the actual link here from Entrenched Player's Dilemma, it doesn't add anything and in fact doesn't even work as a source for the statement. Then I say I agree with Theserialcomma, but I think further discussion really belongs on an article-by-article level, not generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We can use blogs in some circumstances if they are interviews? I didn't know that. 08:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

The reason I brought this to the AN/I was not necessarily due to the removal of the external sources, but the method in which they are being removed. It appears that theserialcomma is going through all of RyanHoliday's past edits -- some of which are from over a year ago -- and reverting when appropriate. At best, it's not very constructive, and at worst, it's borderline obsessive. Maybe it's just me, but if I found out a user was combing through my edit history looking for inaccuracies, I would file him for Wikihounding. The only difference here is that the user is inactive, and therefore unable to defend his self. Svernon19 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

it appears that you are wrong. i went to 'search' and typed 'ryanholiday.net' and that is how i found those articles. it's unimportant to me who added the ryanholiday.net blog as a source, but according to you, ryan holiday is the one who added all the links to ryanholiday.net. that's nice to know, but irrelevant to how i found the blogs. i have no idea why you'd assume that i was looking at ryan holiday's contribs, other than your gigantic failure to assume good faith and your passive aggressive attempt to call me obsessive based on false premises. please return when you are ready to assume good faith and cease with your passive aggressive personal attacks. bye. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'll back off. I was unaware that there was a way to use Misplaced Pages to search for sources. Svernon19 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User Celanese is Corporate Sock

Please check the Celanese page history, the current ad-copy writing style of the article, the discussion page, and the editing history of User Celanese -- and remedy what is an obvious case of abuse and COI. Thanks mightily. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Username blocked as a clear violation (username matches name of article being edited). I will let others clean up any mess left behind. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's be a little nicer to people. Calling the person a "corporate sock" is bitey. What if the user was the secretary to the human relations department person that deals with overtime pay for employees paid by the hour? What if the user was a junior chemist working on project XYZ but had a few minutes to spare? They are not necessarily the Vice President for Media Relations. I explained the name policy on the person's talk page. Chergles (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangejumpsuit

Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently blocked, engaging again in tendentious editing, incivility, edit warring, etc.

A quick review of his recent edits should make it clear, but if you want a summary...After being warned many times by me and others for this behavior, comes off block to immediately edit war to remove material he sees as negative from Henry Hyde, he claims as retribution for the Barack Obama article being too full of praise. Responds to warnings on talk page with accusations of me being a "THUG" and such on my own talk page and his. Please be careful in reviewing his talk page because he has been manipulating it to remove warnings, retitle headings to make them accusations against me, etc. In principle he can do what he wants on his talk page so that is not the problem behavior itself, only a showing that he is on notice of a possible block, he has vowed to continue, and all attempts by me and others to reign this in have failed. If I fix the Henry Hyde article again he will revert again, or carry on his pointy disruption somewhere else. Also, he is a new WP:SPA created in August to disrupt the Barack Obama / Sarah Palin articles and by all appearances a possible WP:SOCK. Wikidemon (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is example of thuggery, in which wikedemon does not agree with me, so he threaten me with banning with this Sad, you can't win argument here about equality of political bios so you threaten and harass me instead.

This guy is on a power trip and should be stopped.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, my warnings are not helping the situation so I won't issue any more until we deal with it... to avoid inciting an edit war I'm also avoiding reverting the edits (I'll clean it up once we're done).Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious your "warnings" were just bold face threats, bulling, and harassment. What every you like to call them, the net results is to chill those who disagree with you when your augments not strong enough to stand discussion so you revert to ad homuium, and threats, which you so kindly have cataloged.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They are warnings, like the sticker you see on the top rung of your ladder not to stand on it. I cannot stop you, but the warning puts you on notice so that if and when you do get on trouble for your edits it is not without fair warning.Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What you simply call "Warnings" are in reality uncivil threats and incivility in order to chill the augment and attack me ad humiuim. I presented an augment and you personally attack me. That very uncivil and to have the gaul to say I attacked you.. thats a bold face lie and you know it.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly troubling. I think Orangejumpsuit needs to avoid these sorts of edits which do appear to be clearly about making a point. He directly claims to do so in his edit summaries... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess treating all the Political biographies, equally, is not a wikipeidan concept. Should only some Biographies be treated with different in terms of Style, content, and tone??? Or are you against this concept and whikpedia should be war ground where the Left gang should war with the Right gang and the one who has the numbers, admins on their side should win??? does MIGHT make right? Is it the gang that wins get the spoils??? Or, should all protect the fairness of the political bios, not because you like me or hate me or like or hate the subject of the bios but it's the right thing to do? This is the issue I stand on and wikidemon and others like them want it to be a place of political attack and those that stand in the away of this agenda shall be harassed and baned?Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The jumpsuited one has reacted to disagreements on edit questions with incivility; he repeatedly characterizes warnings about inappropriate language as "threats"; etc. His summaries and posts to talk pages display a lack of assumption of good faith and a failure to maintain a neutral point of view on the political topics which seem to be his only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth is not very nice... The question I am aruging is that all political biographies should be treated equally. If you are against that, then wikipeida is just a bias political blog, with out the value of fairness and balance which all the people of the political biographies deserve. This drama is proof that this may not be the ultimate goal of wikipeida, but only a place where political gang war flourish , un checked and enabled by thos like you... Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS to Orangemike, your cheeky "the jumpsuited one" is more poof of incivility and you chilling the agument. Whats good for you is not good for me? oh well? Orangejumpsuit (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he was trying to clarify he was talking about you, not himself, as your usernames are somewhat similar. \ / (⁂) 04:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week. What I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that OJS was just released off of another block just a few hours ago and began this editing again. I figured the fact that he started so immediately warranted a longer block. --Smashville 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I endorse it fully. He's just trying to pick fights... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor's talk page is an interesting read if you want to see a flame-out. Block is now extended to indefinite. Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blanked it and protected, per Wikidemon's suggestion...if nothing else, he made a legal threat at the end...can someone stick a template on there...I know there's one, but I can't find it...--Smashville 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

{{indef}} on the user page. It is a pretty good flameout. Did he eventually rid wikipedia of its "bios"? Protonk (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

uptight and a bit pugnacious perhaps. But his points were well-taken. On the Henry Hyde page he found at least one blatant example of NPOV. The Obama article is a campaign mailer. The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. The Republicans have their scandals amplified while the Democrats have their idealism amplified. I think someone should mentor him in Wiki civility etc, not just block him. We could use one or two more Conservatives on wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. Uhhuh. You might be interested in Conservapedia. They don't care about NPOV. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly blocked IP able to edit page

Supposedly blocked IP 67.222.12.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was able to revert redirect. Dr.K. (logos) 06:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Blocked at 2:09, last edited at 2:07. You must be confused... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am never confused. There was no date-time stamp on the block. The IP activity appeared on my watchlist and when I tried to give it a warning I saw the block notice. Without the time stamp on the page I assumed the block was old. When I double checked the history of the IP block page I discovered that the block was recent. By then I had an edit conflict with you when I tried to remove the notice. So please make a habit to attach a date-time stamp on such blocks instead of calling people who try to help you confused. Dr.K. (logos) 06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor's last entry shows 2:07. The block log shows 2:09. When the last entry against an item is a log entry, the previous entry on the item (such as an edit) typically does not show, i.e the block entry overrides it in the watch list. It's a system oddity. Baseball Bugs 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. I guess you just reported a bug :) (Or was it a gremlin?) Dr.K. (logos) 07:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure it's a "bug", just an "oddity". One example I can think of is when this page gets vandalized (believe or not, that does happen) and an admin semi-protects it, I think that the normal watchlog entry for this page disappears, and the only entry showing is the protection log... until someone edits this page again. I might be getting my stories mixed up, but it's something like that. Baseball Bugs 07:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this also. But in this case this wasn't the problem for me. The problem was that the block notice on the talk page did not have a date-time stamp. Aren't block notices supposed to be date and time stamped? In this case I saw the vandalism on Muhammad and slavery on my watchlist, I reverted it and when I tried to warn the user on their talk page I saw the block notice. I assumed that the notice must have been old because the edit was so fresh. If the block notice had a date stamp appearing on the talk page it would help me see that the block was recent. Dr.K. (logos) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm only seeing this one entry on the talk page from 2:22, a notice of being blocked due to being a proxy. I don't know if there's a rule about time-stamping within the blocks in general, but it's on the edit history. And if you go to template blocked proxy, you'll see that there's no parameter for a timestamp. So maybe the admin who posted it could have done 4 tildes after it or something to make it clearer when it was posted. Baseball Bugs 08:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Bugs. I am used to seeing time stamps in other type blocks and that misled me. I did take corrective action by looking at the talk page history immediately after, but by the time I was editing WP:ANI to delete my post the edit conflict happened. Dr.K. (logos) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding original research, edit warring, personal attacks

I wonder if someone could have a word with anon editor 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs). He/she has repeatedly added original research and (I believe) synthesized research to I Am the Walrus (here, here, and here) despite the policy being explained in both edit summaries and on his/her talk page. In doing so, he/she has also edit warred. He/she also made a personal attack in this edit summary. He/she is also adding POV to the same article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, poor baby. Did Daddy and Mommy Misplaced Pages make your hurt booboo better?

grow up, asshole. get a a life ... and get out of your wheelchair.

Hey, everybody, look!: -- it's the Church Lady!!

Oh can we mister, mister please, can we please, mister .... sorry we hurt your field, mister

Here are the very dangerous and horrible, most horrible TWO SENTENCES that this asshole dickhead is trying to censor (what fun he would have been under Zhdanov ...) (look it up, O ignorant one):

"In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle." In other words, the Beatles randomly added, in "real time" "found art," the only scene from Shakespeare that features both the words "beadle" and "beetle"."

THAT'S IT!! Yep, that's it -- that is ALL that this crybaby dickhead WikiNazi is putting himself out to PREVENT. And you have to ask: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS GUY?? I mean, seriously: WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIM?? WHERE DID EVERYTHING GO WRONG FOR HIM?? HOW DID HE END UP BEING SUCH AN ASSHOLE THAT HE ACTUALLY PRODUCES EFFORT TO CENSOR MY TWO INNOCUOUS SENTENCES ABOUT A SONG??

Please, wikipedia -- IGNORE assholes like this guy. THIS GUY tried to prevent TWO SENETNCES from being posted on an ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT SUBJECT. He is suitable for Stalin, not for THE USA. Enough. Buh-bye, Ward 3001. our day is done. We are tired of you. You contribute nothing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.182.237.70 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Above editor's day is indeed done for 31 hours. I haven't blocked the first IP address but if it gets used for the same purpose it should be blocked (IMHO) dougweller (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add a couple more points:

• First, I think 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs) and 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) are the same person. They edit from similar IPs, from the same city, and with the same ISP. Both have edited only a single passage from I Am the Walrus. And now 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) has made his second personal attack in this edit summary (the first attack is linked above).
• Secondly, this/these editors are using a Shakespeare concordance to identify statistical data, which he/she then uses to reach a novel conclusion: "In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle."" That seems clearly to be original research; the citation is not to a source that discusses any coincidence between Shakespeare and I Am the Walrus; it is only to the search engine's statistical results. This has been pointed out to the anon editor(s) without any response other than reverting and personal attacks. I also consider the uncited phrase "Amazing coincidence" to be original research. I hope this helps clarify. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I agree that they are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked the one who posted most recently. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And the author left out another amazing coincidence - that in the very same scene, the Bard has the players saying "Loveth me doest", "I am want to holdeth thy hand", and "Why doth we not doest it in the road?" Eerie, ain't it? Baseball Bugs 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• We really, REALLY need a new block reason: "Personal attacks IN ALL CAPS made on a page full of administrators. Diagnosis: lack of clue, possibly fatal. Recommend high-speed transcortical ball-peen therapy." Or for the Shakespeareans amongst thou: "Bangeth, bangeth, Maxwell's silver banhammer".GJC 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Assertion of article ownership

• Samil20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.128.220.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user, along with his IP, continually edits Nas related articles to fit his criteria, not the guidelines, manual of styles, or policies. He asserts articles ownership and reverts edits without discussion with whatever he likes best. Both his account and IP have been blocked before for this disrupting editing and I'd rather have an admin deal with it, and also to avoid any type of 3RR, because I'm completely ignored by this person, despite my warnings. DiverseMentality 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• That named account hasn't editing since september. Protonk (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• IP blocked for edit warring. Looks like the same user (or similar). Protonk (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I only pointed the account out because the IP is that person. Once the account got blocked, he used that IP, which also got blocked shortly afterward for the same disruption. Thanks for taking care of it, though. DiverseMentality 08:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an admin who reads Japanese

At Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 5, User:Akanemoto is requesting restoration of his user page, which was deleted on 49 different occasions at his own request, and eventually deleted and protected from re-creation due to his use of the page as a (Japanese-language) blog/webhost. In the last year, he has made no edits other than to request deletion review of his user page, which has been rejected three times so far in 2008. If there are any Japanese-reading admins willing to take a look at the page and see if the user has a legitimate reason to restore the page, I'd appreciate it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point, why bother allowing him to edit Misplaced Pages at all? Does he actively contribute or is all that he does on his user page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He edited in articlespace about a year ago. Since then, he's only edits have to been at DRV to request undeletion. I asked him what he's planning on doing here and if he doesn't respond, I feel like blocking him. Cutting and pasting into Babel tells me he's just writing crap ("I create everything.", "I am all ideas and the human who understands sense of value." and I'm not going into his longer ones). This is his LiveJournal or Twitter or something but it's not useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese but I will say that online/machine translations are notoriously inaccurate, especially with Asian languages it seems. While I highly doubt that whatever it is that he is so adamant about is actually worth keeping, it's probably good to keep in mind that it's likely not as bad as babel says it is. l'aquatique || talk 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Google and Yahoo! translators have been doing fairly well with Japanese translations lately. The sentence structuring often needs work, but the meaning is rarely lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at this thread from sometime ago concerning this user and numerous alternate accounts Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive125#Need_help_from_admin_who_understands_Japanese --82.7.39.174 (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found a bunch of other related accounts thanks to this IP's posting, including Atsushi Kanemoto (talk · contribs) who was editing his user page not more than a week ago. The usernames are all similar, and I'm going to block Akanemoto's account and see if we can get him blocked from Misplaced Pages for some time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lar has helped me find the following accounts, all of which did the same thing in the past few months.

• Yuriusu2 (talk · contribs)
• Lapt Grademo (talk · contribs)
• Carino Lamanda (talk · contribs)
• Arayurusubete (talk · contribs)
• Reception2 (talk · contribs)
• Schwarz2 (talk · contribs)
• Harbert (talk · contribs)

All of these are on the same IP as Akanemoto (talk · contribs) and Atsushi Kanemoto (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation bot

User:Citation bot has been applied to the Featured Article Candidate acid dissociation constant. The results are most unsatisfactory and a lot of work will be needed to repair the damage caused by this bot.

1. When there were a number of co-authors the the reference now gives the first author and "et al." (11 times). This is absolutely unacceptable
2. By turning book publisher names into links a bunch of invalid links have been created when the publisher does not have a WP page
3. The same applies to journal names (at least 13 invalid links in all)
4. Book chapter titles have been incorporated into the cite book template, inconsistently with page numbers
5. Page ranges are written as 1 - 2, after we had laboriously changed all the minus signs to "ndash". It is not clear which symbol has been used.

The references and links had already been checked during the FAC process are were found to be satisfactory. There are more than 50 references which I shall now have to correct by hand. Petergans (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You should report it at User:Citation bot/bugs. I think that would be the most effective thing to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

might be a good opportunity to make the missing articles for publishers and journals. Could someone list them, and I'll work on them. Most scientifi publishers and most chemical journals are likely to e appropriate for articles ( or redirects if its a qy of name variation)DGG (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the only thing the citation bot has done is this. I can't quite see the problem. Could someone enlighten me? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen is right; that single edit (the only edit from the bot in the last 500 edits to the article) doesn't involve any of the changes you note. Those changes were made by User:Headbomb, who has done extensive copy-editing to the article. Since you have already complained on his talk page (before you wrote this), it appears that you are aware of the issue; I don't see why you are squawking about the bot. I also note that you have blocked the bot from editing the page. What type of administrator action do you need, or are you simply venting? Horologium (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also--and please smack me in the head if I am, in fact, displaying complete cluelessness--but couldn't you just go back to the last pre-(bot/Headbomb/whatever did the bad edits) edit and just choose "restore this version"? Am I missing something basic here?? GJC 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, none of the complaints listed by Petergans are related to the activity of Citation bot. For future reference, the most appropriate place to list bugs produced by the bot is on the bot's bug list / talk page, as suggested in the bot's edit summary, so that the operator (in this case myself) can deal with them directly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Oct11988duh‎ - blocked for blatant copyright violation

Special:Contributions/Oct11988duh‎ started uploading several images from his/her flickr account into commons, and added them to several articles including Bindi (decoration), Women in India, Sari etc. Some of the images looked suspect, and I requested the user not to add the images (some were quite irrelevant to the articles). The user kept re-inserting the images. I looked into the licensing, and there were some immediate issues. For example, the user uploaded commons:Image:Red_Bindi.jpg (deleted now for copyvio), which by his/her own admission, was a scan from a magazine. After it was speedily deleted, the user hastily reuploaded it and claimed this to be from the user's own work flickr account (deleted due to copyvio now. Next, the user uploaded image:Indian Bride.jpg, claiming it to be own work from his/her flickr account. Actually, a quick google search shows the image was taken from here, and copyrighted by AFP. (contrary to the user's claim's in both flickr and commons).

I requested the user not to keep adding the copyvio images. However, the user kept reverting back the images both in Bindi (decoration) and Women in India. I proceeded to block the user and also mentioned in the user's talk page that I am willing to unblock the user as soon as the user promises to not use the copyvio photos.

However, rather than making any such promise, the user claims in his/her talk page that the block is unfair and constitutes "abuse by an administrator". So, I am putting the block up for review. I also want to clarify that my block of 48 hours was not meant to be a 2 day block, rather I was going to unblock the user as soon as the user promised not to violate copyright. If the user shows understanding of copyright, I am willing to unblock him/her right away. If other admins feel the block was unreasonable, feel free to unblock the user right away. --Ragib (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I am logging off for at least 8 hours from now, so ... if other admins deem the block unnecessary, feel free to unblock the user in the mean while. --Ragib (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I totally support the block and unless the user shows any signs of reform I support extending the block too. - Mgm| 14:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

#####alk.com

Just a heads up - an IP was blocked this morning for spamming links to #####alk.com - I first thought that it was just run of the mill spam but it's actually a GNAA browser hijack site - if you see it, as well as reverting it, please warn people not to check out the URL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More than one - #####ot net. Is it on the blacklist yet, and should we contact oversight o'er this? -Jéské Couriano 11:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Both now on the blacklist. Black Kite 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You only get the GNAA thing if your ip has been added to their ban list. Second, in instances where someone's clearly attempting to promote visibility of their website, it helps not to post it on the most visible part of ours— ANI. :P --slakr 12:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link; this oldid has it if you really want to find out what it is. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was the reason more than 1 IP was blocked bowdlerized? -Jéské Couriano 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that it had something to do with vegetable matter.GJC 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth there used to be a Last Measure article. I don't recall whether or not it listed other urls to avoid, but if so this could be a rare case where deleting the article caused a site's traffic to increase. Once upon a time everyone knew better. If you edit at work or in any other non-solitary environment, the best approach might be to disable javascript by default and then turn it back on for trusted sites on a case-by-case basis (and only if you can't get by without it). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting vandal

Oj54n6 (talk · contribs) is adding <div style="visibility: hidden;"> to multiple articles at the same time. S/he has been reported to AIV. Could someone take a quick action? Sleaves _talk 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki vandal series creating monobook.js which edits "special:random" pages. Reported on CU list earlier but obviously still trying to play. Blocked anyway (& again posted to CU list). Thanks --Herby 13:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, again

A "JIDF" sockpuppet tried to force a link to off-wiki harassment and attempted outing of Misplaced Pages editors into Jewish Internet Defense Force. In this context I received an email from Einsteindonut. Now a "new" editor is edit warring on the talk page to remove the discussion (which included a checkuser report from Luna Santin). Could someone who is familiar with Einsteindonut please look at the situation and do whatever is necessary, possibly including an adjustment of Einsteindonut's block. (Why isn't he banned yet?) --Hans Adler (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• There users are already defacto banned. Indef blocked and noone will contemplate unblocking them so under the current definition they are already banned. I'm blocking socks on sight now so you may as well add them to the banned list. Spartaz 13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There's only ten months left on einsteindonut's block. Unless someone wants to make it indef, then the ban would make a difference.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Right now, it's just the usual WP:TROLL problem from that source. Please do not feed. As the sockpuppets come and go, and updates to the JIDF web site say much the same thing as the sockpuppets, it's starting to look like "the JIDF" is really just one person's blog. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Its now set at indef. Can someone tell me why we host this page? I seriously wonder whether they ate truly notable. Spartaz 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It survived multiple requests for deletion. The organisation was featured in many international newspapers recently, including the FAZ, which is Germany's second largest newspaper and one of the most respected publications in the world. It has also been the subject of scholarly journals and in Ha'aretz as well as the Jerusalem Post. There have been many other news items recently about the same issues in which the JIDF is fighting, including a recent piece in the NY Times entitled "Google's Gatekeepers" (regarding YouTube). Check out the "press" section of their site for more info. If the JIDF is not notable, then neither many other articles on WP, either. Nominate it for deletion if you don't think the organization is notable enough. It seems to me that many editors here just don't like the JIDF's treatment of Misplaced Pages, do not like their right wing views, do not like what they try to do, do not like the fact that some people create sockpuppets in an effort to keep the article accurate, so they question the notability. I highly doubt the JIDF cares if they are on Misplaced Pages. They'd probably much rather have their people work on articles about Israel and the conflict in the middle east than the one article about them. I don't think it's fair to smear the organization because of the behavior of a few sockpuppets who may or may not even be associated with it. --Usslakecounty (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's still around because it survived AfD twice. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force. There were enough press reports last summer for some notability. Much less press attention since then. We may in time conclude that it only had brief notability (WP:ONEVENT, or "fifteen minutes of fame") via another AfD, but there's no rush. Why feed the trolls? --John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking obvious socks, there's another. First contribs are coming here to speak with clear specific knowledge of our processes, specific procedures' results and so on. ThuranX (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

JIDF Talk Page Being Used for General Discussion

• Resolved - sock blocked Spartaz 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like many editors (Peter cohen, Hans Adler) and others are using the JIDF Talk Page for general discussion about the JIDF, various sockpuppet cases, and even sharing private emails there. Strange to see such behavior among well-established editors. At the top of the page, there is a banner announcing that the area is not a forum and that all discussion should be limited to actual improvement of the article. Also of interest is the fact that Peter cohen is on the JIDF's "attack page" --HD90853 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See above post by Hans Adler. I have already reported this user as a sockpuppet of ED.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now if you could please stop using the JIDF Talk Page for general discussion (as it is not a forum), it would be appreciated.--HD90853 (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be even nicer if you and your mates stopped sending me (and other editors) harassing emails, the mention of which you were trying to remove from the article talk page. Something, surely, which editors need to be aware of.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi

Sennen goroshi seems to think hes free to settle old scores by barging into totally unrelated arguments tohim, because he is wikistalking and watching both Kuebie and Caspian blue. i have problems with some of USer:Kuebie's edits, byt Sennen goroshi"s actions are totally unnacceptable.Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

he has also threatened to report caspian blue and kuebie for violations totally unrelated to him, and he should be given a firm warning or a block for stalking both kuebie and caspian blue.

Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You need Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. There doesn't seem to be any blockable conduct. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notice and your acknowledgment of Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s behaviors, Julius Ceasarus From Primus. But one thing to be correct, he threatened me and Kuebie with false accusation which constitute WP:Harassment. When I saw edit warring on Koreans, I gave warnings to a newbie who inserted dubious contents repeatedly and violated 3RR regardless of my warning. I don't see what violation I did for the matter, but Sennen goroshi followed me and then threaten me to report me for causing a drama and even encouraged the violator to send him an email to attack me. I also don't see anything uncivil from Kuebie's comment. I believe those false allegations and intimidation by Sennen goroshi are blockable offenses and his report here is a long overdue given his history.

• WP:HARASSMENT

ANI#Personal information incident (reported on Aug.4.2007) He came Misplaced Pages to WP:OUT personal information on his real-life enemy,Smoove K (talk · contribs). Since then, his disruptions have kept going on and many files on him were useless, so proper sanction should be appropriate to the user at this time. He has never created any single article, but has blanked out properly cited relevant info as falesly labeling them as "POV", "OR" being himself NPOV. These practices constitutes gaming the system too. When edit wars on Koreans between Kuebie and an in-dept Wiki-knowledge newbie, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk · contribs) occurred for the newbie's insertion of dubious material including WP:Original research as he admitted, I gave warnings to both users who later violated 3RR altogether, but the newbie accused me of meatpuppet to evade his 3RR violation. Given his disruption and incivility, I reported both of them to AN3, but Sennen appeared there and gave an absurd threat and even suggested the 3RR violator to email him to plot against me. Then he condoned the newbie's rude comments, but gave bogus warnings regarding civility to Kuebie because Kuebie conveyed annoyance like "wah wah".

• WP:Wikistalking

The below articles are diffs showing that Sennen goroshi has been wikistalking me and Kuebie. He never had edited the articles before, then just blindly reverts edits by me or Kuebie without any discussion. Without looking into contents, he has even sided sockpuppeters like Jjk82 (talk · contribs), Occidentalist (talk · contribs) to whom other editors rebuked their disruptive edits just because his preys (me and Kuebie) edit. Talk:South_Korea/Archive_2#Sennen_Goroshi. He certainly knows of the concept of stalking, and his erroneous edits were contested, he accused his opponents of wikistalking all of which were totally uncalled for.

• WP:TROLLING.

When Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs) asked a comment from users who have constructively edited Korean cuisine, Sennen who has caused nothing but troubles to the article falsely accused of WP:CANVASSing and gave him this racist insult.The practice of eating dog meat is inhumane and barbaric, it is interesting in the same way that horror movies are interesting. It is also interesting when people from nations that eat dog meat get offended and take extreme nationalistic pride in the fact that they eat dogs. However, his canvassing to someone for help is also contradictory.

• WP:INCIVILITY

He was recently blocked for his uncivil comment like "bullshit", harassment to editors and edit wars on Korean cuisine. After Jerem43 (talk · contribs) tried to mitigate the insulting title,, Sennen goroshi lectured him even though he knew his comment was clearly offensive. and received an admins' warnings. On contradictory to his lecture, he redacted other' titling.

• This disruptive behavioral pattern can not be done with a common dispute resolution as long as he would not acknowledge his wrongdoings. I have tried to WP:AGF on him regardless his long-term disruptive behaviors against me, as not reporting his blatant WP:3RR violation, and not authorizing a WP:RFC on his behavior. But I believe it is time to do something on him. Enough is enough.--Caspian blue 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one week due to incivility, wikistalking, and harassment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the merits of complaints raised by either side, I will again say that it is high time that an RFArb or RFC/U be filed regarding Caspian Blue. There's been, unless I'm mistaken, at least a post or two every week for the last several either initiated by him or regarding him. I am not saying that he has necessarily done anything wrong. But this keeps going on and on and on and on. Let's find a resolution to it. // roux   07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that Caspian blue has been the object of a relentless and quite sophisticated wikistalking campaign (not necessarily by Sennen goroshi, but a banned user with lots of sock- and meatpuppets), so an RfC/U would most likely only erupt in more disruption. I'd really wish our friend Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) began to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot: as long as they keep up their harassment, administrators will rightly react with a protection reflex to everything coming up about Caspian, and whatever real problems there may be with Caspian's editing will be all the less likely to be actually handled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history, but I trust you see where I'm coming from. // roux   07:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after a short glance at Caspian's edits in this particular dispute, I see nothing wrong outside of some minor canvassing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not necessarily saying that CB has done anything wrong (I haven't delved into his edit history to have an opinion one way or the other). I'm aware of the stalking issue but it seems as though the problems--whether real or imaginary--are more wide-ranging, and I think the site would benefit from a focused ray of sunshine, rather than 1-2 posts per week. RFArb would be better for that, as scrutiny would come on everyone involved in a much more concentrated fashion than an RFC/U. That's all. // roux   07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, why do you suggest that that should be under my name even though you've seen me suffering harassment campaign? Roux, you've been through an ArbCom restriction, so you seem to want others go to it (per your comments to others at ANI). FYI, this report is even filed by a third party with whom I ever never contacted and seems to have an opposite point of view in politics). If there should be filed for ArbCom, the title should be Japan-Korea related articles like Macedonia subjects. --Caspian blue 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have me confused with someone else. I have never been involved with any ArbCom decision, whether as a commenter, party, or subject to sanctions. The only reason I said 'under your name' is because your name is the one that pops up all the time. Nothing more. The only reason I suggest ArbCom is because the attention of an ArbCom case shines a 50kW searchlight onto the subject and shows all the issues. Nothing more. I understand the stalking issue, and I sympathise. As I said, however, my impression has been that this is a wider issue than just stalkers. That's all. // roux   07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, but you've always suggested others to go to ArbCom which takes at least 2 or 3 months. You were very upset at a user for a tiny thing two days ago which I could not find any wrong, but your suggestion sounds very drastic and only encourages sockpuppetrs/SPAs booming. As I say, if ArbCom should be filed, I believe "Japan-Korea disputes and harassment issues" are more suitable.--Caspian blue 08:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barangay redirects

Seav (talk · contribs) has just decided to go around to barangay articles and redirect them to their parent cities. There is no consensus for these redirects. As a matter of fact, some have them have survived afd's with a consensus to keep. I placed a message on Seav's talkpage requesting that he not redirect any articles unless he gains a consensus for such action. I also began reverting his redirects to the previous article status. He again redirected the articles so I am bringing this issue here. I propose that Seav be blocked. We can't have editors that think they can go around deleting a large number of articles articles and making them redirects without a consensus. Being bold only goes so far. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting back only some of them that you have reverted, most unreferenced and has had no expansion for several months now. Please don't think that there's a blanket global consensus for retaining every barangay article: some of them survive AfD, others have been closed as redirects, and others have been deleted: As a compromise, I will not touch those that have survived AfD and will be bold in redirecting others that are little more than unreferenced stubs. --seav (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing huge chunks of content without a consensus to do so. This is another article deletion that an afd consensus decided to Keep. Also, please discontinue your disingenuous edit summaries. You're not "merging" anything; all you're doing is redirecting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the history of the related articles first before accusing me of deleting info from Salangbato. See this for the merge, which I did before you reverted me that second time. And now see this talk page note so that it's all explained better. --seav (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify when I said "I will not touch those that have survived AfD", it means that I won't do a plain redirect (which removes info, contrary to AfD) and instead try to merge it, only if the info is small enough to be merged. --seav (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole story is in Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability. Currently there are no consensus to keep brgy articles and seav is only following what the closure suggested. Keep votes for brgy afd usually resort to WP:OSE and WP:PAPER. I beleive that brewcrewer is only afraid of WP:BIAS when none if us takes offence.--Lenticel 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The linked discussion is further evidence of the problem we have ourselves here. It's an agreement between three deletionist editors to redirect the articles because "an afd would attract too much attention" and would result in a Keep. Indeed, they are correct. The overall consensus at Misplaced Pages that geographic locations like neighborhoods are inherently notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the archives linked in that thread. A reoccurring discussion from 2005 (long before I was here) by different editors is hardly a deletionist conspiracy.--Lenticel 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm offended. First you're falsely accusing me of using "disingenuous edit summaries" and redirecting instead of merging, when merging is what I have been doing ever since you put up this AN/I thread. Second, you're accusing me of being a deletionist (which, I must note, is not in itself a bad thing) when there's nothing in my overall contributions that point to me being a deletionist. You're just using the "deletionist" label as a drama mechanism. --seav (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent) allow me to clear things up regarding the afd's. We were not against putting articles in afd. We're against mass afd's since the original nomination explanation is lost from the resurgence of a lot inclusionists which only reacted to the unnatural increase in the number of nominated afds. This occurrence can be seen in the nominations of Gavin.Collins, Pilotbob and TTN to name a few and I'm pretty sure that rather than getting consensus, it only generated drama, lots of it. I'm open to having brgy. afd's but I want it fair and square with only WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. So far brewcrewer has not risen for the challenge and still resort to WP:OSE's--Lenticel 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for a discussion of the notability of the barangays. The correct forum is afd or the articles talk pages. If you think my arguments amounts to an OSE, that's just too bad. Your opinion regarding my arguments are not a valid basis for the avoidance of a discussion and making unilateral notability determinations. Getting rid of all these articles by flying under the radar and redirecting them is wrong. You guys are desperately trying to avoid an afd by redirecting all the barangays you deem to be unnotable. However, I do understand. Rarely do barangay discussions result in the deletion of barangay article under discussion. This redirect trick is the only way this article can be gotten rid of without anybody noticing. Sorry guys, but I'm on duty. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, whenever barangays are AfD'd, there's no consensus to either keep or delete. You're assuming too much when you say "rarely". Yes, this is not the proper venue to discuss the notability/inclusion/deletion of a broad class of articles, this is the venue you chose to discuss my actions you find so objectionable. I've actually stopped my plain redirections and am doing proper merges already, which should satisfy almost all people. Yet, you still object to my actions, particularly in the case of Salangbato for some stubborn reason I can't comprehend. Take note that the AfD says keep not keep and DON'T MERGE. --seav (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with some 30 redirects and its hard to be on top of each one. Yes, apparently Salangbato had been merged. But we are dealing with a whole bunch of other barangays that are just plain redirects. I am not condoning the merges. I still think that they should only be merged if there is a consensus to do so. But my comment earlier was not entirely true. There is atleast one proper merge. I apologize. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your apology. For the record, there is no consensus to merge and there is no consensus either not to merge. Because there's no such consensus (to merge or not to merge), I don't think I'm wrong for merging stub articles into parent articles. Can we consider this AN/I thread closed and concentrate on discussing individual articles on their talk pages? --seav (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of AFD template

Er, an established user removed an AFD template from an article with the summary; "Stop trying to delete this list"

Am I missing something here? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored it and left a message about the possible outcomes of removing AFD notices on his talkpage. I don't think any admin action is really required unless he persists - everyone can make at least one mistake right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea of course, in fact it seems quite out of character, I worried he's account might've been hacked or something lol. Sorry to disturb you, but thanks for your help, I just prefer these things to come from admins in case I've missed out on some rule (i.e. I thought the AFD template might be incorrect as it's a "List" technically lol). Ryan4314 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

I recently tried editing from my IP and I got: "Editing from 62.24.251.240 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Woody for the following reason(s): Editing by anonymous users from your Internet service provider is currently disabled. Misplaced Pages has erroneously been added to a UK website blacklist, and your ISP has decided to block your access to part of the site." Why is my IP blocked? Message from XENU 19:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because of this Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried viewing the article in question Virgin Killer and I got a 404 from your servers. Has Misplaced Pages removed the article in question, or has my ISP said "LOL NO"? Message from XENU 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The latter, basically. --Conti|✉ 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Very stupid on their end. Message from XENU 20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jpetersen46321

Jpetersen46321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a little long and has a lot of parts, but here goes.

I first crossed paths with Mr. Petersen a little over a year ago when he was era style date-warring at Second Temple among others. His edit history shows a campaign of wholesale changes across many articles in entirely different areas of interest from BCE/CE to BC/AD. He disappeared (under that nick) at about the time of our disagreement. Today he came back to revert to his personally preferred era style, dishonestly characterizing the consensus version as vandalism (see edit summary). For good measure, he added a little disruption by reverting Quails from a redirect to a version that has not been used since 2002, calling the redirect that has existed unmolested for six years "NPOV commentary". His apparent motivation for doing this was the fact that I used the article as an example of a page that had been copy-pasted from Easton's Bible Dictionary in the early days of Misplaced Pages whilst trying to explain to him why his date-warring was against policy.

In an unrelated issue, he also uploaded an image of Phil Goss after the image tagging bot tagged the image as not having copyright info, he removed the tag claiming that the image is "Copyright John Bloomer 2008", despite the fact that the image is obviously a screen capture from a broadcast in which Mr. Goss participated, in which case the copyright belongs to the network producing the broadcast, not Mr. Bloomer (whoever he is). Interestingly, Mr. Petersen claimed this edit to the Phil Goss talk page, made by an IP 66.99.221.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who stated not that he had a proper copyright, but that he believes the image to be in the public domain. Incidentally that IP (obviously Mr. Petersen) also managed a little era-warring today. I think the image should be speedily deleted, since it is apparent that nothing Mr. Petersen says can be taken on trust.

It may also be useful to compare this sockpuppetry case.

Mr. Petersen's strategy seems to be to drop in once every ten months or so, leave a few droppings for the grownups to clean up, then depart. He obviously isn't here to help the project. If I'd filed a vandal report, I'm sure it would have been considered stale, and I'm sure it's taken me longer to post this than it took him to engage in his disruption, which is, I suppose, how he gets his satisfaction. The only remedy that seems like it would have any effect is an indefblock, but that would probably be considered too harsh under the circumstances.

In any event, the doubtful image should certainly go. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to archived thread (Misplaced Pages, whereto now, or the psychosomatic mafia)

Just a brief note following up an archived thread which I was reading and inadvertently responded to. I'll repeat here what I said there:

"WLU has stated above that "Virtually all admins that have tried to help Guido have eventually turned away", and then quotes from my talk page and Guido's responses to my replies. I can confirm that I did try to help Guido, and it seems to have resulted in abject failure, for which I apologise. There was another response that Guido made as well (concerning a little matter that has been taking up a lot of my time recently), but that is neither here nor there, as I knew it was part and parcel of getting involved the way I did. The point I want to make here is that I somehow missed the post Guido made to his user page until recently, and was rather shocked by it. As WLU rightly notes, I had already been rebuffed by Guido and I was already stepping away from this, and Guido's post to his user page has only confirmed that for me. Some people say I give people too many chances, but I do have a breaking point and it has been reached in this case. I'm not going to support any block (as I think Guido's post is effectively a "departure essay"), but if he returns then the "breaching experiment" considerations would come into play and I wouldn't be able to defend Guido in any shape or form simply because there is no way of knowing whether or not he is starting another "experiment". If anyone feels that there is a danger of Guido conducting similar experiments in future with this or other accounts, and that this would be disruptive, a community ban may be needed." Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The full, archived thread, including my late post, is here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

######ａｌｋ．ｃｏｍ

I and at least one other editor have had "Have you bookmarked ######ａｌｋ．ｃｏｍ yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck.<!-- ��B8��#� �P�ou��-->" put on our talk page, under the heading "AT," with the edit summary "Reverted vandalism. 932c". Note that I made the HTML comment visible, it is not visible to the naked eye on our talk pages.

Examples: User_talk:Davidwr, User_talk:Genemod

Is there a way to blacklist this text? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another I saw . Grsz 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can try $wgSpamRegex (requires developer intervention), one of the anti-vandalism bots or wait until the abuse filter. MER-C 04:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11: Do you mean another 4, all since undone. These 4 had different edit summaries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It showed up on my talk page twice last night.---Balloonman 04:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Got two at my talk page just a couple hours ago. –Juliancolton 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Open proxy detection - that's where they will show up. MER-C 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here was another one, blocked by an admin: Baseball Bugs 08:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:EagleScout18

Following User:EagleScout18's comments from just earlier, he got blocked. I have been having discussions with him at User talk:EagleScout18 and after having just denied his last unblocked request, I protected his talk page for a week per his request. This is probably not anywhere policy but I honestly was about to denied his request and protect if he wouldn't stop. This at least gives him a week off. Given User:Grsz11's comment here, I thought I'd mention it here. If anyone else wants to remove the protection (I'm not sure what, to continue discussions with him?), feel free to. As I told Grsz here, maybe I'm naive but I still think there's a remote chance he could be useful on other topics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like textbook IAR to me. Yeah, he's soapboxing a bit, but no biggie. In a roundabout way, he's taking the right way out in some sense: he knows he's heading in the wrong direction, he needs the week off, and protecting the page stops the first and guarantees the second. Good job all around. // roux   06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When blocked users use their talk page to continue debates rather than to properly request unblocks, protecting the page is a normal option. It's a good idea in this case, even if the blockee himself asked for the protection. Baseball Bugs 08:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards