Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:28, 28 March 2009

• 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kartel King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xcahv8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sabre Savage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polystyla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor recently made an appearance on ANI because of an edit war between himself and an IP editor. Both editors were subsequently blocked. Right after said blocks, the previously mentioned editor became the target of an SPI case, and was found to be using multiple unconfirmed accounts to avoid scrutiny. The master account, or what was assumed to be, was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to avoid edit scrutiny.

The editor in question then started filing unblock requests, which mainly attacked other editors, including admins, the user also engaged in incivility, and personal attacks. To this date(check the second user page(the sock account), the user has not admitted any wrong doing, and in fact continues to attack other editors, myself included. Here are some great diffs:

• Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero(check the bottom of the page)

• Calling me clueless

Any way, I do not see the editor to be a productive one if he is going to act as if he is infallible, and not admit that when he attacked others, it was wrong.— Dædαlus 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that after looking through the contributions of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, many of them have violated 3RR.— Dædαlus 12:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban, although at this point it is just a formality; since none of the old accounts will ever be unblocked and any new ones will be blocked as socks the user in question is effectively banned anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Someone needs to remind him or/show him something: he claims that we are allowed to have multiple accounts. This is, as we all know, true. What we of course are not allowed to do is to use those multiple accounts to evade blocks, or avoid policy - such as multiple votes, avoiding 3RR, etc. Someone needs to show him where he used those multiple accounts to eithe evade a block, or to avoid a policy. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny for one's actions, as the CU found, was expressly forbidden. -Jeremy 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have declined an unblock request at User talk:Polystyla, and protected the page since it's been used for soapboxing, personal attacks, and editwarring (to a ridiculous extent) between Polystyla and Daedalus969. I am of the opinion that any unblock should only be considered for the master account (El Machete Guerrero). Comments welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban. User is unclear on the concept. Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it. OhNoitsJamie 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - After all the incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppetry, boot him from WP. Could Machete's behavior be considered trolling? →Dyl@n620 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban While I share BMW's concerns that Machete wasn't shown clear and concrete evidence that his use of alternate accounts constituted sockpuppetry, I think the recent abuse of the unblock template via those alternate accounts, combined with continued edit warring at these talk pages, is sufficient reason to enact a community ban. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that Machete is making point-by-point responses to this thread at User talk:Xcahv8#Proposing a ban against me. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. I've posted a rebuttal of his most recent unblock request that I've read at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2. Given that that page was locked when I posted the rebuttal, I'm not entirely certain he's seen it. -Jeremy 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• EDIT) Reposted it at User talk:Xcahv8#Unblock request. -Jeremy 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - If merely to go from de facto into de jure. — neuro 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Clearly not going to helpful until he learns and changes his conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - negative outweighs positive. Jauerback/_dude. 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment From what I see, he just doesn't get it. Can we simply limit him to one account, and proceed with additional banning if they go beyond that? I feel that if we ban him, he's just going to come back worse in other ways. Tell him that the policy on alternate accounts does not apply to him ... monitor his sole account for bad edits. Maybe even mentor him? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If he can agree to chill out, I'd absolutely support giving him another last chance. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against giving him another last chance - he responds to seeming unfairness by assuming ill faith on behalf of the person who did him wrong (In that instance, I had fulfilled an IP's request for full-protection of Reggaeton to stop a very protracted edit-war that breached 18RR rather than block the IP or El Machete). I don't want any more admins to face the same type of crap I did (and still do) get from him. -Jeremy 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right Jéské, this user is extremely problematic at present. Judging from his continued responses, I'm not confident that a last chance would work. However, I feel that if he can agree to some temporary sanctions (probably including mentoring) we can possibly gain a good and interested editor out of this mess. Is it not worth trying? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've written him and suggested a way out if he genuinely wishes to continue editing here. As he's now put up an effective "away" message at his talk, can we have a moratorium on further arguing for now? It's clear that arguing isn't working, and I think that if he doesn't accept this olive branch, we can consider a community ban. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm backing off the hammer here; he seems to see no wrong in what he's been doing (least of all the removals of the sock template that users kept adding per the checkuser findings). I fear my continued presence there will just rile him more. -Jeremy 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider this brief exchange from User Talk:Xcahv8 (where all the recent developments have been):-

Sheff:If you want User:El Machete Guerrero unblocked, you should request an unblock for that account, not this one. For more information, see How to request to be unblocked and expand the sections titled "Current unblock message" and then "What do I do now?"

Machete:I did and was until OhNoitsJamie protected the page using an invalid reason. That is why I was forced to come to my other accounts. And I do not want to use the email, as I want all discussions to be public so the admins can't avoid scrutiny.

This user seems to have an absolute belief in their own innocence - and that of no one else (including admins & checkusers). I think this is either a troll or they're going to become one, and I'll be pleasantly surprised it there's anything anyone can do to prevent that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but this user adamantly refuses to back up any of their accusations. Every time I try to tell him to back up his accusations, otherwise they're personal attacks, he either refuses and deletes my request, or refuses to respond at all. So far, this user has only cited a single diff as evidence to their accusations, this diff to be specific. However, as I may have stated before, the cited diff above does not justify this user's claim of wikistalking.— Dædαlus 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this is exactly the sort of situation where the old CSN used to employ a transclusion template from the blocked editor's user talk to the discussion. Perhaps one of our code monkeys could install it for use here. He's attempting to communicate, and using that would allow him to do so on a more equal footing here where his ban is under discussion. If he's capable of reasonable compromise it's more likely to happen that way. Either way, that template usually makes the decision clearer. Durova 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - I believe you're referring to Labeled Section Transclusion. This extension is not currently installed on Misplaced Pages, and I do not know what is required to get it installed. Other than that, we could possibly use a noinclude or includeonly tag.— Dædαlus 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what it's named, but anyone can head over to the WP:CSN archives and nick functional code there. We did it with Betacommand. Durova 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I found an old CSN archive page that uses it. Basically, you just need to mark all but a single section of his user talk page with <noinclude>, wherein the user can make responses. Note that when this is archived, the transclusion should probably be subst'ed. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Questions for El Machete Guerrero: you say that multiple accounts are permitted. They are, in some circumstances. But not in the manner you have been using them. Apologies are not required in this situation: acknowledgement of the problem is required, along with assurances that it will not be repeated. Sometimes editors who have used multiple accounts in violation of policy are restricted to one account for any and all purposes, as an alternative to sitebanning. That will almost certainly occur in this instance; would you cooperate with that? Another point: the bit about it taking two to tango isn't necessarily accurate. If a man dances the tango alone in a busy street, and a crowd calls to him, they may be asking him to stop before he hurts himself. You have a transclusion template now, which allows you to post to this thread on a more equal footing. If we make room for you here at the sidewalk, will you step away from the oncoming bus without shoving us? Durova 03:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence page underway

Machete (as Xcahv8 (talk · contribs)) has requested that I provide him with evidence as to why I am endorsing this proposal. So be it. An evidence page is currently under construction at User:Dylan620/Machete. →Dyl@n620 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter the evidence you provide, Machete isn't likely to agree with you and will just accuse you of harassment and personal attacks, as he is doing to me whenever I rebut his claims. He has an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mentality at present. Do yourself a favor and stop - nothing you provide will satisfy him. -Jeremy 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, OK, so let me get this straight; if I DON'T provide evidence, Machete will grow impatient. If I DO provide evidence, he'll accuse me of harassment? →Dyl@n620 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do provide evidence, he'll claim it isn't and rebut the lot of it, and will only serve to be agitated more. -Jeremy 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I request that you delete my evidence page. It's no use making a page if it will only provoke Machete further. →Dyl@n620 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, go ahead and make it; see if you can find any incontrovertible evidence he cannot refute. It may irritate him further, but it will also give people just coming into this topic willingly or otherwise the story thus far. -Jeremy 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth making for the benefit of uninvolved observers who haven't seen the background here and are trying to sort things out. Durova 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the help, guys! I will continue with my evidence page, and will let you guys know when it's finished. →Dyl@n620 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently conclusive evidence

Sorry to jump the gun on what you're compiling, Dylan, but I think all that's needed at this point is clear evidence that Machete's alts were being used to avoid scrutiny.

• El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs) primarily edited Reggaeton, but also edited articles pertaining to Latino Urban rap. In one case he edited a Daddy Yankee album and an article on Pitbull (rapper) (see below)
• Kartel King (talk · contribs) also frequently edited articles related to Reggaeton such as Daddy Yankee discography, Gasolina (Papa A.P. song) and Gasolina
• Xcahv8 (talk · contribs) edited articles related to Pitbull (rapper), specifically Krazy (song)
• Sabre Savage (talk · contribs) made one articlespace edit, which was to focus a paragraph more on Reggaeton than what it had already been focused on. Note the date/time of this edit compared to this one from Xcahv8.
• Polystyla (talk · contribs) edited articles related to Krazy (song), but also had tried to force the addition of a mention to a Reggaeton song to List of best-selling singles worldwide

Now, Machete has previously asserted; "None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia" (earlier unblock request). It's pretty clear from the diffs above that all of these accounts work in the exact same subject area.

You know, it's for reasons like this that splitting up one's contribution history is frowned upon... WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY specifically says "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". The only, and I stress only, reasonable explanation for this is deception. Machete's assertion that the accounts were used in different subject areas seem like a confirmation that his intention is deception, along with his demand that that all his accounts be unblocked should El Machete Guerrero be unblocked. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I still want to go ahead with my evidence page because a.) I'm not letting my effort go to waste, and b.) it will include further evidence such as personal attacks, harassment, wikilawyering, edit warring, etc. Also per Jeremy and Durova above. →Dyl@n620 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More on one of the points raised above: Krazy was the subject of an edit war over whether it should be a redirect to a song or a disambiguation page. Both Polystyla and Xcahv8 took part in that: Polystyla moved the old article out of the way to Krazy (comic), then Xcahv8 made the article a redirect to point at Krazy (song). This left the other editor (User:Stephenb) under the impression that he was in a minority in thinking that Krazy should be a disambiguation page. If the accounts had been linked in any way, this would not have been the case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to post this evidence to his talk page? Or just wait for him to read it here?— Dædαlus 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Dylan) Certainly do continue; I know I'm missing diffs and (as Sheffield indicates) missing points of possibly disruptive behavior. Plus I'm not addressing the incivility that's occurred since then. (to Daedalus) I'm not going to post this to his talk; we already know Machete is reading this. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(@ Daedalus): It's OK, I read up on ANI frequently. :) →Dyl@n620 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylan: May I also suggest using the diffs from here for evidence of incivility and such? -Jeremy 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It has now been two days and there is still no response from EMG about this evidence? Should we give him a time limit to respond? I ask this because when I was 'arguing'(if you will) on his talk page about sock puppets, he was extremely quick to respond. But now in the face of actual conclusive evidence that he can't deny, he is extremely slow to respond. It doesn't add up.— Dædαlus 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's been a day since he's had an offer to agree to a restriction to one account, and hasn't responded to that either. Resumption of discussion seems fair at this point. Durova 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion

• Pending a response to the questions posed above, endorse ban. Durova 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • His response insists that he has not violated the socking policy, and expresses defeatism about the suggestion of a restriction to one account. We know from past experience that solution can work if the editor is cooperative. Interesting that he continues to express that he thinks an apology is being demanded, although it is not and other actions are required that he refuses to make. El Machete Guerrero, please wait six months without editing and email an administrator to appeal the ban if you wish to return. Durova 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Still endorse ban; evidence presented thus far indicates that Machete's intent was deception. Unless he can accept the community's restrictions (one account only, mentorship and possible restriction on reversions), there is no place in the community for him. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that Machete's attempted to explain his behavior, I still endorse a ban. If his behavior doesn't constitute a to the letter violation of WP:SOCK, he's been gaming the system. But I'm absolutely convinced that he had been previously attempting to avoid scrutiny. I second Durova's six month limitation on appeals, and even then following an unblock he should be indefinitely limited to one account. Machete has presented zero convincing reasons for needing multiple accounts, and has failed to provide an explanation as to why his accounts were not visibly linked (apart from a lack of explicit requirement, which in my view constitutes a WP:GAMING violation). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion has not changed whatsoever. Machete is bullheaded and either will not listen or, in the case of irrefutable evidence, take a powder. Endorse ban. -Jeremy 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • EMG's explanations are at best double-talk and at worst hyperbole. After the explanation, my position stands: Endorse ban. I do agree that a six-month limit on appeals should also be enacted, but I don't even think six months will help. -Jeremy 06:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know what this user's game is, but as far as I can see, he repeatedly lied and personally attacked others. Although checkusers are trusted to make sound judgements, this user requested addition evidence. I honestly wonder what he hoped to achieve, as, not that we have evidence, it proves he was using his socks disruptively. What did he expect? That we are so lazy we wouldn't have found such evidence? Or was he only trying to prolong the disruption he originally caused? I don't know, but I do know that I stand firm in my endorsement of his community ban.— Dædαlus 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• As a note, the user in question has responded, but the responses do not address the points made in the evidence above.— Dædαlus 05:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EMG's response

This section was done off of the suggestion of Duvora. Since I have not been able to find the thread she noted, I decided to improvise. I am transcluding the user's talk page using noinclude tags.— Dædαlus

Proposing a ban against me

As I cannot edit outside of this talkpage I will reply to this ban proposal here. I was not found to be using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny and the quote is as follows: "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny"

Now this only proves the use of multiple accounts under one IP and not sockpuppetry something which an admin who does not like me admitted. The admin who said this quote is presumably the same admin who performed the checkuser, and make a note that he had absolutely no evidence or diffs to support his claim. It is my belief this is a thin veil for a checkuser performed on the ground of fishing, and when it was discovered I was not El Perso or the described IP he needed an excuse and this was sufficient.

I have only acted in knee-jerk reactions to other editors and have been defensive when I have felt appropriate. I have been consistently and constantly attacked and have been blocked indefenitely with no diffs whatsoever and invalid claims against me. I am a good editor and have only improved wikipedia in my time as an editor, something which cannot be said for the blocked IP editor I was in a revert war with. Whom by the way is now making edits even though he has been the only sockpuppeteer in this issue, using his socks to evade blocks and break policy.

One of this prominet editors is Daedalus969 who has persistently wikistalked me, harrassed me, attacked me and given me threats in my dealings with him. He is not an admin and originally had no involvement in this issue and nothing to do with it. But he decided to make himself involved due to his vendetta against me. Now because I will not apologise to him as he will not apologise to me he has proposed a ban on me. You can see his character from reading. He has also called in recruits to gang up on me, all editors who have something against me and who will help his cause.

Where is this Daedalus969? I have told you time and time again you must show diffs for such strong accusations against me, and it's funny you even mention that after the 20+ reverts you made on my talkpage! I will now go count them so an admin can block you appropriately, and trust me they will because I was blocked for the exact same thing. And admins don't like to be seen as having discrimination. I was blocked for getting in an edit war with a block editor. Now I am a blocked editor and you had an edit war with me, so now you should be blocked for getting in an edit war with a blocked editor. And you made more reverts then I did on my original block. I will now proceed to count them. I counted OVER 40!!! So you should be blocked for twice as long as I was because I reverted 18 times with a blocked IP who was a sockpuppeteer and gamed the system. El Machete Guerrero

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking me now would be pointless, as it wouldn't be preventing anything, as I have stopped reverting.— Dædαlus Contribs 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So did I, but that didn't stop me from getting a block. And I'm sure admins don't wish to discriminate and show they edit based on self interest instead of what's fair. El Machete Guerrero.

Again you persist to badmouth me. And again I will point out that you were the first one not to provide any diffs whatsoever for all your attacks on me over the past week on pretty much all my talkpages, and only now at the end of the line you have decided to copy me and use what I have been CONSTANTLY telling you to do and provide diffs. Again as I have already said, I am done with you. You are not worth my time replying as you never listen and I will not repeat myself to you again.

• Ironholds, come here and explain why you support a ban. BTW, I can't make any new accounts as OhNoitsJamie has blocked me from doing so, which he would not need to do if he unprotects my talkpage on El Machete Guerrero

  We are allowed multiple accounts, yes, but not for the purpose of evading blocks. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  Yes and I did not evade my block. My accounts are not sockpuppets and this is the reason I was blocked indefinitely. El Machete Guerrero

• Thankyou Bwilkins, this is exactly what I have been getting at! Someone does need to show me where I abusively used my multiple accounts as sockpuppets, because I am telling you I never did, although I had the choice of doing so when the IP proceeded to do so. But I know this is wrong and against policy so I did not. El Machete Guerrero

• Jeremy the CU did not find this and I in no way or form was avoiding scrutiny. Do not assert false information to mislead others, it is against policy. Asserting false information and attacking me!

So if I went thru your contribs for all your socks, I won't find personal attacks, edit-warring, or the like? 'Cuz if I do, you're screwed. -Jeremy 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote myself: "Go ahead! Be my guest! I encourage it! What is EMG?! While you do this you can also see all my improvements to wikipedia which only helps me, so please do! And if you find I have been abusing my accounts let me know, because I am quite certain this will not be the case as they all concentrate on different areas of wikipedia."

Jeremy, you have failed to provide any diffs. Dylan says he will so I shall soon see.

• Again, SheffieldSteel this is not a master account as my accounts are not sockpuppets. But like I said that is where I am wishing to request the unblock and when it is found not to be an abuse of multiple accounts, the others will automatically be unblocked. El Machete Guerrero
  • SheffieldSteel, I am disapointed in you and did not think you would speak on my behalf and make such attacks on me as you did on the AN/I calling me a "troll". I was genuinely rooting for you not to lower yourself to such comments and had alot of respect for you until I saw those comments. I guess this ban proposal is like a snowball rolling down a hill, and it keeps collecting admins on the way.

• OhNoitsJamie, come here and explain exactly what concept I am unclear on as I feel I am perfectly clear on every aspect especially the aspect where you protected my talkpage with no valid reason. And explain why you support a ban.

Provide diffs or retract your statements as I could say the exact same thing about you "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it." and suggest you get banned and provide no diffs aswell. Infact I will say the exact same thing until you provide diffs for me. OhNoitsJamie should be banned because "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it."

• Dylan620, come here and explain why you endorse a ban. I will also note that in your reason for an endorsement you have broken wikipedia policy and have attacked me. Provide diffs otherwise it is against policy. I could say the exact same thing about you, it's easy. It's like me saying I was the first man on the moon and expecting people to believe me. But they wont because I don't have evidence!

I was endorsing a ban per Daedalus's nom, but have it your way. An evidence page will be under construction soon at User:Dylan620/Machete. In addition, I see from just above that you wish for admin Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to be banned; maybe you would like to provide some evidence? →Dyl@n620 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No I would not as he has not provided diffs for me. And you know or anyone else can see exactly what I am getting at with that reply so don't be smart.

Dylan don't listen to him, he does not speak for me. I speak for myself. He rebutted my unblock request point by point and I then refuted every point. He then rebuttaled and then I again refuted. He though, did not provide one diff. You say you are going to. So proceed to do so and I will reply to you accordingly.

• Mendaliv, this is not sufficient enough at all and had I not been wrongly blocked in the first place and abused, I would have not needed to take such drastic measures! And you say my continued edit warring is warrant for a block, but what you do not mention at all is Daedalus969 and what should happen to him making over 50 reverts in edit wars. And what you fail to mention is it is my talkpage and I can remove what I want from it. I would like to see how you would act if you had the same unjustified block and abuse put on you. I am not sure if you could handle it as well as I have.

Thankyou Mendaliv for making the rest of the users aware that I am replying to them here, I really appreciate it. As you know I have left a reply for your endorsement of a ban on me. Could yo please reply, cheers El Machete Guerrero.

• Jeremy, I have refuted every point, read them and then tell me what reason you have for supporting a ban on me.

• neuro, come here and explain why you support a ban. Simply saying you do with no valid reason effectively excludes your vote in the decision.

• Ricky81682, come here and explain why you support a ban.

• Jauerback, this is completely false either prove it or retract it! Someone ban Jauerback as "negative outweighs positive". You see how easy it is to make completely unfounded statements.

• Bwilkins what don't I get? I thought you were the only one who could see I was blocked on a completely baseless reason and that I was not using sockpuppets. Why do I have to be limited to one account? We are allowed to have multiple accounts and is the only reason I do have multiple accounts. Had I not been allowed to have more than one account I would not have more than one account. I don't see how this is so hard to understand, it's crystal clear to me. You can moniter all my accounts for bad edits, I have not used them for bad edits, I have used them to improve wikipedia and have done a great deal of help to Misplaced Pages. Just take a look at Daddy Yankee discography, I completely changed that article for the better. And these type of edits I have been doing all over wikipedia, that is why I have each different account concentrating on different areas. So I can split up the load. And mentor me? What do I need mentoring in? I feel like I know most policies and I also feel I have remainded true to all these policies. El Machete Guerrero
  • Mendaliv, how can I chill out? I have been unfairly blocked not once but twice and the second time it was pretty much a ban. The first time I did not care as I had admitted to breaking the 3RR and conceded that I could and probably should be blocked. But I also mentioned there was no use in blocking me as I had stop the reverts and the page was protected. So then when the block was issued it was punitive and not preventative, and was just George choosing to flex his muscles and showboat. Then I was blocked indefinately by Nixeagle claiming I was using a sockpuppets when this was never, ever proven. And since then I have been constantly harrased, abused and attacked. So please explain to me how you would chill out if this happened to you? Because I doubt Ned Flanders himself could not have even handled the situation as well as I have. El Machete Guerrero
    • Let me put it this way; your use of multiple accounts, as you say above to work in different topic areas, is frowned upon at the very least, especially since you did not make it clear prior to the checkuser that the accounts were connected. While you don't feel this fits the definition of sockpuppetry, to outside observers your use of multiple accounts in this manner looks very bad. I'm asking you, with the best of intentions, to chill out, because I think the dispute here is as a result of several compounded misunderstandings. BMW is trying, very admirably, to encourage the community to give you another chance, and from all appearances you're spitting on his good intentions. I'm asking you to chill out because if you can it would go a long way in proving to the community that you're willing to work within our rules. I'm not saying this is fair, but from my perspective it's all you can do. Continuing to rail against everybody who tries to defuse the situation will only hurt your case. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
      • How is it frowned upon exactly? I did not mention it prior to the checkuser as I did not need to. I don't have to connect them it is in wikipedia policy and if you read every one of my talkpage you will see I have quoted this somewhere. I don't feel it is sockpuppetry as it isn't! It does not fit the definition and I am allowed to have more than one account. It says this! How do I chill out though? What do I do to chill out? Stop defending myself? Because if I do not continue to defend myself against editors attacks then I am almost guarenteed to be banned. I need to prove what they are saying is wrong, otherwise people will believe the deceit. I know this I can read the AN/I and I am immensely grateful for BMW highlighting the fact that we are allowed multiple accounts and that no one has provided me with proof that I am avoiding scruting using sockpuppets. I am not sure what you mean by me spitting on his good intentions, as I have already told him that I am thankful for his help and what he is doing for me. I am willing and have always been willing to work within the rules of wikipedia, what does chilling out mean? Because I will "chill out" if I can understand exactly how to "chill out". If it means stop defending myself against slander though, I will not chill out. But if it means something else I am happy to chill out. In person I am a real chilled guy anyway and I get along with everyone, I am always told how easy going I am. So please explain what this means to me as I am clueless. El Machete Guerrero
        • As the Checkuser indicated, the apparent use of your alternate accounts was to avoid scrutiny. That is to say, you did so because you did not want your edits from one account to be connected to those from another account for some reason, and the variance of names of your accounts suggests that is the case. That sort of behavior is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. There's been no good reason given why you needed to have multiple unconnected accounts, and apart from a genuine misunderstanding of the rules (which you've argued hasn't happened), the most obvious reason is abusive sockpuppetry. However, I'm going to suggest an alternative below, if you'll bear with me.
          • This was not apparent at all and is the only way he could get away with calling me a sockpuppet master. I have multiple accounts because I am allowed to have multiple accounts, and I have already explained their purpose. So don't try and accuse me of ill intentions, my accounts having different names does not suggest anything. So don't make ill accusations and then say that the behaviour is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, as I am well aware of the policy and let me quote myself once more for you, "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!". There has not needed to be any good reason given why I have multiple accounts, as let me remind you, I am allowed to. So wether or not you feel that there has been a good reason given or not given, your opinion has absolutely no merit or influence in the slightest. I am sorry, but this is the case. The only thing obvious to those who are hellbent against me or do not or will not understand that multiple accounts are allowed, is abusive sockpuppetry. Anyone who is aware of the policy or whom does not have a grudge against me should be well aware that we are permitted multiple accounts and we do not have to make them public. I will hear you out, but as this is leading from your belief that I am abusively using socks, I do not know if I will agree with what you say next.
        • The situation you describe resembles a catch-22; if you continue to argue the way you have been, I can promise you that the ban will go from being de facto to de jure very quickly. However, you're right in that if you stop, roll over and die, the de facto ban will continue. What I propose is that you create a new section on your talk page and do this for clarity's sake:
          1. Admit that you've used alternate accounts and will cease doing so from here on out. This isn't an admission of sockpuppetry but will help establish that further blocking and banning will cease being preventative and become punitive.
          2. Agree that if the community will allow it, you'll be glad to continue editing constructively, and will be glad to take advice from here on out.
          3. Apologize for previously edit warring and promise that you'll be careful to avoid it in the future.
          4. Accept mentorship from another, more experienced editor for a period to be determined.
          5. Abstain from making references to individual editors' involvements in your case, as that will be viewed as goading.
        • How does that sound? The particular wording doesn't really matter, but the point is to make it clear you want to participate constructively and not waste everyone's time. If you can agree to restrictions, I believe it will obviate the need to block and ban you. But really, you need to consider this as genuinely your last chance. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
          • If I have been arguing then everyone else has been to, as it take two to tango and an argument needs more than one person. You choose to use hard words like argue, when I choose to view my comments as just that, comments or replies, they are discussions.
            1. I have admitted to using multiple accounts. It is obvious I have used all my accounts talkpages. Why should I cease using them all when I am permitted to? All blocking I have recieved has been punitive and not preventative, so you can see how I would be sceptical thinking this would prevent any further blocks.
            2. I have agreed to this, and am happy to take advice that is not a threat under disguise.
            3. I have apologised for edit warring and am quite happy to apologise again. I know this was wrong and for that I am sorry. I will promise in future, even if I feel like I am reverting vandalism, that I will not break the 3RR and I will contact an administrator for help.
            4. I don't care, I am willing to accept mentorship from an admin. But as I have already mentioned, I feel like I am knowledgable on most of the policies and aspect of wikipedia. But of course help from someone who has been on wikipedia longer than I, will never be turned down by myself.
            5. How can I be seen as goading when, I am the one who is unable to edit outside of this page, I am the one who has proposition of a ban on me, and I am the one everyone is defaming. I need to defend myself, so I need to reply and address all comments made about me by all the editors. Otherwise people may start to believe the unfounded statements.
          • I do want to participate constructively and I have been. I am not wasting anyone's time, everyone has became invovled in this by their own choice. I did not tell them to comment on me. I don't know why I should consider it as my last chance as I was punitively blocked both times. The only two times in my time as an editor on wikipedia. El Machete Guerrero

Follow-up on this case

Sorry to revive this thread, but could someone uninvolved please redirect and protect the banned editor's user talk pages? Specifically needing protection per WP:BAN would be User talk:Xcahv8, though all the other socks in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of El Machete Guerrero might merit blanking/redirection. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wilco. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. The socks' userpages are tagged as checked socks, the master userpage is tagged as a banned user and sockmaster, the socks' talk pages are protected redirects to the master talk page, which has been protected, blanked and tagged as a banned user. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has apparently decided to not go quietly

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero.— Dædαlus 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Plaxico'd but back for more

I wish make a complaint against a user for harassment and personal attacks on me on Misplaced Pages. I am using this new account because I feel threatened and wish to remain anonymous. Sincerely James Tucton (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your request, but more details are required. To which user are you referring? And to which edits/articles have these attacks happened? TNXMan 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your concern for your privacy here, but you need to tell us WHO is harrassing you and what specifically they are doing which is harassing. Once you do that, we'll know what your old account is anyways, because it will be the only way we can verify your complaint. Still, with nothing more than vague allusions to harrassment, and no concrete complaint to go on, we have nothing here. Please give us some details so we can investigate and discuss! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying dispute, but the new user making the complaint doesn't appear to be that concerned about folks figuring out what area the problem is in. He's opened up a sockpuppet investigation on User:Marek69 here . I have no opinion on whether user Marek69 is involved in sock-puppetry or anything else, but it seems highly disruptive to allow a new declared sock to open up such an investigation and go around tagging an apparent editing opponent (under some other identity) as such as he's done here . I propose a probationary blocking of the declared sock James Tucton; and if there's an actual harrasment/real world stalking problem that prompted his creation of a sock puppet and he is in fact afraid, he can contact admins/arbcom offline about it under his first user name.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The user in question is Marek69 and today I have received Off-wiki harassment from him. He had phoned me making threats of violence. Can you do something about him? James Tucton (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And that scared you into making a largely frivolous sock puppet report, on the notion that such action would calm the situation and make you safer? I'm not convinced.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of shit, if you ask me, particularly given that James Tucton and this IP are clearly one and the same, and given (i) the unwarranted warnings given by the IP to Marek69 on the latter's talk page and (ii) the report to AIV all in the space of about an hour (whilst Marek has been offline, incidentally). The link between Marek69 and Acemandude5 is clearly explicable by the fact that the former created the latter as part of the account creation procedure. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(I'm pretty sure that James Tucton is merely trolling, but on the offchance) I'm curious to know hoe he could have obtained your phone number? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

excuse me but I do not know James but user Marek69 has been harassing me as well with threats of violence. He got me blocked for a month for doing nothing and I personaly know four others who he is misabusing. Geoff Keen (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, sure... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a checkuser would be appropriate here. On the complainants. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just blocked User:Geoff Keen for trolling and admitted block evasion . I have no problems with somebody else blocking the first complainant's account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just block "James Tucton" and be done with it. If there were actual real-world harrasment going on (which there almost certainly wasn't) they could call the police and/or provide some evidence in email if the original user wants to stay anonymous. I also recommend a CU on Tucton, so the other accounts can be blocked (and unblocked if it turns out there is any merit to these claims, which seems doubtful, later).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the set of "warnings" on the page, since they were never legitimate (and were quickly followed by a false report on WP:AIV). I still recommend blocking the account to prevent further activity. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Jauerback/_dude. 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another new "editor" has just popped up. Gerald1971 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Within the first 20 minutes of creation has been telling other editors they're blocked and asking for information about their IP addresses . I noticed because he did this at Marek's page . Marek is apparently caught in some kind of weird range block that doesn't make much sense (this may just be my ignorance of how wikipedia works). But i know the single user who's been sockpuppetting against him has been making threats . It's all very strange. At any rate, the new editor Gerald1971 is clearly a disruptive sockpuppet of somebody.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Killed him. -Jeremy 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and filed an SPI . May seem overkill, but don't think this is the end of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've given it a more appropriate code letter. -Jeremy 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bali, Jerke, etc. I never knew that this page existed let alone modified it, but I would like to add in another user opinion to make us a bit less oligarchic. It really looks like Marek is being targeted unfairly as a result of an edit war over a local Oklahoma high school. I think an administrator should ensure that Marek is able to respond to what is going on before more blocks go out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardino (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry -- Marek's conduct is not what anyone here (except the blocked sock puppets) is currently concerned about.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't seeking to sanction Marek at all. We're seeking to sanction those harassing and targeting him. -Jeremy 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another one - JennyP1993 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been bagged and added to the SPI case. I'm going to check on the user Jenny claims they're socks of. -Jeremy 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, she claims they're socks of each other - impossible. -Jeremy 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of this vandalism seems to be linked to a aerial pest that has been harassing me for a while and vandalising articles that I have on my watchlist. He was originally vandalising and harassing as User: 767-249ER and has been continuing with many new IP addresses such as User: 114.77.199.50 and continues to create new socks such as User: Gerald1971. He obviously has nothing better to do than continuously vandalise wikipedia and create fantasy scenarios that other users are harassing him. J Bar (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from below

MarekMarek6969 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing user pages of several users whose usernames resemble females' real names. His autosignature points to the user page and user talk page of user Marek69 (talk · contribs), who has been having problems according to his talk page but is an otherwise productive editor. I would ordinarily have reported this at AIV, but I'd like a recommendation as to what other forum this issue belongs at. KuyaBriBri 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism probably sock. Run a WP:SSI, and block account. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I originally posted this. I have added the account to the SPI. KuyaBriBri 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am Marek69. Thank you to everyone who has help to tackle these pests. I've found another person signing as me, IP 93.97.167.197 to add to the list.

Unfortunately I am still unable to edit using my account. It is very frustrating as I cannot even edit my own talkpage. Today I have found out that my IP address 86.7.65.177, is not actually static as I previously stated, but in fact dynamic and can be allocated to someone else when I am not using it (please don't ask me how this works). I'm not sure if this may be something to do with my current technical problems. -- Marek69 using IP 91.135.6.121 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock just popped up Morek69 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Pretty obvious. Let's block.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind it this one Psychoanalyst5 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Trolling women's talk pages with crude sexual suggestions, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind that one, this onw JellyWellyFish (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exterminated. I've also suppressed email and talk page; I don't want whomever this is finding out that either still work. -Jeremy 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the SPI page for Marek69 to prevent further nonsense there. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back from the void. Could I please add this IP 92.26.242.240 as another user pretending to be me, leaving fake vandalism messages for users. 27 in all - I've reverted them now. I suggest an admin deals with them appropriately. Regards Marek.69 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it for you and blocked him 72h. -Jeremy 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to clarify the situation; I was able to log in as Marek69, but unable to edit. I would also like confirm that the only messages I left during this period (08:48, 23 March 2009 - 18:43, 27 March 2009) were with IP 91.135.6.121 and IP 90.215.61.181 (public wireless hotspot) and one message to my talkpage with IP 80.229.36.16. I can confirm all the edits by these three IP addresses (up to present time) were by me. Any other edits during this time, supposedly signed by me, were not in any way, anything to do with me. I again thank everyone who helped expose this deception. Kind Regards Marek.69 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found another Psychoanalyst15 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

who made this edit signing as Marek69 in the same manner as the above user(s). -- Marek.69 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bagged. Bali, start using {{user}} rather than {{checkuser}}; the latter linebreaks your comment. -Jeremy 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll

Hello everyone. As many of you (or possibly very few of you!) may be aware, I've been trying to set up community poll on date linking to help try and resolve the issues from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. Whilst the poll is in very much in its final stages of completeness, it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page. The major problem I'm having is the edit warring and attacks/jibes being flung from the involved parties left, right and centre. From 0:00 (UTC) tonight, I plan to stop everyone who is already involved in this page from editing it or the talk page until the start of the poll on Monday so the neutral people are free to comment without being subjected to the attacks and comments already being given by the involved parties. Is this something that everyone feels would be ok? I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I'm an involved admin in the issue. I don't believe I have made any edits to the RFC Ryan is talking about, but if he thinks it is needed to ensure a peaceful resolution, I will agree not to comment at the RFC. MBisanz 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely the right thing to do, and if you need further admin assistance in enforcing it, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me if people can't just stop squabbling and vote. --GedUK  10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, it is totally unfair to impose a sudden deadline on parties that have been working towards agreement on the text, who in good faith accepted a start-date of 30 March. The claim that "it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page" is just that: a claim. The RfC draft is shambolic in structure, to begin with, requiring users to make eight entries and signatures, five of them redundant. I have just proposed a structure in which users are spared those redundant entries and signatures (with the chaotic edit conflicts that would ensue). All WPians should be able to comment on the streamlined structure, without a dictatorial edict by Ryan Postlethwaite, who owns neither the page nor the RfC itself. If he had proposed that participants not edit with more reasonable notice, it might be different. A few hours is not reasonable notice. I believe a compromise of more reasonable notice, such as three days, is in order. The downside may be that the RfC results may not be regarded as credible: no one wants that. Tony (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't look right to me, Ryan. Please allow more notice before imposing this. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
  • The parties were lucky to get 12 hours - I was planning on doing it immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Note that 12 hours is no use to people in some timezones, plus people everywhere have had reason to count on having more time. Your last comment sounds a bit like you're only interested in posts that agree with you, frankly, Ryan. If you've already decided what to do, and think the parties should count themselves lucky, why are you asking "everybody's" opinion on ANI at all ? Bishonen | talk 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
      • Based on the reaction above by Tony, the sooner the better, especially as he, for one, has been fighting this particular battle for, it appears, some years now, so he's had ample opportunity to date. --CalendarWatcher (talk)
      • As far as I am concerned, I am also not entirely certain why the whole poll is held at all, but one thing I'm certain of: it's crucial that a certain core of people on both sides simply needs to be told to shut up and let others work out the rest. Whether it's now or in twelve hours or in 48 doesn't matter much to me, but the sooner the better. It's long past the stage where continued input from the same set of people could provide anything helpful to the project. That's not to say they are being intentionally disruptive; it's just that the issue has taken up such a larger-than-life significance to them the intensity of their involvement is just out of scale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've never understood why you're doing this poll in the first place. Has ArbCom asked you to do it? Surely we should wait for ArbCom's decision in the case before launching any new polls - we've already been through very extensive community discussion and polling on this issue, and there is a hope that ArbCom might successfully interpret the results of that previous discussion and indicate what (if any) it considers are the outstanding issues to be resolved. But if you insist on doing things backwards and launching a poll now, then certainly don't impose a deadline of the type you're considering, because everyone will just rush to edit it just before the deadline and you'll end up with a more or less random version. The sensible thing to do would be to put up your version, don't let anyone touch it, but continue to invite comments (from everyone, involved or otherwise) and edit the version in line with those comments as seems sensible, until it becomes stable. But as I say, really don't do this poll yet (unless ArbCom has asked for it; but in that case we're entitled to know exactly what it has asked for and why).--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another red herring, another hoop to jump through. The poll is a pointless exercise. The community spoke last in December 2008. The community does not want years, dates, months etc. bluelinked, or almost never. The score was 190 to 7. No one knows for sure why the Arbcom accepted the case for arbitration instead of rejecting it out of hand, as they should have. No one knows the official status of Postlethwaite's project. In the absence of hard facts, speculation grows. I am keeping my own counsel.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another poll? Gah. --NE2 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, please. A little peace and quiet would be helpful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Many notices were posted to various talk pages, requesting input on the format. So far, the feedback from other editors has remained limit, although we have had a helpful anon. I don't know if topic banning and hoping for more outside feedback will suddenly rush in. I'm pretty sure the issue is that everybody is tired and bored to death over lamely regarded issue, and they just want everything to be over. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck, Ryan. I'm surprised that there is still so much drama surround this; I had thought that it was resolved twice long ago with those nasty RFC's and commenting periods, but I suppose some individuals just cannot let it rest. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also surprised to see this still rumbling on. The whole bizarre episode has at times amused, baffled and appalled me; I wish I could say "only on Misplaced Pages...", but it reminds me of nothing so much as two neighbours fighting a 30-year court battle over six inches of hedge. I suspect part of the reason it's been allowed to get so far out of hand is that outside the interest groups, most of us really don't care if dates are linked or not (and seriously, do our readers?) There are some damn good editors on both sides who are muddying their credibility with this silliness and the sooner it's over the better, so, yeah, good luck Ryan ;) EyeSerene 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst cases of admin bullying I have ever seen ("I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be."—I wonder on the basis of what aspect of WP:BLOCKING or WP:ADMIN?). Ryan, you are supposed to be the head of WP's Mediation process; I presume that you have expertise in the kind of facilitation that persuades editors in highly problematic disputes to resolve their issues in as peaceable a way as possible. There has been little evidence of this; instead, suddenly we are faced with apparently arbitrary dictating of "What's going to happen", and threats to block editors for participating on a page in which they have found themselves involved for weeks. I grant you that it is a difficult page to manage, but you did initiate it of your own volition. That you did so after several parties at the related ArbCom hearing expressed a lack of confidence in your clerking and called for you to step down from that position, has brought a particularly strong need for you to bring to bear all of your talents and attention to the page. I am surprised that you are now playing the role not of a mediator, but an aggressor; I am sure that this is not your practice as head of Mediation (is it?).

I note your statement that "I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 UTC on 28 March", but I'm afraid it's not your place to dictate. You do not own the space, and it is not an ArbCom matter (you yourself have stated this). Rather, you might have said to all parties "I wonder whether we might agree on a closing time to let things settle: how about 0:00 UTC on 28 March?". People would probably have agreed and been on-board with you, respecting your good management. I'm afraid your aggressive actions have not created that situation. Tony (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from Ryan. It should have been no surprise to anyone that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already extremely civil and cooperative compared to what went on before. This whole dispute is pretty lame alright, but the "I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be" is not the correct antidote to this poison. The whole problem with Masem's RfC was that it was rushed out in a panic attempt to counter Tony's effort, and this sort of dominatrix act is just going to result in another poorly constructed RfC with a lot more bad blood and a perpetuation of this dispute. There is already an injuction on, and the RfC appears to be moving in the right direction, so where's the frakking rush? Then Mr Chairman of the mediating committee suddenly decides that he owns the whole process, and threatens to take the ball away... I'm not seeing very skillful mediating skills being displayed here. Quite the opposite - this behaviour is quite lamentable. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. About bloody time someone with a lick of sense did something about this mess. And typically for Misplaced Pages, a smart solution that takes a chainsaw to the giant blocks of bullshit sitting around is met with a bunch of screaming from the usual suspects. It really is interesting to note that the objections are largely coming from those who have been the worst offenders in terms of heaping scorn upon others, especially Tony1, who originally rammed through the whole delinking thing last year by a) claiming a consensus that didn't actually exist, and b) canvassing a whole bunch of article talkpages (claiming this nonexistent consensus) in order to generate a consensus of some sort, instead of c) actually discussing it at MOSNUM. The single reason why the majority of the community hasn't gotten involved in this is because there are about half a dozen editors on both sides who have made it their business to make this entire discussion as hideously unpleasant as possible to get involved in. I wholeheartedly support Ryan's actions, and would equally wholeheartedly support any blocks given out to the usual suspects in this discussion--on both sides, mind--who won't take a fucking chill pill, back the hell away, and let the community decide. Frankly, I see absolutely no reason why all of those people shouldn't be blocked now for the duration of the poll, as it absolutely would prevent disruption. //roux   16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Tony did discuss it endlessly at MOSNUM and elsewhere, large numbers of editors did participate in the previous discussions and RfCs, and consensus was clearly and fairly generated. You seem to be joining in the scorn-heaping yourself with this attack on Tony and veiled attack on others. Why do you say "let the community decide", and ignore the decisions that the community has already made? (Perhaps because you don't like those decisions?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Tony went on a spree of canvassing about a hundred or so article talk pages, claiming a consensus that did not in fact exist. Pardon me for being a little put out with someone who disingenuously claims that they followed the way we do things while very carefully sliding around how we do things. But I'm not getting sucked any further into this absolutely insane issue. The battleground has simply moved from MOSNUM over to the poll, and all the usual suspects on both sides are happily sniping away at each other. I'm with FutPerf: block the lot and let some sane people make a decision. //roux   12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The little involvement I've had makes it clear to me that this debate has caused far more disruption than any good could be done by any outcome. Both sides need to step away, or in the last resort be forced to step away. However, I do find that claiming consensus and trying for force some result through pretty poisonous. Sometimes I wonder if the Misplaced Pages's impprovement is really the point here. RxS (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't give a flying whozit which way the dispute gets resolved. I have a vague preference for keeping dates linked, for a variety of reasons, but it's hardly important. //roux   13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been a deeply unpleasant process, and the only way it's going to get resolved is for the community's will to be assessed by an RfC that's carefully crafted to ensure the results will be unambiguous and enforceable. Anything less than that is a guarantee of an endless continuation of the dispute. It's more important to get it right than to get it quickly. A three day cutoff seems reasonable to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan

Some sort of period of neutral involvement is needed, as the participants in the date delinking arbitration are clearly too close to the issue to be of much use now (the base questions are formulated and generally agreed upon, but the longer this drags out the more it seems new issues are found and total rewrites are attempted). I won't comment on the threat of blocks except to say that, in his capacity as mediator/clerk, it's a tool he may need to use to keep order in the neutral discussions. I sincerely hope we can get something useful out of this RFC, and the only way that will happen is if neutral parties (those totally uninvolved with the issue prior to the ArbCom case) are allowed to critique the questions and offer their own input without fear of being hammered to death by people on either side of the debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk involvement

Part of the reasons the Committee is so careful in selecting clerks is that they are expected to be neutral, yet have both the reasoning ability and the authority to keep a minimum of order and discipline to an otherwise chaotic and painful process. In order to do so, they are granted great leeway in setting rules of order during the heated debates that can arise out of Arbitration cases. Occasionally, maintaining that order requires application of blocks and bans.

When a clerk states that some bit of process should be followed, and warns that disregarding that process can lead to protective measures, they are not threatening or bullying, they are doing their job. They do so with the ascent and the blessings of the Committee. Should an editor feel that they are overstepping their remit, the proper venue to discuss this is with ArbCom who will then be able to either sustain or overturn the action. Trying to build a lynch mob because a clerk is doing his job is both fundamentally unfair and disruptive.

In this particular case, the committee did not request that the poll take place— but the initiative is both welcome and greatly appreciated. In fact, part of the reason a proposed decision has not been yet posted in Date Delinking is because we are hoping the poll will lead to a better sense of what the problem really is, and where the community actually stands. This poll should be viewed as an extension of the Arbitration Case. That a committee clerk is trying to organize that poll and to make it both coherent and conclusive is a boon to the dispute resolution process. If, in their opinion, stronger enforcement of both focus and decorum is necessary for the poll to lead to a reasonably useful result, then their judgment will be given serious consideration by Arbitrators and will not be taken lightly.

Again, if you have serious concerns that a clerk is being unreasonable (and, I should not need to point out, "He's not doing what I want the way I want it!" is probably not it) or that their behavior is not appropriate, then bring it to the attention of the Committee. Heaping abuse on a someone dedicating time and effort to attempt to help solve a longstanding divisive dispute will not be looked upon with kindness. — Coren  23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Coren, and to Ryan for extending the courtesy to give uninvolved and/or neutral parties time to comment on the process. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) edits by 60.224.0.121

The above user has been going through and changing a large number of pages from either "Australian football player" or "Australian association football player" to "Australian football (soccer) player" and the same for some clubs, templates and league pages. The change looks untidy and changing a large number of these pages but not all of them has led to a large amount of inconsistency.

The user has been unwilling to stop from making these changes while a discussion on the changes is attempted. He is on the border of the three revert rule on two or three pages (such as Charlie Miller) at the moment. I'm willing to discuss and compromise, and if the decision is that the change is appropriate, I would help apply it to all the relevant pages.

I haven't been undoing his edits as I was hoping he would be willing to discuss the changes and see if we could compromise, but he will only refer to a vote/consensus on a single talk page from 2-3 years ago and will continue to make the changes.

Would someone be willing to step in here and have a look and see if the user can at least be persuaded to stop making the changes until a discussion has been had please? I'm willing to compromise and to discuss the issue but it is difficult when he considers that I have a neutral point of view problem and that consensus has already been determined. Camw (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also please see our talk pages here and here for some attempts at discussion. I have notified the other user that I've asked a third party administrator have a look at him continuing to edit pages while others attempt consensus. Camw (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfair blaming by Camw

This above user talk has been compalined about me editing the football (soccer) artcles, but has completely omissed the people doing the same thing as they were editing to what HE believed was right. . It was discussed and agreed on in great lengths here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. The person claimed I was "undoing edits". I was reverting edits from a user User talk:Portillo. When I asked him to to edit as it had been agreed on his answer was "I disagree. Football is fooball not soccer". Portillo (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC). To me, this is POV editing. I was simply reverting the edits what is atm the AGREED term. Camw did not report nor mention Portillo in his complaint above I suspect that Portillo was not complained about because he/she shared his/hers "preferred term". It will show that another user User:Dudesleeper edited the pages to Camw's preferred term while his term was opened for discussion, but still failed to mention that he was editing the pages while the discussion was open too. Both of those users have been editing the pages, despite that I have shown them the debate page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. It was lengthy debated and agreed on, but both have not given a real reason for their edits (apart from Portillo's POV comment). I am asking for a third party to to tell Camw that his complaint of me is not fair and biased as in it he did not mention the other editors presumably to make me look like the agressor in this. He also fails to mention that both users are close to the 3 edit rule too and that Portillo has been blocked several times in the past, where I have never been. The user also claims that I am only referring to a board that is 3 years old (which it isn't yet), but i have contacted several people to give their opinions, User:Grant65, User:MarkGallagher, User:*Paul*, User:Xtra, as at the moment there are only people in the discussion that have HIS POV. It seem that in Australia 4 sports claim the title of 'football'. To claim that one sport should have it and no-one else does not seem to be fair. He calls my editing to football (soccer) "untidy" but the reason it was agreed on was that the word "football" by itself was too vague as most Australians call it soccer. I am also furious at the automatic assumption I am male.60.224.0.121 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are at the center of the issue as it was your edits on 100+ pages that started the discussion. The consensus you have linked to a number of times here is from February 2006, that is over 3 years old. I'm sorry if you are furious about being mistakenly referred to as "he", but you've made the same assumption in a number of your comments (including the very first line above) so it is not really a fair complaint if you are going to do the exact same thing. My original note isn't meant to be a report against you, it is a request to have someone look at all the parties involved (including me) even if perhaps I did not express it very well. Camw (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are right though that it isn't just you on the edge of the three revert rule - can whoever checks into this issue please have a look at the other users involved as well. Camw (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My name is being thrown around here, but i only found out that there was an issue a few weeks ago. Also i had no idea that discussions or consensus' had been reached, if any. Portillo (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments on this are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits -- Chuq (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern about the AfD for Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)

This AfD may achieve a consensus that amounts to condoning a known sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user's edits to Misplaced Pages.

That might be justified in the circumstances, but I thought it best to mention the matter here.—S Marshall /_Cont 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is 'condoning' anything. It is not against current policy to not revert good contributions from banned users. From WP:BAN:

The presumption is that banned users will likely only make unwanted contributions. Keeping around constructive edits from banned users is already policy. — neuro 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that AfD is not a terribly efficient forum in which to address articles on otherwise notable subjects when written by banned editors known for creating hoax articles.Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably no efficient forum exists for this, one may have to accept inefficiency sometimes. WilyD 15:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis—a user has expressed concern that the banned person has a history of introducing plausible falsehoods and disguised copyvios into Misplaced Pages. I don't know the truth of that. If you're confident these are "constructive" edits then as far as I'm concerned we can call this matter resolved.

Wikidemon—I got an edit conflict with WilyD when I was trying to say, AfD isn't efficient for any purpose, but then it's not aiming to be efficient.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and stubbified the article, with prejudice. Whatever the outcome of the AfD (and it's really a process question as to whether RBI should apply) there is less to be troubled by at the moment (i've also pointed out that it "was" an island, not "is" an island).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when are banned users allowed to edit? It has always been my understanding that banned users are banned, period, and that any and all edits they make are subject to reversion on-sight, regardless of the edits' so-called merit. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However with the caveat that any person reverting is taking responsibility for said edits that they meet WP policy and such. spryde | talk 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the right approach, then, is (1) revert the edit; (2) turn the sock in and make sure he's indeffed; and (3) go back and make the edit, if necessary. That seems like tedium, but a banned user cannot be allowed a foot in the door, or banning becomes meaningless. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a participant (in opposition) at the AfD discussion. A side problem here is that the person being treated as a banned user is probably not the person who was originally banned, and therefore should feel little need to obey the ban (which doesn't apply). To sort this out, I recently opened an Unban proposal at wp:an about the entire mess, which includes a topic ban proposal for the editor who opened the AfD. About this AfD, it seems to be settling down to the correct decision, to keep, which I describe as a win-win-win decision there. :) Just to share that more is going on here, and I think it is under control, that there is no need for a continuing incident discussion here. doncram (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Star trek online

Star Trek Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can we get some eyes on this article - I've just become aware of it in the last ten minutes and even a cursory glance suggests that either there is an off-site campaign to get certain (unsourced) information into the area or it's someone using a lot of sockpuppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi is probably the best bet. Set for 24 hours for now. –xeno (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as best as I can determine they are pissed off over a competition to win a beta key where the winner actually run 200 words more than the rules allowed and they see the entry as being important to "get the truth out there!" and so on.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it bewildering that you went to such lengths as to report this factual and accurate account of what transpired between the STO developers team and the community members and enforced its deletion on the strict, absolutely riduculous, in this situation, policy and standards of 'reliable sources' (official game forum is as reliable a source as it will get, it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved). Also, at the same time, you seem to trivialise the whole situation in which you otherwise acted over-zealously, particularly our motives behind editing the entry. What's more you got your facts wrong (you didn't research the source, i.e. the STO official website and its forums); it was a "maximum 300 word" writing contest, the STO team picked one with 609 words claiming they liked it the best and hadn't noticed it was twice the length of their own requirements. Then they tried to blame the perplexed and disappointed contestants and other community members and accused them of bad sportsmanship and as a punishment they stated that there will be no more creativity competitions. Faced with rising outrage they issued an apology and eventually, the next day, they awarded another first place to the guy who had actually abided by the rules. So it did have a happy ending. And it is all there, on the forums. I think that anyone interested in STO would be better off with knowledge of all this, even if it is trivial or insignificant in the long run. It is knowledge nonetheless, first hand. There is no vendetta here, no petty remorse. I am truly sorry that you decided to act upon this with strict, completely unnecessary, in this case, "by the book" approach. Shame, real shame, especially as one can see how much spiteful, innaccurate, fictional, unfounded stuff, that really requires attention and immediate action, there is on our dear wikipedia. GoGolan (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved"
Er... that'd be fancruft, right?. Lychosis /C 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. See, I know you didn't read the whole post of mine. Well done. GoGolan (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Userbox discussion belongs at WP:MFD. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked Axmann8 (talk · contribs) about his "This user is a proud skinhead" userbox. He compared it to other users displaying political party, "commie" and "prosecute Bush" userboxen. With the potential offensiveness, not feeling his explanation substantially adequate, and previous issues from this user, I've brought it here. Grsz 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My question would be whether his topic ban from politics include a ban from political content on his user page? Not sure what the answer to that is, but if it does, he is in violation and either needs to remove it or face sanctions. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I say let it go. The fact that we do allow userboxes of this sort, probably means this should be allowed. It isn't an attack, i.e. it's not a userbox that says "I hate insertgroupofpeoplehere" (though one could argue that's implied). As far as editing around him, i'd rather know that he's a proud skinhead than not know. And one needn't ever visit his userpage. The problem is we've allowed all kinds of user boxes that are upsetting to some people ("Support Israel" "Support Hamas" etc...) so until that changes, probably stuck (i think almost all these userboxes should be disallowed, but that's not current practice).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Want a substantial explanation? Here. I believe that is substantial enough. -Axmann8 (Talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You have no right to free speech here. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. However, see below. Black Kite 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1st Amendment? Oh dear me, no. That's of no relevance here whatsoever. The private website wikipedia can decide to limit speech in any way it sees fit on the private website wikipedia. The 1st amendment does not address these sorts of things. You really don't know that? It's like this -- the amendment protects your right to be a "skinhead" and to publish a skinhead website, or whatever, but if you came into my house I'd immediately kick you out for spouting that racist garbage, and you would find no legal protection to remain.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know this. It would be nice if Misplaced Pages followed the supreme law of the land, though, instead of ruling out free speech on user namespaces, which is a bit oxymoronic. I am a skinhead, and proud of it. If I cannot declare it in my personal page, frankly, I'd rather not be a part of a website that refuses constitutional concepts. -Axmann8 (Talk) 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

? What part of "Congress shall make no laws..." and/or the 14th amendment makes this private website subject to restrictions put in place to diminish the power of governments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also of note is Axmann's recent agreement with the phrase "chocolate messiah". Grsz 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he simply quoting CENSEI? --Ali'i 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Grsz 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst he's being typically pointy with this one, given his previous "interesting" edits, if you take this userbox in isolation it's not technically offensive. As our article points out, skinheads are not necessarily associated with any particular viewpoint. My own opinion is that we shouldn't be wasting our time with any non-collaborative userboxes, but we've been here before. I suspect an MfD would be a waste of time. Black Kite 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to let it go. It certainly fulfils the primary purpose of userboxes, which is to inform the reader about the editor in question :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Sigh...why is it that every time we get dragged in here over a really blatantly inflammatory WP:POINTy userbox 9 times out of 10 the author is someone with mediocre contributions, a recent block log and an "axe" to grind? This is why I hate the damn things. We should be operating under a "likely to cause disruption and drama" cut off for these boxes. This box neither materially improves the encyclopedia nor aids in fostering the editing environment that is beneficial to the construction of an encyclopedia. In fact, its sole purpose appears to be a combination of soapboxing and juvenile negative attention seeking. Anyone who shows up, names himself after the Commander of the Hitler Youth and brags about being a skinhead is probably not here to edit harmoniously. Bullzeye 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He removed it once, and I myself urged him not to do so, since it's a simple declaration of a fact about him, no worse than many other userboxen out there and in fact pretty darned innocuous. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me at all, personally. But that doesn't mean its not a useless piece of self-aggrandizing Nazi crap. "Impeach Bush" or "commie", while polemic and potentially cause for drama, simply don't cause the same universal revulsion that advertising an affiliation with a Neo Nazi group does. Imagine trying to have an article discussion on Judaism or The Holocaust with somebody sporting that kind of an agenda on their user page. Also, it's feeding the trolls. "If I cannot declare it in my personal page, frankly, I'd rather not be a part of a website that refuses constitutional concepts." Bluster all you like, but threatening to take your ball and go home doesn't work well around here. Bullzeye 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...why is it that every time we get dragged in here over a really blatantly inflammatory WP:POINTy userbox 9 times out of 10 the author is someone with mediocre contributions, a recent block log and an "axe" to grind? Selection bias. If a quiet, well-behaved editor who spent most of their time on Misplaced Pages copyediting and improving sources had such a userbox on their user page, what would be the chance of anyone starting an ANI thread about it? None whatsoever. But if it's a user with questionable and annoying behaviour, the userbox will be noticed by more people and provoke more outrage than it otherwise would. Reyk _YO! 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side, where I live, "skinhead" literally means "bald person". I guess I'm missing something.  GARDEN  19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The technical difference is whether being hairless is voluntary. Terminology is slippery. When I see something that says "proud to be a skinhead", I wonder how that differs technically from "proud to be an idiot". (As with this live-action mockup of a Gary Larson cartoon: ) But everyone is proud of something, ja? :) Baseball Bugs carrots 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the disruption that Axmann8 has created in his career, why are we being so indulgent? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No formal community consensus that they're disruptive? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny little dance. Not only is he some sort of white supremacist (the Axmann name is a giveaway), but he wants to rub everyones faces in it. Why? He'd like to be blocked, to justify his rage, the feeling that the world is out to get him and is "censoring the truth." In his quixotic crusade, a block would show that he's on the right path. It would affirm him. Best just to ignore him at this point, and if his editing is disruptive (he seems to spend all his time in userspace, so who cares?) he can get blocked for behavior then (rather what he imagines is some ideological crusade at the moment).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that he had doubts himself and asked an admin about it and was told by Orange Mike that it was ok it would not be fair to hold that userbox against him. henrik•talk 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why bother talking about the userbox? Whatever makes him just go away is what's good. We don't need editors like this. Friday (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that a) he's not very old, b) his conduct has improved considerably with coaching, I disagree with your assessment. henrik•talk 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

His behaving like a child is the problem, not an excuse for his behavior. Friday (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you henrik. I am unfamiliar with this user (this being the first day I ever saw him). I decided to review his edits outside this thread as a non-biased third party and it is a little troubling. Besides the rude comments about the Skinhead userbox and saying he will leave if he can't invoke the First Amendment, other edits like the ones on User talk:CENSEI where he stated: "All he did was call Obama a "chocolate messiah" ... which, personally, I agree 100% with" , attempting to override his own topic ban with edit summaries like "Constructive, good-faith suggestion, topic ban overridden by WP:IAR". and calling for the Geocaching article to have more anti-geocache opinions he likes to call "Geotrashing" . And these contributions are from just today. If his conduct was worse than it is at present as you seem to imply, it's a miracle he wasn't indefblocked for whatever he did. — Moe ε 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Having followed this from the beginning, this edit is highly troubling. The strict condition of his unblocking was an agreement to stay away from such topics and blatantly violating it whilst snidely quoting WP:IAR should be grounds for immediate and lengthy reblocking. It shows complete disrespect for the community and the good faith he has been repeatedly, and perhaps over generously, shown. Mfield (Oi!) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Yes, it's indeed a miracle he isn't indeffed (take a look at his block log). One of my motivations for trying to work with Axmann instead of just taking the easy route out and banning him is that we're creating a monoculture of editors here; those who instantly know to not express unpopular opinions and argue, those who readily grok how all our myriad of intricate policies work and how things are done here thrive, those who take longer to learn are met with a, frankly, pretty hostile environment. I think that, once in a while, we should take a chance on some users who don't fit the usual mold and see if we can help them become productive editors. Countering systematic bias isn't just to write more about non-American topics. henrik•talk 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez, his block log is lengthy for someone who has been here for only little more than a month. He does have some productive edits outside of the ones I pointed out, where he navigates newly created articles and tags poor articles for speedy deletion. It's a start, I suppose.. I agree, there can be productive editors with alternative or unpopular opinions, but the difference between Axmann8 and those kinds of editors is being able to accept changes to articles, talk about topics civilly and cooperating with the community without pushing a particular agenda. From his block log he seems pretty intent on editing controversial articles like Ann Coulter, Neo-Nazi topics like Skinheads and the like, which is fine unless he is topic banned (which he appears he got himself a 5 month long one). Misplaced Pages is a pretty hostile environment indeed, but I think he is making it more hostile than it has to be. When disruption outweighs the good edits, thats when indeffing the account is needed. If he continues down this path, he will probably end up being there soon. I commend you on your willingness not to use the banhammer, henrik, but if he is going to seriously change, I recommend you use the rainbow trout firmly. :) — Moe ε 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The only topic for which we walk people right out the door with a permanent disinvitation is pedophillia. I personally find racism offensive, however, a racist who is generally abiding by Misplaced Pages policy and not trying to soapbox, advocate improperly, etc. is not someone we need to push out the door.

If he's editing in a problematic manner, that's actionable, but he seems to be working with the community here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, he's been editing in a problematic manner. Check the block log; check the concerns given above. Personally, I've already seen enough to know that nothing good can come from keeping him around. Whether we've reached the point where this is generally apparent to others is debatable. Friday (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This blowup is entirely caused by his userbox and not any new actions he has taken. His userbox is not evidently actionable. If his userbox isn't actionable, and he's abiding by currently in force behavior restrictions from his last unblock, there's no justification for us to be doing anything about him at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you block someone who states pride in being black? If the answer is no, then you're being blatantly racist against whites. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bogus argument. "White pride" is code for "white supremacy". It's akin to "male pride", which is code for "male supremacy". Those terms do not correspond to the concept of minority pride. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to Block indef

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

I personally don't see a conscructive contributor here, and I realize I can only speak for myself, but really, his actions speak louder than words. He was topic-banned away from articles, and then he goes to blantantly violate it with the edits noted above using WP:IAR. IAR is not some kind of tool to circumvent solutions found by the community, it's not meant as a catch-all to get yourself out of any situation, it's meant to be used to improve the encyclopedia. To make bold edits, not snide remarks in violation of one's topic ban. If he can't learn to follow policy, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door.— Dædαlus 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, considering that I originally removed the userbox, even stating that it was probably "too polemic". Then, Orangemike (an admin, mind you), advised me that it was not too polemic, and he suggested I should put it back, since it's a stark statement about the person I am (which is the purpose of userboxes). An admin giving advice to re-add the userbox, then an admin blocking me for having it, would seem highly hypocritical and a lose-lose. Also, per Henrik's statement that I am, in fact, improving. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest. This user is the subject of the proposal. Grsz 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block would be for a userbox, rather, treating Misplaced Pages as your battleground. Grsz 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here as well, considering you complained about the userbox initially. Also, treating Misplaced Pages as my battleground? Lol. You're the one who complained initially, or that comment would have never been added. Stop trying to find loopholes to get me banned, kthx. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm waiting for someone to pull out WP:NOSKINHEADUSERBOXES or WP:NOSKINHEADS, of which I see are both redlinks. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's time. He won't stop grinding his axe long enough to listen to a word anyone says. It should be clear from his conduct that there's precious little chance he'll ever become a constructive contributor. Friday (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note this user's conflict of interest, considering he's been critical of me before this proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why?  GARDEN  21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• cmt axmann. You violated your topic ban. You're stirring the pot now. I advise you to either A. Apologize for violating the topic ban and promise not do so again, for any reason. Or B. Just back away from the carcass and be quiet here. Further attacks on the motives of other editors may sway more people into supporting a block of you just to get rid of the disruption. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, though if Axmann doesn't shut up pretty soon, he'll dig a deep enough hole that I'll change votes. I like the people who 'open their mouths and prove it', to take half an adage; those are the people who can easily be evaluated for their agendas. Axmann's on a short enough leash now, far better to have him wreck himself on actual content realted problems than this stupidity. -- ThuranX 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ditch him. He's not worth the trouble. He's not a fabulous researcher, he has zero FAs to his credit, and if he tried to so much as fix grammar or phrasing on one of our really good articles I daresay he'd be reverted due to making the article worse, not better. In short, I believe in leeway for good contributors; I believe in more leeway for truly outstanding contributors, but this jerk? No, he gets no leeway at all. In short, Delete as antiencyclopedic. KillerChihuahua 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've every been involved with this editor so have no COI as far as I am aware - all I see here is a timewaster, I know we have our cadre of social workers ready and willing to leap in to enable people like this but come on.. He knows he's taking the piss, we all know he's take the piss. Let's just get it over and done with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reblock, but not indef Administrator henrik is willing to work with Axmann8 so his problematic behavior can be corrected. He was unblocked and given a topic ban of five months so he could continue editing Misplaced Pages. However, given his recent conduct and him violating the topic ban, he should be blocked for a set amount of time for violating it. Give henrik a chance to continue working with him and if he doesn't improve, then indefblock him. — Moe ε 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where did he violate the topic ban? I don't see any article space edits which are problematic. Please provide diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe it's these admissions: , . "Per IAR" is a slap in the face to the admins who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Grsz 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, per his own admission, he was violating his topic ban 'per WP:IAR' with the diffs above and . He was topic banned from editing articles and discussion (which he agreed to) related to politics in exchange for a unblock. Why bother setting topic bans at all if the disruptive users can go and violate them willingly? Either he gets a block for violating the topic ban, or there shouldn't be any pseudo-restriction (which ultimately turns out to just be a threat) at all. — Moe ε 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why the heck is henrik willing to waste his time? Misplaced Pages is not therapy, last I checked. henrik, you have better uses for your time than trying to talk sense into a neo nazi skinhead who seriously seems to think the US Constitution grants him the right to piss in our living room. KillerChihuahua 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I despise polls, from his conduct in this thread and his block log longer than Gatsby (one block for every 300 edits? No thank you) I don't believe that this user will be beneficial to the project if he stays. We don't need a toddler rubbing crayons on the couch with both hands over his ears, singing "lalala" loudly.  GARDEN  22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is The Great Gatsby considered a long book these days? :P MastCell  22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, first book I could think of. :)  GARDEN  22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and close - WP:IDONTLIKE objections notwithstanding, this user hasn't come anywhere near our normal threshold for community patience exhaustion. His viewpoint being offensive to many (me included) is not grounds to block or ban him. Barring specific evidence of more severe ongoing behavior problems, this ban proposal should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not based solely on this issue.  GARDEN  22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing he's done in the last few days that justified more blocking, as far as I can tell. The only reason further action is being discussed is the userbox - and the userbox appears to meet our current policy. If he manages to take more disruptive actions and gets himself indef'ed and it sticks - so be it. But this call to ban him is based on ... nothing, since he was last unblocked. We don't ban people for behaving themselves after being given another chance. If he stops behaving himself I or another admin will apply appropriate sanctions up to and including a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If your assumption on why this indef blocked is being discussed is in regards to why I brought it up, you're wrong. I did not bring it up in regards to the userbox, but in regards to his violation of his topic ban.— Dædαlus 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Would someone please provide the diffs for what he did that violated the topic ban? People keep saying that, but I've been through his edit history and I didn't see it. Evidence, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Please see the links by myself and Grsz11 where he even self admitted it was a violation of his topic ban. , The topic ban, if you review his talk page history and his block log, is on all articles and discussions related to politics which he was the one who proposed himself in exchange for an unblock. — Moe ε 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - You guys have already indef'd him twice and you keep letting him off the hook. He's under a topic ban, so...

  Enforce the topic ban already. Anything that violates it in an article, revert it on sight. And let him keep his white supremacist garbage on his page, so that there's no doubt where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Idef'd twice shows that he's been given two more chances, not that he's somehow immune to indefing. Your argument supports re-instituting the indef rather than not. KillerChihuahua 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  If it were me, I would have blocked him for good the first time. This episode needs to serve as an object lesson to overly-lenient admins. This guy came in here with guns blazing and a mind full of Limbaugh mush, but the youngsters running this place somehow couldn't see it. So he needs to stay on here until he's unwound enough rope to hang himself and stay hanged, i.e. so that no admin would be foolish enough to trust him again. But he's not there yet, and he shouldn't be blocked yet. And, who knows? Miracles still happen. He might wake up some morning and become productive. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to move to close this, an admin said it was ok for him to have the userbox, so that issue belongs at MFD and henrik has already addressed him about the topic ban issue which is self-imposed. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Object to closing. Its not the ubox. Its not even the violation of topicban, altho that's bigger than the ubox. KillerChihuahua 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Wait a While. The box is annoying, but he is allowed to have it. It's a good thing to the extent that it gives insight into his character.

I'm impressed by henrik's dedication, and I hope, sorta, that it isn't misplaced. But Axmann is going to keep getting in trouble until he (at least) 1) respects the topic ban, and avoids nibbling lagomorphically around its edges, and 2) comes to understand that all the trouble is not the result of a cabal of leftist editors drooling for his scalp, but a product of his own intransigence and churlishness.

My feeling is that there's no way he'll last five months. PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Move to close this, as it is leading no where, and is only wasting time. Landon1980 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• You are under no obligation to participate further, or even to read. Kindly do not prematurely close this while others are still discussing. It is very rude. KillerChihuahua 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me I wouldn't dare close it, I was just rendering my opinion. You are wanting him blocked for past behavior, not how it works. Landon1980 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to you, and you are completely wrong about what I "want". KillerChihuahua 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You do realise he's probably named after Artur Axmann? Which makes a potential WP:U violation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its pretty obvious that its a play on Artur Axmann, but since its just Axmann8 it isn't much of a problem, (not to mention Artur Axmann has been dead for 12 years, and WP:U is only applied on living peoples names). — Moe ε 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Block, not necessarily indef. It seems odd to indef over a userbox - which is clearly some people's view of the debate here. It's also confusing to think that a user, whose indefinite block was replaced with a topic ban, would not be indef blocked again for blatantly violating that ban - which is the view that others are taking of this. I'm inclined to split the baby down the middle and issue a short-term block as a means of ban enforcement, since this editor obviously isn't respecting the ban voluntarily. IF henrik wishes to continue mentoring after the block, then that's fine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? He should have most definitely been blocked the second he violated his topic ban. The only reason he was unblocked is he voluntarily agreed to it. I think his unblock was premature to begin with, and was asking for further disruption, but he was unblocked. There are plenty of people watching him, and he if he makes so much as a single mistake he can be swiftly reblocked. I feel blocking would be rather punitive now, as he stopped violating the topic ban. Some have said it is not for the userbox, or the violation of the topic ban, so what then. Can you list some diffs (dated after his last unblock) that will reasonably justify a policy-based block, that is preventative in nature? Can we not assume good faith and give him another chance? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) Well clearly I'm of the "he was indef'd; indef was replaced with topic ban; he blatantly violated topic ban ergo the indef goes right back up" opinion. I see no benefit to splitting the baby, but as so many here seem to be confused about the issue, I won't object too darn much either. However, if he violates again after his last,last,last,really truly last chance, I suggest we indef. Enough already. KillerChihuahua 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you more than you know. I just think that Henrik should have blocked him the second he saw he was violating his topic ban. I am reasonably sure that Axeman will inevitably land in the indef block zone though, so maybe it is better to get it over with. After all, the best predictor of the future is the past. Landon1980 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. Hey, you're conservative, and you've been on here more than a year now without getting blocked. Maybe, if you're in a masochistic mood, you could visit with Axman and 'splain a few things to him. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the userboxes, they're just a smoke screen that's distracting us. He was unblocked under a condition, and he willingly violated that condition soon after. He should be blocked for a substantial time at least, probably indef. Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow... Anyway, in my defense, this whole convo started over my userbox, which has already been ruled by an administrator as compliant with Misplaced Pages policy. I followed another policy, WP:IAR, by ignoring a rule to make a constructive edit to Misplaced Pages to make it more neutral, therefore I completely complied with WP:IAR, which is a policy. It states, "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". I did just that. I made an edit to the warning on the politics userbox page, in order to make it more neutral, therefore improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want people to follow WP:IAR, then why don't you get rid of it as a policy? I haven't violated a thing, so I am not very clear about why we are having this discussion. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a rule for the improvement of wikipedia, not a way to get around an agreement you made with an admin to get unblocked. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What takes precedent: an admin's topic ban, or the need to make the encyclopedia a more neutral, intelligent website? It's like someone under a politics topic ban reverting a correction to a spelling mistake on a political article. Does bureaucratic policy, or the need to make this a better encyclopedia, take the front seat? -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your topic ban takes precedence. Dayewalker (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum comment to Baseball Bugs' comment about White pride: So, by your argument, "female pride"=female supremacy and "black pride"=black supremacy? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, "bugs", but don't we allow "Feminist" and "Masculist" userboxes? Okay, don't correct me, because I'm not wrong. Anyway, why are people allowed to express "black pride" and "female pride" if we're not allowed to express "white pride"? I'm proud to be white, and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that doesn't change the fact. Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President. Why is the chip on their shoulder still? I'm proud to be white, and I'm not ashamed to say it. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef for this comment alone. Why on earth are we still putting up with this editor? If anyone can be bothered to provide a fair unblock reason after this, feel free, but this is an encyclopedia, not a playground for racists. Black Kite 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Black Kite. Now we can all go back to what we were doing. Grsz 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now, we can close this. HalfShadow 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hope no one is willing to unblock axeman in the near future, just because he tells some story as to how bias we are and how this proves it, and that he will blah blah blah ....... if unblocked. Every bit of this disruption could have been, and by all means should have been prevented. If nothing else, this is the "proof" axeman was looking for. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 late intervention

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

Hate to bring this up, but... When I brokered the topic ban, I deliberately did not mention talk pages as off-limits, as I had assumed he knew how to use them properly. I am indeed concerned about him invoking IAR, but I'd rather give him the best chance to work constructively. I clarified it in a thread up top, which has since been archived: The topic ban did not extend to talk pages unless he started being disruptive on them, and it doesn't apply to AN/I unless the thread he's editing applies to a political article. Apologies, my friends. If you want anyone to blame, I'm your guy. I did not speak here because I've been busy with El Machete Guerrero and the harassment of another user and haven't had the chance. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI. -Jeremy 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. There is no valid example cited here of Axmann8 breaking his topic ban. He has been banned by popular acclaim, because we don't like his political views, not for doing anything wrong. Injustice writ large. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I made the above comment before I saw his comment above about "blacks getting their President". I have no objection to the block given that racist comment. -Jeremy 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Axmann8 block

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

Consensus has been reached, no need to drag this out any further.

I come to this late, not realising it was going on, and I realise that it's all labelled as resolved. But what has happened seems more than a little unfair. Having recently rubbed up against Axmann8 I understand truly how annoying he can be, but he ought not to be blocked just for being annoying. Seems to me what has happened to him is pretty close to entrapment. He puts his skinhead userbox up (and identifying as a skinhead is not against any WP rule I have seen) but someone here asks him what he means by it, he says it's a statement of a political view. We identify that as being a racist view. Once again, being a racist isn't against any WP rule I know. The seeming nail in the coffin is the "chocolate messiah" remark which is not, in itself, uncontroversially a racist remark, and not even his. Essentially Axmann8 hasn't identifiably done anything wrong on this occasion that he hasn't been pushed into by our questioning of him, and even then, I'm not sure I understand what it is specifically he has done, it's difficult to see what rule he has broken. Certainly any prohibition from political articles here cannot really include a userbox on his own page. His userbox in support Cain is political but no one is bothered by that. No, this all seems summary justice by a lynch mob. Unless you think the only lynch mobs are right wing racist ones. What I want to know is: What precisely have you blocked Axmann8 for. That plain statement of wrongdoing is missing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that he came here with a specific agenda, and he kept coming back to that agenda, because that was his reason for coming here. He repeatedly pushed the envelope to see how far he could go. He would promise not to do politics, but then would do so anyway and try to justify it based on "someone else can do it, so can I" until finally the preponderence of opinion was, "enough, already." I didn't want him blocked yet, because I'm almost certain that's what he was hoping for, in order to use it in some way to dis wikipedia further on some other venue. Of course, that's a fairly good-sized club by now, so maybe that's not important. And I can't disagree that the apparently wishy-washy responses of the admins did not help matters. But he can't use the "look what you made me do" argument. He was given plenty of chances to straighten up and fly right, and he just wouldn't or couldn't do it - because he was, at the end of the day, either a single-purpose account, or else the latest poster child for "doesn't get it". There are other conservatives here that are not blocked or topic-banned. Maybe he could have looked up to them as models of behavior. But somehow that just wasn't in the cards. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a discussion about his user box. He was indef blocked and agreed to stay off of political topics, then a week later he invokes WP:IAR and goes back to one. Then in the ensuing discussion, he makes an edit that indicated to Black Kite above he had no desire to get along with others, so he was blocked. He wasn't "pushed" into anything, he was the one who chose to claim IAR over his own promise to stay away from political articles. Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you've blocked him over his conduct defending against a proposed block? What you're saying is this: The proposed block should never have been proposed as having the userbox is not against the rules. During his defence of the block-which-should-not-have-been-proposed he says something else you do not like, so you block him anyway. It's the Salem witch trial all over again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read. I never proposed anything to do with his userbox, my proposal had to do with the fact that he purposely violated his topic ban.— Dædαlus 02:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and move away from the horse. Axeman was blocked for being disruptive, it has nothing to do with his userbox. It was for his racist comments, and for repeatedly violating his topic ban, either of those are more than enough to justify an indef block given his block log. Landon1980 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You see, the two posters above do not agree why he is blocked. All I am trying to do is get a clear statement as to why it that is. A consensus. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space. Daedalus has not done so in his recent post above. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am glad Axmann8 has gone. I want us to be clear why that is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)And I say you are are being disruptively lazy by not taking the time to read through this thread. I proposed the block in regards to his violation of his topic ban, which was cited in several diffs in the thread above the proposal. Either take the time to read all the material or don't comment.— Dædαlus 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Address the argument. Assume good faith. I think I have followed every ref given. I can't see anything political except HERE where we trapped him into a defence of his views. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then why don't you read the above threads? "I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space" what gave you the idea the topic ban only applied to the mainspace? Here is not the place to drag this out, as consensus has been reached. Landon1980 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide the refs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only consensus was "block". The reasons for the block are not consensual. Everyone deserves to have stated, plainly, what rules they broke. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your agenda is, and why you insist on dragging this out, but if you have a problem you should take it up with the blocking admin(s). The diffs you are asking for are posted multiple times in the above threads, axeman even admitted to violating it and used IAR as an excuse. You are being disruptive, take it elsewhere. Landon1980 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your agenda is. The silencing of dissent? My agenda is to make sure we are being seen as better than a lynch mob. The diffs are cited but they are not what those citing them say they are! Essentially there are three. One I discuss below. The other two are back here to this proposal to block. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the diff where he clearly, cleanly, purposefully violated his topic ban. He's well aware of what he did. Rather than just repeatedly asking for the ref Paul, you could have looked it up yourself. It appears four times in the above discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote your citation: I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. What's wrong about that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist

As of this moment, the first 57 edits of today's AfD log have all been identical nominations nominations with identical rationale by user Juvenile Deletionist (talk · contribs). I've looked over a handful of them and although they look problematic and need improvement, it seems that this person has a grudge against standalone articles about songs. Given the username and the fact that his/her account was created four days ago my guess is this person is trying to cause a disruption. KuyaBriBri 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC); edited own comment, 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just going to request a mop. Clearly disruptive since there is no clear deletion rationale given for the nominated articles, and the speed at which they are nominated shows the nominator did not follow any of the BEFORE steps in checking the notability of the articles. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the time I copied the above diff to now he/she has added 17 more. KuyaBriBri 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are all over the place. Something like The_Cha_Cha_(song) should just have been PRODded, it's clearly an uncontroversial deletion, others are reasonable for AfD, but some are almost certainly notable. I'd be tempted to remove all the AfDs, to be honest. Black Kite 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the songs nominated was a Grammy nominee. I've demanded an immediate stop for discussion here, and will block if they continue. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is a block for abusing Twinkle in order? KuyaBriBri 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday (talk · contribs) has blocked indef for disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Friday. I'm going to remove all the AfDs from the daily log, delete the clearly disruptive ones, and AfD, PROD or speedy anything that falls into those categories (which is how it should've been done in the first place!). Black Kite 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this really resolved in under 10 minutes? Wow, I'm impressed. KuyaBriBri 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, removed them all from the log and rolled back the addition of the AfD notices to the articles. I'll be AFK for a while, but will sort all those out later. I suspect quite a few are - by the law of averages - reasonable AfDs, but the nominating was completely random in places. Black Kite 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to try and NAC a bunch of these; let me know on my talk if I'm doing anything wrong. KuyaBriBri 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No point - I've removed them from the log. Black Kite 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - moving on..... KuyaBriBri 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to drag this out, but is this a sock? Certainly looks it...  GARDEN  22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Very likely. The first edit is in his monobook.js page, and the second (and on) one already gets to work on AFDs. That or the user has learned very, very quickly. MuZemike 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • People don't have to be logged in in order to learn. One can read policy, guideline, and help pages without having an account, after all. That said, this is fairly obvious intentional disruption, and Friday made the correct decision with the block. An account named "Juvenile Deletionist" whose edits are juvenile (in spelling, grammar, and so forth) and confined to deletion nominations? As 168.28.199.74 said: pull the other one, it has bells on. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shaheenjim

I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.

Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.

The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.

My issues with him include:

• Profanity
• Accusatory tone
• Personal attacks on myself and others
• Making threats on my talk page
• Overt hostility
• Abusive language
• Rude and offensive comments

Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.

I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.

I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.

I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my side: I'll summarize my side of the argument, since it's been a pretty long discussion on the talk pages. Someone tried to add something to an article that is obviously and definitely true. No one is disputing that it's obviously and definitely true, but some people (like Jeremy here) are saying that it shouldn't be added anyway, since it's OR and doesn't have a RS. I said that the rules against OR and requiring a RS are intended to prevent people from adding things that are false. But since this addition is obviously and definitely true, those rules weren't intended to prevent it from being added, and it can be added to the article per the IAR rule and the Use Common Sense policy. But Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense. I have asked him, on several occasions, which part of my argument he's disputing, as you can see here. But he refuses to respond. That is, he refuses to follow Misplaced Pages's policy on dispute resolution. Instead he just wants to have an edit war, repeatedly deleting the edit without discussing why he thinks it should be disputed.

And now, in addition to refusing to discuss his problems with my reasoning, he's started deleting my comments, claiming that they're in violation of the policy on civility. They are not. I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else, or been hostile, or used abusive language, and it's not surprising to me that he didn't give any examples of those allegations. He's also claiming that I'm making "threats." The only threat I made is to ask an administrator to block him if he continued to violate Misplaced Pages's policies. That's hardly a threat that warrants me being blocked. And I've only accused him of things he actually did, or been as rude and offensive as was warranted based on his conduct.

The latest development is our discussion on our own talk pages, rather than the talkpage of the relevant article. I invite you to read it here. I think it speaks for itself.

Finally, he's claimed above that I deleted one of my own remarks and left another in its place. If you look closely, you'll see that I didn't delete anything, I merely merged the comments from both of our talk pages by inserting his first comment in between my first and second comment. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing something. Essentially, we don't know whether it's the same ship, or a different ship that was made to look the same. I've posted on the Talk page to this effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, putting "I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else" in the same post as "Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense." is just too obvious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging it was profane, or a personal attack, or both? If the former, then which part? And if the latter, then that's not what personal attack means. If you're attacking someone on the substance of the issue at hand, that's not considered a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I attacked his looks, for example. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're on the subject of wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours? Based on my experience on Misplaced Pages to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else". SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested

• Note to reviewing admin: I'm citing the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense and Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense as specimen examples of personal attacks. This revert is the only edit-warring this editor has recently taken part in, to my knowledge. Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)#Kodiak and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim provide, I believe, adequate evidence of tendentious editing. Length of block was after consideration of prior blocks (24h for 3RR and 48h for NOR violations). Lastly, I consider myself to be uninvolved because my only contribution to the content dispute has been to provide outside input as to how I think wikipedia policies apply to the dispute in question - I certainly haven't edited the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Declined, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in view of and have indef-blocked the user (see rationale at ). I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyvios by User:Mrc1028

I've got to give this guy credit, he's industrious.LeadSongDog come howl 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Krazy Glue. What's your point? HalfShadow 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Give them a final warning. They haven't edited since the last warning on their talk page. I'm a great believer in final warnings. I'm soft like that. --GedUK  21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got a reply this A.M. there (please see). Is there a right way for teachers to do this with a class, or is it simply something they shouldn`t do? LeadSongDog come howl 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TruckTech

This is a strange case and I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I've assumed good faith and unblocked the account since he seems to have followed the GFDL rules, but there's still the COI matter and the fact the article still "quacks" like an ad. However, the subject certainly seems worthy of inclusion. Can someone step in and perhaps offer some more insight on his talk page? Thanks. I have to log off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The question about any article is whether it's "notable". Is this a major truck line, or is it just a small company that he's trying to plug? He seems polite and sincere, and if so, he just doesn't understand how to write an article. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith and baseless accusations by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, 2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Misplaced Pages and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor dislike on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue with administrator User:Orderinchaos

I've had an issue with this administrator as seen here. It seems that when I reach a point in a debate where there is nowhere left for this administrator to turn, he lashes out at me. This is not the first occasion he has used the same lines against me. He says I am arguing for the point of it and creating spot fires. Nobody likes to debate more than they need to. I don't want the debate to go on, I want the outcome. And now I am being accused of a lack of content development which I find very offensive given my editting history.

I am opting out of this particular argument, because I actually do have better things to do, and I'm pretty convinced you are just arguing for the sake of it. Even Antony Green himself does not maintain the ABC Elections is a reliable source in the sense we mean - it's an information resource for the benefit of the general public and has some predictive capacity at a point when little information is available in the initial stages of counting - so you're actually trying to argue something he isn't. Seriously, get into some content development sometime, instead of bickering over minor points and starting random spot fires in an attempt to prove other ones. Much better use of your time, and mine. Orderinchaos 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this attitude very unbecoming of an administrator. This is the standard reaction given when there is nowhere left for the administrator to turn as far as content disputes and debates over policy go. Admittedly that is my own point of view. These run-ins do not happen all that often but when they do, and I feel as though i'm the one in the right, the admin flies off the handles. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are options listed, at WP:DR, for dealing with conflicts with other editors, such as mediation. I don't see where Orderinchaos used his admin tools, or even where he used his position as an admin to "win" any arguement. If you had not mentioned he WAS an admin, there would be no evidence from his own editing in this conflict that he was one (for the record, I knew he was an admin, but was making the point that it does not appear that such a fact has entered this conflict at all). Given that, I find his administrator status to be somewhat moot here. Admins don't have advanced position at Misplaced Pages, just some extra tools, and if they have not abused or threatened to abuse those tools, they are subject to the same venues of dispute resolution as any editor. Try WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB or WP:WQA for additional input from editors that are good at solving conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mark Lessig

I think an admin needs to have a look at this - it's been an odd account with a mix of sensible and objectionable edits, and too much personal contact info on the user page, and the editor has now put {{mfd}} on both user page and talk page (but nothing on the MfD page), with edit comment "(I'm just the nephew of Mark Lessig impersonating him, and so my user page and talk page should be deleted.) ". PamD (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably be blocked indef anyway per this edit (which I note was still live until a moment ago). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Could be compromised, whoever's been editing from it lately doesn't seem too keen on encylcopedia building. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a sockpuppet, several accounts that have edited the same articles have been blocked for similar vandalism, disruption or harassment - and probably an impersonation account. —Snigbrook 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vio of BLP

I had encounter repeated violation of Wp:BLP by user:Radeksz. My previous attempt to receive the feedback from BLP noticeboard was fruitless , however as current situation becoming worse, I am seeing help again.

• Lokyz - please be serious. Noone claims Mudde is extremist. Garsva is and you know this.
• nothing to prove - are you saying Garsva is not an extemist? (mocking Kazimieras Garšva)
• reverting spurious attempts at whitewashing (restoring unreferenced info and trying to associate prominent living persons with questionable "organization", neglecting fact that it was already suggested that inserting unreferenced material is vio of BLP) However this damaging info repeatedly restored by Radeksz . I dont want to engage in revert warring (even then I have immunity then dealing with vio of BLP), so can anybody help on this? M.K. (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a recurring problem with MK's edits - he has been trying to insert text referenced to an extremist, nationalist organization - Vilnija - and one of its members - Kazimieras Garšva - into several articles. I have removed this text per FRINGE. MK considers this a BLP violation (and Lokyz has been tag teaming him in this endeavor) because ... well, not exactly sure why, but it seems he thinks that calling Garšva a member of this organization (of which he is a leader, per article) is a violation of BLP. Of course if it was the case that either Vilnija was NOT an extremist organization (which it is) or that Garšva was not its leader (which he is) then it would be a BLP violation - and in that case both the relevant articles would need a serious overhaul. But there is plenty of reliable sources to support both of these facts. The bottom line on this is that MK really wants to enter the text based on this extremist nationalistic source into several articles on Polish-Lithuanian relations but he has trouble getting around the fact that it is an extremist nationalist organization of which Garšva is a leader. So he's making a spurious BLP violation claim.

And let's look at the above edits that MK cites:

• Lokyz - please be serious. Noone claims Mudde is extremist. Garsva is and you know this. - Lokyz restored the material cited to Vilnija because ... Mudde who calls Garsva extremist is a reliable source (Mudde was cited to show that Garsva was an extremist). Of course Mudde is right! But that's why this should be removed. And Lokyz is clearly violating AGF here since it's been pointed out several times previously (for example here: - and note the incivility implied in the section title) that the problem is with Garšva, not with Mudde. And he's clearly aware of this.
• nothing to prove - are you saying Garsva is not an extemist? (mocking Kazimieras Garšva) - Here I am simply reverting MK's repeated attempt to enter non-RS text into an article. I am not mocking anyone. As the article on Kazimieras Garšva clearly states, he is a leader of an extremist organization. I am merely stating this and it's supported by many reliable sources. If MK wants to make a case that this guy is not an extremist, and that he is a reliable source, let him make that case on talk pages and provide some *evidence that this is not the case. But the sources clearly identify him as such.

• reverting spurious attempts at whitewashing (restoring unreferenced info and trying to associate prominent living persons with questionable "organization", neglecting fact that it was already suggested that inserting unreferenced material is vio of BLP) - note that here I was actually restoring some referenced text as well as a few instances of text with tags, all of which had been inserted only quite recently. This basically seems to be the "fact tag it then quickly delete it" strategy of removing info that doesn't agree with one's POV that MK is pursuing here.

This is a case of a particular editor who really wants some very controversial, very POV, extremist material put into some articles and who can only find sources to back up that material which are ... well, controversial, extremist and POV. Unsatisfied with standard wiki policies which don't support inclusion of such material and sources he is making any kind of accusation he can.

I apologize in advance if this comment is lengthy and if at some points my frustration shows through, but this has been going on for quite awhile. Whenever I actually tried to engage MK (or other editors involved) in some kind of discussion all I got was crazy accusations, obscurantism, changing the subject matter and other dead ends.radek (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will save neutral editors time and would not respond to rants above on my character, however I will respond to other issues, particular:

Radeksz says: Mudde who calls Garsva extremist is a reliable source.

Nope Mudde does not call Mr. Grašva as an "extremist", as far I as can say he even don't mention his name.

Radeksz says Here I am simply reverting MK's repeated attempt to enter non-RS text into an article. I am not mocking anyone..

I asked many times to provide academic material to support such shameful claims that The State Genocide Research Center of Lithuania sources are note RS and constitutes "extremist ones", no luck but a continues slander on the living person who is not even an author that those findings...

Radeksz says This basically seems to be the "fact tag it then quickly delete it" strategy of removing info that doesn't agree with one's POV that MK is pursuing here.

Actually WP:BLP is very categorical : We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion . And that I did, and I get a doze of another accusation of "whitewashing" from the editor who was already blocked for incivility.

Regarding usage of "extremist" (as shown in examples) then describing Mr. Garsva, I see it as direct vio of BLP, because that "extremist" is considered as pejorative labels and requires a high degree of sensitivity as noted on BLP policy. Inserting such labels on talk pages and edit summaries is indeed inconsistent with good editing practice per BLP.

Judging from reply of Radeksz, he refuses to consider such practice as harmful, therefore he should warned about WP:BLP issues. M.K. (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Kazimieras Garšva clearly identifies hims as extremist. The article on Vilnija clearly identifies it as an extremist organization. In my edit summaries I am merely repeating the information - clearly cited to reliable sources - that is found in the Misplaced Pages articles on these topics, as well as the actual sources themselves. The "shameful claims" that Vilnijia is an extremist organization are right there in the article itself. For example ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... Mudde! Direct quote from the source "The petition was also signed by representatives of extremist organizations such as the LNDP, the UJI and the association Vilnija". So questionable text, sourced to an extremist organization is being inserted into articles based on the fact that ... there are reliable sources which call that organization extremists! Because there is a reliable source somewhere in that chain?!? Or something. The problem with MK's contention about BLP is in the "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" part. It's sourced. It's not contentious except for him.

Continuing along ... MK says "from the editor who was already blocked for incivility". For the sake of keeping that record clean I will refrain from further comment.

And speaking of incivility, here's MK changing my edits on a talk page: radek (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

radek (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on the underlying issue, it is fairly clear that the term can be used to refer to this particular nationalist if there is a source for it. It is fair characterisation of a very nationalist politician. (I've helped mediate an article where he appears, so I remember). Other words could be found however, as there is usually no point in getting stuck at a particular way or wording the matter. There is a fairly wide range in describing the public views of a political figure without violating BLP. I think MK's claim with respect to BLP, frankly, a little absurd in this case. DGG (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting opinion. Where do you see attribution and academic sources for that assertions? Where do you see attribution and academic sources involving Mr. Paviržis, Mr. Zinkevičius, Mr. Piročkinas? BLP rather clear, that editors should do in those cases, and no, definitely not accusing others of "whitewashing". M.K. (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Spam

• Ericg33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User continues to disrupt Misplaced Pages by spamming article talk pages with information that is unrelated to improving the article (treats it as a forum), despite numerous warnings. See Talk:Ingrown nail in particular. User talk:Ericg33 is full of warnings for this. Not a major issue, however this still needs to be addressed. I'm not sure if he just doesn't get it, or if he just doesn't care. Yankees76 (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another one! :) I agree he doesn't deserve a block, but I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on him. Thanks! --Yankees76 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They're probably good faith edits, but you're probably in safe territory just removing these sorts of postings from the page, and quoting WP:NOTFORUM or something in the edit summary. Lankiveil 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

The worry isn't whether the edits have been in good faith, but all the bygone warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if the user keeps getting their comments removed, then they'll hopefully give up. They can always be blocked if it becomes disruptive, as well. Lankiveil 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Given the string of pleas and warnings on the user's page, along with it showing up here, I'd say the edits have wended their way into the outskirts of disruption, hence my warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this guy just doesn't get it. Even after your warning, he's reinserted the material , and left you a nice message on your talk page too --Yankees76 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential death threat

I'm not taking it too seriously at this point, but this could be of concern. Thoughts? –Juliancolton · 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, we could call the FBI, or the CIA, or CTU. But perhaps calling CVU might be more apt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly nothing, but it couldn't hurt to drop a note to the relevant authorities. The IP in question seems to enjoy vandalising Harding Charter Preparatory High School. Lankiveil 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Lankiveil. I scanned some of the contribs too and it seems to be a vandal account but it is concerning that the edit names people so maybe contacting the school to inform might be a good idea and/or the local officials just to be on the safe side. Obviously the editor should be indefinitely blocked to stop the disruptions. --CrohnieGal 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An indef block would be fairly impractical, as the vandalism originated from an IP address. –Juliancolton · 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't think of that when I suggested it. Has anyone contacted anyone about the threat though just to be in the safe side of things? I'm just curious as I know that usually someone makes contacts to make sure it's not a serious threat though I agree it's probably just a vandal edit. I am just concerned with the use of specific names in the threat which might be RL. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative priviledges

I in good faith previously moved the disambiguation page at Glamour to Glamour (disambiguation), and made Glamour into a redirect and pointed it at Glamour (presentation); because it seemed to me that unlike Glamour (magazine) the Glamour (presentation) article covered glamour, rather than Glamour models or a magazine, it seemed to be the primary topic.

However, User:Bkonrad using his admin powers undid this in the middle of a discussion about whether to move Glamour (presentation) to Glamour.

Now, the discussion wasn't (to my surprise) going my way at all it's an uphill battle, but we weren't finished yet, and so I was even more dismayed that Bkonrad undid this before the discussion was finished, and did it under CSD 6 (which is supposed to be for completely non controversial activities); obviously it's not non controversial since I was calling for a move, and he also voting in the discussion.

That's clear-cut abuse of administrative powers. He should either wait till the discussion was ended, or he at the very least shouldn't have voted and used a different CSD.

Could somebody explain to him that this falls clearly short of the level we expert from administrators, they're not judge, jury and executioner.

If he continues to do stuff like this, I would request that he be desysopped, because IMO it would then be the case that he cannot be trusted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just let the discussion go on, get a consensus, and then go to WP:RM? Much less dramatic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say what Doc did. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I may or may not do that anyway, but that's not the issue, it's just that I don't like seeing admins doing that kind of thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material

Per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body, Buddhism and the body was deleted. Prior to the close, User:Spasemunki had begun a reworking of the article in his userspace. After the article deletion, he moved his work back into the main space. I am concerned that this may be a violation of GFDL as well as recreation of deleted material. I wanted another opinion before speedy deletion though, as I am involved. Aleta 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether it's a rewrite, or substantially the same (but corrected to address the failings at the AfD). If it's the latter, then a simple history merge will fix all ills. — Coren  14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A history merge would be good but the result of the AFD should then be recorded as Keep or No consensus. Note that the recreating user User:Spasemunki !voted delete in the discussion and this influenced other !voters but, given events, this should now be understood as keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If the material is substantially rewritten with respect to the problems, it does not violate the AfD close. The AfD close--unless the decision was to salt the article--does not prevent re-creation of an article on the topic. 15:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the original article. As far as I can see substantial portions of the re-created article are the same or closely similar. Note the clumsy English in some sections, e.g. "...the Buddha words were not stated on what he thought about this topic...". There is definitely some new material, but what concerns me most is that an important issue that emerged in the AfD was that the entire notion of the article was flawed, and this re-creation seems to be simply a better quality version of something that shouldn't exist in the first place - a rewrite of someone else's OR. andy (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of what emerged in AfD is that 1) the current focus of the article was flawed, but that 2) there were a very small number of elements in the article worth keeping (I did deleted 80-90% of the old article), and 3) that an article that was re-focused would be an appropriate topic. I attempted to do this by creating a new intro and creating essentially a 'sample' outline structure based on the topics discussed in the article 'Body, Buddhist Perspectives on the' in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. But please see my comments below for a more complete explanation. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I 'voted' delete, however I think Spasemunki's actions are ok. Obviously, the new article could be listed at AfD, but I don't think a speedy would be appropriate. If the new article isn't going to be zapped, then I guess a note should be appended to the AfD close explaining what's happened. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I idsagree - just got an edit conflict, and what I was posting under Andyjsmith's edit was that I was about to say the same thing. A number of things that people said should not be in the article are in the recreated article. This still reads like a personal reflection on the subject, not an encyclopedic article. I'd amend Andyjsmith's comment to say a "slightly better quality version" and that may be generous. It is basically a recreation of a deleted article. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO the easiest course of action is to take the new article by User:Spasemunki to WP:DRV and ask the community if this new version brings enough new information to the table to overturn the old AFD. MBisanz 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So here is what happened: I created the 'new' version of the article as an exercise to see how much of the old article could be saved if it were cut down to fit the rubric of an article on the same topic in an academic encyclopedia. I intentionally avoided doing things like rewording the awkward wording that User:Andyjsmith mentions and left almost nothing but the referenced material. The 'Suicide' section still contains some essay-like material because I was undecided at the time about how much of it other editors would want to move into the 'Religious views of suicide' article. I also omitted the references for the new material I was adding (most of them from the MacMillan article) for expediency. My aim was to quickly put something together that the editors involved in the AfD could discuss to make clear that the article in its form as taken to AfD was inappropriate, but that there was potential for a proper article covering the topic, in which a few elements of the current article might still exist. It was an attempted compromise. My hope was that we would get some more feedback on the article I created, replace the content of the article with it, and then close the AfD. Unfortunately, the AfD was closed before more than a couple of other editors had commented, so I wasn't sure what to make of it. Thus the move last night, which I realized later probably needed a history merge or other solution to preserve proper attribution for the portions of the old article that survived. My personal suggestion for a remedy is to restore the old article and re-open the AfD, and see if the involved editors are open to the 'rescue' option that I floated above. If most editors think that even in the new form, the information from the old article makes this one unrescue-able, then we create a completely new article covering the topic at some later date, otherwise we just preserve the history of the old article and replace it with the new version. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a bad precedent. And it doesn't really address Aleta's question which started this discussion. Your re-created article should be considered on its merits which are, IMHO and unfortunately (despite your good faith), that it's a rewrite of OR. andy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with deletion review if that's the procedurally correct thing to do. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) MBisanz's suggestion makes a good bit of sense. Taking Clay's current version to DRV, either the deletion will be upheld and his version will go too, or the deletion decision wil be overturned, and Clay's version can be the next edit after the last version that was deleted. Any merits and faults of the version Clay has produced can be evaluated there. Aleta 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a history-only deletion review of the article here. Please add feedback there. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Srobak

Hi,

I don't know if it is the right forum but I have a demand : I had a somewhat hot debate with Srobak (talk · contribs). I might have been a bit fast in removing the term "sled" from the intro in the Snowmobile article, as it was put many times by an IP without reference, but Srobak (who has not even filled up his User page) threatens me right off the bat with sanctions, multiple times, and even write it in my own Talk page, as he was an administrator.

He goes even so far as to reverse my erasing of his comment in my own Talk page. He denies being a bully but you can make your own idea by reading the Snowmobile Discussion. He even have threaten Threeafterthree (talk · contribs) who was just trying to defend my right to use my Talk page as I want and reverse his editing two times. I feel this user is harassing me and has a bad attitude. Could anyone calm him down and tell him he is not WP's ultimate judge ? Pierre cb (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my responses and accounts of the situation at User_talk:CIreland#Another_3RR_violation_by_Threeafterthree.2C_as_well_as_editing_users_talk_pages and User_talk:CIreland#User:Srobak. No further reversions to his deletion of my comment will be conducted by me, however administrators need to be fully aware of the entire situation. Thanks. EDIT: No threats were made, contrary to above. Srobak (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing all of the relevant postings in the past few days, I must say that this is a tempest in a very small teapot. Both Srobak and Pierre cb were edit warring on Snomobile, but I only see two reverts apiece in one day there. Srobak's actions on Pierre cb's talk page were out of line. Both editors need to walk away from this. -- Donald Albury 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was walking away from the whole thing, and I would not have pursued further, when Srobak kept melding with my own Talk page. I don't mind the Snowmobile article, but accusing me of an edition war on my own page is a bit too much. As for the threats, I consider beginning a section by a warning as a threats and a very impolite behavior. I consider too that warning of blocking every user that is not of your opinion as a threat. I've just seen the user CIreland has talked to Srobak about this case, telling him to back away but his reply was definitively harassement :

{{... I will keep tabs individually for further violations and act upon them accordingly without violating, or harassing. If you continue to conduct yourself in the fashion in which you were warned however, I will assist those who comment and warn for it in having you sanctioned, so please mind your edits and always discuss prior to conducting destructive edits. My issue with Tom is separate and is addressed below, as he has a long history of editing talk pages. Thanks Srobak (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC) }}.

He plan to follow all my editions and according to his superior knowledge of the rules slap me with warnings after warnings. If this is not harrassement, I don't know what it is ? I'm not vindicative and I don't want to pursue further but Srobak should be reminded how to live in the WP society. Pierre cb (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to read (and edit the above) better. You are making false statements about what I say, mean, and will do. Relevant links have already been posted. Those notes were made prior to both Donald Albury's message here, and CIreland's on my page, but thanks. Read for effect, not bias. This issue was dropped after both of their posts, leave it as such. End of line. Srobak (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to be clear here. Everbody is going to leave everybody else alone here and play nice? Keep talk on the appropriate article talk page and yadda, yadda?? Sounds good to all? --Tom (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, this discussion is not only already over, but it does not pertain to you. Please immediately stop following me around, and acting as a 3rd party cop, or I will put forth a note regarding your continued harassment and seek sanction. As mentioned before - your talk page clearly demonstrates a lengthy history in an extremely short period of time of acting in such a role and receiving warnings and sanctions to that effect (the deletion of which from your talk page are in bad faith) - mostly on talk pages. Your contribution above serves absolutely no potential gain or purpose to anyone already involved in the conversation, and you needlessly inserted yourself into it. Administrators have already stepped in and put the issue to rest at both points. Enough. Srobak (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And pay attention to who you're messaging, Srobak. You just warned me and I have nothing to do with this. HalfShadow 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not issue you a warning, I sent you a request to refrain from making minor edits in talk pages per WP guidelines - namely the ones in this discussion, which I agree - you have nothing to do with. Please do not confuse a warning with a polite request. Had I sent a warning, it would be quite clear. Srobak (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this case that's allowed; using wikicode in topic titles messes up the 'goto' arrow. The standard ] links should be used, and I and others tend to clean those up as we see them. Also the rule in question only applies to physically changing the text of the comment; fixing links is allowed.HalfShadow 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was also looking at where he moved a comment by you down with an edit summary of "... and fixing poor formatting by halfshadow". Looking again, he was swapping the order of his comment and yours, and it looks like he was moving his comment up as a reply to the comment before yours, which is not a problem, but the edit summary was. -- Donald Albury 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh marvy, now he's blaming me for his changes, too... HalfShadow

Everyone please cool it! Srobak, please do not edit or otherwise modify other users' postings on talk pages; that is disruptive to discussions. Srobak and Pierre cb, I am asking you both to stop responding to, otherwise interacting with or making comments about each other or anyone else involved in this incident for 24 hours. If I think this interaction is becoming too disrupting to Misplaced Pages, I am willing to hand out blocks to stop it. -- Donald Albury 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Geography of Zimbabwe

Came across a worrisome edit while using Huggle. Not sure whether to take this seriously? Just thought I'd let you'd know. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd choice of page on which to post. Surprisingly non-specific about where to send help, too. You'd think they might be able to type a bit more, and turn off CAPS LOCK. All in all, meh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After a review of that address's recent contribs, I've blocked it for a month. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look bogus. Just thought I'd give the heads-up, just in case. Thanks. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yashveer r

Yashveer r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I don't have the time just now, but could someone review this user's edit history. He is engaged in a systematic campaign of modifying movie infoboxes, often adding to them. However based on the comments on his talk page and the number of his actions that have already been reverted, I am concerned that he might be engaged in a deliberate campaign of subtle vandalism to include false information in these boxes. Even if problems are somehow accidental, there definitely needs to be someone looking at these for accuracy. Dragons flight (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:CSGV

Incident regarding Coalition to Stop Gun Violence article and a conflict of interest and legal threats by editor

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

who has disclosed being Director of Communications for CSGV (here).

Editor CSGV was then notified of the WP:COI policy here.

Editor CSGV has now threatened legal action against Wikimedia staff and Misplaced Pages editors here.

-- Yaf (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the full text of that 'legal threat':

We very much look forward to taking the matter up with Wikimedia staff, and to offering primary source evidence--including public statements, testimony, and documents--for every revision we have made to this page in order to ensure its accuracy. We also greatly look forward to reviewing the activity of Wiki Firearms Project members on this page and on the pages of other organizations that advocate for strengthening gun laws to prevent gun violence in order to see if their activity has reflected a "conflict of interest" or not. And since you have been involved in defending content on this page (and others relating to gun issues) that is clearly biased, it would be an appropriate point to review your activity as well. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they want to strengthen gun control laws--which is their stated mission after all. He or she is offering to discuss sources, which is what we encourage new editors to do. No legal threat there. Is there another statement that contstitutes one? Durova 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a legal threat. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does anyone think that This page has been overrun by individuals from the Wiki Firearms Project that vehemently oppose the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's mission (and gun control in general). Is painting a broad brush a little bit? Looks like user will keep fighting until his editing privileges are taken from his cold dead hands. MuZemike 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But, "public statements, testimony, and documents" are all what is usually requested/required in a subpoena, as part of litigating a legal case. "Primary source evidence" is more of a legal term than a preferred method of documenting on Misplaced Pages. But, if no legal threats are seen here, that is certainly one interpretation. It is not the interpretation that I read, though. Yaf (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT exists for very specific reasons, which are outlined clearly on that page. This instance does not come close to matching those reasons and there's really no alternate interpretation. That's not to say there isn't a problem with the user's editing (I have no idea if there is or not). I'll be honest, though: throwing around baseless claims of legal threats to try to get an instablock is very bothersome to me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a case of WP:NPLT, based upon the litany of items expressed in somewhat rather precise legal terms. Having been subpoenaed for precisely these type of documents previously, in real life, perhaps I have a lower threshold of sensitivity to these specific terms. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CSGV also accuses other editors of "slander", another precise legal issue, here, which causes further perceptions of legal threats. Libel, slander, and similar terms carry definite legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people who are new to Misplaced Pages misunderstand our site standards and policies. How about a referral to WP:ADOPT? If this person is interested in contributing collaboratively that should help, and if improvements don't occur then this board could review developments at a later time. Durova 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is not a policy, but a guideline, not intended to revert people's edits out of hand. I suggest that you help the user contribute rather than get into a back and forth, constantly escalating, edit war. Bastique 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By WP:COI wording here, though, "This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden." All content cited from other sources that was the least bit critical of the organization was removed by User:CSGV editor. Are significantly biased edits in mainspace forbidden or are such edits simply discouraged? Forbidden doesn't sound like a guideline. Yaf (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI states it's a guideline. You're citing it as a revert reason, as if it were a policy. Why don't you cite the policy that discusses biased edits, rather than the guideline that talks about conflicts of interest? And why don't you address my last comment, about helping the user rather than getting into a constant edit war? Bastique 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That policy is applicable, too, but clear violation of the "forbidden" act of making significantly biased edits with a self-admitted COI through removing all content that, although cited, is the least bit critical of the organization, while adding copyvio content from the website of the organization, all without engaging in discussions on the talk page other than to make veiled legal threats involving accusations of slander and mentioning other legal terms common in acquiring evidence through subpoenas, does make working with the self-described Director of Communications for CSGV difficult. His admitted phone calls to the San Francisco office of the Wikimedia Foundation to complain also don't help, but sound instead like more veiled legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CoI is a guideline, not a policy. You can edit an article in which you have a vested interest, but it's best to a) disclose that interest and b) not be obnoxious about it. DS (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose for a moment that this person means well. He or she has disclosed the conflict of interest, as recommended in the guideline. Other statements express either misunderstanding or confusion about our site standards. This is normal for any new editor. How about slowing down and perhaps opening mediation? Durova 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not under that username, though. That username has been blocked as a spamusername, for obvious reasons. I take no position on the COI edits, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair call regarding the username. Durova 19:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME states "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." It is not a broad call to block a user based on the name. The reasons for blocking are not "obvious" to me, and doing so in the middle of this discussion was not a very good call. Bastique 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they're fairly obvious - I left a message for them recommending that they provide us an alternate individual account name and we can unblock and name change.

For a normal user they're on the margin of advocating a bit much - there's a back and forth, that needs neutral input, and I think the pro- and anti- people are oscillating around something that has a neutral enough center. But using organization named accounts for that is something I would block for and I've seen a lot of other people block for... We probably should tighten up the username policy going forwards, it seems to lead to far too many cases like this where people think they should do this for their organization under its name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, Cary makes a strong point. Let's try to work with this individual rather than taking a punitive approach. Let's all pause for WP:TEA Durova 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the sequence, they would probably perceive it as unfair. The name issue isn't blatant enough to hardblock. We can be flexible... Unblock with a note that they need to change username fairly promptly and ask them to do so as soon as possible? That lets them continue to contribute while we sort out the name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no 'legal threat' here. I encourage Yaf to strike out, <S>Legal threat</S>, his false accusation against another editor. This looks more like a behavior and content dispute and I see bad behavior by both of the involved editors. One editor with a couple dozen total edits needs help learning how things work around here, the other editor with many thousands of edits should know better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see the legal threat either. A look at the way the discussion went on the talk page of the article in question is kind of disappointing; while I'm strongly against anyone with a COI editing related pages personally, this editor seems to have been leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his/her concerns. The username thing needs to be done, for sure - Georgewilliamherbert's suggestion above looks good. Unblock for a username change, and encourage the editor - and the others on that page - to work on the talk page collegially to clarify any of the issues being raised. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

editor CSGV was certainly not shy in being uncivil, not assuming good faith, slinging personal attacks, and expressing sentiments consistent with believing he owned the article. while i became mildly heated after multiple verbal harangues by this user, i hardly think CSGV was 'leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his concerns'. he was advised politely (for the most part) that he was way out of line in scrubbing material from the article that was not favorable to his organization. he also violated 3RR it should be noted, and was quite adamant that he would continue reverting and removing material that was not favorable to his organization. this was hardly a case of an innocent newcomer being lept upon by experienced editors, i think. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for OrangeMike, but lacking response after a decent waiting interval I have gone ahead and unblocked with a request that they change usernames. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "threat" was a statement of his intention to contact "Misplaced Pages staff". As someone not familiar with Wp, he may not realise the extent to which Misplaced Pages staff is a rather vague term. He may use legal terminology because he's familiar with that, not with our unusual nomenclature. Since he is making accusations of COI, the Misplaced Pages staff I will charitably assume he has in mind are the Misplaced Pages administrators. The appropriate place for this would be the COI Noticeboard. If it gets there, I'll look at it. People are encouraged to complain here. If he would prefer, there is OTRS, but I think they'll refer it back to us. DGG (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Could available admins lend a hand?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BatterBean again with his Jake Gyllenhaal fetish

Paparazzixox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has once again created an elaborate hoax article about an imaginary Jake Gyllenhaal tour. We've been through this before —Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the user's search'n'replace only got as far as the "Critical response" section. After that, it's all about a Madonna tour. Nice try though. And it's nice to see a proper fetish on ANI. Last one I can remember was feet - without socks, ironically. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww, can you write up a long term abuse incidents page on this one? You seem to be the person spotting these most clearly. we should identify a root account, set up sockpuppeteer / sockpuppet links, etc.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A hoax article like that is, in my opinion, a clear and deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages, i.e. vandalism. I have... what is the term now... summary execution? - anyway, it's a G3. Also, the account is blocked indef as vandalism-only. This seemed like a better approach than saying IAR everywhere. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's speedy execution again ;-) SoWhy 20:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paparazzixox created.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll spend some time tonight trying to tie additional info in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Bigweeboy removing redlinks

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

User:Bigweeboy has been persistently removing redlinks despite warnings against doing so. I've been told this doesn't qualify as vandalism, so I expect it needs to be dealt with here. Here are some examples from after I started giving personal and templated warnings: 1 2 3. I started out assuming good faith (see here and here), and behavior didn't stop or even change. tedder (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. No admin action needed. Please consider dispute resolution instead. Papa November (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible death threat?

→Dyl@n620 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just silly. Everyone knows nannerpusses can only be summoned by a tenth-level hypercaster. HalfShadow 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. -Jeremy 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred Eisenberger and Hammer2009

I'm handing this off to someone else before someone blasts me for 3RR - Hammer2009 (talk · contribs) seems to have a thing for fluffing up Fred Eisenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see the history), including removing cites, referring to the subject by first name, and removing a sourced section describing violations this particular mayor has had while in office . Could I get some eyes on this?

(DISCLAIMER: I am American and could give a care less about Canadian politics, but I do not wish to have my political preference for American politics known on WP.)-Jeremy 22:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Block needed

IP 208.105.110.139 has been spending quite some time today continually removing content from the Shining Time Station article. I believe that a block is warranted. (Regarding Jeremy's comment above; if you were telling me to stop posting at ANI, I apologize, as I did not understand the basis of your argument.) →Dyl@n620 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please post vandals to WP:AIV. Majorly talk 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iliijapavlovich

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

This user has made it apparent on their talk page that they do not wish to follow policy, besides that, they appear to have been trolling several users pages, not to mention the article space with inserting NPOV violating content. When made not of this, they did not seem to care. This was taken over from AIV. Anyone feel like blocking this obvious SPA?— Dædαlus 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

24 hr block, along with explanation on NOT, BATTLE, NPA, NPOV. If they repeat after this, longer block to come... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon

This isn’t the first time that Wikidemon has stooped to removing other editors comments from article's talk pages , but Wikidemon's attempt to cover up criticism of his persistentBiting of new users should be addressed . 02:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards