Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 26 April 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

WP:RM Backlog

Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11

User:Gimmebot removing transclusions of GA reviews

User:Gimmebot is removing transclusions of GA reviews from pages. There is no consensus to do so. Having the reviews on talk pages allows one to easily see the information related to the state of the article. I have contacted the bot operator, but he refuses to rectify the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The review is link in the article history. Why does it need to be transcluded as well? Grsz 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, though there may be procedural questions to be raised with regard to WP:BRFA/WP:WGA. Skomorokh 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The operator has refused to do so - see the above link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to bring this up at the Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard instead, where bot-operators and bot-approvers are more likely to see it, and it will be more clear what consensus is about it. – Quadell 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2 seems to be the task that allows the bot to work on the article review top business, in non-specific terms. I left a note at WT:GA. –xeno 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, it's a liberal interpretation of the task. –xeno 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is to be done? The bot operator does not seem interested in rectifying the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The rub

We have two issues here which are getting clouded. One issue is whether or not it is kosher to remove review transclusions. I'm going to go out on a limb (not much of one) and suggest that it is kosher to do so, just given the responses here. The other is whether or not a bot is allowed to do so without an authorization. We aren't a bureaucracy and we shouldn't let admittedly minor quibbles stymie editor participation, but we look rather a lot like a bureaucracy when bot-ops are concerned. We have policy and practice which reflects a community consensus to restrain bot edits prior to authorization rather than to bless those not reverted as good (in english, BOLD is for people, not bots). So I'm prepared to say that we should just open up another BRFA for the explicit task of removing transclusions. It will probably be a quick up and down approval.

In the absence of such an approval I'm going to ask that the bot operator stop removing GA review transclusions from pages. If they don't stop in 24 hours or start the process of getting approval in 24 hours I'll block the bot. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Geometry guy has it about right. Whether or not to remove the transcluded review is a decision for the reviewer and/or interested editors, not one that a bot ought to be making. So I agree with your blocking proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"BOLD is for people, not bots.". That's a good line to remember when discussing 'bot behavior. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• When did the bot start removing the GA review transclusions from talk pages? Titoxd 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It was pretty recent - unfortunately, the only way to definitely know may be looking through the diffs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. When the bot puts the GA review in article history, it is no longer is clickable. That is, clicking on GA reiew and date in the article history no longer brings up the GA review. This is confusing, as in the past a click would bring up the GA review just as it does the FAC review. Also, it this problem related to the fact that the GAN backlog report is no longer being updated? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      The latter issue is completely independent (a different bot and bot operator). Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the additional comments above, I agree that the bot should not resume editing until these concerns are addressed. (I do note that neither the bot nor its op have edited recently, so a block may be unnecessary.) –xeno 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow runs the bot a couple of times a week, I believe. It does a lot of work for FAC, as well as doing article history and GA updates. Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a wonderful waste of time and effort. If you really think it necessary to fill out the brfa forms in triplicate for this task, you could have done so yourselves. I do not agree that bot policy requires it, but if you do, you might want to do something about certain editors doing controversial jobs in article space. (However, I would suggest that some of the admins who've commented above should read the bot policy again before they consider enforcing it.) I've been removing these transclusions for about a year as part of tidying up banners and talk pages. At some point, months ago (at least before January 2009), I added it to the code to avoid making two edits. I've been for the last two years now maintaining various parts of the GA process, including fixing all sorts of problems these transclusions cause. Commonly, they are not linked properly in the {{GA}} template, and when an article is moved, the transclusions sometimes become redlinks. Given the unending problems that nobody else seems interested in fixing, and the nothing-but-grief I get for doing this, the solution here is obvious. I'll keep doing FAC, and everyone can thank Rschen7754 for volunteering to do all other talk page template and related work from now on. Gimmetrow 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupendous: your attention is needed to continuing to build articlehistories (as you've been doing for well over two years now) and is appreciated at FAC and FAR. Of course it's troubling that few people commenting on the issue seem to have clue about everything the bot does, and the need for it, in terms of building templates into articlehistory to eliminate talk page clutter, without losing anything. Does this mean that when a FAC is botified into articlehistory, GA will no longer be included in articlehistory? Or that articlehistory errors will increase when non-bot editors now go back to try to retroactively add them? Unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep doing this forever. Good a time as any to stop. Gimmetrow 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably about time for you to stop, as you appear unwilling to listen to reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contributing to a hostile environment. It is in part because of comments like these. which you have been making for months, that I have no incentive to help you. Some might even construe your comments as personal attacks, perhaps? I wonder how ethical it was for you to support a block based on a faulty argument, and without disclosing past history? Gimmetrow 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been extremely uncivil and consistently making ad hominem arguments in a number of discussions. His behavior in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay‎‎ has made the AfD almost impossible to follow. Consistently questioning the motives of those who disagree with him and posting long soliloquies as to why those opposed to his position should be reprimanded for disruption (if you expand the collapsed sections in the AfD you can see. Also, see if you can keep count of how many times he write my username or a variation of it instead of actually responding to the issues). He has also engaged in the same behavior at the BLP noticeboard and at Talk:James G. Lindsay#Source concern. Another instance is Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem#content_forking.3F where makes vague insinuations that antisemitic editors are the cause of a piece of 'referenced propaganda'. Having had this user accuse me personally of being an antisemite multiple times (see here), I am asking that somebody tell Wikifan12345 to stop questioning the motives of everyone he runs into. And if possible to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nableezy has been threatening me for awhile now. While I don't plan on spending a long time defending myself, this whole issue stemmed from a feud at Charities accused of terrorism talk and article. He posted a dubious warning threatening a block if I continued edit warring. You see, Nab has a lengthy history of non-AGF editing, reverting material "to the line" and then reporting the competing editor to 3rr. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times. He's been blocked once but I didn't report him. Following our feud, he decided to throw my article I created up for AFD: Good faith? Sure. A user suggested I consider filing a report for harassment. I considered it, but decided no because those things rarely turn out well and plus it would probably exacerbate our feud even more. I certainly regret that.. In terms of my "behavior," I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. We were "fighting", I didn't get blocked as what usually happens, and 20 mins later he posts an AFD. I call him on it, and he writes that off. I spent a couple hours explaining the context of the article and why it should remain the best I could. I also pointed out the continous use of logical fallacies by the administrator involved. Is that disruption?

For Nableezy to cite prior action is kind of funny. Maybe we should link all of Nableezy's reports? I'm sure there are some on the servers. If you check the history, I questioned Nableezy's motives on my first reply at AFD. I can't say I'm sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Nableezy, you moved a typical I/P feud into unprecedented territory. It was vindictive, malicious, and creepy. I am truly tired of your hounding, stalking, spamming my userpage, whatever you call it, so next time I will file a report. Also, If I'm going to be blocked can we wait for the AFD to finish? I don't think it would be fair if I couldn't respond. Cheers :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just possible for you to respond to anything without an ad hominem attack? It was clear you couldn't do that in the AFD, on the

Uh, I encourage you to fully read through the talk discussion to avoid misinterpretation of what occurred.? Notice my polite, cordial response to Falastine in talk, and his response: I know you are not for one to check and doublecheck sources, but I think this time you should. Maybe this time you will realize that you are wrong earlier rather than later. Falastine/Nableezy have a tag-teaming history in these sorts of articles, and Falastine and I have rarely co-existed in peace though I do my best to AGF if the situation merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

This relates to a feud between two editors from a contentious subject (Israel/Palestine), but it seems the problem is more broadly with Wikifan's combative attitude; he too often and too easily questions the good faith of other editors when they fail to agree with him. Frankly I don't see this changing without some form of escalation. See block log and eg Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei#Third Opinion, in addition to the AFD in question (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_G._Lindsay). Disclosure: I've been in fairly heated discussion with Wikifan on that AFD. Rd232 12:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

After a brief review of the AfD at issue, as well as the recent contributions and block log of Wikifan12345, I agree that he seems to mistake Misplaced Pages for a battleground. Accordingly, I think I would support appropriate discretionary sanctions against him per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. This should not be construed as an endorsement of any actual misconduct by Nableezy.  Sandstein  12:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A "brief review?" Such an enormous conflict that goes far beyond the "afd issue" should warrant more than a "brief review." The whole AFD was not in good faith. I've been blocked in the past for Nableezy's editing approach and POV-pushing. This is not so much a complaint as it is natural for these sorts of articles. Here, I'll give you a "brief" review: Nableezy stonewalls one article, fails to get my blocked through revert warring, files a report an article I created 20 mines later, and I'm supposed to "assume good faith" and be nice? Can you affirm that? I honestly I have no issue with an AFD of an article I created. I don't really care. But to say I wasn't being punished or this wasn't yet another Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system violation, is rather odd. In Pal/Israel articles controversy hostile editing is a given, but if we want to make this a he said she said debate I will gladly enumerate x "crime" committed by x criminal. Sandstein, I think we've been in prior disputes though I cannot remember. Is that a COI? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:COI does not apply in this context, but I would be forbidden from taking administrative actions (such as imposing blocks or other sanctions) against you as long as we two are in an ongoing dispute. I know of no such dispute, though. Disagreeing with you on conduct issues or having previously taken administrative action (if any) against you does not constitute an ongoing dispute.  Sandstein  16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what does apply is WP:BAIT. Wikifan12345 may be dealing a little badly with some baiting, but doing that is not always easy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit, considering Nableezy's history of rather "unique" editing, is it not fair to say this noticeboard is simply another transfer of hostility from one page to the next? Has this not become a pattern? Perhaps I should have sent everything off to the courts instead of spending my time to defending an AFD, that as far as I'm concerned was not in good faith. Not the least bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Going WP:LEGAL, are we? pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 15:17

Ok obviously my message isn't being sent or it isn't wanted. I've provided all that I can. Any further questions will be responded to, just hopefully they are questions. ;D Feel free to block me, though again can we wait for the AFD to finish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I read the WP:Legal. Did I make a legal threat? My use of the term "courtroom" was a reference to how users use wikipedia as a courtroom rather than a place for collaboration and (hopefully) neutral editing. Apologies for the confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a contentious AfD over a minor subject. Reminds me of deletion debates over marginally notable garage bands. The subject of the AfD doesn't seem very notable; I looked him up in Google News archives and found nothing. --John Nagle (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I once had a disruptive user- an obvious vandal- refer an article I'd written for speedy deletion. I didn't even think of disputing the deletion on the grounds that the referring editor was a vandal with a grudge. I just looked at the article, recognized that it really was pretty weakly sourced, and found the sources I needed to show that the subject really did meet the notability criteria. I'll tell you a secret- there's one article I created that I'm not 100% sure would survive an AfD. I'm really fond of the article, too. If someone wanted to really do something mean to me, they could refer it to AfD, and I'd have to just take a deep calm breath, make a single comment in the discussion about why I think it should be kept, and hope it made it through the discussion. (No, I won't tell which one. I'm not crazy.) That's because it wouldn't do much good to protest that the other editor had impure motives, and I know it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs)

Ha! Oh! I think I know! May I? Can I? Oh, FisherQueen, do something evil to me and I'm spilling the beans! I love power... Left unsigned since I am incognito, bwuhahaha! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Oops!

Arguments over AfDs often get heated. I have seen worse than this one, and no one got blocked. As for the article, it seems pretty well sourced in a way that establishes notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have too. I remember Israel and the Apartheid analogy (allegation, conspiracy, propaganda...pick your favorite). That AFD was a doozy. And there were 7 of them....LOL. I believe arguments for deletion/keep should be directed at the AFD and not posted here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

continuing with ad hom in the AfD, here. Nableezy (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an Adhom. I didn't use it as argument. Epstein did accuse me of promoting blood purity (among other things) and we've been separated since. I'm not questing his motivates, I was simply bringing to light a past, notable occurrence that may reflect his POV. His points were generally the same. This isn't similar to a user creating an AFD to attack and punish another for whatever personal disputes said user might have. ;D Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion: you two stay the hell away from each other and away from I-P articles and deletion discussions. All of a sudden there will be no dispute. //roux   23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab was never involved in the article prior to the AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why the 'you two stay the hell away from each other' bit was there. How about it.. stay the hell away from each other and from I-P articles. Looks like the end of the disputes would be in about three minutes. Or you could keep fighting with each other. Hmmm... //roux   23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont think I have done anything wrong, and if somebody could point out what I have done wrong (somebody besides WF) I would gladly correct my behavior. And I have gotten along well with a number of users on the opposite side of the spectrum from me, this isnt an issue of my editing in I/P articles, this is an issue with the behavior of a certain user over a large number of articles, attacking and harassing a large number of other users. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Nableezy may be strong minded and indeed hails from a certain perspective in the Israeli-Arab dispute but it's best to avoid making allegations to someone's perceived motives. If there's a real issue of failure to adhere to NPOV or Harassment, then this should be noted on a relevant forum rather than the editors picking a fight. That said, Arab-Israeli articles often get heated up and just a couple minutes ago, Nableezy's companion on perspective on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict suggested I'm using drugs "to get a point across". I'd suggest Wikifan12345 make note that he'll make an effort to avoid assuming bad faith and Nableezy will note that he'll make an effort to avoid the appearance of following Wikifan12345's contributions history page and we'll end this at that.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not my 'companion' and when that user made a particularly vicious personal attack on WF I was the one who called him out on it. And I haven't followed WF, I can show that exactly how I found the article and when I wanted to delete it (shortly after it was created, but I gave him time to bring it up to standards) Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To be frank Nableezy,

You've just added a pointy provocation on that talk page which, in my perspective, doesn't help your case here. I'd suggest you (a) take the above note not to use wikipedia as a battleground, and (b) that you make an effort to avoid even the appearance of following Wikifan12345 or provoking him. Wikifan12345 should, in all fairness, make a sincere attempt at avoiding allegations of bad faith as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything, considering what you have been arguing on that page that isnt exactly a provocation. But that is neither here nor there. Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I threw up one of Nableezy's articles up for deletion moments after a dispute failed to block one of us, I'm sure he'd be crying too. Probably demand admins ban me 4 liiiife. He wouldn't be the first. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Above is an attempt at humor. Try not to construe it as actual argument/personal attacks/trolling/teh wikifan111!!! Cheers Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GF isn't a right. I assume whenever possible, but Nableezy lost that days ago. Plus, let's be real...the kind of articles we edit, butting heads is part of the process. But what happened here was ridiculously frustrating. I do not believe this noticeboard post, or any of his involvement in the AFD/article can be characterized as sincere. I just don't want to get to a point where someone expects me to apologize outside of perceived unorthodox (euphemism) attitude. Though its manifestations can be found easily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Wikifan12345.

You don't have to apologize for losing your good faith momentarily but you do have to make an effort to avoid bad faith and butting heads; especially with Nableezy as you two have built up a "situation". Let me know if you need advice on working through this issue.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: context aside, Wikifan12345 seems to be taking the bad faith allegations issue with a bit too much humor to my liking and "context" which Nableezy is using as an excuse to making pointy provocations and following a user's contribution history page was also used by the fellow who was suggesting I'm doing drugs (context is the excuse for everything I guess). If neither editor is willing to accept my suggestion or at least present a note which shows they understand what the problem this discussion was started for is, I'd be suggesting a short term topic ban to get the point across. Basically, I'm currently in a content dispute with Nableezy so I'd suggest that he'd still be allowed to argue that one if end result is them being topic banned for a short period of time. Anyways, this suggestion is more of a nudge to make the parties understand the issue and address it than an actual topic ban proposal. Jaakobou 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to say I am following a user's contribution history provide some justification for it. I havent made any excuses for anything. All I have asked for here is that somebody tell WF to stop with the questioning of others motives and to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the agreement? I wont' follow Nableezy around? Sure. I've made a consistent effort in avoiding him whenever possible. It is my personal opinion he is the one who tends to get involved when I'm editing: my first edit April 11 2009 The dispute originated from this article., Nableezy's first edit, April 13 2009.  : first edit at Lindsay was the AFD.

Now whether this is a sinister plot to annoy wikifan and reveal his true identity can be argued indefinitely. I am not saying this is a trend, that Nableezy deliberately checks each and every one of my edits to look for possible holes and exploit them. No, that's retarded. But to say we just happen to "cross-paths" is naive.

I don't want anyone banned, certainly not topic banned. I would however like to see a close to this dispute or some sort of mutual agreement where we try to avoid each other whenever possible. Perhaps relay disagreements to 3rd parties or disengage altogether. Tryin to problem solve... Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a step in the right direction and I would advise that you assume good faith in general if you don't want a similar thread opened a second time. While it's not mandatory for the closure of this thread, I'm hoping Nableezy will follow suit with a comment that acknowledges the issue as well so that we know both parties will make an effort.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Have had that page in my watchlist since reading Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and discovering the category. Did I revert your edit? No, I thought it was fine. I started editing that article after a few users tried to remove completely well sourced statements. You have this idea that I care about what you do, I dont, much less why you do it. My whole concern here is your behavior at the various forums in which we have met, the BLP noticeboard, the AfD, the various talk pages where I have had to deal with you. I didn't even bring you here for attacking me, nor did I you when made accusations of being an antisemite against me. I brought this up because you consistently question the motives of everybody who disagrees with you. An admin says that a piece of text is a copyvio, you question her motives and reasons for saying so. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk again. Fal misrepresented the article and my claim was COI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't read too much into the talk pages and articles where Nableezy and Wikifan have interacted, but it seems Wikifan has been uncivil on a number of occasions. I agree with him that no one should be blocked or topic-banned (if this problem ceases that is), but he has to realize that before this dispute could be closed, he must always try to assume good faith (I know sometimes it's hard), act in a civil manner when interacting with other editors, and not accuse other editors of perceived personal POVs. I also do agree with Wikifan that both Nableezy and him should avoid each other whenever possible, although you guys edit articles within the same scope, so it might be difficult. Just try to keep conflict to a minimum or you could be blocked for a long period of time since you've already been blocked twice before. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to everyone who sees it just as an issue between these two editors, a look at the AFD shows Wikifan comments like Rd232 wants "this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol", pointless comments like this that do nothing other than inflame others and regardless of whether or not he's right, this comment isn't going to help matters at all. Look, I know this area is bad, but I've been working in the Macadonia headache for long enough to just say that users who just attack everybody they disagree with aren't helpful here. If Nableezy is stalking, he needs to stop right now, but Wikifan isn't a complete victim in this stuff. He's exacerbating the situation and needs to not do that. And this is humor of some bizarre type, the fact that so many people aren't finding it funny should tell him to cut it out right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, but to put your mind at ease for any future article that I want to edit for the first time, I will check the history and if Wikifan12345 shows up in the last 50 edits I will stay away from the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nableezy - i dont think that is necessary. you have done nothing wrong - nominating an article for deletion is not harassment. if the article meets notability guidelines, it will be kept. wikifan should not be able to bully you into agreeing not to edit any article he edits. everyone who works in this area has had editors from the other pov "show up" on pages they haven't been to before, sometimes because the article was posted on a project board, sometimes because they (possibly) looked at another editor's contribs. i think it needs to be made clear that hounding and harassment are only valid complaints when the accused editor is disruptive, vandalizing, or editing against policy. "i think he might have looked at my contribs and followed me there and opposed me" shouldn't be a valid complaint. i think everyone who edits in the i/p area could claim harassment if that were the case. untwirl(talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

← Honestly, if the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Israeli-Palestinian articles mean anything - anything at all - then Wikifan12345 should be topic-banned at the very least. The behavior on this thread alone and on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay is sufficiently poor. Combine it with this editor's history, block log, unconstructive style of interaction, and the fact that virtually all of his contributions to the encyclopedia appear agenda-driven, and you have someone who has "repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, expected standards of behavior, and normal editorial process."

That said, I'm not going to take action. I'm feeling too old and tired at the moment to put up with the inevitable round of accusations of bias, closet racism, and "he did something even worse!" that tend to crop up whenever any administrative action is proposed or taken against editors in this particular arena of combat. Someone Else's Problem. MastCell  17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 has not been editing all that long, and -- because warnings come more often than helpful advice when editing disputed articles -- what may be needed is not more warnings and blocks, but some helpful advice. Any editor, so focused on editing disputed articles, will be at risk of burnout. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's part of the process. If editors started reporting users on the opposite POV fence more often, probably half of everyone involved would be topic-banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never implied users were antisemitic at Judaization of Jerusalem. I said the article was a content fork, biased, and propaganda. I also said many of the users involved typically belong to certain group editors (who often edit together, almost collectively) that tend to not be particularly objective towards Jews/Israeli's. I was just being honest. The editing approach was far from neutral or balanced, and its survival of an AFD was entirely dependent on the sheer amount of POV division (both sides) rather than actual quality. Apologies if there was any misinterpretations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topicban for Wikifan12345

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

Even though the WP:ARBMAC discussions often take place here, I'll close as improper. If anyone is interested, they can discuss at AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we need it so I want to propose that, under WP:ARBPIA, User:Wikifan12345 be topicbanned from the entire Palestine-Israel area of conflict, as defined broadly by the arbitration committee. If he actually feels that simply listing an article for AFD is grounds for ad hominem attacks, I think he needs to work with other editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it normal to post an AFD of an article by a feuding editor 20 mins following the dispute (and no resolution occurred)? Is it just a coincidence? Was Nableezy's post sincere or not? Those questions don't matter much anymore, but you're assuming this is all a coincidence which I have to disagree with. cheers. Further rationale is provided above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support you in the thought that Wikifan12345 needs to work better with other editors (esp. avoid making bad faith allegations) but he seemed to make a comment that he'll work on the raised issue. As such, I'd suggest giving him a chance to stand behind his words and see if he can make progress there prior to taking action. The point, I believe, is to try and help users understand where they are doing wrong rather than just punish them for punishment's sake.

With respect, Jaakobou 12:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since so many of the articles related to Israeli/Palestinian conflicts are in bad shape because of POV disputes, these topics should only be edited by experts invited by wikipedia. So, everyone should be banned. Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. ^^^^^^^. Textbites are easy, so I'll provide a brief brief (and selected) background: Editing approach was not a one-way-street. I was not trolling everyone in the AFD. And at the same time, the circumstances of the AFD and conditions were not fair or appropriate. I apologize for any "inappropriate" behavior but a topic-ban for what clearly is a bizarre dispute and bad faith on all sides is confusing, to say the least. ;D I've agreed to a mutual "contract" where Nableezy and I would avoid each other. I rarely edited articles he was involved in before the incident, continuing that shouldn't be too difficult. Removing myself from articles he feels like editing shouldn't be that hard either, as long as he's not posting one of mine for AFD. And for those who don't know, this isn't a first Nableezy/ Wikifan issue. If anyone has suggestions outside of epic ban I'm listening. : ) Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the issue. The issue is your repeated insistence in arguing about the motives of others, you continually make ad hominem attacks, and you continually see nothing wrong with that. I put up an article that I felt did not meet the notability standards for AfD. Instead of showing notability you persist in questioning the motives of everyone who felt the same, Rd232, David Eppstein, Falastine fee Qalby, and others. That is the problem here. Nableezy (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean arguing about your motives? I did respond to every one of your claims in the AFD. I also expressed how I believe you were punishing me for problems outside of the AFD, which occurred in the charity article. You posting "edit warring" signs on my talk, which you initiated, was also bothersome. And considering our history, where you've reported me for mutual disputes, I've voiced my concerns to admins, and all the other stuff, assuming good faith off the bat is extremely difficult and I can't imagine another user doing the same. I simply provided background on Eppstein, he accused me of "promoting blood purity," among other things in prior disputes. Fal, Ep, you especially have all been involved with many disputes with myself. We've rarely come to agreement in the past, and I did not want an admin to get the impression that all of you are uninvolved or simply random but interested editors. Falastine was also involved in a heavy dispute at another article where he eventually notified an admin who later wrote it off. It seems the reporting comes from one side, I do my best to collaborate and resolve issues but what occurred was far from the picture you are painting. I'm willing to compromise but if you're pushing for a ban I will respond in kind. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He questioned the motives of user:Moonriddengirl too, with the nepotism claim, and that I buttered her up with a barnstar to get her to agree that there is a copyvio and all that nonsense.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. This is not the place to couch in disputes, but since you mentioned: You left this message at Moon 7 days ago: As you know already, I have had problems with user Wikifan, one of which is that he quoted copyrighted material extensively in a article he and I edited. Anyone can read through that. You used this discussion to justify the deletion of quotes. I said it was bad faith for you go to a friendly admin without notifying a disputing editor, which you responded with AGF with you? Ha. The line isn't in the report. You deleted entire quotes simply because it said "Quoted in the report." Then you denied he didn't even write it, which admin R2 disagreed: R2. My "buttering up comment" was partially in jest, though I believe an accurate observation since you did commend Moon with an award prior to your question (which was used as evidence to influence the article) and Moon has been a mediator between you and I where she sided with you. I wasn't attacking Moon or yourself, but I wasn't supporting what had occurred either.

Now, to ban or not to ban...that is the question. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, you believe that anyone who disagrees you has a bias against you or some sneaky motive and not because they just think you are wrong. Most regulars on this board know Moonriddengirl, and know that she has been dealing with copyright violations for years and will call out a copyvio when she sees one. The reason why "she sided with" me in the first issue is because you wanted to copy seven sentences of copyrighted material from a single New York Times article! Despite our history, I actually attempted to handle the situation with civility but you were the one to mar that with ad hominem attacks.

The fact that you bring up my edits on the Lindsay article shows exactly that you don't have a clue about what's going on. Rd232 is the one you accused of wanting to delete this quote dump article for ulterior reasons. Correct me if I am wrong, but he has been frustrated by your attempts to misrepresent his position? He agreed with me that the quote is not in the report, (despite that, you kept insisting that the quote is in the report and that you caught me). My disagreement with rd232 about who wrote the page that appears to be a book store review/abstract is simply a disagreement, and I stand by my position (though I don't care, since the article will be deleted).

You asked that I AGF when all I said is that you should check the sources which you tend not to (instead you constantly revert my edits). You do have a problem with not verifying like the time you told admins that I said you should be shot and kept pushing the lie. I told you to present a link and as expected you did not, just kept repeating the claim . An admin stepped in and asked for a diff, your response was "good call..."

Wikifan is not apologetic for the things that he puts people through, I see no sign of improvement. Not that I am advocating his ban (though I should), I do feel that there should be something done to prevent him from antagonizing other users. He should at least try to curtail his disruptive behavior (he promised to but he is continuing this behavior). We can't always have these reports on wikifan with no solution. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mal said this doesn't belong here. But I will correct an inaccuracy: I collaborate with plenty of people who disagree with me in a typical and expected manner. Thanks for thorough response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NB: This discussion does not belong here, and Nableezy certainly knows that the area of dispute if covered by WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. So take it there if you think you really have a case, but to me it seems that this is in large part just some editors trying to settle an editorial dispute on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not 100% familiar with the noticeboard system and its rules. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, who seems to have decided to back up one side in an editing dispute, should understand that this dispute area is covered by WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the dispute there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another MS sock

Resolved

Striking this, as there is still an unblocked sock.— Dædαlus 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Following the previous report, another sockpuppet Duh Elk At War (talk · contribs) was created; see comment. Can someone look into this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now blocked by YellowMonkey. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's likely another Orbro (talk · contribs). His fourth edit is to the userfied version of one of MS's articles talking about the sources "he" had added long ago; . This one isn't doing anything disruptive yet, though. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't like blocking him until he gets disruptive, always hoping he'll someday learn how to get along here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... community banned. He lies, makes up sources, inserts false information into articles, attacks the sanity of those who disagree with him, and has done so with going on 100 new socks in the past four months (his entire wikipedia career involved many other socks to avoid scrutiny going back years -- no one ever noticed). Banned is banned, and he had about 10 "last chances."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Yes, I do see it that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please report these as a sockpuppet investigation so we can keep tracks of his socks. Can't find anything though, you might want to poke Nishkid64 about it. -- lucasbfr 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that MS means Manhattan Samurai, shouldn't someone be opening up a new report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai? This is the logical place to file any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. As you'll see the last one was declined per DUCK. Why spend all that time filing a report that isn't going to be looked into? Just RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even a trivial sock freshens up the data that can be used by checkuser. I suggest starting a list on the *Talk* page of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai to keep the info from being lost. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. Orbro (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet not a single person told you of this thread, and you found it anyway. Gwen, Jeremy, Bali, please block this blatant sock and we can get this over with.— Dædαlus 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI, found here. Please add any new socks you come across.— Dædαlus 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering‎ using IP while blocked

B9 hummingbird hovering‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked following a 3RR report by User:Mitsube. Since then the user has continued editing using IP 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) to:

• Complain about the block at WP:AN3 (this is perhaps understandable/excusable)
• Complain at User_talk:Mitsube, including this troubling postscript: ,
• Complain (with minor incivility thrown in) at the blocking editors talk-page:
• Continue edit-warring in mainspace:

Note that an unblock request by the user was reviewed and rejected by User:Toddst1. Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Blocking followed by evasion to complain about the block/admin instead of using the {{unblock}} template seems to be a growing trend. :I've extended the block on B9 hummingbird hovering (talk · contribs) for continued edit warring through a block-evading sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To any administrator considering shortening or removing the 3RR/sockpuppet block on B9 please see . While I realize the incident that resulted in the block was not content-related, I think it has revealed that there is a long-running problem with this editor. Maybe this isn't the right forum for such a discussion and maybe the block isn't the right sanction, but I think Abecedare quite succinctly captured the essence of (what I at least) feel the problem with B9 and why it's been difficult if not impossible to remedy. I wouldn't want to see that overlooked. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eric West (2nd nomination)

I think this was brought up some time ago, but I didn't see the thread for it here or in the archives. Could an admin take a look at that mess of an AfD and try to clear out some of the socks that have contributed to this article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree with you that it's a mess of an AFD, I personally don't think there needs to be any cleaning up. It's pretty obvious to me on how I'd close the AFD... and it's not in favor of the socks. Jauerback/_dude. 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's going to get ugly. One of the SPAS (maybe they're all the same guy, not sure) is edit warring to have a screen capture from myspace in their, generally making the format of the page unreadable (i guess a screencap might be a copyvio, but i don't care about that. It's just rude and makes the AFD very difficult to follow).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've semiprotected the page, blocked the following obvious socks:
      1. Commotion777 (talk · contribs)
      2. ItsRTime (talk · contribs)
      3. Hollowinsideandout (talk · contribs)
      4. Mangie80 (talk · contribs)
      5. TheGrooveGuru (talk · contribs)
    • and left a note on the AFD page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Tied to this - can anyone find any evidence that The Reign is a) real and b) went down as described in that article. Looking at the timings and the version history it looks like it was created solely to support the article discussed here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If The Reign is a hoax, it's one that Christina Milian is included in perpetrating, since she asserts that she attended the event, and was surprised to find that she wasn't hosting it, as she had been led to believe.
      • Robbie Daw (2006-07-01). "One in a Milian". Instinct. Instinct Publishing, Inc.
      • "Christina Milian and Eric West CO-host "The Reign" Fundraiser, an Event to Raise Funds to Fight HIV/AIDS Around the World" (Press release). The Reign. 2005-08-05.
    • But she apparently doesn't (or didn't) know anything about this Eric West.
      • Jawn Murray (2006-09-18). "BV Buzz: Sept. 18, 2006". AOL Black Voices. AOL.
    • Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was brought up at WP:AN and not here. MuZemike 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion is a mess and is very difficult to follow. I !voted to Delete based on the notability merits, but I think the discussion has been poisoned by the rather obvious external campaign to influence it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've closed the discussion as "Delete"--agree that there was some pretty serious sockpuppetry going on, but there was a pretty clear consensus to delete once you got past it. Blueboy96 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And I've deleted The Reign as a copyright infringement of this. Rodhullandemu 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of the OP, the original thread on this is now archived here, although there's not a great deal on it. – iridescent 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring campaign

Though thechnically within the limits set by 3RR, this has been going for weeks now. Please watch the situation and the discussion on the talk page. A couple of editors eradicate a lot of sourced material, get reverted, yet continue to revert instead of trying to reach a consensus, effectively saying that they don't like the stuff. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) is particularly unhelpful, regularly jumping in from nowhere to help the other editor "win" edit wars across a wide range of articles (edit summaries: I support Offliner, Rv to Offliner version. Agree with him, Offliner rules). Most of BFF's contributions there and elsewhere in the mainspace (possibly even all of them) have been reverts to his favorite versions. I think that is not exactly constructive behavior, but he doesn't seem to listen to others. Colchicum (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for now. Nakon 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that BFF is unhelpful. He is after all the editor who uncovered the original research done by Martintg on the Treptower war memorial article - original research which was edit warred over, and reinserted, even by Colchicum. The reason for the removal is CLEAR. Biophys has taken it upon himself to create multiple POV-forks with the same content. You will argue to keep such rubbish, you will realise that this WILL have consequences for articles; in this case, duplicated material which has been forked has been reduced and removed from the main article. This is entirely inline with forking of content. And Colchicum, you know, people in glass houses, and all that. All I have seen you doing lately is calling editors Nazis (with no apology forthcoming), referring to editors as trolls, and calling other editors pigs. --Russavia 08:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? How is this rant relevant here? How is this related to the edit-warring campaign? For the record, sure, I am not going to apologize for what I have never done. I have never called any Misplaced Pages editor Nazi. I understand what pun from a distant past you may be referring to, but the rest is only your wishful interpretation, now bordering on obsession. The case is resolved for now, thanks, Nakon (though it will hardly work in the long run), so what is the point? The question is rhetorical, of course. And trolls are trolls, QED. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr and World Series

From time to time we get users insisting that the World Series has no right to call itself a "world championship" and they post editorializing comments to that effect. Usually one reversion and a warning are enough. Sometimes a block is needed. This is a little different, as Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insist on this point, despite being opposed by other editors so far, even with one editor posting some (additional) explanatory material on the matter. Can something be done to stop that guy's editorializing? He won't listen. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one day for disruptive editing. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that like how p'd I am that the Miss Universe pageant doesn't have contestants from Pluto, or even from outside of the System of Sol? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have the distinct impression that some of the contestants are from some species based upon silicone derived lifeforms... (the need to breathe methane, as opposed to the carbon/oxygen relationship in the known lifeform systems contributes, I am certain, to the "air headedness" of some of the comments) while others simply appear to be from another planet/reality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the editing was disruptive, why block without a warning? Is there something more at play here? Blueboy96 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Megan1976

Megan1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) impersonated Megan1967 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of JamesBurns (talk · contribs). The account was mainly used for discussing at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spyde, identified as a sock there, but never blocked AFAIK. Is there a reason for not blocking it? Would an admin mind doing so? I know it's a very (c)old case, but atm all AfDs where JB or one of his socks contributed to are being revisited. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi HexaChord, according to the block list the account is blocked, but not according to the block log, which is weird. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I wasn't clever enough to look at the block list. Maybe it's missing in the block log because it's very old? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The account shows as blocked shame on whoever tried to make like they were Megan. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Two other socks from above Afd, Spyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Zoombini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seem not to be blocked at all, right? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So very old, thanks for bringing them up but otherwise there seems aught for an admin to do, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
          • One of them edited again two years after the AfD and could be used again as soon as needed for whatever. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Read Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne. It appears that the impersonated account was itself an impersonation. So your comment applies twice over. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness

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

Though I would acknowledge that JBSupreme has made several key improvements to articles, at other times, he is obscene and a borderline vandal...and many people have called him on his talk page for this. At numerous times, he has deleted long-standing, accurate and cited portions of articles for virtually no reason at all. When he does so, his edit summaries have either been blank, leaving little or no reason for the deletions, or obscene, laced with profanity and call-outs. Numerous user complaints can be found at his talk page. I would note that this is not the first time an incedent has been lodged against him. Thank you, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Purplebackpack89, in my humble opinion your complaint is more suited to dispute resolution. In particular, I suggest you have a look at Wikiquette alerts and Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 ... just a few days ago the issue of his rude edit summaries was discussed in this very forum right here. You will also note on his talkpage, he was advised that it was better to leave no edit summary than to be rude. Have there been additional rude incidents in the last 2 days? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He trashed one section of an article I added, then when I used another as precedent, he trashed that too. I put them back, and again and again he trashed them and hurled baseless accusations at me. See his talk page for more info Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have accused him of being rude in edit summaries above - my point was that we have already dealt with that issue, and he has not been uncivil in summaries since that time (unlike yourself "slapping on protection in light of penis hack and elimination of my subheadings"). You are currently involved in a content dispute. Content disputes need to be solved by WP:CONSENSUS on the article talkpage, and not here in WP:ANI. I will also warn you about WP:3RR on the same article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: penis hack was when somebody deleted a section of an article and replaced it with "penis" a bunch of times. I still maintain that JBsupreme is too trigger-happy and heavy-handed in addition to his edit summaries, and should be banned Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with User:PhilKnight, this is more suited for WP:RFC/U. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please ban this user

User:Chinabluemultipack is clearly a vandalism-only account and I recommend that it is closed immediately. Please see the contributions history for verification. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DeepNet Explorer

I noticed that User:Ironholds was having difficulty merging Deepnet Explorer into the Web Browsers article as this account believes that the software is not notable enough to have an article on its own. I'm just requesting an expert opinion as to whether it should be merged to Web Browsers or a similar article or allowed its own article. Either way, I don't think it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. --Sky Attacker (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? shoy (reactions) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting urgent action before the article gets bamboozled by the speedy-delete machine. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what action is called for. Deepnet Explorer was quite rightly tagged for deletion as lacking any reliable sources or claim of notability; if you think that the subject is indeed notable, you should add the necessary reliable sources that would prevent deletion. No administrative action is required for that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no! I'm asking would it be better to merge it into a bigger article, so that the content won't be deleted. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even merged, it would still require reliable sources to establish its credentials for being worthy of mention. If it's deleted, it can be emailed to you so you can work on it in your own userspace; but unsourced, it's not going to hang around for long anywhere. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:George Zinkhan

Ummm... is it valid to hardblock a new user name created to be the same as George Zinkhan alleged to have committed the University of Georgia shooting today? (I have concerns about those new articles as well, but am here about the username.) LadyofShalott 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Report to WP:UAA, maybe? -download | sign! 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the place! Forgot about that one. Thanks! LadyofShalott 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this account, as I believe it does not meet the username policy. TNXMan 04:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation by User:Kbdank71 in moving user page to mainspace

I have been having some longstanding problems with User:Kbdank71, that seem to be reaching a boil on his part. In response to a questionable close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Knuckleball pitchers, I created a user subpage at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers to be used as documentation for what appeared to be a likely DRV. After providing information indicating that his close was problematic, he relisted the category for discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Knuckleball pitchers. I raised issues with User:Jc37 about his close on his talk page, only to find that Kbdank71 was stalking me there, letting me know that my user page had been moved to mainspace. In his edit here, Kbdank71 insisted that my user sub page was created in violation of WP:POINT and was being moved to mainspace despite the fact that I had clearly indicated that it was not ready to be moved, that the page is written describing other Misplaced Pages pages and is in unencyclopedic form, in addition to the fact that the user subpage was created in full compliance with Misplaced Pages:User page. In violating WP:POINT, Kbdank71 moved a nonencyclopedic user page into mainspace, requiring that the damage he created be repaired by undoing the move and restoring content he had deleted. Kbdank71 then proceeded to make an improper cut-and-paste move here, which violates the same GFDL he cited as his excuse for making the move in the first place. While I am unsure as to what justifies this persistent harassment from User:Kbdank71, an admin who clearly knows what policy is and as with all admins is expected to uphold these policies, but any help in dealing with this abuse of process on his part will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, are you asking for a cross-space redirect like here? Not having looked at the history too much, ok, this discussion says to listify to your space. I do find it strange from someone to move someone else's userspace page into article space for some reason, but I'll wait to see what Kbdank has say because this isn't exactly explanatory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was indeed "listify and delete", which I am reluctantly forced to challenge given the problems with the close. What User:Jc37 incorrectly calls a complete list, ready to serve as a substitute for the deleted category, was created by me as evidence to overturn the close as deletion, first by Kbdank71 and then by Jc37. My user subpage was written in a rather unencyclopedic manner, quoting how their Misplaced Pages articles refer to them. While it could well become an article in mainspace in the future, it will require significant revisions to meet Misplaced Pages standards. Until then, Kbdank71's decision to move the article to mainspace without reading the subpage or making any consultation on the matter appears to have been done exclusively to make the WP:POINT that the list now existed. The cut and paste move only violates the GFDL he claimed as justification for the move in the first place. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spamming on article talk pages

My attention was first drawn to the editing of Ved036 (talk · contribs) when I saw this edit he made to Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The comment criticized the article as being something like a newspaper article. It contained no suggestions for improvement or how to overcome the problems, but it seemed to me as a cover for a link he provided. The link was to a forum which contained a kind of an opinion piece, written apparently by himself. I reverted this edit since it seemed to me as being in violation of WP:TALK and WP:SPAM. I then checked his contributions and saw that almost all his recent edits were to article talk pages. Most of them were of similar nature to to the comment I have given above; they show some fault with the article and then provide a link to one of his opinion pieces, inviting readers to follow the link. I left him a note on his talk page about this, but received no response. But he did post this comment on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, accusing its editors of "inserting their own opinions and claiming them to be of superior academic standards" which seems to me to be exactly what he's trying to do with these talk page comments. Check out these links, some examples on his comments made to article talk pages:

• Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
• Talk:Malayalam language - He makes no attempt to even conceal his true purpose here.
• Talk:Parapsychology - Nor here
• Talk:Vandana
• Talk:Barack Obama - This, again is clear spamming

He seems to have got into quite a conflict regarding his postings at Talk:Ezhava as well. Anyway, if you click on any of the edits to article talk pages in his contribs, you'll see what I mean; they are all of the same nature. Wikichecker and Soxred93's edit counter both show that he has only 3 edits in the mainspace and 109 on article talk pages. Clearly the account is now being used only for these postings he makes on the article pages. It also appears to me that he has a bit of bias against India and other countries of that region , but I guess that is neither here nor there. But those links are clearly against WP:SPAM. I'm not seeking a ban or block here, but can an admin at least discuss with him and explain to him about what he'd doing? Chamal 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10, again

, , posting to my talk page about his block. Blocked for block evasion, socking on 16 April 2009, after this discussion thread at ANI. I blocked both of the IPs for the block evasion/socking as well. Other administrators feel free to look into above and change something if needed, but at this point probably not much else to do. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here is some other material on this Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/I-210 and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of I-210. Also more at . Cirt (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing comments by IP

There is an IP making dozens of disruptive edits to the Ayn Rand page. Some of the comments are disturbing. While (as many here will know) I am appreciative of an abrupt and robust approach, these comments go beyond what even I find acceptable. The admixture of capitalized words is also scary. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. MBisanz 08:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Ikip for canvassing

I've blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton  10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton  11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton  11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WP:ARS recruitment fiasco and similar "FYI" posts for WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS. I don't want blocking Ikip to be used by anyone as "This is an example of the disruption WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs . But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Misplaced Pages:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Misplaced Pages:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT, where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea.

The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it.
• The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS.
• AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show....
• Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly.
• Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion.

  If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Huang_Sir

This user keeps removing reliable sources from Republic of China and replaces them with a link to the Chinese Misplaced Pages. He has already been told numerous times in the talk page and in the revert comments that self published sources are not acceptable, but yet keep inserting his Misplaced Pages link. Here are some examples: and there are many more (Actually, I think every single one of his edits are about his Misplaced Pages source). Laurent (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just can't make him understand that Wikis and emails are not acceptable sources, and now he is posting crazy stuff on my talk page: . Laurent (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just left him an {{ANI-notice}} --Rodhullandemu 13:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards