Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 6 October 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

Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

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

Split 132 kb section to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment. Feel free to mark as resolved when discussion is finished. slakr

Transcluded section from: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment --Tothwolf (talk)

Summarize and redirect back to original issues

This discussion got way off-track with the mass-AfD nominations. In order to redirect it back on track, let's set aside all those AfD nominations for now.

My main concerns with User:Miami33139's behaviour can be summarised as:

1. Issues with wikihounding multiple editors (now including myself), at least one of which has since left the project.
2. Bulk removals of the edits of one editor who was previously wikihounded (the one who left). (see: #Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald' edits)
3. Use of unapproved/unknown/custom Javascript tools disguised as Twinkle while preforming (semi-)automated removals of the above mentioned edits. (see: #(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?
4. Increased wikihounding and retaliation in the form of mass-AfD nominations when I originally brought up the above issues. (see: #Breakdown of AFD intersections)

Where Miami33139 began wikihounding me is where I tagged a number WP:COMP related articles from Category:Proposed deletion with the {{WikiProject Computing}} banner so that the Article alerts system would pick them up. Miami33139 has been mass-prodding media player software articles (almost exclusively). The first interaction I am aware of related to this issue is the revert of my removal of an invalid CSD tag and then RFD of a page that Miami33139 has admitted to finding from my contributions. After that they saw where I had reverted vandalism on NexIRC and sent it to AfD. From there this pattern continues and includes !voting in AfDs I participated in just to !vote the opposite as well as getting involved in AfDs that I tagged for the WP:COMP deletion workflow, all of these also clearly being taken directly from my contributions. (See the Breakdown of AFD intersections table linked above for examples) Prior to all of this, Miami33139 did not work on articles in these areas or participate in related AfDs. Miami33139 focused almost exclusively on mass-prodding and AfDing of media player software articles and their removal of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. See also: Prior to leaving, Ed Fitzgerald had been with the community for over 4 years and had over 42,000 edits under his belt.

--Tothwolf (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any administrator is willing to take further action without either party demonstrating further attempts at dispute resolution. This noticeboard is for immediately pressing issues to the encyclopedia, and requests for comment on user conduct is the proper place to have extended discussions about whether someone's behavior over time is right or wrong. --slakr 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

99.144.255.247

99.144.255.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has been warned several times for BLP violations in the article, and the talk page of Roman Polanski, the IP edit warred multiple times , adding material against consensus. This disruption resulted in the semi-protection of the article. Now, the IP continues POV-pushing and keeps inserting BLP violations (accusations of pedophilia and possession of child pornography without reliable sources to back them up) on the talk page. The IP should be blocked to stop this disruption. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did add "Is currently a fugitive" to the Polanski article. Do I need to produce a ref for that here? I also changed "plead guilty" to "convicted" and changed the capital S in sex to lower case. All of those edits linked above were mine. If that "disruption" caused Cenarium to lock the article - perhaps this discussion should widen a bit.99.144.255.247 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for everything you add to an article, particularly if the information is contentious, and the article is about a living person. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about noting that Roman Polanski is "currently a fugitive", indeed it is directly related to his world famous "conviction". Is there also doubt about spelling sex with a lower-case? Honestly, I do not get your point. Do you wish to presently see a ref supporting those facts you indicate are somehow "contentious"? Do you seriously not think those editions are/were supported yesterday when they were entered?99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you think that "fugitive" is absolutely the correct word to put into the article, you should have no trouble finding a source to back it up (if it's accurate, there is bound to be a newspaper article or something which you can use as a reference). I look forward to seeing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

--Smashville 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to numerous NYT's articles describing him as a 'fugitive". (Thousands more exist around the world, but the NYT's is representative of the class) He is currently being described as such and will remain so until his return. If it occurs.99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, this week, he's been arrested. How can he still be a fugitive? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if he's been arrested by the Swiss Police, I'm not entirely clear what makes him "currently a fugitive" – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP seems to be a single purpose account created only with the Polanski bio in mind, and has imo been adding excessive content to the talkpage and failed to stop when warned. It is a talkpage and not a place to just add content that you could not get into the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...how can an IP (as in, something without an account) be a single purpose account? It doesn't sound too sinister if he has been proposing content for an article on a talk page for that article. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything all that contentious about the edits. Is there any question that Polanski is not a fugitive? I mean, it's already properly sourced in the article. --Smashville 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's all good as you say, why has he got a gaggle of warnings on his talkpage? Its excessive ranting and raving on the talkpage, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The gaggle of warnings on his talkpage appear to be unwarranted and I advise you and the others to take a look at WP:BITE. --Smashville 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia bite. I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on that but I expect time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...in this humble admin's opinion, it appears to be more of a WP:BITE issue than anything else. He hasn't really posted anything that contentious (and...seriously...adding Polanski's conviction to the lead is POV pushing?) nor anything that appears to be in bad faith. Instead of screaming "Block! Block! Block!", perhaps some of you could actually participate in dialogue with him instead of simply hounding him for his talkpage comments. --Smashville 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a bunch of good faith and respect to you for that. At this point in time with the coverage I imagine that the talkpage is getting a lot of views, so I felt the excesive ranting (it is not discussion is it?) on the talkpage was a bit much, but I am more than happy to leave it to your experience. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about adding that he was a fugitive, but the accusations of possession of child pornography and pedophilia that are wholly unsubstantiated. The IP cited only one source, for a topless photo, if this were child pornography, then Misplaced Pages would host much worse child pornography on Virgin Killer (talk page) and many other pages. Smashville, this is not a BITE issue at all, would you argue we should not block people for BLP violations on the grounds of WP:BITE ? maybe we should not block newcomers for vandalizing too ? the user had plenty of occasions to discuss but kept restoring the material. WP:CENSOR is no free pass to violate BLP (and the policy states this). Cenarium (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected and by the time you had made this report, he hadn't made an edit to the article in over a day. What purpose would a block have served? --Smashville 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP repeatedly restored the BLP violations on the talk page. We have a policy, WP:BLP, and it needs to be enforced when editors repeatedly violate it. I had a similar experience on Talk:Barack Obama, it's clear in policy that sections starting right off based on BLP violations and have no incidence on the content of the article should immediately be deleted, they are in practice often collapsed when too much developed. So have I done, but it's useless when there's someone always restoring them. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed discussion long after it was created without contention. You removed discussion unilaterally without consensus. I've reverted it one time - and I opened up a section discussing BLP concerns. This is BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Your abuse of the three letter BLP to wave around as you want is not supported by policy and your abuse of this forum to battle for you in a content dispute is a gross violation.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stranger still - I've just noticed that your time-stamped complaint about me predates my actions by a couple of hours.

First you commented in the section:. Then you collapsed it 7 hours later: and then a couple of minutes later while it's still collapsed and with nothing happening you arrive here to ban me? Your actions are unacceptable and your edit history via the time stamp shows them to be false and unsupported accusations designed only to further your own interests at the expense of fellow editors by abusing the system.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh really ? We had a little edit war long before that , , and I repeatedly told you why I was removing the material on your talk page and in the edit summaries, I stopped the removals after having reported to ANI. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After trying to familiarize myself with this topic (Polanski and related events) and help in editing it, I would like to voice my opinion that this IP is in-fact being very tendentious on talk pages and in his edits. He has morphed into another IP (as shown in his last signatures above), and is continuing in the same manner. The "ranting" description applied above is not wholly uncalled for. That's all I have to say about this.

IP has made 169 edits to Polanski and Talk page in last day..., take that for what you will.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the entire exchange I had with P&P. If that type of exchange is unacceptable here, I'd be surprised. But then again, considering Cenarium tried to first get me banned for having the audacity to say Polanski was convicted - or his latest attempt to ban me by making a false accusation above - who knows what acceptable community standards are around here. 99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on just that exchange, I was commenting on the whole thing I'd read through. In fact, if it makes you feel better, at first I didn't even realize you were the same IP.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your totals, note that like in this sequence, I tend to retouch each edit quite a few times for all manner of reasons. It also occurred over three days in an active high volume article, not one. In fact, it pales next to the roughly 60% of all edits which are signed by you and that completely dominate the talk page at . Now that's a significant number.99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I reiterate my request for admin action, the IP restored again the sections accusing Polanski of pedophilia and creation and possession of child pornography, those accusations are wholly unsubstantiated and of no relevance whatsoever to the article, just ranting and unacceptable POV-pushing violating to the extreme WP:BLP. This lack of BLP enforcement is really disgusting. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP now moved to improperly edit and edit-war on Anjelica Huston, , , citing inexistent consensus for material violating WP:UNDUE and potentially WP:BLP (with hidden implications), and argues to have the same material inserted in the page Roman Polanski. And while I'm sure there are more interesting matters, the material clearly violating the BLP policy remains on Talk:Roman Polanski. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. Cenarium has reverted the established edit. His interpretation of BLP lacks support here and at the article - he is edit warring and basing it solely upon his personal dictation of policy. I, the same editor mentioned here, have returned the talk page to the long standing consensus and simply un-collapsed the sections. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally a section was opened several days ago to discuss BLP concerns here:. The editor has chosen to unilaterally impose his will without discussion or support. I've included this information simply for background purposes. Thank you.99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And prior to that, this thread was opened to bring certain additions to the article into clear dispute on the talk page, under BLP concerns, while the same concerns were raised even prior to that (though less visibly on an evermore crowded talk page). The BLP concerns regarding this article are far from unilateral. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cenarium is certainly not the only editor with serious BLP concerns regarding Roman Polanski and the associated talk page. IP editor 99...92 has been one of the more prolific editors adding some of the more egregious material (in relation to WP:BLP) to the talk page. I initially came to the Roman Polanski page from the notice placed on WP:BLPN, and what I found there was of serious concern to WMF. I am backing off the topic to some extent, lest I be accused of edit warring or POV pushing for attempting to boldly remind editors of BLP policy, but my concerns for the invasion of the rape victim's privacy and the clearly stated harm done to her by decades of invasive publicity are nonetheless diminished. This article and the associated talk page contain some serious BLP concerns, and if only a few editors attempt to enforce policy in the midst of such virulent and prolific editors as this IP editor, it takes on the appearance of a typical content dispute. I have little interest in the POV of the article, as long as the article comes into compliance with BLP policy, with which I believe it currently is perilously at odds, thanks to the contributions of editors such as this IP editor, who seem to have an axe to grind without any regard whatsoever for policy. That also includes cohorts who have clearly stated their intent to edit war material into the article in spite of BLP policy. This article needs serious intervention. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your BLP concerns in regards to the privacy of the victim are not directly relevant to the collapsed sections. Those sections dealt specifically with Polanski and his ref'd history discussed here. The apples and oranges difference between BLP concerns of victim and internationally famous artist/convicted felon are significant.99.151.164.92 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:BLPNAME might have some relevant info on this. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Those sections accuse Polanski of creating and possessing child pornography and being pedophile, this is as repeatedly stated wholly unsubstantiated and a clear and egregious WP:BLP violation. (Also, the only source that could have been considered seriously who called him a pedophile has been totally discredited, he admitted to lie on the case...) Unless we come to an agreement, in a few hours, I am going to collapse the sections once more, and if you revert this again (you reverted the removals three times and my edits to collapse the section twice), block you. I hoped other admins would step in, it would be good if this happens, but I won't let this situation goes on indefinitely, even if I'm relatively involved in this. I really don't see why you absolutely want those sections not collapsed, since discussion is no longer active there and of no relevance to the article. Also, do not pretend that I haven't been fair to you, I could have made you break WP:3RR, or block you quickly despite my involvement, instead I gave you plenty of occasions to discuss and brought this into the open. This situation clearly demonstrates a failure of the system though, and again that high-level drama monopolizes admin's attention at times. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not high level drama, it's you personally opposed to the content. You've not found support in the discussion page nor here. And now you've stated without equivocation that you will use your administrative powers to ban me in a content dispute.

Look, it is a content dispute until, and if, you find a community consensus that the factual discussion of reliable sources is somehow a violation of BLP. Once a consensus is achieved, then and only then, does the content dispute become elevated into a BLP violation.

Please note that normally BLP violations are readily apparent to all and consensus is reached within moments, the fact that your position has failed to find any takers over the course of many days and literally hundreds of eyes should be throwing up flags by now in your internal processing.

And please let's respect policy, don't threaten or use your administrative powers to further your position in a content dispute - it's totally unacceptable. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: this material is on the talk page, not in an article, and of no relevance to the article; and it's simply a matter of collapsing those sections under the WP:BLP policy (and they soon will be archived anyway). We routinely courtesy-blank material for BLP concerns for much less than that. Discussion is no longer active in those sections, and it's been established that they are of no relevance to the article, since those allegations are totally unsupported (you cannot deny that there is consensus on this). When talking about high-level drama, I was talking of other things happening on WP, distracting admins, for example this and that presently (so less will handle this kind of stuff). How could you know how we handle BLP matters anyway ?, hasn't someone argued you were a bitten newbie ? Furthermore, it's not how we handle BLP, if material is judged to violate BLP by any user, the editor is allowed to remove it immediately, policy states: "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", and this applies to non-article space, and it's generally an exception to WP:3RR. I would not consider blocking you if we were indeed in a content dispute, but we're not. I preferred to take it here for more input, but many admins would have chosen another option than reporting you here. Cenarium (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is neither unsourced, nor poorly sourced. It is a well sourced and impeccably referenced discussion of "how, where or if" to properly include in the article mention of Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls" when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, his well referenced dating of multiple children including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child that he took himself.

These are tough but true realities directly related to the article and the matter at hand, BLP is not a tool for censoring verifiable reliable source material. And Misplaced Pages is not to be Censored. Abuse of rules to further one's editorial preferences is never acceptable.

How, where, and even if to include these facts is for community discussion and consensus - not for an individual to unilaterally remove by a false assertion of policy. BLP is a protection against falsehood, it is not a tool for the censorship of inconvenient well known fundamental facts.

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

And no, although no one asked and it is not relevant, I have always edited without a membership and am not a newbie.99.151.164.92 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention, or any other source given on the talk page support the allegation that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. This (a 'debate' from the Daily Mail, no RS for anything) mentions a "paedophile photo", but this is not in relation to Polanski at all !, it's about a photo from Brooke Shields and is wholly unrelated. The photo referred to in is not child porn by any recognized standard, it's been said repeatedly, and I told you above that WP has much worse photos (the one I cited above, virgin killer, has been the source of major controversy, and the iwf classified it as "potentially illegal indecent image", so not child pornography, yet this was far worse than a topless photo and of a much younger girl). Anyway, no RS says it's child porn, you could call it like that, but it would be WP:OR and we cannot accept this, so it's a BLP violation. Same for saying that because he dated another 15 yo girl, he's a pedophile, well no, you're not a reliable source for this, it's WP:OR, we cannot accept this because not a single WP:RS said he was, it's negative, so it's a BLP violation, and it's of no relevance to the article, so it should be removed from the talk page. His relation with Nastassja Kinski, the rape, and all the rest that can be reliably sourced, in no way am I censoring it. But I will remove or collapse any thread attempting to push the point of view that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. Those are BLP violations of no relevance to the article, and by all means, falsehoods ; multiple editors agree on this, yes there is consensus, and you well know this, just look at the threads again. And yes, this is standard talk page practice, just look at Talk:Barack Obama. Cenarium (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reality check

I agree, to some extent. Let's be perfectly clear what we are talking about here. Paedophilia, properly defined, is nothing more or less than a sexual attraction to children, which may or may not be acted upon. That's the APA definition, in a nutshell, although somewhat limited for the sake of this discussion. However, there is a very wide grey area as to what "child" means here, and there are various disputed definitions from which anyone with an axe to grind may choose. Furthermore, the popular media have applied that term so indiscriminately that it is now weakened beyond rational analysis, and is used as a stick with which to beat any sexual offender against people under the age of sexual consent. I do not condone those activities, but not all these offences should be labelled as paedophilia. In the case under discussion, we are talking about Hollywood society thirty years ago, in which one might think that morality was, as normal, somewhat fluid; in particular, is it unthinkable that the putative victim's mother closed her eyes to the obvious, and the victim herself, who no longer seems to think it's a big deal, having moved on, is no longer interested in pursuing a case? Misplaced Pages isn't a vehicle for investigative journalism per se, but relies wholly on reliable sources. Tabloid journalism and purple prose fail that test, as far as I am concerned; facts are paramount, but opinion is cheap. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a straw man argument to state that Misplaced Pages should not clinically diagnose Polanski as a pedophile.

Let's be clear here: The discussion is about how, where, and even if the article should mention Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls" which he made when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, or his well referenced dating of multiple children including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child that he took himself.

The discussion is based upon, - indeed the discussion is about - the very usefulness of, specific verifiable reliable sources and nothing more. And your arguments are content arguments about what, and what not, we can draw from those sources. They are not arguments that the sources and discussion of said violates BLP - each objection you've presented requires a finding and an article edit that does not exist - yet you seek not only to prevent the hypothetical edit that never occurred - but the reliable source discussion itself. We can quite readily state that Polanski dated Kinski when she was 15, and we do at the Kinski article. Yet you would silence that discussion here. A discussion about what, and how, to describe the complexities of the article's subject encyclopedicly .99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that although the debate is about the specific documented history and statements of Polanski - if you require reliable sources that state that he is being verifiably called one thing or another there is quite a bit - and it's metastasizing. References such as this are common:

Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.

Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.

Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

My personal preference is that we work with his history directly. Or do you feel that verifiable reliable sources finding him to be one thing or another should be produced first? 99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite in your latest comment are reliable in the least and especially not for such claims, mostly blogs or commentaries. On your previous comment, again, if you want to discuss a particular aspect for inclusion in the article that can be reliably sourced (his relation with Kinski for example, which actually is mentioned in the article, or presence of Huston in the house, presently discussed), I have no objection, but threads attempting to push a point of view that cannot be reliably sourced and violates WP:BLP such a pedophilia and child pornography will be summarily removed or collapsed. You still claim a topless photo of a child is pornographic, yet I have demonstrated to you it was not by any recognized standard. And concerning his alleged preference for "very young girls", once more, we do not make original research or to be more precise, synthesis, either you have a reliable source discussing the whole aspect, and if not, only specific incidents may be included and not linked together in any way - further, I don't see any of the written sources alleging a 'pattern'; and saying it's pedophilia (a term with a precise meaning) while no RS states this is a BLP violation. To come back on the central point, you may discuss specific reliably-sourced incidents, but a section pushing the POV that he is a pedophile or creates/posses child porn is not acceptable (without multiple RS to support - unlikely to exist). I won't wait much longer to collapse the sections. Cenarium (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not his "alleged preference for young girls" - it's a quote from him, "I like young girls, very young girls". It's not OR, it's a fact that he said he likes very young girls, and it's a fact that he was arrested in possession of photographs he took of a topless child. We're discussing verifiable, reliably sourced, references. You've dismissed out of hand dozens of sources I've quoted here - including the 1980 biography of his life he assisted in and linked recorded interviews of him. I'm sure I could add new ref's continuously from sources like CNNonly to have you dismiss them all with not even so much as a comment. This is starting to verge on the surreal. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

At least we're making progress, you no longer argue that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn. You'll have to find a reliable source discussing this quote if you want to use it. But again, if you want to discuss this quote, or the photo, there is nothing preventing you from doing that. What we're not going to accept are sections pushing the point of view that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn unless it's directly supported by reliable sources. Because that would be original research and violate WP:BLP. Cenarium (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to find a reliable source discussing a CNN quote for it to be discussed? The only progress being made here is your acceptance that no BLP violation have occurred.99.142.1.147 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re first question: For the quote of Polanski: we don't discuss PRIMARY material, we need secondary sources discussing it (or WP:OR again). BLP violations have occurred, I told you what they were, now I'll remove them. Cenarium (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN is not a primary source for purposes of the Polanski article. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the quote you cited as from Polanski. We cannot mention it if no RS has discussed it. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cenarium has now taken to "Archiving" active discussion in order to suppress. I have reverted the "archiving" of the active section.99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have archived your section claiming censorship and pointed here because it's not about the article, how we handle the talk page should be discussed here. I have archived the sections violating BLP and strongly advise you to cease edit-warring over this. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no support for your contention that BLP is an issue, you've put forward no justification for your position and no consensus, let alone indications of interest. Your actions here - in which you've accused me of all manner of thing from using the word convicted to describe Polanski's ...ummm conviction ... to destroying the Anjelica Huston article to about 11 more items including this - would in many eyes be considered harassment and abuse of authority. Your baseless suppression of reliable source, referenced discussion is unacceptable. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested unblock (link). Cenarium (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a bad idea to block the IP yourself, given the involvement level in the dispute. However, I wouldn't suggest anyone overturn it. 99 is wrong, this is absolutely a BLP issue. There's been little response here because it's so blatantly a BLP violation to put in unsourced/poorly sourced accusations of this nature. I'd suggest 99 back off until he finds reliable sources and discusses adding them on the article's Talk page, rather than edit-warring and claiming censorship. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that unilaterally invoking administrative privilege to ban - after failing through over a week of effort and a dozen separate charges ranging from BLP cry's that a violation exists in calling Polanski a "fugitive" or the accusation that a BLP violation exists in noting he was "convicted" - to "disruptive editing" charges that I destroyed Anjelica Huston - are, to put it mildly, "probably a bad idea to block the IP yourself, given the involvement level in the dispute."

I would disagree however that any BLP violation can ever occur when discussing the when, where or even if to include mention of biographically salient and reliably sourced material. BLP policy is crystal clear on the subject:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Indeed, one should note that many of the BLP violations I'm accused of and that were cited in support of administrative action here by Cenarium, such as including note of the fact that the articles subject has been both "convicted" and is a "fugitive" have achieved community consensus and were included in the article. As has been my edit to Anjelica Huston, which also stands untouched to this day. Additionally, the more contentious discussion regarding how to address the numerous RS ref's that discuss the subject, in shall we say, less than glowing terms - continues unabated and is at the center of Talk page discussion with nearly hourly comment and addition on the area.

Quick nod's to acronymic shorthand like "BLP" do not give flesh to the charges out of thin air, this ban is unsupportable and without basis. As would any ban be that was unilaterally imposed after being brought to - and failed to gain support at AN/I. It can never be acceptable to ask for a ban for someone you're involved in a content dispute with and then impose it yourself when no one agreed. Such action is expressly forbidden.

I understand that editing without an account entails enduring a great deal of discrimination - but these was over-the-top. A week of being accused of dozens of things on multiple pages SHOULD NEVER conclude with the original complainant arbitrarily banning me because he was unable to find anyone else to do it here. A week.99.142.1.147 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire again using IP's

Fynire has a history of disruption on various articles both as an IP and as an Editor. This includes the addition of unreferenced comment and opinion, removal of referenced text, synthesis of published material, edit warring and so on. I've included below a number of articles in which this has occured. For a more detailed but not complete list of IP's see here.

Fynire was told here that they were banned from editing anonymously because of their IP abuse detailed somewhat below. Since opening their Fynire account, they have continued to edit disruptivly and have again used IP's disruptivly, illustrated in their edits on the Dunmanway Massacre. On the Dolours Price and Martin McGartland articles as I have illustrated below, they have continued with the same disruptive editing and edits, and this really needs to be addressed.

The Ip's they use on Dunmanway Massacre:

1. 86.147.52.238
2. 217.43.234.202
3. 217.43.234.202
4. 86.163.79.164
5. 81.156.129.168Block ignored
6. 81.156.28.108
7. 86.164.246.191
8. 86.143.63.189
9. 81.158.228.91

Their edits to the article, including their edits as Fynire and using IP's since been warned.

Fynire IP again Fynire

This is the IP on just on the Hart Article.

1. 217.43.234.202
2. 86.164.136.21
3. 86.147.53.63
4. 86.156.113.180
5. 217.43.236.187
6. 86.147.52.226
7. 81.153.148.246
8. 81.129.245.63
9. 81.157.55.189
10. 217.43.234.190
11. 86.150.37.92
12. 86.147.52.238

Here is an example just using the first IP used on the list. The articles they edit and the IP's they use.

The Articles:

1. Irish general election, 1918
2. Dunmanway Massacre

The Ip's they use on Irish general election, 1918:

1. 217.43.234.190
2. 217.43.235.73
3. 217.43.236.11
4. 86.147.52.238
5. 217.43.234.202
6. 86.150.37.33
7. 86.156.113.180
8. 81.153.148.246
9. 81.129.245.63

Each IP can have a subset of articles using another group of IP's such as:

• George Noble Plunkett
• Protestant Nationalist
• WWE Velocity
• Irish general election, 1918
• Dolours Price

Fynire

• Roger Casement
• Julius Pokorny
• Ruth Dudley Edwards
• Black and Tans
• Kilmichael Ambush
• ETA
• Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom
• Killings at Coolacrease
• Evelyn, Princess Blücher
• Martin McGartland

Fynire

• Charles Bewley
• Bulmer Hobson
• List of H2O: Just Add Water episodes

Could Admin's please address this, as it has been going on from at least January. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Technically there's nothing to be done, short of semi-protecting all the articles involved. The editor is using a BT Broadband dynamic account, which are impossible to rangeblock (as you can see from the massive range of IP addresses). If there are particular articles that are problematic, WP:RFPP would be the place to request semi-protection. Black Kite 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the registered account? As it appears this my also be Fynire and as is clearly and obviously, being nothing but disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SPI would be your best bet here. Black Kite 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We know that it is the same editor, and they have registered an account. That they have continued in the same disruptive way regardless can and should be addressed here. They established an account, and still used IP's. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree could an admin not do a checkuser on this editor, enough evidence provided to at least deserve a look. BigDunc 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser is certainly needed. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism User:FenderMag

FenderMag (talk · contribs) The user has blanked my article with no question and any kind of discussion! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which you've reverted (correctly in my opinion) - the article needs some work but looks valid and a viable subject and it's not appropiate at this time to blank and redirect. It's possible it should be merged at some point but that's another argument. If it happens again, try WP:AIV. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I just merged two articles, as it's suggested in talk page (I invite other users to give their contribution in editing Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. I started a new section based on Aredic's article: Foreign_relations_of_the_United_Kingdom#Yugoslav_wars) It's clear that Aradic-es should be warned here as well as FenderMag. FenderMag shouldn't blank tha page. And I've just seen what Aredic did. For example, he included a part in an article called Bosnian Mujahideen, although his action is not supported by the sources within article. He did that twice. After that he started to accusse other nations such as Britain, Serbia, France etc for alleged support to Serbs and Bosniaks which is not a good way to edit articles. Kamiondžija (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus his blind reverts:--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "my article"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said my article I thought article that I created--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article now at United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars (originally Great Britain mentioned above) is highly problematic, it doesnt seem to be very neutral and i question the need for an entire article on this matter at all. As mentioned above it was suggested that it be merged with Foreign relations of the United Kingdom but that article does not go into detail about any wars, it certainly cant be used for detailing this minor conflict in the way the article currently does. I was wondering as its been mentioned here already if there were any neutral opinions or suggestions on what should be done about the article? would AFD be justifiable in this case or would it have to be merged with something else? Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, discussion here. Not possible to salvage this one as currently constructed, as far as I can tell, even if the topic is suitable for an article of some sort. My view is that blanking/redirecting of this sort of awfully written, propagandistic, WP:SOAP bollox is entirely appropriate, but there are of course proper channels ... --Nickhh (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as there articles like this there is no reason to delete

Pages relating to the Balkans, India-Pakistan, the Middle East and any other real world conflict area are filled with WP:SOAPy propaganda and terrible material that consists mostly of partisan original research. That's no reason to add even more of it. I guess this thread is done now? --Nickhh (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

statements are clear and sourced by WP:V . If you don't want to see them that is your problem.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Milowent Incivility / bad faith

Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I warned this user this user for attacking me and assuming bad faith and linked him to the offensive edits, and I get "You are a turd editor and you know it." at User_talk:Milowent#Civility_.2F_bad_faith as a response. This isn't the first time either this user has acted in this manor towards me either.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a long history of bad faith and incivility by Otterathome (which I'm sure he'll deny), so it's really not surprising to me that Milowent might loose his temper a bit and respond back. Regardless, I have to wonder why this was taken immediately to ANI when there are many other venues that could be tried first. For instance, this very page says "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Isn't that what this report is all about? Why hasn't it been taken there first? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome has been basically harassing people who are attempting to make an argument for certain articles to not be deleted based solely on some vendetta against new media. I have stayed out of this for the most part, but I have to weigh in here. If we have to drudge up all the bad faith and incivility Otterathome has engaged in, I am willing to help. This is ridiculous. I would have called him worse much sooner if he had been attacking me as he has Milowent and others. --jenlight (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome is a very skilled editor who unfortunately chooses to use his time and skills in a destructive fashion to personally attack other editors, obstruct work on wikipedia, and push his own personal agenda and opinions on the Misplaced Pages community. The examples he referenced above are the result of a pattern of long term, sustained harassment and abuse of Milowent and other editors. I would be glad to assist in building a comprehensive list of all of Otterathome's incivility and bad faith behavior. Additionally, I agree that this report should have first been taken to Wikiquette. Billbowery (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Billbowery put this very well except I am not sure how one defines a "skilled editor". As has been discussed extensively elsewhere it is Otterathome who has been systematically attacking people time after time and it was probably the lack of corrective action that precipitated this response. Once again, we need to deal with the real root of this issue which is one editor who tries to force their agenda in a way which is anything but good faith. A so called "skilled editor" should be considered someone who works with the community to improve Misplaced Pages and not just someone who applies WP policies in an arbitrary manner to further their own personal goals. I challenge anyone to show that Otterathome achieves the standard of a true "skilled editor" and as has been pointed out many times elsewhere and above Otterathome's contribution to Misplaced Pages has an enormous destructive impact in terms of disruptive discussions etc etc.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the person making this accusation, Otterathome, is a person who accused me of stalking in a ANI based on the fact that I objected to and reverted him blanking an article and turning it into a redirect. (He ultimately took it to AFD where it was voted keep) Also, despite his obvious sensitivity to 'stalking' he nevertheless has continued to haunt places I frequent on the Internet, and has on Misplaced Pages posted links detailing my off 'pedia activity, information which could possibly lead to a violation of WP:Outing. (I of course will neither confirm nor deny if it does in fact do so.) In short, my few interactions with this person have been rather uncivil. The fact that Milowent has at times lost his cool when dealing with him is unfortunate, but ultimately human. Mathieas (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's the accusations/walls of text with no diffs/evidence game again. Disliking a user doesn't mean you can attack them I'm afraid.--Otterathome (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If no admins are going to deal with this, I will assume name-calling is an acceptable response to a warning.--Otterathome (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a bit of time to cool off. Otterathome, regardless of anything else, I apologize for my uncivil comments. Thanks to all who posted above, I appreciate your kindness. --Milowent (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Name-calling is not really an acceptable response to anything. But an apology is an acceptable way to atone for name-calling (mild name-calling) so I hope Otter can accept the apology and get back to the war the discussion at various AfDs. -- Atama頭 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising on user page

Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs) has an link advertising a forthcoming book on his user page (as well as a promotional article about himself which shows up in Google as the 2nd link, the first being his Misplaced Pages article). I've been involved with him before and would like an uninvolved look at this. I wish user pages weren't indexed by Google, I've seen them used for self-publicity too often. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The following articles were started and substantially written by the user, and appear promotional and are about not obviously notable people:

• Alexander Fiske-Harrison
• Clive Fiske Harrison

In fairness, both articles seem well written, and give the appearance of abiding by the rules. Whether the subjects are notable is borderline; if someone else had created the articles I would give them the benefit of the the doubt. Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes says:

"One of the most common mistakes for newcomers is creating an encyclopedia article about themselves. Because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it is not expected to have a biographical article about every person who contributes. Your user page, however, is a perfect place to write about yourself; just click your user name at the top of the screen when you have logged in and edit to your heart's content."

It seems to me that this guy is using Misplaced Pages to promote both himself and his dad. I have less problems with him saying that he has written a book on his talk page. If this was a normal editor who made normal, non-self-promotional articles, then it would seem not unreasonable that he/she should say so on his/her talk page. I have put {{notability}}{{advert}} tags on both articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also reviewed his article,(Alexander Fiske-Harrison) and it was found to be a self published article and not meeting notability criteria based on the references i reviewed at the time (ref 1 to 10). I was left with no option, but to add a PROD. his article may also meet CSD. I will inform him of this thread when others ve participated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gave him a note about conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Policy doesn't actually forbid writing an article about one's self - it just strongly recommends against it. In my opinion, but subjects are actually notable and they certainly aren't ads - ads try to sell you something. Additionally, for being COI written they are actually relatively reasonably neutral. The correct tag for these cases is {{COI}}, not {{advert}}. The userpage is not a problem at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was considered about the "(available to pre-order from Amazon here" bit. I was under the impression we didn't want such advertising. I am still opposed to using user pages for autobiographical articles since they show up on Google and most readers probably don't notice that they aren't actual articles. We've been through an AfD on his article before and the coi stuff, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fiske-Harrison and it was never my intention to resurrect that. Also, after I finished this my alarm went off for my hourly hand exercises and I forgot to leave an ani notice. No one else has so I have done this now. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited that line of his user page to simply link to the book, rather than imply "go buy it". (Note, Clive has also survived AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Fiske_Harrison)--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

first, I ve equally no problem of him putting any promotional material on his user page. wikipedia need to change, to make sure user content is not searchable in google. problem is him writing about himself in the article Alexander Fiske-Harrison. I have added {{autobiography}}. he also uses blog entries, some mere comments on some websites as his refernces. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alexander Fiske-Harrison, I understand concerns and discussed them extensivley at AfD and this was the agreed result. As for references, as I have written on the talk page: 1 is a Conde Nast magazine feature with a link to a facsimile. 2 is indeed the editorial blog of The Spectator magazine. 3 is Debretts, a book. 4 is a link to a now updated website (feel free to remove). 5 is an unlinked reference. 6 is a very live link to the London Times. 7,8,9 do not require susbcription to see they are by me, which is all they are there to prove. 10 is again the editorial blog of The Spectator magazine. 11 is a recent article about me in the Daily Telegraph. 12-15 are mere references to my plays and films, but 16-19 are reviews of my work as writer and actor in the British National Press. Please note that I personally flagged Clive Fiske Harrison for COI which led to the AfD of which this was also the agreed outcome. Re: my userpage, I was under the impression that I could write, and remove, what I like as long as it isn't offensive. I apologise if this is not case. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed with Dougweller that the Amazon link in-page was advertising contrary to the intent, if not letter, of wiki-law, and I will not revert ThaddeusB's edit to remove that. Given the nature of my editing - e.g. Bullfighting, Elephant intelligence, Cynthia Moss (which needs more work), Cayetano Rivera Ordonez, Adolfo Suárez Illana - the information on my userpage is important to understanding where my knowledge on topics comes from, which is my work on my book and how I got to where I am. Alexander Fiske-Harrison and Clive Fiske Harrison were finalised on consensus based edits, and the only two additions I have made since, I flagged on the talk pages some time before to allow objections and are both direct quotes about those involved from the two largest circulation, and oldest, broadsheet British national newspapers, with web-linked references appended. So please could all relevant tags be removed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think you have handled yourself far better than most COI editors do and don't think you have done anything wrong recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please see here for a previous COI notice regarding this editor. As to the notability of the articles, this was brought up in previous AfDs and considering the sourcing done on them, it's difficult to say they aren't notable. On the other hand it's a good idea to check on the articles from time to time to be sure that no promotional info has gotten into them considering the author's clear and admitted COI. -- Atama頭 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed now perhaps this has been resolved and we can remove the COI tag (which has already been resolved before, as has its AfD proposal) from Clive Fiske Harrison, and the COI tag, which has also been resolved before, and notability tag (established in two AfD's, since when much material and sources have been added) from Alexander Fiske-Harrison.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ObserverNY vandalizing and puppeting

Several weeks ago, ObserverNY (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for incivility. After several days and some offline emails, she was unblocked. More recently, there's been a conversation on Talk:IB Diploma Programme about a section that mentions several countries. This morning, an anon IP added this vandalism, saying things like "In Afghanistan, IB students are housed in luxury at the newly excavated cave dorms." and "The Desertania universities actively seek to recruit IB students with ambitions of becoming explosive experts and chemical engineers."

Another user noticed that the same anon IP had made a comment several months before and had signed it as ObserverNY. At first Observer commented and said that a "little vandal" had done it, but later admitted that she had forgotten to log in and that her edit was a "silly game" to point out listcruft. I know this is just one incident of vandalism, but it seems that with Observer's history, this shouldn't go unmentioned. — HelloAnnyong 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying for DAYS now to get this group of editors to come to consensus on the format of the University Recognition section at the IBDP. A few days ago, the list of countries took up two full screen's worth of copy. They reduced it to sections labeled Oceania, Asia, Europe and Americas. They conveniently left out Africa and the Mid East, what I perceive to be a deliberate POV ploy on the part of IB supporters. So I added Desertania. As a joke. I forgot to log in and then when I saw my edit came up as an IP I referred to myself as a "little vandal". I should have known better than to try and "shock" this group out of their IB stupor as they immediately resort to running to ANI instead of trying to come to consensus. If you review the talk page, you will see I very politely tried to present my position, in fact, at one point I thought the issue was resolved, but then they chose to go back on a List filling tangent. If you would like to topic ban me from IB, I would consider it good therapy. However, if you look at my interaction with editors at Glenn Beck and Taxpayer March on Washington, you will see that I can get along just fine on controversial issues with editors who are not predisposed to objecting to and reverting every suggestion I make. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

More sock puppetry committed by ObserverNY here-

"Do not reproduce or redistribute without permission" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A permanent ban from the IB series would be an appropriate punishment for an editor who has shown a long history of incivility, disruptive editing and edit warring. The latest act of vandalism demonstrates an apparent disregard for the seriousness of the editing process, not to mention outright disrespect and insensitivity towards others.

La mome (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY should understand that consensus does exist. The other editors agree the section needs some cleanup and perhaps tweaking, but only ObserverNY wants the section gone. The polite request for consensus includes interactions such as these: , , . Editing in such an environment isn't fun. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not the place for a content dispute. The fact is that Observer knowingly and willingly vandalized the article as an anon IP to prove a point. That is the issue that's up for discussion. — HelloAnnyong 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on all IB-related articles. I don't care so much about the inadvertent socking but the talk page discussion and nonsense like this to make fun shows a complete lack of respect for this project. Humor has a limit but that looks WP:POINTy. His edits elsewhere seems somewhat fine, so I'm not sure (even given the long block log), a complete ban is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, pretending that it is someone else vandalizing is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And there was this prior to the vandalism. Seriously, how much more do we have to take? This is ridiculous. Please permanently ban/block ObserverNY from the IB series so we can get on with editing without being verbally abused and subjected to vulgar, offensive language.Thank you,La mome (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ricky knows all about that, LaMome. That's old news. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Support topic ban or indef block Having been told by ObserveryNY previously that she will not change her behavior regardless of other editor's feedback, I see no reason to expect good behavior from her if she is let off again. I have become thoroughly disgusted with ObserverNY and I would not wish to condemn any of the editors here to having to work with her again. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I've indefinitely blocked him again. At a minimum, I think he should be topic banned from IB-related articles if someone thinks he deserves a third chance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been gone for a little while but I do have to say that the the double standard on here is so egregious that, as someone else said, I find it "disgusting". Other established editors even admin routinely call me abusive names and go out of their way to flamboyantly use such terms, and for my several years here have never had anything done to them. Let's just be clear that this is a sort ideological "good 'ole boys club" when it comes to enforcing many of these rules, especially in terms of offensive or abusive language. JohnHistory (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Do you really think vandalizing with an IP addressing, and then celebrating it on a talk page is conduct that we should be allowing? I don't know, I think this was pretty clear to him that he himself isn't on the popular side. If you want me to treat you like him, I can do that as well. Your commentary at User talk:ObserverNY last time wasn't helpful at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe indef block is the way to go. ObserverNY demonstrated total disrespect to other contributors and I think topic-ban won't do much here. OhanaUnited 04:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The IB article problems certainly stand out, but the last time he was indef blocked and returned, he was here less than two days before he was blocked again for edit warring on a different article. I don't think he understands how to take WIkipedia seriously in general. Dayewalker (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he understands WP:BATTLE completely. See how his talk page turned out the last time he was blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, ObserverNY does not have the self-control to stay away from IB-related topics or talk pages. S/he has also demonstrated the same inappropriate behavior with other editors on topics having nothing to do with IB. I agree with the indefinite block.La mome (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Sock puppetry is a strong message that a user has no intention of following our policies. I certainly won't be unblocking this user. Chillum 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have an undisclosed sockpuppet yourself Chillum? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Chillum using it to vandalize, as ObserverNY did? And I agree, good block, coming back from an indef block to immediately cause trouble is just asking for another block. -- Atama頭 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Racist personal attack?

Does the comment "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?" by User Throwaway85 on his talk page constitute a racist personal attack? I have been in a content dispute with said user and have already informed him that I am a person of color. Irvine22 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked this editor indefinitely pending an explanation. (the actual edit is here btw.) However, the reporting editor should be aware that a number of admins are monitoring xes edits as well. Black Kite 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Was just about to say that, ya beat me :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added an unsigned template to that, as it appears BK accidentally signed with five ~s instead of four.— Dædαlus 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Fracking"??? To paraphrase a line from some 1980s movie, and ironically it involved somebody saying "Kite" thinking it was an anti-semitic slur... "He's so stupid he can't even be prejudiced right." →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, no xe isn't. Read profanity in science fiction. The choice of spelling in fact depends from one's choice of the two television series (although I wasn't able to reliably source that at the time) and that is the 1978 series' spelling. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • In any case, if editor A calls editor B a "spade", then editor A gets the "club". →Baseball Bugs carrots 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Baseball Bugs, you have no "heart". MuZemike 07:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • He's a real diamond in the rough, and that trumps everything. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That was too funny. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Throwaway85. The previous "calling a spade a spade" discussion on his talk page referred to the permissibility of calling User:Irvine22 a "troll" for his disruptive behaviour. At the point Throwaway85 made the comment for which he was blocked , Irvine22 had not in fact made it clear that he claims to be a person of colour (even if he had, the use as a slur remains a US one which few Europeans are familiar with). Irvine22's claim that he had made it clear seems to rest on this statement which cannot be read as providing that information to someone unaware of it. Irvine22 asked me about the comment, and 2 minutes after I said I thought there was nothing to it, he posted here. Overall, in the time I've been somewhat involved in moderating this topic, Throwaway85 has been an excellent editor, whilst Irvine22 (a past sockpuppetmaster - User:JonnieIrvine per SPI) has displayed behaviours that have pissed off a number of editors (notably at PIRA and its talk page), and I've had to impose a temporary topic ban, which Irvine22 accepted but shortly after his edit warring block expired has now violated , in the latter case using an IP (which is clearly him since the IP also continued Irvine22's conversation on my talk page, so perhaps not intended as ban evasion, though it is a ban violation). I'd like some feedback on what to do about Irvine22 at this point. I've tried quite hard to help him integrate into the community, but between the drama he has created over the "spade" comment and his violation of the topic ban, my willingness to do so, and hope that this has much chance of success, is much decreased. Rd232 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I should note that Irvine22's ANI post might be considered retaliation for Throwaway's ANI post a couple of days ago , which was effectively superceded by the block/temporary topic ban I imposed. Rd232 10:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly dispute that I am a disruptive editor, or that I have edited in violation of your topic ban. (The articles I made minor edits to last night are not marked as Ireland/Troubles related, and in fact are not.) As for your contention that I would need to prove that I am a member of any particular racial group to be offended by the racial epithet that was directed at me - that seems ludicrous on it's face. Do all Wikipedians need to post a picture before they get to be upset by racist personal attacks? Where should I do so? Or would you prefer I appear on webcam so you can verifiy my racial identity? And are racist personal attacks really ok as long as they are directed against people who are not members of the group in question?

Now, I have already indicated that I am prepared to move past Throwaway85's racist personal attack and to work cooperatively with him on improving the PIRA article. He has not made any reciprocal indication: quite the contrary as he continues to issue personal attacks, calling me and "idiot" and a "retard", amongst other bon mots.

The main issue I have raised at the PIRA article is one that User:Rd232 has himself acknowledged is a a valid one. In fact it is central to the coherence and credibility of the article in question. The fact of the matter is that there is group of editors with a particular POV that (so far) prevents them from acknowledging the force of the point. I know there are strong feelings around issues relative to the Troubles (I also have strong feelings - I lived through them) but I continue to believe that compromise is possible between people of goodwill, acting in good faith. I have always acted in good faith in my attempts to edit Misplaced Pages, and such transgressions as I have made were simply because I didn't know the relevant rules/procedures at the time I made them.Irvine22 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i) Does anyone agree with Irvine22 that Orange Institution and Patrick Pearse are not Ireland/Troubles related? ii) you don't need to prove that you're a member of a racial group to be offended by a racist epithet. You do need to make it clear that an obscure (for Europeans) racist usage of a traditional phrase might be applicable to you because you fall into the relevant racial group. iii) you hadn't made it clear at the time the comment was made, so continuing to insist the remark was racist in intent is highly problematic. iv) Throwaway's angry responses to getting indef-blocked due to your unnecessary complaint on ANI are something I'm willing to overlook. iv) the PIRA issue is a valid one, but you've been told repeatedly that the issue cannot be furthered without relevant sources. In this context, blaming other editors' "POV" for lack of progress is a severe violation of WP:AGF. v) I imposed the temporary topic ban as a "cooling off" period to allow you to gain experience elsewhere, and to allow you and the other editors on this topic to have a break from each other. You have violated both the spirit and the letter of that ban, both with your edits and with your ANI post after asking me about the "spade" comment. Rd232 14:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles began in 1969 - Pearse was dead by 1916. The Orange Institution is, as the article makes clear, an international organization with a presence in many countries and continents. The PIRA article is labelled as falling within the Troubles group of articles. I assumed that your topic ban applied all such articles that are so labelled. I have not made any edits to articles that are labelled as Troubles related, which is the only reasonable interpretation of your ban. Am I supposed to guess?

As for sourcing for my main pont about PIRA activity - the edits I made on that point were sourced, and extensively discussed. I even incorporated language suggested by both yourself and Throwaway85.

And yes, your initial tolerant reaction to what was clearly a racist personal attack was disappointing. This is not a European/American issue, as you have attempted to suggest, or an issue of cultural misunderstanding. I have been called a "spade' on the streets of Belfast and Glasgow, but never in the U.S. (until I came on Misplaced Pages). Like you, I am willing to overlook Throwaway's angry responses to getting blocked and I have already indicated that I am prepared to work constructively with him going forward. To be blunt he can call me a "troll" an "idiot" or a "retard" and its water off the proverbial. Call me a "spade" or any other racial epithet and he and I are going to have a problem.Irvine22 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i) The temporary ban specified "Ireland/Troubles". It's a stretch to interpret that as referring only to the "Troubles". (And I don't see how PIRA is labelled as being within that anyway.) I've clarified this in my talk page conversation with you. ii) The sourcing was disputed in terms of whether it justified your edits. The conclusion, AFAIK, was that more/better sources are needed. iii) my reaction was not "tolerant" to "what was clearly a racist personal attack". I said it wasn't intended as a racist attack; and repeating the claim ad nauseam that it was doesn't make it true. And I'm not making up the European/US distinction - it's from To call a spade a spade (plus my own experience of never having heard it). Rd232 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a stretch to think saying dont edit Ireland/trouble articles includes a guy that died 40 years before the troubles start. The orange order is more linked, however articles are not clearly marked what fits into "the troubles", perhaps they should be, its certainly a mistake someone could make. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is extreme without warnings, ive noticed several other indef blocks being issued recently by different admins without warnings or more moderate blocks first which is alarming.

However what ever Irvines past editing history is, that is no excuse for something so abusive, although i accept "spade" isnt known as an awful insult by many people, the fact Irvine had clearly explained this to Throwaway85 a month ago is important. I also fail to see how Irvine has been misleading anyone with his comment here. ""Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?"" is a shocking and disgusting statement, and whilst Throwaway has apologised to anyone else that may have been offended, he doesnt seem to be prepared to apologise to the person the attack was aimed at. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's only "shocking and disgusting" if you read it as racist. I see no reason to read it that way (as I said above), and every reason (from the context of the previous discussion) to read it as calling Irvine22 a "troll". Rd232 11:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be on good terms with Irvine22. I would be willing to help if he and other people can agree some basis for improving their interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope its shocking and disgusting to use it to attack someone after they have already explained the offensive meaning, no matter what the persons intentions or other persons editing history is. If there was no past conversation then its an easy mistake to make as theres millions of terms out there that some consider offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no indication that Throwaway thought Irvine fell into the racial group which would make the attack capable of carrying racist intent. Rd232 12:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the prior discussion that Throwaway85 and I had, a week or so previously. You be the judge!Irvine22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Yes, please, somebody uninvolved read that and say whether that discussion gives any indication that Irvine is declaring himself to be black. I don't see it. Rd232 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, and if someone addresses such a comment to me in those terms I woudl assume that they were a person of colour. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly implied, althought you dont have to be a certain skin colour to be offended by a racist attack. Rd232, if Irvine had clearly without any possible misunderstanding stated he was black would that change your views on the comment in Throwaways edit summary? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I always block indef for blatant racist, homophobic or other hate-speech related insults. I don't see any choice - blocking for a defined length would mean me making a value judgement on "how bad" the insult was. It should be pointed out that "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". and I agree that in this case there is more to it than meets the eye, so I don't object to the unblock.Or perhaps not, given the previous edits. Black Kite 11:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I see your point about issuing time specific blocks its just always seemed strange to me when i see indef blocks without previous blocks first. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering Rd232 has been involved with Irvine and used tools on him in the past, it would probably have been better if an uninvolved admin had undid the block to ensure neutrality. Being prepared to overlook someone calling someone else a retard which is offensive in both Europe and the USA clearly raises concerns. And blaming the victim for asking a question here about a racial attack is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what I don't quite get about Rd232's behavior in this is that Throaway85 evaded his block to appeal specifically to Rd232 to review it. Is this kind of shopping for a friendly admin by block evading users typical? Irvine22 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another admin could comment. Is using an IP to ask one other knowledgeable admin (especially in the given circumstances of an indef-block without prior warning), "block evasion"? If so, should it be sanctioned? Rd232 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you ever get indef-blocked at the instigation of someone you've previously said may be a "disruptive editor", do you think you'll remain completely civil? And again, the fact that a term has a racial/racist interpretation by some people does not mean that its use is automatically racial, racist, or anything else. Rd232 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be mad as hell, however id avoid calling someone a retard when attempting to get unblocked, not that id call someone that anyway. You seem prepared to overlook one parties actions when angry, yet you condemn Irvine for questioning a possible racial attack here which is 100% the right thing to do. There is no justification or excuse for putting in an edit summary "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?" a week after being told by that same editor what that term spade meant and that sensitivity is needed to avoid causing offense and the guy still refuses to apologise to Irvine for it. Its just wrong and sick. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed something - I've not condemned Irvine for raising the issue, but for raising it at ANI after he asked me on my talk page, and after I responded that there was nothing in it. And I saw that conversation and it could easily be interpreted as Irvine being arsey, raising a "somebody might be offended by this" point just to be argumentative. It was not "explained what that term spade meant" as if there were only one meaning for the term. And it was entirely unclear that he is in the racial group which makes the slur use relevant. (Even if it were, it follows from the previous discussion that the reference is to Irvine as troll, not as black person.) Rd232 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 - so when you have made your comment Irvine is not allowed to get other opinions? And I will add, it is not necessary for someone to be a member of a particular racial group for the use of a racist epithet at them to be unacceptable. If someone called me a kyke or a nigger, it would be completely unacceptable, and my being a white goy doesn't make it any the less so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See below on your first point, and how exactly is a comparison between this situation (see further below - read Throwaway's talk page) and an unambiguous racial slur like kyke, relevant? Rd232 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm puzzled by the claim that "spade" wouldn't be recognized as a racial slur by Europeans - certainly I have heard it used many times in just that sense in Britain. I am also very concerned about the implicit threat against the complainant made by an admin above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm heavily exposed to both British and US culture, and I've never heard the term used as a racial slur. And what "implicit threat" are you referring to? My concern here is that an editor with a history of being (probably unintentionally) disruptive, who I've been trying to help fit it in with the community, may have succeeded in turning the narrative on its head, by accusing an excellent editor of making a racist comment, for which there is no evidence. Rd232 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"You have violated both the spirit and the letter of that ban, both with your edits and with your ANI post after asking me about the "spade" comment." Was the sentence that concerned me, making it sound like by posting here he is somehow doing something wrong. The quality of contributions made by either editor should not matter when it comes to "potential" racial attacks. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BW, that was the sentence which concerned me too. I agree, being a good content contributor doesn't allow one to use racist epithets at other editors, whatever their shortcomings. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was that he asked me, and then either didn't wait for the reply, or chose not to respond to it, and posted here instead. That's what I'm disappointed with. If we'd exchanged a few more comments and he'd said "well I disagree and I want input from others", fine. But he just jumped to ANI as if he was looking for a chance to get back at Throwaway, who'd previously reported him here as a "disruptive editor". He also violated the topic ban, though I suppose I have to believe him when he claims misunderstanding of its terms. Rd232 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several others here saying that it appears to them to be a racial slur, and I am amazed that you haven't encountered in in British usage. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand people not knowing all the different racial slurs and misunderstandings can always happen. The fact they had a conversation on the fact "spade" is a racial slur a week earlier means the excuse of not knowing it was offensive doesnt wash for a second. Throwaway may not have intended to use it in a racial way (perfectly legit question to ask about it here for exactly that reason), but he knew it was one. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a spade in this specific phrasing is very unambiguously a racist comment. I have lived in US, Canada, and UK - the word has no other meaning in those countries when used in that specific phrasing. I can AGF all I want, but it's just not possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unambiguously a racist comment.Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope the editors so unambiguously declaring the comment racist have actually read this thread and Throwaway's user talk page, where "calling a spade a spade" is clearly established as a reference to calling out Irvine as a "troll". Rd232 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it hurt you so much to say "I may have misjudged, thanks for the guidance folks?"? DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't, if there was any evidence I had. Throwaway wasn't familiar with the slur usage, and Irvine gave no indication that he was in the racial group where the slur is relevant, and a non-racist meaning for "spade" is clear from the prior discussion. Would it hurt you to admit you may have misjudged? Rd232 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Throwaway wasn't familiar with the slur usage" - He wasnt aware when he first used it, Irvine then spoke to him about it on his talk page in a reasonable way explaining the term . So this idea he didnt know it was a deeply offensive racial comment a week later when he made the attack in the edit summary in an attempt to get Irvine to "go away" according to his recent comments clearly isnt the case. Im still unclear why exactly he is calling him a spade at all. I get the term call a spade a spade, but that means you call them what you think they are, you dont call them a spade. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, if he wanted to call me a troll why call me a "spade" instead? Why not just call me a troll? That would be less insulting, if clearly untrue. Irvine22 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And its clearly established that spade is a racial slur on his own talk page, although throwaway does say he "don't care" when asked about possibly offending people by using it, i guess thats enough justification to go around using insulting words! BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The context for "not caring" is clearly that it appears Irvine isn't in fact in the racial group and appears to be merely being argumentative in a "somebody somewhere might be offended" kind of way. That's what "don't care" refers to. Rd232 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good unblock Rd. BigDunc 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with BigDunc, good unblock. No showing that any racial meaning was intended, without that, it is par for the course on Misplaced Pages (see WP:SPADE). Context is everything. I was at a concert the other night which many teens attended and one yelled at the lead singer, "You're the shit", much to his pleasure. Apparently that's considered quite a compliment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, given that Irvine is a highly disruptive editor, and today is evading the reasonable edit restriction place on them (arguing that articles to do with the Orange Order are nothing to do with the Troubles) its difficult to see them really being offended. Its only a matter of time if Irvine carries on this style before a permanent ban is in place so if anyone has infuence then would be better mentoring them than arguing for a editor with a pronounced POV unwilling to work within the rules of this community, --Snowded 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see so its not possible for "disruptive editors" to be offended there for its ok to call them what we like even if we use a term previously described to us as a racial slur. Wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to judge whether there was intent to offend racially. If there was, come down on them like a ton of bricks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it wasnt for the previous conversation a week earlier on his own talk page when Irvine explained sensitivity is needed because its a racial slur then it wouldnt have been a problem. Although throwaway admitted it was meant as an insult so he shouldnt have said it either way. But being told one week earlier by the editor in question spade is a racial slur changes things, especially when he responds by saying he "Don't care" when asked about possibly offending people. I still dont understand why he called him a spade? The call a spade a spade logic implies Throwaway should have called him a troll or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not take that as an indication the other person was black. I would take it as an indication that the other person was very politically correct, and I might personally (I wouldn't do it here on WP, though) needle him a bit by the use of such phrases. Until and unless there is a community prohibition on using such phrases, it is within the pale.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Im no fan of political correctness, however when someone says sensitivity is needed when using a certain term because its considered a racial slur (especially racial slurs as they are by far the worst), a week later you do not say in an edit summary "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?", its sick and it still doesnt make sense to call them a spade. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BW, Irvine's comment made a general comment about calling of "calling a spade a spade". S/he did not say that s/he came from a mixed race background and it was a dubious statement anyway, from an editor who was being disruptive, edit warring on controversial articles, refusing to take part in discussions, and gaming the system by multiple edits all slightly different, but all with the same POV in an attempt to avoid 3RR. There has been a clear statement from Throway that s/he intended no racial slut so lets drop it shall we. I doubt we will have to wait long before Irvine's behaviour brings us back here (if anyone out there can mentor this editor, please take up the challenge for the sake of the rest of us. --Snowded 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm we shouldnt just sweep this under the carpet. Im not saying throwaway shouldnt have been unblocked, although considering its now been pointed out Throwaway bypassed the block to ask on rd232 talk page for him to take a look, rd232 certainly should NOT have undone the block himself.

My concern is Throwaway STILL refuses to apologise for causing offense to Irvine, which is the editor he attacked. He went out of his way to suck up to everyone else, but the actual victim who he doesnt seem to think deserves an apology.

I always think warnings should be issued except in very extreme cases, although considering the language in the attack and the fact he knew it was a racial slur, i can totally understand the reasons behind the intitial indef block. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I tend to agree that I could use a mentor. In what I hope is a true Wikipedian spirit of cooperation and conciliation, I have asked Throwaway85 if he would be my mentor. Whether he accepts is of course up to him, but I now consider this matter between us closed. Irvine22 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You should consider LessHeard vanU's offer to help. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's close this. No further admin action is required, and that's what this page is here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see he has made a questionable comment on race before this incident too. . Have people actually taken a look at throwaways edit history, almost all his editing has been related to the PIRA article since the account was created in August, Even rd232 originally thought hed been previously editing with a different name although accepted the story about a suckpuppet having the name "throwaway" would be too obvious. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of the prior questionable comment. That does make the matter seem a bit more serious. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Hold on, I'm not sure that this matter is closed - I think the unblock was done under a misunderstanding of how the term spade was applied. I have been carefully reviewing the discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and have determined that Throwaway85 had been interacting only with Irvine22 and BritishWatcher regarding the disputed addition to the article lead, and exclusively with Irvine22 when he made the "spade is a spade" comment. So when Irvine22 came to Throwaway85's talkpage and noted how the terminology might be misconstrued, the obvious inference was that he was speaking about himself or BritishWatcher and most likely about himself. I would also comment that Throwaway85's interactions with Irvine22 in that discussion had been aggressive and confrontational, refusing to discuss the premis of the dispute but instead focussing on Irvine22's sockpuppetry, and purported trolling and POV warring. Other persons in that talkpage discussion did engage over the dispute and bring it to an understanding, but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself. Under the circumstances for Throwaway85 to then use the term "spade" (preceded by the adjective "fracking") in an aggressively dismissive comment directed to Irvine22 was to use it in a manner to hurt the sensitivities of the recipient. It remains the gratitious use of a racist epithet to insult another editor. I am disappointed that Throwaway85 was unblocked, over a technical "misunderstanding" fostered by the blocked editor of how the term spade was applied. I do not believe that Throwaway85 used the term in the manner he subsequently claimed he did. I invite others to consider whether in fact that the indef block should be re-applied until such time Throwaway85 apologises to Irvine22 for using a term regarding after being told by that same editor that it is considered racist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There were other editors involved as well LessHeard, and none of us (except possibly BW after the event) took the comment as meaning that Irvine had identified himself as a possible target for "spade" being interpreted as a racist comment. Neither do I think Throwaway was being confrontational, he like other editors had bent over backwards to try and get Irvine to discuss rather than edit war, and to be honest Irvine's behaviour would try the patience of a saint. The subsequent comment was a mistake, the earlier one looks to me like a response in kind to an accusation of "wanting to the English". Neither comment is really appropriate, but it looks like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here and we should move on. --Snowded 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

His previous jokes about the British Empire were amusing although would have offended some. "Funny, 'cause it seems to me that every place you've ever invaded turned around and kicked you out. One wonders why? Was it the warm beer, the ugly women, the boiled meat, or some combination of the three?"

Thats the standard sort of thing British people must put up with on a daily basis, so ive no objections to him making that sort of comment. But im not quite sure how anyone can defend , where he says "Racist? Oh, I see. You must be Pakistani, or perhaps black. My apologies if I offended you. I only meant to insult the skinheads whose country you're slowly taking over. Kudos, BTW" That steps way over the line of the standard and "acceptable" anti English / British remarks. Thats clearly offensive and linked to race, which shows he does have a history. Also lets not forget much of the argument here has been undermining Irvine as very disruptive who deserves to go anyway, whilst painting throwaway like some kind of saint. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to meet any saints on wikipedia BW, and I can't see any attempts at beatification above, time to move on. --Snowded 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can just let the matter drop now. There's been more than enough vitriol and people reading waaaay too much into way too little. Also, must allegations of sockery arise anytime my name pops up? There was an SPI when I joined, thinking I was a sockpuppet of Domer48. It was dismissed due to the small matter of us living on opposite sides of the globe. But if you still think I'm a sock, BW, you're more than welcome to request a checkuser or whatever. I don't mind a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not accusing you of socking, just highlighting some of the history. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Which is why I blocked indef, and after initially agreeing with the unblock, I've changed my mind again now. Black Kite 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm two of my comments were reverted by someone with no reason stated so i am readding them (I cant undo as theres been futher posts)... BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also this claim throwaway tried like others to get Irvine to discuss instead of edit war is questionable. Irvine raised a legit problem, which was simply dismissed because of his past that Irvine had already been punished for. Thats not encouraging others to discuss, simply ignoring peoples points is going to increase the chances they engage in edit wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No i think theres still a few outstanding issues. Previous debate did not take into account he had made that previous offensive comment. He was unblocked by an Admin who has been heavily involved in this case because they have applied bans to Irvine (clearly not as neutral as one would hope) and Throwaway violated his block to post on that admins talk page asking them to take a look. This whole thing smells fishy to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If something i have said in the above two posts is unacceptable, then please remove them but state in the edit summary why they are being reverted so i can make sure i do not make a mistake again. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked throwaway for two weeks, so s/he will have time to reflect on racism. She was informed that spade is a racist term, and her response was, she didn't care. S/he also asked if it was her responsibility to know every arcane racist term in the world. This is the typical response of a racist. No, you can like everyone else be ignorant until you are educated. But as far as "spade" goes another user explained that it is a racist term. One Wikipedians know this, they should stimply avoid using them. It is very simple, and there is no cost to not using the term (one can discuss how to improve ANY Misplaced Pages article without using the term, unless the article is on (1) kinds of shovels or (2) card games or (3) racial slurs, none of which was the case here. Some users have brought up nationality as an issue. It is true that the English are generally more racist than Americans (yes, deliberate irony, but I strike it out anyway), but thatjust does not matter: at Misplaced Pages people from all countries have to get along with one another, at least English speaking countries. If an Indian user informs me that a term i can easily avoid is racist in India, why shouldn't I avoid using the term? The only reason to coontinue using the term here is to provoke. That is wrong. It was not used in any way that would be required for the improvement of an article, therefore it is simple racism. 2 week block. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

After blocking someone for racism, you come up with "It is true that the English are generally more racist than Americans"? I'll just have to assume that's very subtle irony or something. Or complete bollocks, one of the two. Black Kite 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol i thought it best to avoid commenting on that sentence, as i agreed with many of the other things he said. However i see the block has been undone by another admin already now. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reblock was contrary to policy as the editor had committed no new offense. You just can't do that, I'm sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And similarly, you can't just undo it, either. This has descended into wheel-warring now, I'd suggest it would be a very good idea for everyone to just stop right there. Black Kite 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "just undo it". I acted in response to an unblock request, pursuant to which I did not find the block permissible.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd still think about undoing it, to be honest. No discussion with blocking admin... Black Kite 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've undone it, and will leave a note for Slrubenstein asking him/her to comment here further. Everyone else is welcome to comment. I'm still considering the unblock and will wait for everyone to have time to comment. Might as well centralize discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand both your unblock and reblock rationale, but where no active harm is being prevented by the block, it might be more helpful (in future cases like this) to leave the unblock in place whilst the issue is under discussion, and impose a temporary ban on the user in question editing anywhere but the relevant ANI thread. Just a thought for the future. Rd232 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to do that, I have no objection, since the editor is indicating on his talk page he wants to post here, and I said if he did it as a new section on his talk page, I'd post the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 has entered his defense here. I'd really appreciate comments on this matter from others.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This was my comment in response: "I find it very,very unfortunate that pretty much your entire defense against the accusation of levelling a racist personal attack should essentially be another personal attack levelled in racially-charged terms. Let me be clear: I am a proud person of mixed-race and I find it highly insulting that you presume to deny my identity. This, together with your previous racially charged comments, makes me reconsider my resolve to try to work with you in future. Irvine22 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

THrowaway85 has also responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unblock

I'm prepared to wait longer for more comments, but it is my thought that Throwaway85 should be unblocked. The reblock has no basis under WP:BLOCK, and since he had been previously unblocked, consensus should have been sought and achieved prior to any reblock. I've asked for comments here, and would be grateful for some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Misplaced Pages should not be a place that tolerates racism. Irvine22 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my reason for re-blocking. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(PS - My comment above was made just after I read Throwaway's defense at his talk page. I was angry because I felt the defense was essentially a reiteration of various accusations and personal attacks directed against me. Throwaway85 has since reflected on his behavior and offered an apology, and I have reflected and accepted.) Irvine22 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Address the policies at issue, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've allowed ample time for consultation, but have not heard from the reblocking admin. It is my opinion that the reblock was a clear mistake, since such an action should only have been done with consultation and consensus, and even though there was some discussion, there was no consensus that the prior unblock was a mistake. Thus the reblock did not follow policy. To allow for further comment, I will wait half an hour before implementing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm no expert on Misplaced Pages policy matters, but it seems to me that the original unblock by rd232 was questionable, as Throwaway85 had evaded his block to make a direct appeal to rd232, and rd232 went ahead and unblocked before the original blocking admin had approved. I think you should wait to hear from other involved admins before you unblock. Irvine22 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. I will give it until the morning. But then we do need to bring it to an end. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to take action in my absence (I'm going to bed) if they think it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the original blocking admin Black Kite had said on Throwaway's talk page "If any other reviewing admin would like to remove or reduce this block, then please feel free to do so without contacting me." And I hardly think Throwaway contacting me by talk page rather than by email (as would be permitted) is a big deal. Rd232 09:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators have to be checks upon one anohter, so I welcome further decision hee. I once remarked that an indef. block seemed awfully harsh until another admin asked me to consider the difference between an indefinite block and a ban - indef does not mean "eternal," it can be unblocked at any time. Now, I would have given an indef black on precisely htese grounds but given the discussion it seemed like a 2 week block was more appropriate. I want to emphasize two things: (1) it looks there are other conflicts that some editors here are involved in. My block has nothing to do with that any other conflice. (2) WHEEL is important in principle but I do not believe administrators should adhere to it dogmatically (remember, policies are descriptive not proscriptive) ... that said of course it would be silly if admins went back and forth blocking and unblocking. My point: I blocked because I read sufficient discussion here to suggest that there was some serious doubt about the unblock.

There is only one reason I blocked again: the use of a racist term. I have seen a lot of discussion on this and the user talk page that amounts to rationalizations and excuses (it is archaic or arcane; people shouldn't be so touchy). Also, I personaly find it astoundingly disturbing that anyone would suggest that Throwaway not knowing another user is black is an acceptable excuse for using the word spade in this way. That is like a group of people telling a racist joke and then upon realizing a black (or jew or whomever) was overhearing, apologizing. We should all oppose racism and racist remarks, regardless what our race. If someone tels an anti-Semitic joke, that is not racist only if a Jew is present, it is racist, period.

I have no objection to an admin undoing my block. I ask only one thing, one condition if I may use the word, first: that we have a display, on the part of Throwaya and others, that calling someone a spade is wrong. It does seen to me that it was explained to Throwaya that the term is a racist term before the incident. If I have really screwed up the chronology, I apologize. I say this because i understand that perhaps someone living in Kenay or India or some other English speaking country may not know that spade is racist, and given the heterogeneous nature of Misplaced Pages, it is fair to give another editor a warning (spade, nigger, wop, dago, kike, yid, kanaka etc. are racist terms, do not use them here). I thought Throwaway had been warned. But as far as I am concerned that is th only excuse for using such a term and once warned, there are just no excuses. What really disturbs me here is all the other excuses I see, on the part of Throwaway and some who defend him. The discussion that starts this whole thread (whell, then calling someone a club a diamond, a heart ha! ha! ha!) - is really disturbing to me. Discussion like that trivializes the whole thing. The bottom line is, there is no need to use racist terms in order to do the work of building an encyclopedia, and the use of racist terms should not be tolerated. If Throwaway sincerely agrees with me and understands that s/he has now learned something she didn't know before, that spade is derrogatory and shouldn't be used that way, then unblock and sin no more. I just wanted to enusre that adequate time was given to let this sink in. It is not a joking matter here. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said it a dozen times if I've said it once: the issue is whether the user deliberately made a racist comment. Using a racist comment requires (a) knowing that a word has a racist connotation (b) knowing that the person it's directed at (NOT somebody overhearing! Not when the term is being directed at someone - it would be different if the term was directed at a third party) is of the relevant race (c) racist intent (jokes and irony may easily go wrong, but are possible intended uses). Irvine22 made (a) clear, but not (b), and there is no evidence for (c). Throwaway was not familiar with the term, and rejected its relevance qua slur, on the basis that "I don't live where it's a slur" and "you're not even in the relevant racial group, you're just being argumentative". I think it's extremely dangerous in these circumstances to take a position where you effectively end up saying "I can read this user's mind, this term must have been intended as a racial slur". At any rate comparisons with unambiguously racist and much more widely known terms (is there an expression "call a kyke a kyke"? Is there an everyday item called a "kyke"?) are extremely unhelpful. Rd232 09:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Condition b is not required. The problem with racism is that it is not an attack against one person, it is an attack against an entire race. Not know it is a racial epithet is a valid excuse, but that is it. Using it, even if you are not sure that the other person is a spade, nigger, yid, kike, wop, dago, whatever, is not an excuse. The very nature of racism is that it is an assault upon an entire race. I have left this comment on Throwawy's talk page and I would just ask any other admin considering undoing my block to read it before unblocking. My block was for two weeks and I am not opposed to someone unblocking before the two weeks are up, but I would like to see some serious reflection on this issue, not legalistic arguments that miss the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're continuing to proceed on the basis that the term must have been bearing racist intent (yada yada anything else is "rationalization"). Not knowing that the person was in the relevant racial group should have an enormous weight in judging how certain we can be of that, in the absence of telepathy and in the presence of the ambiguities described and in the fullness of the context. You're simply coming at this as "it's a racist term, full stop!" and that does not do justice to the context of the usage. Rd232 09:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no racist intent. "Spade" is not such a term that the racist intent can be implied. Note that we have a page called WP:SPADE. I don't think WP:NIGGER will show a blue link. Accordingly, this encyclopedia does not consider "spade" to be beyond the pale, no color pun intended. For the reasons stated above, and for that reason, I'm unblocking. Also, WP:BLOCK carries procedures for an unblock. It does not carry any procedure for further review. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and whatever the merits of what the editor said, I do not think we will see any repetition after this experience. Enough. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, this whole "not knowing their race, so it isn't racist" line is a crock. The intent is to belittle someone by using a racist term; their actual race is irrelevant. People do use racist terms as an implication, ie. saying someone is of less import by marking them as a "lesser" race. It doesn't matter that I'm white, if someone calls me a spic, nigger, kike, etc. they're doing so because they believe it's an insult to associate me with another race.

Given that Throwaway was already shown that the term "spade" has racist connotations, you'd think he'd be careful about using it again. And seriously, who literally calls someone WP:SPADE? You call them what you percieve them to be: troll, spammer, what have you.

At this point, we're arguing that it's not incivil enough because we don't know the targets race, so we can't know the accused's intentions. That just doesn't make any sense. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to discuss my administrative actions, but as you say that a stated reason of mine is a crock, I'm uncertain as to how to reply except by referring you as well to my other reasons for the unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. I won't go into any defense, as all of that is covered in detail on my talk page. I do, however, feel the need to admonish some of the commentors in this thread. There seemed to be a "me too" mentality, where everyone felt they needed to comment--often without taken the time to read the relevant background discussions. Particularly distressing was that an admin aparently issued a block without reading my talk page, which was the only place I could respond to allegations as I was unable to post here. I recognize that racism is a touchy subject, and many people have very strong feelings on the matter. Nonetheless, that does not absolve editors, be they administrators or not, of their responsibility to do the research before contributing. This matter could have been cleared up far quicker, and without any questionable blocks/unblocks/reblocks if people had merely taken the time to become informed and address their questions to me, rather than arguing amongst themselves. The misrepresentations that found their way onto this page were pretty egregious.

Nevertheless, I feel it is in the best interests of everyone involved to bring this matter to a tidy conclusion. The block has been served, and revoked, and I have endeavored to pursue a more productive working relationship with Irvine22. I think this report can be labeled "resolved" and filed away for posterity. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin in question did indeed read your talk page, which was the reason for re-blocking. Since that was unclear, I have left a final message on your talk page. HandThatFeeds is right. But now that the issue has been fully aired, hopefully the point has been made clear to you, and some others who didn't understand the point, and as you say, we can all move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're merely misunderstanding eachother here. My interpretation of your comment is that it is based upon the top half of my talk page. I realize there's a lot to sift through, but your comment on my talk page simply doesn't appear to have been written with knowledge of the more recent discussion that took place there. That is my only concern here--that people's opinions have been formed, and later acted upon, based on a less than complete set of information. In the interests of moving forward, however, it may be best to agree to disagree on this, so as not to restoke the flames. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721 has returned using more IP socks.

This time, using 70.141.193.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same IP range, geolocation, and articles as the other Mathemagician57721 socks. —Farix (t | c) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And now just violated 3RRs on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu using a different IP, 75.28.54.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm from Springfield, MO and I edited Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (without even making the edit that Mathemagician57721 was blocked for repeatedly making!), therefore I'm a sockpuppet of Mathemagician57721? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:DUCK, same IP range, same geolocation, same editing pattern, same set of article. Expecally after you started editing Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu soon after the semi-protection expired do to previous vandalism from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the same edit that Mathemagician57721 made to the article, despite the fact that I clearly would have if I were a sockpuppet. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in the same disruptive behavior that Mathemagician57721 and his socks have been on the same set of articles using the same set if IP addresses originating from the same ISP and from the same location. There are far far too many similarities. —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week as an obvious sock of User:Mathemagician57721. MuZemike 04:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is back with another named sock, User:CombinationPermutation. Also doing a new SPI to get all these and the others catalogged and properly tagged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski Article Inappropriate Desires

My mistake to start my editing career on Wiki at Polanski, (there is probably a little ditty you could make with that), and I have learned that I really don't enjoy this sort of writing. So, thanks! (Checking off Wiki Editor from bucket list.) That said, I am not going to get into a Talk editing war, but I think that this sort of thing belongs in a chat room and not on a talk page:

::I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.

The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).

However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the experience to know how this is handled. Thank you to all the Admins who have put in time on the article.Oberonfitch (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The material on this topic is only going to expand. "Recentism" will inevitably lead to substantial coverage of it, perhaps out of proportion. I agree with the view that the 1977 arrest and 2009 re-arrest should be covered in a separate article, where the weight issues won't be a concern. An appropriately long summary should be kept in this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• That said, this is a discussion for Talk:Roman Polanski, not this page.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• See also Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Roman Polanski. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• We should proceed as with Barack Obama and other pages similarly contentious: inappropriate sections, such as sections attempting to push a point of view that is not supported by reliable sources and violate BLP, should be summarily removed or collapsed (using {{hat}}). Editors should be advised, warned and blocked if necessary. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#99.144.255.247. Cenarium (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

I have recently had a few interactions with User:gu1dry we were involved in an content dispute and a 3RR report that he made .

Because of the negative interactions we have had, I put a message on his talk page explaining my actions and stating

I think we are not interacting well together, maybe we can both enjoy working on the same articles a little more in the future, from the articles you have edited it seems we share common interests - consider this comment to be an olive branch.

I got this message from User:gu1dry A. The editing warring, I posted had nothing to do with you & I would love to point out all the "incidents" you've had, with the extremely few "contributions" you have made. B. EdJohnston posted on my talk, therefore I would naturally go to their talk page if I have something to voice, which I did obviously. C. Your so called "olive branch" is not a peaceful gesture but an insult. And I'm really starting to get sick of your arrogance, especially since you hide behind your pitiful IP. There was no consensus on the STI issue, discussions take time on Misplaced Pages & you have jump the jumped the boat too early. So please stay out of my way & DiaF]. I really don't care if I'm blatantly not being civil, because I'm really sick of you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I take offence to my offer of an olive branch being responded to with numerous personal attacks all within one message, I also think the "I really don't care" comment shows a lack of respect for the rules we are supposed to be following.

Note: DiaF means Die in a Fire ]

119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. Can you try explaining it again, but more briefly and starting at the beginning not the end? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah, sure - the above is a bit of an essay - give me 5mins and I will change it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I frankly do not give a fuck if I blocked at this point so let's play this way. Let's review 119.173.81.176's past interact with others.

• Wonderful edit comment:
• Personal attack #1:
• Personal attack #2:
• Edit warring with SchnitzelMannGreek: ,
• Provoking/personal attacking SchnitzelMannGreek: , , , , ,
• Provoking/personal attacking Until It Sleeps: ,
• Being blocked & their response:
• Baiting Greglocock:
• Edit warring on BMW:
• Edit warring on Subaru Impreza WRX STI: , (there was no consensus on the issue & anon attempting to rush the process)

 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attack number two was me restoring a user talk page comment that was deleted by an editor other than the user whose talk page it was. not my personal attack.

the above are not relevant to this issue - they either relate to issues that I have been blocked for or are not personal attacks - would you like me to be blocked for edits that I have already been blocked for?

it does not matter if I have been blocked a million times for posting goatse - I still don't deserve personal attacks. I interacted with you in a civil manner and deserve the same in return. The fact that you do not give a fuck if I blocked says it all really.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I will no longer respond to you & really if DiaF bothers you (which is really the only thing that be taken as a personal attack), you need to leave the internet, like now. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This was in response to the anon pointing out that he was edit warring (). This is uncalled for and can in no way be justified whatever his past interactions with the anon are. The above comments and diffs also indicate that Gu1dry is aware that he has breached WP:CIVIL, but is continuing to do so. What makes you think your comments are justified? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

you need to leave the internet is entirely inappropriate, and should be retracted soonest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a little stale, could someone give it a little attention please? Excuse me for being a little tongue in cheek, but as the user "doesn't give a fuck if he is blocked" - so why not take him at his word? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus

Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good morning from Manhattan.

1. I'm in a Content dispute with the above two (2) editors.
2. Both - to the best of my recollection - were heavy contributors to historical revisionism and/or to historical revisionism (disambiguation) related articles.
3. A {{stub}} called "Revisionist historians (American)" was being developed jointly by myself and User:North Shoreman.
4. Suddenly User:Philip Baird Shearer appeared and Restricted me from editing an unspecified set of nine (9) articles related to the above topic.
5. User:Philip Baird Shearer maintains that I violated the "POV Forking" policy of Misplaced Pages.
6. I did no such thing. However, I see now how User:Philip Baird Shearer came to the conclusion that I did.
7. I understand very well a most important policy of Misplaced Pages - to edit by consensus.
8. I also fully understand the anti-point-of-view-forcking policy.
9. I certainly will look to be much more cautious in the future so that my creation of {{stubs}} cannot possibly be misconstrued as "Forking" instances.
10. I sincerely apologize to these two editors for any distress I have caused them. That was never my intent.
11. However, in my opinion, Misplaced Pages reputation requires that the nine (9) articles related to historical revisionism be substantially improved to conform to WP:Original research and WP:Neologism policies.
12. There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.
13. Since I understand all these things now very well, it is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to Restrict me from articles where, in fact, I may attain a consensus favoring my views.
14. At the moment, I understand that regarding Content, I have no Consensus it's one (me) against two (the two above named editors).
15. Therefore, I ask that nine ((9) Restrictions are lifted as totally un-necessary.

• PS: The DAB page now appears to have been deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough, just over a week ago (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009 I asked for a review of a decision I had made. Not one of the people who took part in that conversation agreed with your position that I had acted unreasonably. I strongly suggest that you drop this ANI request. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that "Confrontation" = number of ANI threads. I'm not "Confronting" any editor in this regard. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question? WP "ANI" is a wonderful place to resolve disputes. This is NOT a confrontation. Asking Help at ANY is a "Confrontation"? If it is, I'll drop it immediately, and apologize. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, PBS. I'm not saying that you "acted unreasonably." Quite the contrary. I understand now fully why you believed I had created a "POV Fork." I know now that I must be extremely careful not to do that because "historical revisionism" is controversial. I'm am not at all "Confronting" you. Or judging your conduct. I'm only saying that the Restrictions you are holding against me are 100% un-necessary. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I certainly did not deliberately create a Fork. But I can see now how you would think that I have. So I sincerely apologize to you for all the distress I must cause you.
• I think we do have a Content disagreement. But I don't think that should cause any problems - because I understand now how to be extremely careful with "historical revisionism" related articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Again, PBS, I really understand now how badly my editing involving these articles must look to you. But I promise you that I will go very slowly. Check to make sure nothing in this area looks like a POV Fork. I also fully understand the need for Consensus. So there's no need to Restrict me from these nine (9) articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• There was very little activity in this area. And I though I was just WP:Bold. But now I know that I need to slow down - to give other editors, like yourself, a chance to respond. After all, one might be away from one's PC for a couple of days - and then be shocked at what happened to an article. I fully understand that now. I think I went to fast. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PBS This is all about me - that I know how to be an excellent editor in this area. I'm not Confronting you. I'm only asking you to give me a chance to prove myself to you. Please do that for me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Look. I'm really an excellent Content editor (my "stub" blossom into "flowers": ] --Ludvikus (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep restrictions until May 2010. WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. I know - I was on the receiving end of one on 1-3 October. During the process, I found myself being accused of racism. The person who made the accusation afterwards realised that he was mistaken and apologised.

When people who have been repeatedly banned are allowed back to Misplaced Pages, it seems sensible to have them under probation. If the ban was for two years, then that probationary period should be a lot longer than 2 weeks.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. But Toddy1, you and I resolved our difference just today: . --Ludvikus (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And we've worked so well together (100%) in the last two days on world domination, Talk:World domination, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, & . So our record shows that I'm an excellent editor by you, in spite of your vote against me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not on "probation," User:Toddy1. I'm only Restricted from Nine (9) articles. The community recognizes me as an excellent Content editor. I avoid the two (2) articles which caused me WP problems in the past: "Philosophy" and "On the Jewish Question." It's the last which resulted in my Ban. But I'm a far better editor now in understanding Wiki rules. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the Restrictions is to avoid "disruption." It's not to "punish" an editor. And since I understand that I should be extremely careful with historical revisionism related articles - because they are controversial, there's no need to Restrict me from them. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You apparently do not understand that I have not made ANY criticisms of the above two named editors. I'm only naming them because it is with them that I have a Content disagreement. You also do not understand, apparently, that it is I who am being subjected to an evaluation, not the two people above. I'm not saying a single critical word about them as Wikipedians in relation to their performance by WP rules. Having a Content disagreement is 100% OK. One just should not let that degenerate into violating WP rules. So I suggest you reconsider what you say here about me. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<--Where have I written what you created was a POV fork? This seems like the mistake you made in not reading carefully the restrictions that I placed on you and which I had to repeatedly point out to you were not as you had read them.

I said you had created a content fork on a redirect page which the consensus before you were blocked was not not to do so Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism. Anyone who reads the reasons for your two year block, in the archives of your talk pages, and the talk archives of the historical revisionism, related articles, and other pages, will see just how disruptive your behaviour was. For example as soon as it was clear that you did not have agreement to create "Revisionist historians", -- the last posting the talk page on that subject (in the section liked above) was at "15:46, 13 May 2008" -- you then posted a "requested move" to move "Historical revisionism" → "Revisionist historians" at "18:03, 13 May 2008" only two hours latter! It was you inability to work constructively with other editors which earned you a two year ban.

You were unblocked at 08:06 on 21 September 2009. Less than a day later you posted a comment to the talk page of "Historical revisionism" at 03:19 22 September, waiting for less than ten minutes for a reply, at 03:27 on 22 September you altered "revisionist historians" from a redirect to a stub.. Despite User:North Shoreman objecting to your edits you pressed on regardless (see Talk:Historical revisionism and history Revisionist historians] which drove a coach and horses through you promise before the unblock that "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...."

As a 16 month ban had apparently taught you nothing, I had hoped that 8 months restricting you from an area where you cause so much disruption (for example creating articles like Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) on 11:59, 5 May 2008) will allow you time to develop you collegiate skills, but this ANI makes me wonder if that is possible. --PBS (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. PBS. Please be fair to me. This is about the need to Restrict me now. I've edited hundreds of articles at Misplaced Pages. But I was Banned for Two years because of editing at On the Jewish Question. The Administrator who Banned me gave the Reason as "disruption." That's over. I learned my lesson. There's no point to go over what I did wrong in 2008.
2. A generous editor - not you - but I do not mean to say you're not - lifted my ban before the two years were up.
3. Thereafter, after quite a few edits by me, you Restricted me for a Fork violation. You did not claim that I'm disruptive.
4. The issue now is whether I have learned my lesson. If I have - then there's no need for a Restriction.
5. If we look again - we will find that "POV" is why I'm restricted. If you wish, I'll gather the Diff's for that.
6. But the issue is narrow - what reason is there for Restricting me from the historical revisionism set of 9 articles if I assure that I will do my best not to violate any rules which would give you cause to find fault with me? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: Here's the "POV" & "NPOV" reason you had given me for the nine (9) Restrictions regarding historical revisionism: ,. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2: There's no need to go into my past. You're complaint involves my alleged WP "fork". What ever different kinds of Forks there are at Misplaced Pages, I understand the most important thing about them - do not write a SECOND article because you wish to get around the FIRST article which you do not like - and the MAJORITY is against you. And I know that if I do that with historical revisionism I'll be in big trouble with you. So there's no need to Restrict me. Again, I know I must be very, very careful with these pages. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS3: I was NOT explicitly Blocked because Historical revisionism. I was Blocked by User:El_C for On the Jewish Question. So I had no reason to be extremely careful regarding historical revisionism. And besides, look at what I did: (1) I abbreviated an expression by substituting "pejorative" and (2) flagged the section with a POV tag. And also made comments on the Talk pages. That's what you cite as my violation. But the point is - I know now that I must be extremely cautious because you could even Block me for a violation. So, again, there no need to Restrict me.

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS4: The fact is that there were, and still are, only three of us on these pages - and I'm the minority. So there's no consensus in my favor unless just ONE of you TWO agrees with me. I would have to be an idiot not to know that I must this simple fact. And I hope you don't doubt that I'm no idiot. So just give me a chance to be able to work with both of you, with my full understanding of what constitutes a consesus. Hey, if I cannot convince the both of you - you win. That's an easy rule to follow. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- You are still not listening to other editors Toddy1 writes here "... . WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. ", but you carry on as if user:Toddy1 had not made such a comment to your comments, and I think Toddy1 is making a valid point. Have you read anything that I have written, because you write that "There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.", yet before you were unblocked you said ""... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor....", and despite that assurance you ignored User:North Shoreman, so what makes your new assurance worth anything? I do not see from the tone of your postings, that since your unblocking that you have learnt anything. I hope over the next few months that you will. "you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?" (Full Metal Jacket). -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, let me repeat what I wrote last week: "Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Misplaced Pages, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block." It is a rare leopard that can change its spots. — ] (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of warning left on user talk:Ludvikus

I do not think we have any significant previous interaction, I believe I am completely uninvolved here. What I see is that you were blocked for a long time due to your excessively combative style, and you were unblocked following an undertaking not to be combative. You are now giving every impression of hounding those with whom you disagree, and seeking to escalate content disputes where you are clearly in a minority. Your protestations that this is not disruptive are not persuasive to me. I am therefore giving you a final warning: reduce your drama to content ratio, accept consensus even when you disagree with it, or the block will be reinstated.

I think it would help if everybody could do what they can to de-escalate this dispute, but it's clear to me that Ludvikus is the problem and not the others involved, most of whom do not seem to be habitual drama mongers. Folks seem to think that if Ludvikus can stay calm his edits are mainly OK, this I will take on trust, but he does not seem to be able to handle consensus going against him. That's his problem not that of consensus, IMO. Can we call this resolved for now? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an Administrator, Guy? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your Talk page indicates you came to Misplaced Pages September 1, 2009. Does that mean you only have one month's experience at Misplaced Pages? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• You have only a Talk page listed - so I cannot tell if you're an Administrator advising me now? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is, in fact, an admin. And has been here since 2006. → ROUX ₪ 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Therefore I give his position great weight. I will abide by whatever determination is made regarding my request to have my nine (9) Restrictions lifted from the family of articles related to historical revisionism. I just request that I be informed of the determination here made. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you check his contribs, he was already on talk archive 7 in January 2006 (so he's obviously quite a bit older); do a bit of checking before asking a question that sounds so loaded....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's "he"? Me? "You talking to me?" Taxi Driver (film) --Ludvikus (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Due to the specific editing restrictions placed by the community on the article for Sarah Palin, I believe it's appropriate to note here that a report has been filed this report at wp:anew this morning regarding an editing dispute currently taking place at the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, it's up to seven reverts and counting. It would be helpful if an administrator could take a moment to deal with the report. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. Protection is not an endorsement of this version of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to borrow from Bwilkins. "Bwilkins first rule of Edit Warring: Except for clear vandalism, DON'T. No excuses" --Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've processed the report, blocking the edit warrior for a week (following two recent 72h blocks for edit warring).  Sandstein  19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of avoiding further protection, I've placed a note on Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring asking that a one-revert policy be maintained on that page, and also hoping for a clean start. Sandstein, would you be willing to reduce or remove your block of Scribner? I understand it completely, but it can always be re-imposed, and I'd love to give everyone a chance on that article to try things this way. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the past day, I'd likewise be willing to support User:Scribner's unblock, provided he agrees to abide by a one (and only one) revert restriction at Sarah Palin. As well, I've posted a survey at the article as to whether or not the tags should be removed, and it would be helpful and appropriate for User:Scribner to contribute. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection to any administrator lifting the block if they are confident that doing so won't cause editwarring to resume.  Sandstein  19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Confident that it won't cause edit warring to resume? I won't be so brave as to say that. ;) But I'd love to give the 1RR thing there a chance, and I (and hopefully other administrators) will be enforcing it with blocks, so I'm going to lift that block on Scribner in a bit here. Thanks very much. kmccoy (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Scribner's account since I'm confident the edit warring on that article won't continue (for the next 24 hours...). Any administrator is free to reblock if the disturbance moves to other pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks to those involved in my unblock. I suppose I should have requested a page protection before I engaging in a tag revert war. Since an admin had commented in my favor on the issue, I thought, and still do think, my actions were correct. So, random removal of tags from articles is not considered vandalism? Scribner (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD)No. As I told you here in the middle of your edit war, vandalism is clearly defined and not subject to each editor's interpretation. By the way, I'm sure every editor feels their actions are correct. That's why we have policies to encourage discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense but your comment was so vague I couldn't tell which side of the issue you were on. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." So you do don't think removing tags placed in good faith compromises the integrity of Misplaced Pages? Obviously, I disagree. Scribner (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism to justify edit warring is just gaming the system. Vandalism is something that no one can reasonably argue improves the article. Plenty of people made reasonable arguments on both sides of keeping and removing those tags. That is not vandalism. Vandalism is when someone blanks an entire article, or someone adds gibberish text, or offensive text, etc. Anything else is a content dispute. Even blanking of sections is a content dispute. Also, let me make it clear that administrators do not get to make content decisions any more or less than any other editors. You cannot justify an edit war with the blessing of an administrator. Please stick with the edit restrictions given at Talk:Sarah Palin for everyone's benefit. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion of this at Talk:Sarah Palin, for convenience and to keep the noise on ANI down. kmccoy (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm serious, I think removing a tag without discussion is vandalism. And, that happen today. I didn't tag the article to "game the system", that's a ridiculous claim and it's not appreciated. I normally only contribute to wiki when I find POV violations. I could care less about Palin's article, until now that I know that it's being nested and bias is being protected. Scribner (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply removing a tag without discussion is WP:BOLD, not vandalism. At that point, things should enter WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. If the tag just gets re-added and removed, it becomes an edit war; but, simply removing it the first time is not vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States

What is going on in Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Just walked in to fix a ref, and saw something fishy with the edits of Ragazz (talk · contribs). Debresser (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason you've brought this to ANI? I've reviewed the recent edits and I don't see anything unusual of late. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to claim something about the president of the US that is contradictory to itself. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A POV-push about Obama. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That could have been clarified. And, as of yet, it should be handled on the appropriate talk pages, from what I can see. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous Bot from an Admin

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look into this bot from this admin? His bot erroneously included a BLP article of a nigerian award winning actress into a porn-list-log. As wikipedia is being used nowadays by the media as a source, such an inclusion into a porn-log list not only has the power to potentially damage the reputation of the subject of the BLP, but also violates against existing US and international laws. Lastly, the erroneous bot also included the article in question into other log-lists that have nothing whatsover to do with the subject of the BLP. Anybody, admin or no admin, who is unable to properly use a bot, should not play around with bots. Your admin assistance is needed here please. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you strike what could be constituted as a legal threat in your remarks. You've notified Alex, but I'm not exactly sure what User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameLog does. A number of articles on list are clearly not related to pornography and from what I can tell, the feed is just something someone else came up with as a series of rules per these instructions. It may just be a very over-inclusive list so that the Wikiproject members can find articles to tag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

no legal threat intented. Amsaim (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that seems like exactly what it does. Following these general rules it just lists everything it finds so that people at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pornography#New_articles can see it. Now, you may consider asking Alex to add a small description at the top of each of his feeds so that people aren't confused. Otherwise, I don't really see any issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Amsaim, Do you have a Conflict of interest here? While it was very good that you reported the incident to the user, a ANI report was unnecessary, as was calling the bot's edits as "insultive" a bot cannot insult someone unless it is programmed to do so. Media companies will (should) research any information they find in a article, and I can assure you that they don't look at a category list or a log. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported this incident to ANI on recommendation of another admin found on my talk page. Amsaim (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A point of clarification: you are looking at the log of a run in which the bot rejected including that article in the new articles feed for the porn wikiproject. The log of articles reported as possible matches is here. Her article, when matched against the ruleset, was determined not to meet the criteria. Maralia (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add that, given the article is also at all these log pages, I don't think anyone should be surprised wherever it is found at. My personal favorite is that it make the Chess one for using the word "Queen." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a reject list, it should be explained at the top and the bot task still needs approved. This task did not start til two years after the bot was created. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Amsaim, it's not a "porn log". It's a log of actions by a 'bot in response to a set of rules. Those rules weren't even written by Alex Bakharev. If you had paid attention to the edit history, you would have seen that the creator and maintainer of User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedName is Tabercil.

Rlevse, it's a 'bot that does nothing but parse rulesets and write only into sub-pages of the 'bot's own user space. Such 'bots don't need approval, per the 'bot policy. The 'bot approvals system is not (yet) that ridiculously bureaucratic. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The log file is basically a debugging tool, so that people who are trying to set up rules can see why a given article was or wasn't picked up. The actual output from the bot can be found here -- you can see that the Stephanie Okereke did not get picked up. Even if it had it wouldn't matter -- many rule sets give lots of false positives. By the way the AlexNewArtBot is incredibly useful -- there is no way I could possibly spot all the new neuroscience articles that show up without watching User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgent Page Move Vandalism

Either a Bambifan101 or Grawp sock, who knows, but Eeheeheeheeheeheehee (talk · contribs) is moving dozens of articles and Misplaced Pages pages to vandalistic titles, primarily personal attacks at me. Needs quick blocking and reversion! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(merged in report below --MASEM (t) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Would somebody with appropriate tools undo the page moves by Eeheeheeheeheeheehee (talk · contribs)? Massive page move vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've indef'd the user, will start working on movebacks but help appreciated. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All done, I think. I've move-protected the most visible pages. Isn't there supposed to be an abuse filter that picks up sleepers like this? Black Kite 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all of you who had quick reflexes. I was about to come here to report him but it seems like it was not necessary. It's ScienceGolfFanatic, by the way ... a relatively new, but very persistent vandal who seems determined to one day get his name listed alongside those other two. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Is skipping to a final warning appropriate in cases like this? I'm getting flak because I used {{uw-vand4}} instead of allowing him/her time to continue their rampage by going through the entire 1, 2, 3, 4 routine. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • If you see page-move vandalism at all, no matter what they are doing, report them to AIV immediately, no warnings. J.delanoy_adds 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, it's hard to tell what you were pasting the warning in reply to. If he was already doing the pagemoves by then, I'd say yes, don't worry about it. As J.delanoy says, that kind of vandalism doesnt deserve warnings. As this thread indicates, Collectonian and myself and probably some other people were all coming here to get him blocked as soon as possible. But if you find a lot of people on your talk page telling you that you're being too quick to jump up to high level warnings, it might be good to calm down a little. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • That wasn't the case here. Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
              • It's actually been just one editor, apparently based on his misunderstanding of UTM. When he threatened to issue warnings to me because of it, however, I wanted to get feedback from others. Thank you all for your comments. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

I am here reluctantly, to ask for intervention of some kind in the case of user TJ Spyke. TJ is an editor for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling, and I have nothing against him. However, as of late there has been an ongoing discussion about his editing habits, which has caused disruption to the project, and by default the encyclopedia. A small matter has caused a long and drawn out issue. I ask that anyone commenting read the thread at the project talk page which has examples and an explanation which I can only partially recount here. See:

At some point in the past there was a consensus reached on a content issue, that stated the names of two wrestling relate programs on the encyclopedia. Some users decided to change links to link to the new pages, some changed the links to look like they pointed to the new articles and some changed them to point to the redirects. Due to the sheer size of the discussion, it is difficult to judge who did what and so on. In any case, that isn't the issue.

An editor found fault with TJ's edits and brought a discussion to the project. It appears that the majority believe that TJ's editing of the articles is disruptive, against consensus and should be stopped. Most were against bringing this here, but some users fear that this is the only hope for TJ. It should be noted that TJ did show a willingness to compromise, but his proposal was unacceptable. I would leave this before you, to hopefully resolve the issue of whether TJ acted wrongly, so we can proceed with improving the encyclopedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay as a somewhat vet of WP:PW, not sure if I classify as one though, I'll fill in the matter. A while back the articles WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy went under three discussions at once on three different talk pages (Naming conventions , WT:PW, and WT:TV). The result was to move the articles from their US names to their common international names and to refer to the shows by their common names, that being ECW and SmackDown. TJ and, I believe, Truco were against the change. Truco came around while TJ because remain steadfast against the decision and began a seeming campaign to get them moved back. In his edit summary he would post something along the lines of "Help the effort to get WWE SmackDown and ECW (WWE) moved back to their correct names". This attracted a few editors such as Bulletproof, Truco, etc, who all asked him to quit. He somewhat did. He posted on his user page "Help move ECW and SmackDown back to their CORRECT names of ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown, not the bastardized names they are at right now." Now he just posts "ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown" in his edit summary. The probably grew bigger when he began to change redirects and correct links to "ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown" in all types of pages: Archives, talk, user, etc. He has continued this, and has caused a disruption as such. We've asked him to stop, but won't.--WillC 22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made my point several times, but I will summarize here. First, I would change MAYBE 1 article per day on average (how 1 article per day is disruptive is beyond me). Second, the names I was putting in are the primary names of the shows and ARE official (it would be like writing George Walker Bush instead of George W. Bush). Third, the user who wanted to bring this discussion to here (which is not the above user) seems to think they are free to violate the guideline against "fixing" redirects by changing the primary names of these shows to their international names. Even if the consensus is to use the international names for the articles names over the primary names used by the company, that doesn't give the editors (who from what i've seen is being done by 2 or 3 editors) free reign to go around changing the links. I would also like to point out that I stopped changing the links several days ago, but when I pointed out that they would have to stop too I was accused of harassing one editor (by leaving a polite message on his talkpage remindind him of the guideline against changing redirects) and accused of being disruptive. TJ Spyke 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted TJ Spyke has a history of not getting along with others, as well as edit warring. If anyone looks at that discussion (linked to in the first post), he made several rude remarks just because people disagree with him. He acts like he is right and everyone else is wrong, which is a poor attitude to have. Disagreements can happen, but it doesn't justify his behavior towards others. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To get action at ANI, generally you need to state clearly which Misplaced Pages policies were violated, and point to specific edits that violated them. Your complaint is so fuzzy on details that an admin would have to read massive amounts of material just to figure out what the problem actually is. Looking over the talk page, it is clear that numerous editors are unhappy with TJ's actions, but it isn't so clear exactly what they are unhappy about. (I am not an admin, just to be clear.) Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my above message to get more of an idea of the situation. We want him to quit changing correct links to redirects to prove a WP:Point.--WillC 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to the fact TJ has stated that he would stop the disruptive editing of the links however he's continued and since then to break WP:POINT, as shown there in his edit summary, now these edit summaries are also a part of the disruption. Afro 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Concise summary: Ultimately, this is a fight over invisible redirect coding. One editor is changing wikilinks to a ] format because he doesn't like the current article titles, while others are changing them back to ]. The user who added the redirect links believes that the guideline against "fixing" redirects refers only to people changing them to a direct link rather than to people adding redirects. He is therefore accusing the others of violating guidelines while claiming that he has not violated a guideline. Commentary: Why anyone cares one way or the other and why anyone would think that administrators don't have anything to do is beyond me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is dumb. But we've delt with dumber things in the past. I take it as moving forward.--WillC 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 edit summaries that Afro posted are a great example of TJ's behavior. He reverted vandalism with misleading edit summaries. ECW and Smackdown has NOTHING to do with reverting any of that vandalism. --RobJ1981 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago, WP:PW agreed to WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy to WWE SmackDown and ECW (WWE) respectively. The reason behind the move was that these television programs were more commonly known under the SmackDown and ECW names than the Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy names, which is how they are only known as in the United States. So the argument was made that because the two programs are only known in the United States as Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy while in the rest of the world they are simply known as SmackDown and ECW, the two articles should be moved to their WP:COMMONNAME. Soon after the consensus was made, User:TJ Spyke began protesting. Finally after his attempts to return the articles to their former names failed, TJ began an endless campaign of wikilink breaking that involved changing all WWE SmackDown and ECW (WWE) wikilinks to WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy, the names that he preferred. When I first noticed this I simply disregarded it and thought it was ridiculous. I didn't think any more of it, but then it continued and I started seeing it more often. I finally decided to contact TJ about the issue but he simply blew me off . Then I noticed this edit. That's when I realized what was really behind this and found out about his campaign. Still, he ignored me and it was only after other editors spoke to him about the issue that he at least finally responded. (User:Afkatk) (User:Truco) I chose not to take this further (as in to WP:ANI) because I just assumed TJ would simply stop this ridiculous behavior... ...but every single time... the same thing ...again and again... The plain and simple issue here is this... It's one thing to be modifying wikilinks to link to redirected pages, but this seems to be much more than that, for him to be doing all of this for two entire months just to illustrate a point I think is disruptive and wasteful of everyone's time. 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan doesn't have it 100% right. Users like bulletproof are going around changing existing links, not just reverting my edits. They are going around changing links that have existed for a long time. I have not ignored anyone (despite some users claiming otherwise). Since I have stopped changing the links several days ago, not the users who disagree with me have nothing and are grasping for straws by claiming I am disrupting Misplaced Pages by including links in my edit summaries (even though I do add my normal edit summary as well). I have checked and don't see any guideline or policy I have violated, although the people who those who disagree with me have violated some. I have already stopped, they haven't. If anything, bulletproof is the one who should be reported. TJ Spyke 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now TJ, Just so we're clear... why exactly should I be reported? 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to bring this to the attention of the Admins, I feel these are links which didn't need fixing to begin with. Afro 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^Wait a minute... TJ, you're accusing me of fixing links which you intentionally broke... and you think there's something wrong with that? TJ, as User:Afkatk just showed... You do that every day! "Fixing" links that didn't need to be fixed in the first place! What this issue is about is how you are intentionally breaking wikilinks by making them link to redirected pages to prove a WP:POINT. 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixing links I broke? Several of the links you "fixed" today had been like that since before the articles were moved, I did not change them at all. As for me fixing links every day, yesterday was the first time in several days I had fixed any links and even before that I didn't do it every day. And again, I haven't changed any ECW/SmackDown links in several days and I agreed to stop (but want people like you to stop trying to "fix" existing ones). TJ Spyke 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring this edit to everyone's attention, where he keeps the correct link in the article but changes what it says to "Friday Night SmackDown", the name not agreed upon. This is one of the main problems, his constant violation of a consensus. Plus the match types he added back into the article were agreed on the talk page to not be on significance. So two violations in one edit.--WillC 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I swear Will, sometimes you make me want to hit my head against a wall. First you say I "constantly" violate consensus. I did not change the link (although I was well within my right to do so if I wanted too). Second, that was the first time in several days that I made any kind of change and I did not even change the link. Second, how is putting notable info (and yes the info I put in IS notable to the title history) a violation? TJ Spyke 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't use Friday Night SmackDown at all unless referring to the US names only. The consensus was to use the common names. The links is only part of the problem. It was agreeed on Talk:List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) that they were not notable, a seeming consensus. You edit war over those notes constantly with multiple editors. It is your opinion they are notable, but the agreement is against you.--WillC 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to jump in here, but, TJ, the point is, you should not have changed the appearance of the link, it was unnecessary, and I believe you knew it would cause a problem. I do suggest that discussions from involved editors go back to WP:PW, unless you are presenting information to the Admins. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, FNS is just as correct and accurate as SD and both are acceptable. You are basically saying "it doesn't matter what the primary name is or what WWE considers the main name, I think we should only use the secondary name used for international markets". It's one think to want all the links to be for those names, but apparently you have a problem with Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy to even appear on Misplaced Pages other than when talking specifically about US airings. That is a joke and is not helping anyone take our project seriously. You don't see people going around and changing every mention of "Famicom" to "NES" even though the only country to use the Famicom name was Japan. TJ Spyke 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. What you are doing is turning this ] into this ] (intentionally changing links to redirects) and not this ] into ]. Do you see the difference here? 04:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote for trouts all around and encouraging editors to use their editing time doing things that actually matter. This issue and ANI report are a waste of everyone's time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and would be happy to provide trouts for all. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Statement Ok, based on UnquestionableTruth's diffs, this is what is before the admins. TJSkype has created double redirects in contrast to WP:2R. Based on what I read here and on the project page, he has a pattern of causing disruption, that stays just within the rules to keep himself from getting in too much trouble. This places him in violation of WP:CIVIL. He has skirted WP:CONS, but indeed broken it by not bringing his actions before the community when he saw they were controversial. He is in conflict with our editing policy, making minor changes to create a more "complete" or "accurate" encyclopedia.

I bring your attention to WP:DIS which states: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Whether of not TJ is right, or within the rules is inconsequential. His editing is disruptive, and this body should take action.

I believe this is necessary. Look at the reasons for not taking action. "It wont help." "This is a waste of time" Are these the indicators of the attitude we want on wikipedia? "He's causing trouble but hes not breaking the rules." "It doesn't matter." I encourage you all to vote now and to take action swiftly. I will not recommend a sentence, but whatever the outcome, act, and do so quickly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I already stopped the so-called "disruption" (although I don't agree with the accusation of it being disruptive) several days ago and agreed not to change the links to "ECW (WWE)" and "WWE SmackDown". As for my past, almost every incident has ended with me being right. People get upset because I am honest and don't sugarcoat anything. TJ Spyke 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't have links say ] ] either. That is apart of the problem. Not you changing links to redirects, but using the US names. We must use the common names to be correct.--WillC 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Using an official name (which the company considers the primary name of the show) IS correct. I should point out to admins that I have not done that recently either (even though I can, it's ridiculous that certain users want to erase any mention of the primary name of the shows). TJ Spyke 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Turpan/Turfan

A month ago moved the page Turfan to Turpan (the reasons aren't really relevant here, but can be found at Talk:Turpan#Title), and changed the text accordingly in about 80 articles that link there. Alefbe contested this today and, after we each re-moved the page, I have tried to have a discussion with him at the talk page. He has ignored the discussion and ignored my suggestion that he seek outside opinions; then, after walking away from this discussion, he proceeded to go start undoing my spelling changes in all the articles that link to this one. In other words, he wasn't willing to discuss the naming change at the main article, but felt he could go and edit war across 80 other ones if he couldn't win his argument at the main one.

I BOLDly blocked him while he was doing the reverts, to avoid having an 80-article edit war started. I left a message saying I will unblock him immediately, as long as he agrees to participate in the discussion and not edit war across scores of articles. Just thought I'd leave a message here to get some other eyes on this as well (and to undo my block if people think it was inappropriate—like I said above, I know I'm involved but I was being BOLD, and the block is preventative rather than punitive, and is not intended to stay for any longer than 30 minutes...hopefully much shorter than that). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This block and misuse of rollback was totally inappropriate. — RockMFR 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you did not "change the text accordingly" a month ago. I think Rjanag is being far too aggressive here. Highly inclined to block him for the duration that Alefbe is blocked. See other discussion here. Gimmetrow 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text accordingly a couple days ago, after having waited over a month and seeing no objections to the new name (apologies for the poor wording in my earlier statement). I am also discussing this with Alefbe at his talk page.

Again, the only reason I was being "aggressive" was to IAR and prevent a massive revert-war across 80 articles. also, as I explained to Alefbe at his talk page, the reverts he was making across numerous articles were reverts he knew were going to be contentious (and he did them deliberately, knowing that), whereas my edits a couple days ago were ones that no one had objected to. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And as for your link to the AN thread: that's an example of just what I"m talking about, Alefbe's refusal to respond to the discussion I was trying to have. Are you saying it's appropriate for a user like him to say "ok, I'm not willing to have a discussion with you about your change in this article...but I'd like to go revert 80 other articles now even though I have not bothered to respond to your discussion?"

And as for the "aggressiveness" of my block... it's only a 30-minute block. Like I said above, I just wanted to stop him before a massive revert-war happened, and try to get a real discussion to happen. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And (in case there aren't enough ands here), I did report this block here myself, didn't I? It's not like I gave Alefbe no opportunities to be unblocked...I submitted my own block here for review, for the sake of transparency. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've unblocked Alefbe. If one spelling was common in articles, and it redirected, could it have been left alone? WP:NOTBROKEN and all? Gimmetrow 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The spelling in the other articles could have been left alone with no serious problems, but again: when I first changed it from Turpan to Turfan, it was not a contentious change because no one was objecting to it. Alefbe, on the other hand, started to make massive reverts to 80 articles when he knew there were objections and when he knew there was a discussion. (I won't go so far as to say there was a discussion "going on", since he was refusing to participating it. But there was a discussion sitting there waiting for him to join in.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This article gets few edits, and only about 100 views per day. Isn't it possible nobody who cared noticed before Alefbe? Gimmetrow 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, why does that matter? Like I said, when I made the change there was no one objecting to it. When Alefbe made it, someone was objecting. When an objection was raised, I participated in discussion and listed numerous reasons for the change (have you bothered to look at Talk:Turpan#Title before judging?), whereas Alefbe's response to objections was to ignore discussion and go look for other pages to edit war on. Is BOLD editing and rational discussion suddenly worse than deliberate edit warring? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was stable at one form for years. You changed that with some reason, but it doesn't seem to me a reason that Wiki policy gives preference, such as BLP issues. So you were being bold and Alefbe reverted. Might it have been better leaving those reverts - and the long-term status quo - in place? If Alefbe still refused to discuss, then it would be fairly clear where the faults were. Gimmetrow 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alefbe had ample opportunity to discuss what the article should be, and instead he set about reverting over and over again. Apparently these days you can get a free get-out-of-jail card by recusing yourself from any discussion that you don't like, and edit-warring instead. And is already was "fairly clear where the faults were". Are you suggesting that when an editor refuses to engage in discussion, I should stop editing the article forever in the off-chance that his unspoken arguments might have been really convincing? No—if he has convincing arguments, it's his responsibility to express them, rather than just going to look for another place where he can try to edit war while no one's looking. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I first discussed the issue in talk:Turpan and mentioned that your move wasn't justified (because "Turfan" is the common English spelling of the name). I also told you that after realizing that your move was contested, you should file a move request, rather than insisting in repeating your arguments and dismissing opinion of others. But anyway, the main issue here is that no matter what the title of the page is, you shouldn't use scripts for the systematic change of the common spelling of the name in all Misplaced Pages pages. Your edits in those 80 pages (without getting any consensus) were quite disruptive and your later rollback of those 17 pages (to insist on your systematic spelling change) was a clear misuse of the rollback tools and blocking me was a clear misuse of your admin tools. Alefbe (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of long term edit warring by Alefbe

This block was on one set of edit warring. This shows long term edit warring by Alefbe that resulted in multiple page protections. This user has edit warred on multiple pages on Iranian topics, refuses to build consensus, and is actively disruptive on hundreds of articles. I recommend a topic ban as the only way to possibly stop these actions. Edit warring is not appropriate in any regard and this user would rather push their own "truth" and edit war than actually discuss matters in a civilized manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to file and RfC against me, go and do it. This is not the right place for continuing your old disputes. Alefbe (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alefbe is right. This is just another of Ottava's vendettas against people who actually have some clue about Iranian history. Ignore. --Folantin (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans occur all the time against long term edit warriors. Folantin, your comments are only revealing that you have no respect for our policies when you support someone who edit wars merely because they edit war to your preferred version. According to WP:MEAT and WP:3RR, you too could be blocked for his edit warring to your version since you avoid making the 3RR by having him edit for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ban of user User:Fraberj

• Fraberj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (3rd)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (4th)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (5th)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fraberj
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fraberj

I am frankly getting tired of this user and his blatant disregard for policy. Awhile ago he was indef blocked for issuing legal threats, threats which I'm sure he still hasn't retracted, check his many talk pages. I'm sick of his soapboxing and using article talk pages to further his own goals, and I'm sick of his many, many sockpuppets.— Dædαlus 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support - I obviously support for the reasons above.— Dædαlus 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. After all those positive reports and blocks, why is he still here? Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I assumed he'd already had an indef. block. We need to do this ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know what else can be added, that behavior is intolerable. -- Atama頭 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - the sooner this is finished, the better. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Be gone. Crafty (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I reluctantly conclude this measure to be necessary. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - if only to dot the i's and cross the t's. → ROUX ₪ 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - has exhausted the community's patience. Auntie E. 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Wouldn't this be better as a request for comment on user conduct? 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that. Isn't he banned already? Five sock pages and several indef blocks should mean an indef block on sight, ostensibly the same as a ban. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He isn't listed as a banned user, and a search for his name turns up nothing, so I wish to make it formal, instead of informal.— Dædαlus 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a mixed opinion about this matter. Generally, I oppose editor bans; in spite of vandalism and ill-will, consensus and conscientiousness seem to win out; article quality improves regardless of bad editor behavior. Still, Faberj is very disruptive, shows no interest in developing encyclopedic content, and has a personal agenda that prevents and subverts comity. My ideals aside, wanton disruptive behavior does not help Misplaced Pages, and I am more interested in a quality encyclopedia than am I interested to see all comers participate in the generation of that encyclopedia. I'll support a permanent ban, if ban we must. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To prevent archival

As this is a ban discussion, I believe the broadest possible consensus should be obtained, and it should not be archived until finished, therefore, I am typing up this post to prevent premature archival.— Dædαlus 23:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Drama at Jewish Internet Defense Force

Two anons and a single-purpose account are having something of an edit war at Jewish Internet Defense Force. That article has attracted drama before. (The organization has previously expressed concern with their writeup in Misplaced Pages not being sufficiently favorable.) A day or two of semi-protection might be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, John. You may want to request this at WP:RPP. Basket of Puppies 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that should give that crowd some time to cool off. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of edit history

was modified to remove the IP or name of the editor. Could someone tell me which admin did this and the reason, in the name of tansparency?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That would normally mean the username itself was a personal attack or other gross policy violation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to ascertain the justification? I am not asking for the name, but do admins not list their reasons for doing this so that there be no question?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons are listed, but they're privileged; other editors with appropriate rights can and do monitor the logs to make sure things are above-board. I looked at the log for this one, for example, and it seemed a reasonable and appropriate use of the tool. --jpgordon 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, JP.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:S-J-S-F-M-W

This account is being disruptive and I think should be blocked. First of all, another user came to my talkpage (see User talk:Rjanag#Re: possible block) requesting that S-J-S-F-M-W be blocked for repeatedly re-creating a copyvio article. Secondly, he has edited with unapproved bots several times today; I gave him a "final warning" and he hasn't used an unapproved bot since, though, so this alone isn't a blockable offense yet. Finally, he seems to be engaging in horseplay in several places; at his BRFA, after I requested details on his bot's functions, he left this response; and at an MfD of one of his userpages, he left Hello!.

If you guys don't feel he needs to be blocked yet (which I could also understand; he's being a pain, but not destroying the wiki yet), I think his BRFA at least can be speedily closed as he obviously doesn't take it seriously. Although for that maybe I should contact a BAG directly (or is there a BRFA-related noticeboard somewhere?) (never mind, a BAG already beat me to this.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, and this is pretty funny too. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I late? wat 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd think blocking would be a good idea... User isn't helpful or contributing. Netalarmtalk 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, block is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also shows evidence of being an experienced editor, leading to questions about sockpuppetry and/or serial account user gaming the system. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably going to need a checkuser as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He already had an SPI a few days ago and they didn't find anything interesting. But anyway, what's the point of an SPI unless you have some other account to compare him to? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Concur with block; the oddness surrounding the BRFA they were involved in is scary. I have a feeling they do not want to contribute constructively. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• User is a likely sock of User:AndyCrogonka. On his user talk page, he mentions "helping" Andy on another wiki, and the MO is similar. Compare Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/SJSF-2-Bot with Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/AndyBot and Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/AndyzBot. In both cases, the operator seems to know little about running bots, and the "bot" makes edits that are clearly manual - vs. . Mr.Z-man 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given all this evidence (esp. teh last part), I have indefinitely blocked him.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ionas68224

User:216.241.55.204 has been attempting to stir up trouble regarding an alternate account or other alleged conflict of interest by User:David Shankbone. As it turns out, User:216.241.55.204 (as well as User:Nevadawp2) have acknowledged actually being socks of User:Ionas68224, an editor indefinitely banned for personal attacks and harassment. He has been advised on how to proceed should he wish to request an unblock, and it doesn't appear as though he has done so. Further, he appears to be engaging in disruptive behaviour and harassment all over again... user:J aka justen (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, folks...(Diff linked oversighted -v^_^v) user:J aka justen (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP for 1w, Nevadawp2 indef, and Oversight contacted. Will look over Nevadawp. -Jeremy 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlogged

If an admin or two could take a look at WP:AIV and clear the backlog, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On it -- Samir 03:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

23prootie/122.53.101.148

Check these edits to T:TDYK, where the IP 122.53.101.148 posts as user 23prootie (talk · contribs) who is currently blocked for 3 months.

• signs as 23prootie
• adds 23prootie for DYK credits, with the edit summary "block evasion?"
• and again, with edit summary "probably evading a block (WP:IAR)"

There are some similar edits in his contributions. Further, this IP has started editing on 3 October, the same day 23prootie was blocked. This IP is obviously being used by 23prootie to evade the block, or someone else is trying to get him in trouble for it (see the two weird edit summaries above). I just can't figure out which one it is. Any help? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant block evasion, I've blocked the IP for the remaining duration of prootie's block, but I am not opposed to an extension to 23prootie's original block. An extension to indefinite does seem appropriate since this user apparently has no desire to abide by our policies. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For ease of investigation: 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.53.101.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -MBK₀₀₄ 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended block. Enigma 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also blocked 194.213.52.82 for the same reason; same place, same edits. 194.213.52.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ≈ Chamal  ¤ 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock User:216.241.55.204 used for block evasion by User:Ionas68224

The IP above admitted on his talk page that he is a sock used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as simple:User:Jonas D. Rand. The IP was warned yesterday both at COIN and on his talk page by User:SlimVirgin that he should not be editing. IP returned today to edit war with User:J over harassing statements after a resolved issue. Also editing sensitive articles and starting talk page threads. -->David Shankbone 04:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly surprised he still feels he's wanted on any Wikimedia project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just gacked the bakebrain (see related thread above #Sock of User:Ionas68224). -Jeremy 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy. @Ryulong - little 's' in 'Simple', thank you for fixing the error. -->David Shankbone 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Best to keep the reaction prompt and bland; less likelihood of his sort reacting emotionally (i.e. continuing to sock). Durova 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I amended the wording to be more clear about the reference. -->David Shankbone 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks

Would somebody with Checkuser run Ericf9 (talk · contribs), Bigbusinessonly (talk · contribs) and Thisisamericamyfriends (talk · contribs)? They've all confined their edits to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bee Money and two of them have similar sig styles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tagged them all with SPA tags, placed {{notavote}} on the AfD. No real point in blocking them unless they're actively disruptive, the closing admin will take this into account, and you never know, the person/people behind them might start reading the policies quoted and become a good contributor. I've seen it before. Black Kite 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lapsed Pacifist

Is this eit covered under his topic ban: . I can´t sort it out.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is topic banned from articles related to Corrib gas project (broadly defined). Is Eoghan Harris connected with Corrib Gas, apart from the fact that they are both Ireland related subjects (too broadly defined IMO). Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

LP is currently only under an injunction on Corrib gas articles. LP however IS topic banned from topics related to the conflict in Northern Ireland from a previous RfAR. D4D is asking if they are in violation of this remedy. I have brought up some diffs relating to this at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lapsed_Pacifist. I added the same diff after the 2 admins discussed 2 initial diffs that I had concerns with. GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid question, but please keep discussion of the scope of ArbCom injunctions at arbitration enforcement.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chagai

This user has been making uncivilized and false comments in edit summeries of the article Bareket observatory, after I have nominated it to SD because in my opinion it was blatant advertisment. It must be noted that he was banned from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages for very similar reasons. I wood like that the admins here will assist me against such defamation. Broccoli (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You both need to go off and read WP:CIVIL a few times. Neither of you has behaved well here. Neither of your behaviours is likely to encourage other editors to assume good faith for either of you (as other editors are all paragons of impartiality, then this won't influence their opinions one jot, but it makes it harder work and less pleasant to have to work on an article under those conditions). An edit war will get neither of you anywhere, nor will anything that looks like POV pushing, advertorials or especially the vast cloud of WP:COI that hangs over this. Please behave yourselves, so that other editors can focus on the issues, not the politics. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take everything Andy has said to heart. You're both human and you're both civilized; you won't help either of your respective cases by arguing with each other. I'll leave Chagai a warning for personal attacks; Broccoli, I'm hoping that you hit the wrong key when you called Chagai "Chagay".

Either way, it would be best if you both stayed away from editing that article for a while. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A terrible mistake and typo which I of course apologize for. Broccoli (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Until It Sleeps is doing a mass revert

I can confirm that I am User:67.180.161.183, only I can't until I get back there. I travel alot... Unfortunately, Until It Sleeps is reverting every edit I make, so editing is tough. Can somebody stop this? --67.180.161.183WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)} this is actually 99.20.133.159 Wknight94 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently carryover from User talk:Baseball Bugs, etc. 67.180.161.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying as hard as s/he can to stay an IP, even from other locations. So now his/her other IP, 99.20.133.159, is signing as 67.180.161.183. Both IPs were pestering Baseball Bugs to create a sort of user page for the IP combination, with several other IPs commenting at User talk:67.180.161.183. The whole thing smells like a massive trolling campaign and I recommend putting an end to it sooner than later. Wknight94 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a he. And I use two IPs, and the other IPs are a bit confusing for me. I too noticed how many IPs tried to defend me, and I assure you, at least my part was not part of a massive trolling campaign. 99.20.133.159 (talk) or as I like to say it, --67.180.161.183WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

Wait- pestering? --67.180.161.183WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

I don't understand why you don't make a user account. It's a nightmare to keep confirming that you're the same person as another (which we haven't even done). I'm also curious as to where all those other IPs came from. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the user may already have an account that is blocked: 99.20.133.159 removed a message from a blocked user's talk page, some of the edits by 67.180.161.183 are similar to the blocked user, and 67.180.161.183 made an edit to User:Shii/Hoaxes adding a hoax created by a sockpuppet of the blocked user, and claiming that it had been there longer than it was. snigbrook (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• user 67.180.161.183, could you please stop using multiple IP address as your main user names? you risk been blocked.... Ecoman24 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you want me to do? hack the system? 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. What's going on? The title doesn't seem to relate to the thread. And I can't find any edits by aither IP on User talk:Baseball Bugs. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It refers to this probably: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:67.180.161.183&action=history

I see. Well, 67.180.161.183/99.20.133.159's edits seem justified. The problem seems to be they can't prove who they are until they get back to the old location. This method of editing as an IP from multiple locations does seem problematic, though- you risk impersonation by other IP addresses that can claim they're you. The only solutions I can come up with are 1. Resolve to edit using only one IP address or 2. create an account to use. You've already expressed you don't want to create an account, though, so I'm sorry if this isn't helpful. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest, IP editor; when you get home, email one of us to confirm your identity (on Misplaced Pages), then make a confirming edit from your address. That way we know who to talk to when someone says they're you. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• why can't he just create an account? Ecoman24 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Various IP editors have responded to this in different ways. I think 98.248.33.198's answer sheds some light: "If I did that (created an account) then those editors with tools and an anti-IP bias would be much more difficult to spot." A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 15:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're no longer seeing it on my talk page because I archived it. The IP kept trying to delete the Sinebot entry that indicated the actual IP that made the posting. →Baseball Bugs carrots 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was I never notified of this thread? Until It Sleeps 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one didn't bother because it's pointless. But the initiator - I guess we'll have to call him Mr. X - may have a better answer. Wknight94 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A look at their various comments to various editors, as well as the pointy comment a few lines above, indicates that this IP family is here primarily to cause disruption. So far, it seems to be working. →Baseball Bugs carrots 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have the impression that I'm trying to troll? I am not in any way affiliated with any of the other IPs, and plus, I have no idea of how to plan something so elaborate :P 99.20.133.159 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where to reply- it's a bit messy. But, I'll tell you this- to ease things up, I will not make any edits claiming I am 67.180.161.183 (which I am, trust me) until I get a chance to edit from that IP. It should not be long. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and with an admission that I used to be vandal, I added the hoax entry just because I wanted to add it. It was a hoax in itself, so maybe that should go in the article- Oh, that hoax greed is back... :) But a hoax about a hoax- that's not the point... 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I barely know what's going on here, but I was mildly amused by this and thought I'd chime in. Even though everyone is entitled to edit from an IP, this user shows at least a lack of consideration for the havoc he's causing and the people who are tasked with dealing with him. If he were an upstanding individual I think he would feel bad and do everyone the favor of forgoing his IP experiment. At most this does seem to be causing an unnecessary disruption. We (you all) shouldn't have to waste time on such things, and at this point, forcing him to create an account or discontinue editing wouldn't be entirely inappropriate, in my mind. Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If trolling is not trolling if it's unintentional, then it is not trolling. All I wanted to do was clear up that I am the same person. I did not imagine this thread getting so large. The Seven Hills, Nevada thing was the same. There is much more controversy than should be happening, and I have to say that it's not my fault. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how owning up to being various traceable IP's serves your best interests. Not only do we know where you are, we know where you go. Someone less scrupulous than we are might decide to go looking for you. →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I use two IPs, so letting people know what those are will be much easier. All of my (two) IP addresses are in Santa Cruz, in the same district mind you, so it really is not big deal. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you try to revert Sinebot's posting on my talk page? →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointless, as I clearly posted the fact that I was not the IP in a language the bots could not understand- English. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not pointless, nor was it your place to remove it. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am starting another paragraph- to point out that I am not related in any way to the other IPs. There is no "IP experiment" going on. I only have two IP addresses. I do have a feeling that other IPs may be under the purpose of causing disruption, but I am not here to do so. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other IP's made snide comments about me on your page, and you chuckled with them even as I was trying to show good faith in responding to your question about a user page. Your credibility at this point is questionable. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) By forgoing your IP experiment, I meant bite the bullet and create an account. I sympathize with your multiple IP situation and your idealistic want to weed out the IP-ist admins, but maybe it's time to make everyone else's lives easier. I didn't suggest you were intentionally trolling (though I'm not saying you're not doing that either). The right to edit without signing in to an account shouldn't necessarily extend to situations where it causes problems. Equazcion (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's not required to create an account, but what he should do is do something more constructive than trying to prove that IP addresses are discriminated against. It's his off-kilter behavior that's garnering negativity, not the fact that he's a pair of IP addresses. →Baseball Bugs carrots 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not required per se. But it would sure be nice of him. And if it comes to it, an IP causing problems can be blocked. After that, since having an account would assumedly eliminate the blockable issue, he could be allowed to create one. Equazcion (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• any objections to closing this silliness? → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • you're saying you don't enjoy the silliness? but yeah go ahead. Equazcion (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The IP twins haven't gone far enough to get blocked, although they might achieve that if this discussion continues. So maybe it would be best to close this and keep them out of trouble for now. →Baseball Bugs carrots 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nemesis of Reason

Nemesis of Reason (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) Doesn't seem to get it; is still using WP as a social networking site, and indeed is recreating pages in his userspace deleted by MfD. Not sure what's to be done; I don't think my solution for User:Guitarherochristopher will work here. → ROUX ₪ 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User is now removing MfD templates from userspace pages nominated for deletion. → ROUX ₪ 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-create4im. If any further hidden pages are created then a block is in order. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could even be an AIV-report, non? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed a bit nebulous for AIV. He had indicated a desire to be adopted by me, but with my new work schedule I simply don't have the time--the fact that I've actually had 48h off is flabbergasting. I suspect the adoption request was a stopgap/wallpaper measure to avoid more problems short term only, given his immediate return to such page creations.

Penguin Warchief (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

is also worth looking at both for editing problems and strange connection to Nemesis of Reason, Orangesodakid (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

and Coldplay Expert (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

who were all very connected in the various secret page deletions last week. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay Expert seems to be actively trying to distance him(?)self from the general Myspacing, though. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Givin that I know nemesis of reason in real life, I have reason to believe that he has a sockpuppet account called User:poornutz.--Orangesodakid 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

CE and I are not connected to this matter in any way. Yes we both participated in the MFDs for the hidden pages, but CE doesn’t have one, and I really don’t care anymore. Yes, I made a mistake in the past, user:Gurrenlaggan is a dark part of my wikipast, but I really want to forget about it and move on and work for Misplaced Pages.--Orangesodakid 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just block the lot for a time? None of them seem interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, but would rather chat about on their talk pages and create useless and silly pages. Once their block(s) expire, they could be put through some sort of adoption/mentoring project and the ones that are interested in building the encyclopedia will stay and the ones who are not will leave. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support that, especially given the blatantly obvious socking going on somewhere in the Nemesis of Reason/Penguin Warchief/poornutz triangle. → ROUX ₪ 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not talking about CE or me are you?--Orangesodakid 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering blocking CE and OSK (sorry for the abbrev.s), then let me say this. Coldplay Expert has actively distanced himself from the WP:MYSPACE stuff. He seems to be genuinely interested in helping WP, and has become interested in vandal fighting, even requesting rollback rights (he's still waiting to find out results). And he's added a Wikicat icon to his userpage. No that that's particularly important. OSK claims to have "turned over a new leaf". He's asked me about vandal fighting on my talk page. I have limited experience with OSK, but I think they're both deserving of another chance, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would provisionally agree with that, but for OSK's involvement with Penguin Warchief--see the latter's contribs. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely something odd going on there. If you mean PW editing OSK's page, that is. Could simply be that PW knows OSK in real life (this group all seem to be familiar with each other in real life) and is taking Misplaced Pages too casually. I'm too tired to comment anymore, my brain's hardly functioning. Well, if Poornutz turns out to be sock of the accused sockpuppeteer, a block is obviously appropriate. I think that should be investigated, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok now its time for my 2 cents. I know that some of you have suspicion of me. I have had some confrontations with some of you in the past. I can tell you that I am serious. I have now decided to fight vandals to some degree and have even applied for rollback like what spongefrog has stated above. I will sever any connections with anyone who violates my WP:NOTMYSPACE rule. (its on my talk page). I have even told Nemesis of reason to stop using WP as myspace. As for Orangesodakid. Let me assure you, he has “turned over a new leaf” He has also expressed interest in vandal fighting. (wether or not he will is anyones guess).--Coldplay Expert 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it is true that I talk to PW, and its true that he made a edit to my userpage, but I don't mind, I kind of like it, if its illegal, then I will take it off ASAP. I really would like to start working for vandal fighting, well bye!--Orangesodakid 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. let's assume that Coldplay Expert and Orangesodakid are intent on doing some vandal fighting. Their editing will show whether or not they mean it. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though let's not put on blindfolds. The question now is Nemesis of Reason (who has clearly demonstrated through the hidden page recreations that he doesn't give a tinkers' about WP:ENC or WP:MYSPACE) and Penguin Warfare. → ROUX ₪ 19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NoR is on a uw-create4im. One more inappropriate page created and the problem solves itself. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As his adopter, I'll see if I can set NoR straight. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@Mjroots-I have been reverting vandals, just check my contribs. Now OSK on the otherhand has not but has expressed intrest in it.--Coldplay Expert 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is penguin warchief, i'm sorry for using wikipedia like myspace. I'm definately NOT a sock puppet of NoR, i'd rather not bring names into this but orangesodakid and coldplayexpert know me in real life. I'm kinda new to this and just learning the basics. I'd like to try to learn to use wikipedia in a more responsible way.--Penguin Warchief 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, poornutz is a sock-puppet of me, however, I did not create him for vandalizing purposes. Second, User:Penguin Warchief is not a sockpuppet of me, so leave him out of this.--NemesisofReason 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the account? Why did you not disclose it until now? Why did you recreate your hidden page silliness after it was deleted? Do you actually have any interest whatsoever in contributing to the encyclopedia? → ROUX ₪ 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the reason. I just wanted to make another account. I don't know what I was thinking. It was a dumb move on my part, but I have learned from it. Second, it wasn't there for vandalism purposes so I had no reason to disclose it. Third, the real reason that I re-created the hidden page was because I was using Misplaced Pages as a social website, even though I knew that I wasn't supposed to. Sorry about that. Lastly, yes, I do now that I realized Misplaced Pages is not a social network, so now, I actually want to help keep Misplaced Pages clean and prosperous.--NemesisofReason 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So what will happen to poornutz? blocked?--Coldplay Expert 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of user page for evidentiary purposes

I believe that User:SSS108, who was banned by Arbcom from Sathya Sai Baba and indefinitely blocked by administrators, is the same person as User:Sbs108, a single-purpose account now focusing on the Sai Baba article. Both accounts share the same interests, same POV, and have account names that differ by only one letter. They both also exhibit occasional broken grammar and capitalization errors. Despite passing the duck test, Sbs108 denies being SSS108. I would like to examine SSS108's user page to see if there are any similarities that might further confirm my suspicions in this case. Could someone please undelete this page? Thanks. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin removing talk comments

This, IMHO, is not an acceptable removal of user comments by an admin; he shouldn't have removed the user comments, and he shouldn't be biting a newbie with the soap comment. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bite? The user has edited since 2007 with almost 100 edits – albeit all of them squarely fixated on Olivenza. MuZemike 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Acted like a new account. I am just not sure why what he had to say was so inappropriately removed, as it clearly isnt a soap piece. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reads pretty soapy to me. Reminds me of old German maps showing Poland as "German territory, currently being lived in by someone else." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it could go either way. It reads like an opinion piece but does mention a source and contain a clear request regarding article content. I think it would be best to err on the side of non-biting. Equazcion (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please inform Husond that he is being discussed here, SqueakBox. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue should have been taken up directly with the admin on their talkpage before it even arrived here ... I see no attempts to do so, or maybe I am just missing something ... (it is Monday after all) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this should have been discussed with the administrator, I strongly stand behind Husond on removing said content. The content could be used as an example of what soapboxing is. The user has a clear COI; he says that "We hope that the Wykipedia (sp) will cooperate", not to mention that the site he keeps linking to is referred to in a form in his username.

I suppose that one could argue that the edit summary is unnecessary, but that's a matter of personal opinion. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Metrodome problem

Need a little help from an admin. Some overzealous editor has renamed the article. However, the stadium itself has not been renamed, but only the football field. It's some kind of deal the Vikings arranged with the Mall of America, probably figuring there would be no baseball after October 4th. →Baseball Bugs carrots 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem implied that it is just the field that has the sponsorship, rather than the building itself. I've moved the article back for now, in anticipation of a discussion/better sources for the name of the building itself. Resolute 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. The Vikings article citation, which I posted on the Dome's talk page, indicates it's only the gridiron. Vaguely like Zuppke Field at Memorial Stadium, at the University of Illinois. I think this kind of marketing thing has been done elsewhere also. →Baseball Bugs carrots 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be what it is, although the articles are confusing. Of course, there is Invesco Field at Mile High, which is another kettle of fish ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is confusion, as other news articles (including a column by Sid Hartman) indicate it's the stadium. Yet Sid also refers to it in the same column as simply "The Metrodome". So some clarification is needed before we go renaming the wikipedia article. →Baseball Bugs carrots 17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are troubles working it out on article talk page, bring it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a minor edit war starting to brew. It might be a good idea to protect it for 1 day, until we have an answer. →Baseball Bugs carrots 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• What need is there for an admin notice regarding a content dispute? 140.247.23.208 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You need an admin to move an article over another which has had content. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was the reason I brought it here. It is still unclear whether the stadium itself has been renamed or not. Once that is clarified (properly cited), the article can be renamed, if necessary. →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Druid.raul

Druid.raul (talk · contribs)

I'm bringing this here because I feel that I may be too "involved" to act myself, having had previous interaction with this editor. I'm looking for an admin who does not edit in the field of aviation to look over this user's contributions. There are copyvio issues and also civility (bordering on attack) issues too. Any non-involved admin willing to take a look? Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a look-over. Any specific edits you're concerned about? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His recent edits don't appear to be anything unusual. Perhaps some diffs of the behavior to which you refer? --Smashville 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:Druid.raul#Gross incivility for a start. Also, see this diff with particular attention to the edit summary. Further correspondence at user talk:LeadSongDog where I asked advice on how to approach this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That attack is unacceptable. I'll be talking to the user. Any diffs of copyvios? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked LeadSongDog to provide evidence of other copyvio edits. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See entries beginning 19 August 2009.LeadSongDog come howl 19:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll await their reply, then. If they continue in their disruption, I'll block them. Good work, you guys. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear lord. Yeah...that's...wow. Sidebar, is there some negative connotation to "uncle" that I'm not aware of...because he clearly seems to think there is. --Smashville 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly he means Uncle Tom. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• As for being Civil,I am Civil to only Asians and Africans from Africa not Whites and African Americans. Because according to my Principles being Civil to "Whites and African Americans" is against the Laws and Rules i follow

Block indef, imho. → ROUX ₪ 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me this is a younger user. I'd like to hear a reply to this situation before blocking. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Any admin checking the (deleted) user page will be able to see age and location info. It is just after 4am (6 OCt) Indian Standard Time now. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see age being any reason to not block this person indefinitely. Many of the comments summarized by others are utterly vile, we don't need that at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Those comments, to my mind, prove this editor isn't mature enough at this point for Misplaced Pages. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note I have just noticed that this user used to be User:Rhp 26 who was blocked indef for Gross incivility in September 2008. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now removing the indef-blocked banner from his talk page. Does that matter? I reverted him once, he reverted me back, so I'm done with that. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block notice. Blocked users are not allowed to edit and the talk page ought to be protected as he is abusing it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He reverted again. An admin needs to prevent the user from editing his own page, then reinstate the notice and rub out everything else. It's obvious he's not going to file an unblock request, especially having been declared a sock. →Baseball Bugs carrots 05:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin reverted me and said indef block templates are not supposed to go on talk pages. Another one told me he's allowed to revert his talk page even though he's blocked. Whatevs. I'm gonna stop trying to help out on blocked user and user talk pages... I get different interpretations of policy and what to do depending on who I ask and what time of day it is. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Page

Can one of you unprotect Westbang? I want to create an article on an iPhone application that I found enough reliable sources for so that it can pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not create it in a personal sandbox? Work on it there, if it can be shown to pass WP:N and other policies the title can then be unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use WP:RFUP for such requests.  Sandstein  20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user objecting to a PROD

Not sure where else to bring this up, so I'm posting it here (feel free to send me off to the correct board if there is a better forum). Here is the chronology of events:

• On October 4th, Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs) created Eskimo Buddhism.
• I later added a prod tag to the article.
• Gensbon (talk · contribs) removed the tag.
• Checkuser confirms Gensbon is a sockpuppet of Jemesouviens32.
• Since the prod was removed by a confirmed sock, I restored the original prod tag.
• At the same time Jemesouviens32 was blocked for one week due to the sockpuppet issue. (He is currently trying to get the block reviewed...)
• On his user page, J32 has objected to the prod, but obviously is not in a position to remove the tag due to his block.

IMO, I think I need to remove my PROD tag and nominate the article for AfD instead... But how is that going to work, exactly? It seems J32 has the most interest in the article, and is probably going to be the only editor arguing for a keep. Should I remove the prod tag and hold off an AfD nomination until J32's block expires? Or is there a better solution? Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leave the PROD tag on it. As the article stands, it appears to be a non-notable neologism sourced only to blogs. If the PROD is removed by an editor in good standing, take it to AfD, where (unless other sourcing appears) it will be deleted. Black Kite 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that a prod is a prod, no matter who removed it. It's probably better taken to AFD. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) What you propose is a very considerate way to handle it, and probably is fine as there is no deadline. That being said, I did a cursory search and could not find a single reliable source on the topic, so it seems likely that a deletion discussion would wind up in a delete, likely quickly. It might be best to just go ahead and nominate it for deletion, and maybe it would not be absolutely ridiculous to transclude a keep statement from User:Jemesouviens32, in good faith. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem with that, go for it. Black Kite 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Superbub (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in almost two years, only to show up today to begin vandalizing. Possible compromised account? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Log In Trouble

Hello, I'm User Halls452. I'm having trouble logging in as I have forgotten my password to my account, and press "send a new password" only to find that my e-mail account (that I've twitched to four months back) had stop allowing e-mails notices from Misplaced Pages. I've put in my e-mail account change months back and do not understand why it won't recognize it. Please help! (I might need the e-mail address to let them know -again- to allow e-mail from this address. I also may need to know if it got resent to my old e-mail address.) Thank You--24.209.230.174 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does your email account automatically delete spam? If so, and you can disable that option, do so - I know my email addy sometimes kicks back Misplaced Pages emails as spam. After you've done that, try resending again and, when you receive it, whitelist the address. -Jeremy 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a few hours if it works.--24.209.230.174 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your account has email disabled. Unfortunately you probably won't be able to retrieve your password. I'd just create a new account and redirect the old account's userpage and talk page to the new one. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Seems to be the current target of a pro-Mark POV campaign. Blanking of controversies, repositioning the stance of critics, all the usual tactics. Some short-term protection might be in order. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some existing additions/deletions can be seen in this diff. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: off-wiki canvasing to promote vandalism being done: http://twitter.com/marklevinshow --67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And the sheep obey... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, wikipedia is often accused of being too liberal. Someone must have put a gun to our heads this time. A gun called "the rules". →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV is backlogged, if an admin or two could take a look it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV is again backlogged. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of G-20 Pittsburgh arrests

Can somebody please delete this WP:BLP atrocity? Grsz 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What for? There is nothing wrong with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP, our policy on biographies of living persons. All information needs to be referenced. This isn't. Nor, indeed, are any of these people notable for anything other than being arrested--hundreds of thousands of people are arrested every day, many at political protests. → ROUX ₪ 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally do CSD, but since this is a bit necessary I went ahead and deleted it. Sorry if I have messed up anywhere. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 02:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was (deleted now) a clear copy of this file from this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. Nothing but a recreation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah but this one is sortable, and includes the additional arrests not in that article. I am not suggesting creating an article about them. In fact I don't even care what their names are other than, if I can, to identify duplicate arrests. There are three of them, which is not obvious unless the list is sorted. I am more interested in the times and locations where they were arrested, which is why I sorted the list. The fact that I am interested in sorting it proves that someone else is going to be interested in the same information. I understand that there are other places this can be posted, but I see no reason for not making it available here. All of the information is referenced, which you would see if you took the time to look at the references. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There were two cites for one person, in an article talking about 192. Besides the fact that the article is inappropriate per WP:BLP1E, this is hardly adequate for an article focusing entirely on a negative aspect of a bunch of living persons. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The two citations are because not all of the information was available in one place. One reference was for the time of the arrest, the other for the names etc. No where was I able to find the race of the two individuals. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now the editor has added the list to Talk:2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit, which is equally inappropriate. I've removed it, but am unsure how to proceed from here. Grsz 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block the copyright- and BLP-violating editor? → ROUX ₪ 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given 2ndamendment links to the relevant policies and a final warning against reposting the list anywhere on Misplaced Pages. → ROUX ₪ 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might as well point out that giving someone such a heavy handed "final notice" is stifling to the development of Misplaced Pages and highly questionable behavior for an admin. Remind me not to vote for you. I see that 67 others agreed with me in your RFA. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The information was already deleted with a very clear explanation why. You then recreated it somewhere else, apparently in the belief that made it okay. It wasn't. Any editor may issue warnings to another who is engaging in disruptive behaviour. That's how it works here. My RFA has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and it was a cheap and nasty little shot. → ROUX ₪ 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't link to it, I'm just saying that it is hard enough to find people who have the time to add to the encyclopedia, and why would I help at all with this kind of reception? 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reception was incredibly mild. And since you have been here for over 18 months, you should have some notion of how the place functions. Instead, you reposted information which had been deleted with a clear explanation why it was deleted--that is why you received a final warning, as it seemed likely you would simply repost it elsewhere when it was removed again. Beyond that, your nasty sniping is completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. I created something for my own use that I thought others would find helpful. I will leave it to others to make that assessment, as it has no affect on me. If anyone thinks the information should be added to the article, any admin can easily undelete the article. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line, as you have been told twice already: wikipedia is not your webhost for personal projects. → ROUX ₪ 04:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly bottomed out. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That list has no business being on Misplaced Pages, but you're free to keep it on your own PC if you want. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please! I created it on my own computer, and for my own personal use. I realized, however that many others would be just as interested in the information as I and therefor added it to the article, and my sole reason for adding it was to save them the trouble of duplicating the work that I had done. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless a celebrity was among those arrested, no arrestees' names belong on wikipedia. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not People's Magazine online! Being a celebrity has nothing to do with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Being notable has a lot to do with it. Unless an arrestee is notable, e.g. if they're a celebrity showing up at a demonstration, then we don't put their names here. Being arrested there does not confer notability upon them. It is not wikipedia's place to allow users to build "hit lists" of ordinary citizens. →Baseball Bugs carrots 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right - and people are also innocent until proven guilty. However, listing their names is pretty sad because they are otherwise non-interesting - see WP:ONEEVENT. Bugs' comment was related to the fact that you cannot be generally notable for one event - you often end up giving more publicity to their cause. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

URGENT! User:Regisfugit and continued vandalism and trolling

A newly registered user, Regisfugit has today twice placed a deletion notice - subst:prodwarning|Charles Karel Bouley|concern = NPOV, not suitable - on the Charles Karel Bouley article. Yesterday, in the article's talk page he proposed the article be deleted and was plainly told by one of the article's editors, Seaphoto, that this was not an option as the subject of the article as met the Misplaced Pages standard for notability. Since Regisfugit has been on Misplaced Pages, he has received several warnings for editors to stop his attempts at vandalism and his disruptive edits. I ask that an admin look at this editor and possibly ban him from editing Misplaced Pages. He has yet to make a meaningful edit, rather, he has only been seriously annoying. Oh, and he just left a message on my talk page that states, "Please, keep changing it back, you can't censor me.... Regisfugit (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for looking into this. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given a brief vacation by User:SarekOfVulcan. MuZemike 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a POV-only account, which wouldn't be so bad if his POV had any factual basis. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again to SRQ that calling semi-constructive edits "vandalism" does not automatically absolve you from being blocked for edit warring. Watch it going forward, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He caught my attention on another article, where he was trying to claim that the Giants are not rivals of the Dodgers. Must be a cousin to the guy who said the Giants were "defunct". →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone protect Druid.raul's talk page

Indefinitely blocked Druid.raul (talk · contribs) is continuing to cause disruption by vandalizing his own talk page. He has reverted three or 4 different people continuously to remove the indef template. Can someone please reinstate it and protect that talk page, as well as the one of the sockmaster at User talk:Rhp 26 <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove that template. Go have a read of WP:UP#CMT.— Dædαlus 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The indefblock tag should not replace the talk page. The history may be useful to anyone wishing to review contribution in the event of an (unlikely) unblock request. Black Kite 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it shouldn't be put on the talk page. But: he's an indefinitely blocked abusive sockpuppet. Since when are they allowed to edit their talk page except to request unblock? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've a feeling that this editor won't be away for long. Fortunately he edits in a fairly narrow range of articles so any further sock shouldn't be too hard to spot. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when were they not?— Dædαlus 07:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So indefinitely blocked abusive sockpuppets can edit their talk page at will. I learn something new every day. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Henjeng55155

I was looking through Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index and saw this User had made vulgar/non-civil comments, so I checked his contributes and got many offensive remarks to other editors directly and indirectly. I have never had a discussion with this user; I am just appalled by his behaviour and I am reporting him.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of incivility and some personal attacks in his contributions. However, he seems to edit only once in a while, and hasn't been warned before. I've given him an only warning ({{uw-npa4im}}). ≈ Chamal  ¤ 07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Dais

I've just indef blocked User:I AM PETER DAIS for this edit to another Admin's talk page. An indef block for their only edit may seem on first sight to be excessive; However, there has been a spate recently of IP editors inserting "Peter Dais" into various articles. I did see a request somwhere for the phrase to be blacklisted. IP users who have been doing this include 24.18.108.88 (talk · contribs). Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the blacklist request at Misplaced Pages:Edit_filter/Requested#Inhibit_.22Peter_Dais.22_addition. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked 110.33.165.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after he triggered an article on my watchlist. I don't know standard block time for people like this, but I set it to two weeks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other IP users involved are:-

• 75.118.54.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 121.219.125.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 110.32.134.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 121.214.28.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 58.168.215.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.119.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When I have run into axe wielding socks of this editor, I typically only block for 31 hours because the editor has shown they have the ability to rapidly shift IPs. It would also appear that this person has more than a passing familiarity with Misplaced Pages, based on certain edits. Ultimately I believe that the request edit filter is our best bet. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added to edit filter. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator JzG (Guy)

JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please refer to my user page where I painstakingly (at Administrator JzG (Guy)'s request) searched the archives of my college newspaper and found more than 50 years worth of articles regarding the organization in question. Also, refer to my user page where he performed an errant search on the school newspaper site and then claims that the resource failed. Worse yet, he tells me "to go away and stop wasting his time." This, in my opinion, is the most egregious and appalling behavior I've encountered in any collaborative online forum. It is a terrible way to represent any organization.

The root cause of this discussion is the deleted existence of a page for an organization I was a member of while at Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. The organization's name was "RAKEOP." There used to be a Misplaced Pages page named "Rakeops" that was created by a different editor. I was about to undergo the process of adding verifiable resources and making the page a respectable encyclopedia entry. I wanted to make the page "respectable" because there are hundreds of members spanning 50 years of history that deserve a Misplaced Pages entry. Then the page was deleted for A7 Things Made Up In School One Day.

Following this assertion, I found dozens of verifiable resources indicating the Rakeop organization has been in existence since 1953 and that it has several significant characteristics within its history. These resources and further information can be found on my user page. I also produced arguments of merit and posted them on JzG's page. For example, there are dozens of other school organizations/brotherhoods/fraternities that are similar to the Rakeop organization. This creates a precedent that fraternities/Greek organizations, etc are worthy of an encyclopedic entry.

After I referred to my research on JzG's user page, the above instance occurred. At this point, JzG (Guy) posted further personal character insults against me by stating that my endeavors were "foolish" and a "hoax." He even referred to a Misplaced Pages page that refers to sarcasm.

I have been respectful and forthright in all of my communication regarding this matter. JzG has been rude, rapid to false judgment, and in turn has made me question the entire collaborative efforts of Misplaced Pages. I am astonished at the way I have been treated by JzG(Guy) in this forum and believe that his administrative privileges should be suspended pending further investigation.

My arguments, my entry, my editorial rights should never have been referred to as "a waste of time" or "foolish" or "a hoax" without sound examination. JzG(Guy) was not thorough and then personally attacked me and my efforts. This is certainly not becoming of Misplaced Pages.

I will be more than willing to discuss this further and hope that I will have ample opportunity to defend/prosecute my case against such terrible and unethical behavior. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I also aim to have the page "Rakeops" reinstated so I can move forward in creating a respectable page for such an important organization.

Thank you. OleOlson (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. First, it is customary to notify others that you are bringing up their conduct here. So I'd suggest you leave a note on JzG's talk page. Next, to save us a lot of problem, I suggest you post diffs of the interactions that concern you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have expressed all of my concerns to JzG(Guy) prior to posting here and have continued to receive substandard responses. Second, what are "diffs?"OleOlson (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Rakeops and the subsequent discussion . According to the AfD, the speedily deleted article by Olsonandrew concerned an unnotable college drinking club. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to provide WP:RS. Is your school newspaper an RS? I doubt it. Verbal chat 10:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The school newspaper of Luther College is a Volumed and Archived publication that spans more than 100 years. I am not quite sure why that would not be a RS. But, in any case, there is no reason for such characterization from an Admin. Second, the Rakeop's were/are much more than a "drinking" club as the school history indicates. If the school newspaper, the school archives, and a letter from the Dean of the school are not RS's...what would be? Thanks for your response. OleOlson (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DIFF for a discussion of Diff's. I believe that the concern that Guy has is related to the concept of Reliable Sources. I acknowledge what you're trying to find, and the links you have provided - but there is a concern about the reliability of the source that perhaps needs to be dealt with at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Admins merely maintain policy, and he has pointed you towards the concern about the reliability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question would be, I think, Andrew, whether the school newspaper is independent of the organization, since both fall under the school. Can you find outside newspaper articles regarding this group, such as from the town paper from the town where the school is located? If you can find two or more, and use them as sources, I think you'd have a good case for undeleletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is Rakeops. See also User talk:JzG#Please reinstate Page "RAKEOPS". Some editors think that it's a hoax. WP:DRV is the correct venue for deletion revue. If the user is serious and can find a 3rd-party source for the existence of this group then it could be userfied. It looks like JzG acted reasonably in re-deleting the article.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

...and yet none of this prevents Andrew from creating the article in his own personal WP:SANDBOX, providing 3rd party references in the article, having it checked out by someone for "admissibility", and then getting it moved into articlespace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. JzG did give Andrew the proper advice, but I'm afraid it got lost in a discussion which used jargon that included words like "hoaxes". I think JzG probably should not have used the "made up in school" language as a bit WP:BITEy. However, Andrew also overlooked the fact that he was given advice there. I don't see any administrative action needed here, this should be worked out either at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or else as Bwilkins and Will Beback suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I did post RS's by a publication with an editorial board and oversight. I accept that Admins maintain policy. I will look for additional sources, and know that I can find some external to the college. However, I believe JzG crossed the line by telling me to "go away" and "stop wasting 'our' time" and calling my work "foolish" and a hoax. This was all done without due diligence. There are two separate issues at hand. One- did JzG act in "good faith" in trying to do the right thing? I would say that this is possible- however, I provided RS's/3rd-party sources that span 50 years and there was a rush to judgment. The second issue: Is it acceptable for an administrator to tell an editor to "go away and stop wasting 'our' time" and refer to my work as "foolish"?? I think that is absolutely unacceptable and should be acted upon. OleOlson (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also- I did follow JzG's advice and posted the RS's on MY page for JzG to review. That's where the "go away" language was used. OleOlson (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I cannot see the original article, but was Ferris Bueller really in the article? You'll have to admit that if it was, it completely undermined any credibility, and the "stop wasting our time" concept might have been a little more valid ... can someone userfy the original article to User:Olsonandrew1/Rakeops or something so that we can comment and assist, if we can? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. And yes, Ferris was a responsible officer of the organization, in his time. Ahem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes- Ferris Beuller was the actual nickname of a member and was an officer. But, that was established early on and there's a whole bunch of information on the page in addition to that that is valid and noteworthy. That would have been one of the edits that I would have made had I been given the chance. Please note my page too, where I listed the RS's. I'd post it here, but I need to figure it out. I can rewrite the whole page, if need be. I was just trying to use the original "skeleton" page and fix it up...for my "first" entry/edit.OleOlson (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Well, we've given you advice and even set up the page for you. Clean it up, and when it is ready, ask one of us for help on whether or not it is likely to survive AfD and we'll help you move it to article space. I think that's about it here and the iris is closing on "That's all, folks"--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You must be one of Guys comrades, Wehwalt, and trying to rush this through like NFL coaches try to rush the next play so instant replay can't be called. I have accepted the editorial advice from the onset of my quest and have acted on each bit of it. I will continue to do so. However, none of this has addressed the inappropriate language and behavior of JzG as an administrator. If I had written evidence (which you do) of an employee speaking to a client of mine like JzG has spoken to me, I would at the very least have the employee undergo additional coaching and training. But, since there are repetitive instances it is more severe. There should be some sort of punitive action taken to prevent JzG from repeating this behavior with me or other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC) OleOlson (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here, not employees. Also we don't take punitive action against anyone. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. ↪REDVERS 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken..I like the reference to the horse carcass. Thank you to everyone. OleOlson (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let us know if we can help. And think about how an article that listed Ferris Buehler as a real person would look to the uniinitiated ... "Save Ferris"--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading with unrelated books and insulting

Reliable_sources_describing_Orpheus_as_of_Thracian_origin_and_deified_by_the_Thracians.User Jingiby started this thread in the Orpheus talk page.Up to now has provided 8 sources that dont support what he claims but continues giving general links with no inline citations.I 've been called this diff.User supports theories like Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer's diff,in particular to support justify this diffMegistias (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are fighting over the nationality of Orpheus? Unbelievable. Wow. Allow me a minute to think about this, but we can't allow such striking WP:LAME to go unrewarded. Moreschi (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, jingiby doubts the origin of the myth.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see this is a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. Hehe, extraordinary. I can't decide whether to hand out barnstars or bans. Moreschi (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not both?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jingiby is blocked for a year, anyway, as this really is the final straw in what's been several years of disruptive editing, nationalistic trolling, revert-warring, etc, that has accumulated a lengthy block log. The article's a nasty mess which I'm trying to clean up a little. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank Pais and User:Lapsed Pacifist.

Could someone review the recent edits that the two have made at Cuban Five and the ones that User:Frank Pais have made at Pinochet Thre times he has made an edit from a computer at the University of New Brunswick, in Canada and the IP has been removed although he is socking from it(USER:131.202.216.27). (he also claims that because Google hits 2,000,000 times with Pinochet and Fascist, we should say sources often claim that he is.) Lapsed Pacifist has taken the bevavior for which he has been sanctioned for else where and brought it to communist related articles. I will return with diffs, but a quick view of their contributions should show this pattern to the discerning reviewer. Lapsed PAcifist is also having problems with this at This edit is also troubling from Pais.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This revert by you of Frank Pais's edit would seem to indicate that there are problems on your side of the dispute. Dropping "including by such persons as" and making it an absolute list is hardly neutral, especially when you're claiming weasel wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be delighted if someone could make it right. If I have misunderstood how to do it, by all means fix it. Care to address the other issues, and look at it it in its totality. I am certainly not above criticism in the matter.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, at no time was I ever engaged in sockpuppeting, and nor did I ever attempt to avoid any three revert rule. I've emailed Wiki admins twice regarding the subject of your allegations, and received responses both times. Your claims are completely speculative, and simply go to paint a larger picture of the paranoia, offensiveness and abusive behaviour that you've demonstrated on here. A combination of your bias and aforementioned behaviour is creating a poisoned environment, and I would encourage you to stop. Frank Pais (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have not been editing from the University of New Brunswick IP, and say so, I will be glad to retract that. If you are indeed there, then you have used the IP to avoid 3rr. It seems that the IP was engaged in the editing of a similiar pattern. I would welcome a uninvolved admin to review the patterns in their totality and abide by that this edit, where you insist on including "aledgess" with out even checking what you are reverting would show further evidence of the bad faith. As far as the admins with whom you are in contact, they are welcome to use my talk page, or email me about any possible concerns. Feel free to email me, as it is enabled.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:DucanhZ5Z

Ran across this user's talk page User talk:DucanhZ5Z in Recent Changes. User is new, with no edits outside of their talk page which appears to be a glossary / dictonary from technical terms in English to Vietnamese. I double checked the translation and it is what it appears to be, but WP is not a dictionary or glossary. I left a message on the talk page for the user with no response.

Thoughts? The edits are fast, so its possible its just a bot...but they're not outside the range where a human could be making them by any means.

Going to notify the user now of this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably completely unhelpful as I can't recall the username (it started with an 'S', so it was a distinct user from the one you've listed), but I noticed another account (via Recent Changes) doing the same thing late last week. They were simply compiling technical terms to their talk page in alphabetical order, then adding a translation. Maybe it's a class project? --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

appears to be a bolt, HOOP! wiki does not interfere with content of talk pages so long as they are within the wiki policy, which those content are. so, can't do anything. Ecoman24 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to have the comment of a new editor, but the section below doesn't give me confidence on your grasp of wiki policy. Syrthiss (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does appears to be a bolt, HOOP! wiki mean? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussions and wikipedia is not a webhost as that is what it appears this user (And if there is another) is using it for.--Crossmr (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

urgent: block this IP User:64.251.53.198

This Ip is blanking articles, block it now before further disruption and vandalism. see IP (64.251.53.198) contributions. Ecoman24 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User had not been warned since Sep 12 2009. Warned user, and this type of report is better suited for WP:AIV. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block request

this This is personal attack and I request block of 1 year against POV pusher user:DIREKTOR--Trusciante (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

And who are you a sock of? Wknight94 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

...I was going to say "you're either really new or not at all new" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am I--Trusciante (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • user:DIREKTOR is a veteran editor, see his , I can't understand why he is lowering himself to a level of extreme personal attack. He understand wiki policy well? Can he tell us why he is getting involved in personal attack? Ecoman24 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am having extreme difficulty trying to find a personal attack anywhere in those two diffs. He was asking for clarification about something another editor had said, and then pointing out an inconsistency. I do, however, see extreme cause for concern in the actions of Trusciante (with a total of three edits) pretending it's a personal attack and immediately calling DIREKTOR a POV-pushed. How about a nice solid block? I hear quacking. → ROUX ₪ 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in the diff's provided. Is there some conflict between y'all and Direktor that we should be looking further into? I will WP:AGF, but people do not usually try to get someone blocked for no reason (or by hoping that Admins will mis-read a diff) unless there's some conflict brewing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the rather personal question was my ongoing suspicion that User:Sir Floyd is a sockpuppet of a user from the Italian group of editors User:AlasdairGreen27 and I reported for socking and such (User:Brunodam, User:PIO, User:Ragusino]], User:Giovanni Giove etc.). I'm more-or-less fluent in Italian, so when I voiced my suspicions about his curiously Italian sentence structure, User:Sir Floyd attempted to explain it by stating he has dyslexia. Having received some (relatively) basic training in recognizing the symptoms of common learning disorders from my studies, I found the fact that he actually invented a new adjective ("Wikipedic") rather strange. I find it extremely distasteful for one to use a serious disorder as an excuse to avoid getting blocked, especially because the fictitious ailment allows the blocked party to assume the moral high ground ("how dare you doubt I'm sick!").

User:Trusciante is a sockpuppet, of course, but who does he belong to? The only suspects that come to mind are User:Luigi 28 or User:Sir Floyd. Perhaps a check with User:Sir Floyd, as he's not blocked? --DIREKTOR 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuddruckers

There has been an ongoing issue of people trying to insert an anal sex reference to this article. One of the most recent involves someone replacing its content with buttfuckers and spelling it out in the edit history. Could an Admin please purge the obscenity from the history on 17:29, 29 September 2009 98.105.157.104 (talk) (252 bytes)?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally hide revisions on the basis of offensiveness and there is much worse around. Rodhullandemu 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

J. A. Chatwin - possible hoax wrapped up in a good edit

re: recent vandalism to J. A. Chatwin (a Victorian architect).

The editor (Special:contributions/82.36.89.155 / talk) has a track record of recent vandalism & here to another article, but it's an anon so hard to tell for sure that it's the same person. This comment admits that they are.

Their recent edit here looks broadly good (Can't think why the article omitted him using a classical style rather than the gothic in the first place), but the claim that Julius Alfred also went by the name "Timmy" rang a few alarm bells. I suspect that it's a more subtle vandal than usual, hiding a hoax wrapped up in a contribution. The editor has now cited a book ref that surely describes the subject, but it's not a book I have on the shelf, so it's impractical to check that the ref supports the cite.

I'd be inclined to regard this as vandalism and undo it accordingly, but would appreciate independent comment as it's otherwise likely to look like a personal edit war (as mentioned, I think most of the edit is probably a genuine improvement). Thanks (and should I have taken this to WP:AIV instead?). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to verify that the source book even existed, let alone whether it is reliable or contains the information in question. I have removed the "timmy" infomation. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has a history of very vandalism and edits like this are not constructive. I'm convinced it's the same person because of the timing and content of this edit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:BADBOYS_BLUE

User has been editting article Bad_Boys_Blue and admits in the contributions that he is a representative of John McInerney, a member of the group. I don't know enough to make a decision on what to do here. It is COI but I dont know if the edits are accurate or not. They seem to be good faith edits, but he also changes arguable information.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TParis - I commented on their talk page and trimmed some of the more contentious info out, and BWilkins gave them a more friendly welcome.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

N word in a delete log

Can this be oversighted/otherwise removed ? Skomorokh has deleted the discussion on his talk page trying to get to the bottom of this. Even if there is a perfectly good reason for this, the log entry is ill judged and offensive. Verbal chat 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This unfathomable curiosity could be quite swiftly satiated by reading the restored history, though if the words of vandals are enough to trouble delicate sensibilities, I might advise against viewing the imagery.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies the log entry. Verbal chat 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that you were repeating what the vandal called you in the log entry. This is still not on, not at all. Delicate sensibilities have nothing to do with it. This is about denying recognition and not repeating such uncouth statements in a permanent log entry. –xeno 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is worse than the vandalism that brought it about, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pubic handwringing of this sort that gives currency to trolls and puts venom into otherwise empty epithets. I restored the history precisely because nonsense of that sort is nothing to be brushed under the carpet as if it has significance. I don't mind whatsoever if the summary is altered, but I object firmly to this busybodying – I suggest you find some productive means of spending your time other than enabling vandals.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... repeating the words of vandals and enshrining them in the deletion log isn't enabling, but calling you on being deliberately offensive is? Did we jump back in time 25 years? → ROUX ₪ 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe it is you who enabled this vandal, by repeating their language in a log entry. You could have restored it with a less inflammatory summary. –xeno 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not impressed in the least with the deletion log summary, but I'm more concerned that this account may have been compromised. This doesn't seem at all typical for Skomorokh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) –xeno 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had disputes in the past with the editor, and even I agree this totally unexpected and is out of character. I would have asked this on his talk, but he deleted the thread. Can it be removed/altered? Whether Skomorokh be blocked until identity established, or any other action, I'll leave to those that know better than I. Verbal chat 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the account is compromised or not, that kind of language use is beyond unacceptable and he should be blocked until he understands that and agrees to never, ever do it again. → ROUX ₪ 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Using the N word in the uk can and will land you in court on a racism charge. Is it ok to use it here on wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Only in an appropriate context. As in, "please make this edit to the Nigger page, because it is semi-protected." Skomorokh's usage was unbecoming of an administrator. And what is this about? –xeno 18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  What IP vandals say and do is one thing , but the actions and rude comments of editors and Admins are judged at a higher standard. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  So, it is ok to use these sort of edit summary? Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  It is not prohibited (nor should it be), but it is likely to be considered disruptive anywhere it could be avoided (as it should be). There's plenty of middle ground between "strictly prohibited" and "encouraged and required of all editors", you know. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes agreed and I am looking for the middle ground, ...perhaps an admission that , hey, I shouldn't have used the edit summary, I was upset after my page was vandalised and I won't use that kind of edit summary again...there somewhere is the middle ground.imo Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved|Misplaced Pages is not censored, and considering he was just repeating what the vandal had called him, there's no issue for admins to resolve. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)}}

What exactly does not censored have to do with this? Not censored is there so that we don't have to compromise on encyclopedic content. It doesn't grant administrators a license to go around repeating racist languages in log entries. –xeno 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok for Users to use the N word in edit summaries? No it is not, even if you have been called names by a ip vandal it is still not ok, will the offending Admin Skomorakh recognise that ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=317517012
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=317367197
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=317361319

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards