Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 7 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

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 this was over-the-top. A week of being accused without foundation, here at AN/I in this section, 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 of being unable to find support for ones complaint should have concluded the matter. Surely there are limits and rules to how far one can use administrator privileges to further ones objectives.99.142.1.147 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As I believe this incident to have been a significant violation of policy, I would like to pursue this further and am preparing a succinct and thorough synopsis. Where is the appropriate venue to escalate discussion of this incident and Cenarium's use of his administrative privilege? 99.142.15.209 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My interactions with you were purely administrative, no breach of policy has occurred. I am not involved in any kind of content dispute with you, we are not engaged in any edit-war over article content. If an admin finds a policy violation, the admin is entitled to enforce that policy, which I have done by removing or collapsing policy-violating material and blocking, considering your persistence. I am perfectly entitled to go to ANI to seek outside opinion, but doing so doesn't preclude myself from taking administrative action. Cenarium (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why say things that are so readily impeachable? Your first half dozen or so edits were purely content related before, of course, you put on your badge and started editing by dictat through the imperious application of administrative authority.99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But they were not related to you; and most of my comments were before I reverted or collapsed sections. The fact I made a few comments on the talk page of the article and reordered sections on the article (as well as removing an expired protection template, wow) doesn't make myself involved in a content dispute with you, we're not edit-warring over article content, and our interactions are limited to this situation. Yes, I am attempting to make the talk page compliant with policies and have as 'objective' to ensure consensus building runs smoothly; and I can take administrative action to ensure this. However, I will refrain from taking admin actions on you from now on, since I am tired of this. Cenarium (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your administrative sanctions furthered your content goals, and you did make specific reference to discussion of content with me and another user, "I concur with the comment by Mike Godwin ... in " . Period, full stop, you are deeply committed to content in this article and you seek to suppress any discussion of things that counter your stated view:

"This is not an opinion, this is fact. Outside news outlets, many texts and books have been written on Polanski, they were not about this crime and scarecely mentioned it, if at all, but about his cinematographic work and life as director. (try international google books and scholar searches for example). Overall, there are many more news pieces centered on his work in the film industry, even in the US.Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"

You have clearly decided that putting down your pen and picking up your badge allows greater influence over the article content through suppression of reliably sourced and verifiable material you found inconvenient to your stated objectives for the article. Your actions here are a clear ethical violation of the trust the community placed in you when it allowed you access to administrative tools. - 99.142.15.209 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you just blocked for several days for repeatedly beating this dead horse? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to climb off the soapbox and put the stick down - it's hard to read important policies as influenced by law when you're waving such a thing around. Let us know if you ever actually have the backing for an WP:RFC/U on the admin in question, I'm sure we'll all participate. Have a day. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP is crystal clear, "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." _{(This discussion being referred to here though was purely about the "when, where or even if" of RS material and not an article edit)} As is policy prohibiting the use of one's administrative privilege to further one's content objectives.

Equal treatment, and fair honest enforcement, are baseline community fundamentals.99.142.15.209 (talk) 18:29, 7 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)

Is this a possible case of block evasion, a checkuser is certainly needed. This IP 86.145.134.66 makes three edits one of which was on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association which some of the IP's used above have edited disruptivly. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 6 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)

Can we get a resolved tag here? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 7 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)

No you can't per the agreement. It is the primary US name. But we are going by common name. Your opinion on the name does not stand up against the consensus. So you CAN'T do either, otherwise we'll be right back here again.--WillC 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How long does this sort of thing take? This argument has been going on for days now. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is finished, as long as TJ doesn't break the consensus again.--WillC 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh... well. I just thought an admin would come in and make a big bold ruling one way or the other. The whole thing seemed very... anticlimactic. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Again Will, the consensus was for the article name. The US name is just as valid and is the primary name of the show according to WWE. It is OK for anybody to write "ECW on Syfy", it does not have to be written as just "ECW". hurricane, the fact that I was not doing anything wrong plus the fact that I had stopped doing any changes several days before this report was filed may be why. TJ Spyke 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ban of user User:Fraberj

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

• 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 - 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)

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)

Well, if this really is a ban discussion, we don't use RFA style voting, so those headers have been removed accordingly - a note for future such discussions. Also, the ban has been enacted by Gwen Gale already, per the user's talk page and user page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 7 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)

Given Penguin Warchief's comment above about wanting to contriute constructively I've left him/her a welcome notice. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess that is case closed?--Coldplay Expert 10:08, 7 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)

Update: earlier today, the off-wiki requests for vandalism was changed to now point everyone to vandalize the David Frum article. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 03:31, 7 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)

The G20 protests are encyclopedic and should be covered in Misplaced Pages, due to the notability established by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This is not to say that directory-type listings of every arrestee are encyclopedic, because directory listings are contrary to WP:NOT. Innovative "law enforcement" techniques of arresting someone for "tweeting" about the locations and movements of police officers got coverage] in the Post Gazette and on CNN and should be included somewhere. It was also covered by AFP. Communication via cellphone or Twitter now can make one an "enemy of the state." CNN said "They were charged with hindering apprehension, criminal use of a communication facility and possessing criminal instruments." The ACLU protested the arrests. Newspapers reported their reporters and innocent bystanders swept up and arrested. The Philadelphia Inquirer said "For G-20, Pittsburgh became a police state. Massive force routed cherished constitutional values." See also a law school journal which called it "a police state." There should be an encyclopedic summary of the number of arrestees and the way they were arrested, based on the numerous reliable sources. Edison (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And that would be appropriate for the G20 article itself. The overall notability of the arrests is still in question. It's still a bit soon to declare that this has any lasting impact. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue is 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit#Protests. The coverage of the security measures and arrests can be expanded there. It represented the first use against U.S. civilians of a "sound cannon" designed to deafen with 150 db high frequency sound, and previously used to repel pirates, as well as the first prosecution for Twittering. If the protest section becomes too large in proportion to the article, and if it has enduring effects, it could eventually be spun off. Edison (talk) 19:09, 7 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)

As long as they follow policy, and do not use it abusively, yes.— Dædαlus 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed his IP sock's rant from this spot and his registered user is blocked from his talk page now. →Baseball Bugs carrots 12:35, 7 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)

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)

I do not know about what the discussion is really about, but DIREKTOR constantly breaks the AGF, also he is prune to offend other users, call them nationalists, even ultra-nationalists. DIREKTOR should be repremanded. I believe that DIREKTOR has puppets (CO xxx) being one of them. DIREKTOR then defends himself as if he is a saint, and pushes other editors into endless disputes. DIREKTOR often made up claims that users called him a communist, which is not the same if you call someone out as a Yugoslav POV warior. He misguide users by gathering support through canvassing, often complains to admins without notifying the user about which he complains, etc.

DIREKTOR should be warned not to continue his accusatory, inquisatory and other methods, he offended me as if I said to him he is former UDBA. I never said such nonsense, because DIREKTOR was not even a Pionir.

His expertise on the Yugoslav topics are: evading providing sources and insisting on unsupported POV.

Imbris (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Proven hardline Croatian nationalist who's been edit-warring on articles such as Hey Slavs for months, ignoring any kind of consensus-reaching discussion by the most perverted logical fallacies conceivable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, can I just add that starting a paragraph in the middle of an extensive discussion with "I do not know what the discussion is really about...", and then just raising prior, unrelated disputes with one of the involved parties is probably not the most productive way to deal with the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 00:22, 7 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)

If the vandalism itself gets too persistent, take it to WP:RFPP. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Rod and Bugs. This looks like standard run-of-the-mill silly vandalism. -Jeremy

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 recent 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)

• I have received a rather lengthy post on my talk page from this user and in regards to the article page. I do not think it violates WP:NLT, but they do state their desire to "reserve rights" and the like. I highly suggest reviewing it, here. Basket of Puppies 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It does look sort of like a legal threat, but it also looks like a claim of ownership of the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:01, 7 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)

Guys, I'm pretty sure it's really him. I don't know him that well either, but I don't have any trouble believing his explanation ... I agree it was probably a bad idea though. (Note: I have Skomorokh's page on my watchlist, as I have the pages of many other admins; that's how I found this discussion.) -- Soap /_{Contributions} 19:14, 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)

OK, people have made their views known, and the admin is aware of it. I see no point in compelling promises out of him. Either he will or he won't do this again, and my guess is not. Let's build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a resolved tag based on this. –xeno 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Leaving the vandalism in the history to show the bigotry is one thing, but repeating the racist vandalism makes that editor a vandal too. And you vandalised the delete log, which is tricky to undo - if it is possible (no one has answered yet I believe). The other edit xeno highlights is also troubling. That language is not acceptable in this context by any editor. Verbal chat 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Original topic which is not resolved: can this be altered/removed? Verbal chat 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, with WP:RevDelete, which is presently only available to Oversighters. And this might not be a valid criterion. –xeno 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  It would seem to fall under 2 (the group being a race) or 3, imo. Verbal chat 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  You're probably right. I'll drop an email to Special:Emailuser/Oversight. –xeno 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

This account, Mr Unsigned Anon (talk · contribs), created on Sept 27, clearly belongs to a very experienced edit-warrior -- it has been editing mainly in relation to Gaza War, and causing trouble. I'm not too familiar with IP issues, but I expect that somebody who is may know who this is. I have already issued an IP-Arbcom notice. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified of user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of vandalism File:Grin.gif --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Can somebody block 69.135.191.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), being used by User:Grant.Alpaugh/User:Spydy13/User:AfterMayAndIntoAugust/User:Football.Fútbol.Soccer per comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh. The SPI has been opened but let's spare everybody the wasted time, this one is quacking loudly. Grsz 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. Either here or SPI would've been sufficient. MuZemike 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Guitarherochristopher

I'm not sure if this account is here to improve the encyclopedia. 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)

I'd say not. Roux has been dealing with this case. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Guitarherochristopher
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again

^^^ User has been discussed at least thrice at ANI. –xeno 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GHC has asked Master of Puppets to export his user page into the personal Wiki that Roux created for him. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GHC's most recent edit was to move a page fom his user space to mainspace with the edit summary "I Am Now An Administartor." The page in question is what looks like a tribute page to an ex-editor (the same user whose account GHC previously claimed to have access to, as discussed in ANI here) - not sure what to make of that, at all. There is no denying that GHC puts a lot of effort into Misplaced Pages. A pity it is mostly utterly misdirected. --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The user clearly has no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia and does not respond in a remotely intelligent manner when others are encouraging him to do so. All he wants to do is manage a blog that frankly no one should waste their time, in addition to playing games. A quick look at his contributions shows 90% of his edits are on others' talk pages. This user needs to be permanently blocked. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this now. He can still export pages if he's blocked, and frankly having his own Wiki is the only real solution now. As well intentioned as he might be, he has made almost zero appropriate contributions and it doesn't look like that situation is going to improve anytime soon. ninety:one 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely not a useful contributor to Misplaced Pages, but I wouldn't suggest anyone spend any time trying to straighten him out. Unless he actually hurts something, why not just ignore it? Friday (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with friday. Leave it be unless he actively starts disrupting things. I will note that he's not long for the wiki-world if he does start disrupting things, because it seems like he isn't a terribly good fit for en.wp. But it falls into the category of 'if it bothers you, remove it from your watchlist'. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:MYSPACE is a part of a policy page, I don't really see this as something optional. If that's all he's doing here, then block em if he refuses to change. And that godawful userpage should be deleted. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dito--Coldplay Expert 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I kinda feel sorry for GHC. I wish he got the message :( He could be a very good aditor if he made usefull edits more often than he does now......--Coldplay Expert 23:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its a stupid part of the policy page. If I could become a benign (YMMV) dictator for a day I would deep six most of our 'userspace' rules which seem to add a lot of discussions like this without actually impacting disruptive behavior. And of course it is optional. Send the pages to MfD if you really think it is worth your while but I don't see any reason to indef a user unless they are actively disrupting others. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True, I too agree but to be honest, some of GHC's edits are reverted on coldplay related articles from time to time. Cheers.--Coldplay Expert 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, guys. I'll export his userpage and everything will be O.K. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pornographic image masquerading as a legitimate image

Are thinly veiled pornographic images such as this, which are masquerading as legitimate images, allowed on Misplaced Pages? PintOfOJ (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks appropriate to me. I don't think this is intended to be pornographic. --Rockstone (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a real model of such an image? or are you just seeing peninses where they aren't any? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The right word would be "penes". Anyhow, though there's little doubt that the artist was having a little fun, that's how the engine looks, and that's that. PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to get my "penis" terms incorrect. But, as an artist myself, I sure the artist was having a little fun. Lmao, loving it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It looks like teh pensu. :) Crafty (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to find out if such an odd-looking device would have any functionality, so I checked and it's currently used at Reciprocating engine, Stirling engine, and Rhombic drive, so I guess it's legit. Can't honestly figure out how it works myself, but I'm not that mechanically inclined, I guess. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The creator of this thread might be shocked to learn we actually have a penis article. With pictures. -- Atama頭 00:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That does indeed appear to be a functioning stirling engine equipped with a rhombic drive, yes. Perhaps we could ask the image creator for an animated version. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, with the pink shaft and even "blue balls" isn't this image a bit too near the knuckle? Obviously the parts are not that colour in real life. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only so many designs out there, it is only natural that shapes get reused every so often. Sam Barsoom 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just a phallic type of motor. Other websites have diagrams similar to ours. I would not worry about it, even if it makes you feel funny inside. Sam Barsoom 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"...makes you feel funny inside." There's a "blonde joke" out there someplace. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it doesn't turn me on or anything, nor does it disgust me (even though penises/penes are not my cup of tea), I just wonder if it is appropriate on a serious website such as this (I understand that the penis article will legitimately have a picture of a penis). It is not uncommon for people to try to sneak this kind of image onto websites, pretending that it is a serious image. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What other articles have you edited? →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean on Misplaced Pages, none. In fact, I don't think that I have actually edited an article on any website. I have posted to forums of course, and also have a blog (although I would prefer not to link to it here). What I mean is that some people will try to post suggestive images if they think that they can get away with it by passing it off as a legitimate image, which may be the case here. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worked for you so far. :) →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, how do you feel about the animated version? — Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently excited now; thanks, Kralizec. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just plain kinky... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The animation doesn't work on my PC. Is that a 2-stroke or a 4-stroke? →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good illustration for the policy page WP:Don't be a Rhombic drive Beta type Stirling Engine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not boldly add it, then? - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page has been locked to prevent editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK isn't actually on Misplaced Pages. You have to log in on Wikimedia with an autoconfirmed account to edit it. -- Atama頭 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bah... I'm autoconfirmed here, with global login... doesn't that mean the autoconfirmed extends to the other projects? That's just silly... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this incident, I added it to my watch list just to see how it turned out. Anyways, I would think auto confirm would not automatically include other projects, as they are other projects after all. It's weird, but it makes sense to me. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not cool enough to be bold on the other projects... that's OK, I rarely leave this one anyway... can we get back to the topic at hand, now? More engineering pr0n! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics? DMacks (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, the animated version has a Prince Albert! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be sexist about this issue now! Why aren't women demanding equal time? Consider the opposite sex too: Vulva. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS:And for a better view of the lovelier counterpart on that WP page - look here: . --Ludvikus (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Or check out most any of Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings of flowers. This one, for example: Or this one: →Baseball Bugs carrots 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/outing in progress

User:Die4Dixie is threatening User:Frank Pais with outing. See this edit this edit where he discusses "outing" the user. Please take immediate action. 64.229.177.187 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both users of this thread, on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You've shown two diffs where Die4Dixie is promising to not out the editor. They are instead trying to pursue a COI claim without outing them. Looks to be a non-issue. -- Atama頭 00:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I spcifically said I would not out him. I have asked him to disclose his WP:COI as directed by policy. I will not out him.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Die4Dixie is attempting to enforce COI policy and should be applauded for attempting to do it carefully. They should be aided in doing so, and the user in question should comply with policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

D4D is calling the editor out on policy. However, he does have a habit of slipping in some Spanish that is at times inappropriate, here eliciting a reaction. Grsz 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what the editor wrote on User:Frank Pais' talk page "I beleive that you have a WP:COI for fascism related subjects and Cuban politics." This is an absurd position. There is nothing in WP:COI which says someone opposed to a political ideology cannot edit articles on that ideology or its adherents. It's like saying supporters of the GOP are barred from editing Barack Obama. Similarly, it's absurd to say someone who is interested in Cuban politics or is Cuban can't write about Cuban politics. That's like saying Americans can't edit articles on US politics. Quite simply the user is trying to harass Frank Pais. 64.229.177.187 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not outing. Also, I think we have some socking issues here. Grsz 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not WP:COI. 64.229.202.15 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest can be discussed, there's a noticeboard where it can be discussed without prejudice or accusations. Considering the fact that a COI on its own doesn't lead to any administrative or other action Frank shouldn't be offended by the suggestion. The irony here is that if there is socking going on, considering D4D's outing concerns regarding IPs, Frank would be outing himself. -- Atama頭 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in outing this user. If it has been decided that there are not WP:OUTing issues with me, I suggest we roll this up. Frank hasn´t hadan opportunity to respond yet to my request to disclose. Let´s let him discuss this when he logs in again.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"que ya te conozco" means "I know who you are". That's clearly meant to intimidate. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The other part is "mosco", and it is a saying. "Te conozco mosco". It is said when someone knows what someone is up to. Nothing sinister.I´ll gladly strike it. You´re grasping--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late to strike it, you've already made the threat. There's no way what you wrote wouldn't be interpreted as a threat to out someone. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's a true outing threat or not depends on whether D4D thinks he knows who Pais is in real life, or thinks he knows who his alleged puppetmaster is. →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting to login hardly makes you a sockpuppet. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When the Ip is engaged in edit warring, then it is a sock. My concern , so that you can move on, is not with the interests that Frank has or his/her political leanings. It is with who he/she is and then chosing to edit some of subjects that he/she does in a pov pushing way. I really hope you can let this drop so we can protect Frank´s identity .--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this incident. I've read the comment by D4D that you're objecting to and I don't see any threat to out anyone. What I see is D4D alleging a conflict of interest on the part of another editor and vowing to pursue it through appropriate means. He specifically rules out outing anyone. Crafty (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

Heads up, edit wars are raging as we speak! Auntie E. 01:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done mostly. –Juliancolton |  01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dreams from my Father

Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed for at least the fourth time in a year an effort to edit war a claim that Bill Ayers (the so-called "unrepentant terrorist" and "friend" of Obama's, per Obama detractors in association with the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy) secretly ghost-wrote Obama's autobiography Dreams from my Father. Whether true or not, the claim is disputed by other editors as a WP:BLP violation, nonconsensus, and a non-noteworthy WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory that does not meet WP:WEIGHT concerns.

I won't describe the content beyond that because this report concerns edit warring, not content. Please note that this article is under Article probation, which should mean a low tolerance for edit warring and other tendentious behavior.

• Most recent edit warring: - only at 2RR, but this comes after a "final warning" a couple weeks ago (where he violated 3RR), and a follow up warning I gave a short while ago that I would report him if he continued.

• Edit warring from two weeks ago:

• Older edit warring on the subject

• Notices of Obama article probation

• Prior AN/I report I filed here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please help enforce the Obama article probation here? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's replies are laced with editor commentary such as saying responses sound like "shilling for the Whitehouse" accomplish nothing but add drama. Reverting the allegation that Obama has basically lied about who wrote his autobiography into the lead paragraph, while claiming consensus that clearly does not exist, is disruptive. Plenty of responses have been provided in discussing the matter, but Kauffner's behavior in the face of the good faith desire of others to discuss the content issues that he is advocating makes the discussion battle-like unnecessarily. --guyzero | talk 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This material I added is sourced to recently published book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage by Christopher Andersen. It's a top-selling, mainstream biography by an editor of Time magazine. Similar claims were previously discussed in the Times of London, among other RS. It's been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication," and thus clearly not WP:FRINGE. NPOV would imply that material should not be removed simply because it is critical of the current U.S. president, although I see no other basis for the edits Wikidemon is making. Because I made some edits on this subject a year ago, I am not entitled to do more edits now? The logic of this complaint escapes me. Kauffner (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with content objections on the talk page. I bring this here now as a last resort because talk page discussion and repeated warnings have brought no end to edit warring on an Obama article. That the material is poorly sourced / unourced, fringe, SYNTH, BLP-vio, etc., only frames the issue. Can we please get some help? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a brand new WP:SPA, Here4now2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only edits to date are edit warring this content and crying censorship on the article talk page. Pending administrative action (which I hope we can get soon), correct me if I'm wrong but I trust it is okay to revert this as a BLP violation. I've brought it here quickly to avoid a revert war, but we really can't let this kind of content stand in the encyclopedia, it's pretty embarrassing to the project. Wikidemon (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a clear throwaway account. I don't know specifically if that text reverted was unique to one editor or if it has just been repeated across a few different guys, so I don't want to air speculation as to the master account. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

69.226.55.29

This IP is the most recent one used by a sockpuppeteer (68.125.20.12, 69.226.189.20, and 69.226.188.96 are just a few of the other socks) who has been adding false information to movie studios' pages for months. Please block it immediately. –Merqurial (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Greivance with Admin Kafziel

This administrator briefly blocked me regarding a dispute regarding his personal edits and as such, was abuse of his authority.

After blocking me, he seemed to back off the dispute, which factually and via many citations, favored my view.

If there was actual reason to block me, this administrator ought to have referred question to a different admin.

In the event, he abused his admin status and resorted to various coarse and inappropriate language

This concerns article Dunderberg Mountain.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Four months ago? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool heads can now prevail.

Kafziel abused his blocking authority.

Perhaps feels quite free to do this again.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Will this all be in haiku? Crafty (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I suppose it's possible he should have asked someone else to block you for harassing him on his talk page, just to avoid this thread. Slap him with a 4 month old trout. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear & non-trivial guideline.

Why is "four months" an issue?

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Very Stale; no action needed. –Juliancolton |  14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment account created: Bikeric

It seems someone has created an account solely to leave harassing messages championing Mark Levin on my Talk page, and then restore them after I remove them. This is most likely an offshoot of the vandalism campaign Levin began yesterday and continued today. Could an admin please intervene? Many thanks. --BobMifune (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Investigate if you wish, but bear in mind the complaining editor may be affected by WP:Plaxico and the other editor may just need TLC normally given to newbies, unlike the face slap delivered by the complaining editor. I say this because the complaining editor has repeatedly reverted my own edits as "rvv" when that was simply not the case, and now he is here complaining about the same thing, only with another person. Be that as it may, I have not myself reviewed the alleged activity. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has a longstanding grudge with me over the Mark Levin article, and has now resorted to Wikistalking me to this page. Please see his offer of encouragement to an account limited only to harassment, in an attempt (one supposes) to gain an ally. This behavior is not exactly new. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any help with the Bikeric account. --BobMifune (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking over the account and the many related Mark Levin issues. No-one can claim the high road here and so far every party involved is guilty of some exceptionally bad conduct. IMO this is NOT a good time for anyone to go claiming they are an innocent victim.

I do not think any action is appropriate on this specific item because everyone has contributed to this s**tfight. Instead I am going to lay down the laws of good conduct at the Mark Levin talk page, and then try to ensure that everyone behaves appropriately henceforth. Manning (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think BobMifune has a legitimate complaint. Bikeric's only contributions has been to repeatedly post the same quasi-attack message on BobMifune's talk page over and over again. He has made no other types of edits. BM keeps removing it, and Bikeric keeps adding it back. This led to Bikeric BobMifune ( Manning refactored this) posting a warning on Bikeric's talk page. (A Level 4 warning was probably too high, but that doesn't mean BM's complaint is unfounded). I'm not disputing that no one can claim thte high road here, but it does appear that the Bikeric account has been created for the sole purpose of harrassing BM. Singularity42 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Singularity - I refactored your above comment to change Bikeric to BobMifune. I hope no offence was taken. There are grounds to AGF about the comments made by Bikeric as it could be a newbie not realising their comments were deleted and innocently reposting them. (Of course they could be deliberate vandalism too - I'm not entirely sure). This is my hesitation. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. (And good refactoring too - I should probably stop editing while tired and get some sleep.) I just didn't want to BobMifune's complaint dismissed out-of-hand by the obvious problems going on at the Mark Levin article. Singularity42 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Singularity - no, not ignored. I just think all the parties need a good time-out. Hence I've written a list of "THOU SHALT NOTs" at the Mark Levin article: Talk:Mark_Levin#Administrative_Time_Out_declared. Any other admin is free to add/modify and add their name, should they so desire.Manning (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some WP:BITE all the way around - BobMifune's reaction to unwanted accusations on his talk page, and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling both here and on Bikeric's talk page directed at BobMifune. I wouldn't call it stalking exactly, this notice board is a public place... but biting biters is not going to calm things, and making semi-impertinent accusations against people for filing an AN/I complaint doesn't help much either. I've left a sort of welcome message on the new account. It is looking awfully WP:DUCK-ish as a WP:SPA and possible WP:SOCK / troll, but I don't think we've got enough to make that assumption. Better to WP:AGF here and treat the new account with the utmost of calm and politeness. If they mean to edit the encyclopedia productively they're welcome. If they persist in harassing BobMifune we've got plenty of time to deal with it. No hurry, huh? Being in a hurry to deal with provocation usually just makes it worse. Just my $0.02. Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - I concur on all points. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by User:Exucmember

Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of violations of WP:NPA. His inappropriate behavior was noted at his user talkpage by two users - I pointed out WP:NPA and asked Exucmember to strikeout his false negative comments , and DigitalC pointed out WP:BATTLE to Exucmember . Exucmember has not redacted the statements in question.

I am requesting that another administrator take action with regard to this matter.

• 08:00, 2 October 2009 - Exucmember removes sourced material from the article Moonie (Unification Church), with edit summary: nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source; rm
• 13:18, 2 October 2009 - I restored the sourced material
• 06:56, 5 October 2009 - Exucmember makes inflammatory comments and strong claims about my use of sourcing, in a post to the article's talk page. He accuses me of adding a "false reference" to the article. Example: It's astounding to me that CIRT would admonish me for removing a false reference when I stated clearly in the edit summary "nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source." He cites the diff, but does not answer the objection I raised! I did a search of that paper, and finding none of the keywords from the quotation, I then read the entire paper (quickly); not only does the quotation not appear in the cited reference, but no discussion about anything related to the topic is present. Perhaps he cited the wrong source, but it makes me wonder how many other sources don't really contain the stated claim.
• 13:08, 5 October 2009 - I added further information to the cite (not needed for verifiability, but extra information) to make it explicitly clear that I had not added a "false reference".
• 13:14, 5 October 2009 - In posts to Exucmember's talk page, I made it clear that he was incorrect, I had not used a "false reference". Here I pointed out that the information is actually in Footnote 16 of the cited source. Here I responded to his strong allegation that I inserted "factually incorrect" information into the article. And here I noted the inappropriateness of his posts to the article's talk page.
• 17:24, 5 October 2009 - A second user posts to the talk page of Exucmember about his inappropriate behavior. DigitalC commented: Exucmember, you may also want to read WP:BATTLE if you have not already done so.
• 03:34, 7 October 2009 - Exucmember has not removed or redacted his inappropriate attacks and claims about my editing, nor the allegations that I used "false references". Instead, he has chosen to continue to make further inflammatory posts about me at the article's talk page: , , , .

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue that seems to be the primary emphasis by Cirt seems to be not that big a deal since it was a statement that was incorrect about the sources and has since been resolved. An apology would be nice but it isn't required by any policy. I'm more concerned about some of the difs that Cirt gives at the end. Especially troubling are comments like this onewhere after Cirt asks for sources Exu says "'Ive seen this before from Cirt. When he either doesn't have an answer or doesn't understand the issue raised (I have no idea which), he presents this mantra, an obvious and complete non-sequitur in this case. Perhaps his meaningless comment is an example of "wasting" talk page space (which he is so fond of arrogantly pointing out)." That seems to be pushign CIV and NPA issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Joshua said above. I'm not sure that Exucmember realizes that his actions are wrong. In any case, if there's any further aggressive comments like what s/he has said, I think a block is in order. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the above - it took a while to find it, but the cited quote is definitely in the source (Exucmember, footnote on page 21). I left a note on Exucmember's talk page asking him to comment here and pointing out the page number, but if these comments continue a block would be in order for a short period of time. Hersfold 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that was before I noticed he's been here since 2006. An editor with a three year tenure should know better than to make comments like that. Hersfold 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: After being notified of this ANI thread and then indicating he was aware of it with a rather inappropriate response , Exucmember received comments at his talk page from admins Killiondude , and Hersfold . Exucmember subsequently posted this inflammatory language to the article's talk page . I fear he is choosing not to listen to the messages posted by these admins to his talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Exucmember posted another inappropriate comment about me to the talk page of the article, saying: he seems to be adopting as factual the arguments of people who in some cases are bigoted. I have repeatedly asked for Exucmember to back up his claims with independent reliable secondary sources - he has instead chosen to engage in this sort of talkpage diatribe - despite warnings from multiple admins and editors. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to think this is block worthy, primarily per WP:BATTLE. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Administrator:Fram

On October 5, 2009, User:Fram thoughtlessly removed within 10 minutes, about 70 articles written by me, without knowing the source material. Despite pay attention to him, did it again. Only later in the discussion on the removal of one of the articles, wrote that he is aware of one of the sources on this one article. Not according to the article topic, such mindless behavior is harmful to Misplaced Pages and unacceptable. I understand that the average user can do so, but the person holding the status of Administrator requirements are much higher, I demand the withdrawal of this user status of the Administrator immediately and prohibit him up editing until you clarify this issue. Sincerely,--WlaKom (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify which articles, I don't see 70 artices in your deleted contributions, and as far as I can see, only one was in mainspace? And you say "..without knowing the source material..", do you mean that the articles were unsourced? Thanks for the answers. --Dirk Beetstra 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look; Fram did not delete any articles, he nominated them for deletion. Any user can do this, and you have disputed the deletion nominations accordingly. No vandalism or otherwise incorrect actions have taken place. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I now found the same, indeed. You might want to find some reliable sources to source your articles, as for now, they do not assert their notability. --Dirk Beetstra 08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment on a closed thread, but please be careful about calling things "vandalism" - that's reserved for deliberate attempts to harm the encyclopedia. Something you disagree with, however wrong it may be, is not vandalism if the person believed they were doing the right thing. It looks like your complaint might be called "improper deletion of articles" or something a little less of an accusation. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for misunderstanding and using improper name. As a newbie, I did the same, as User:Fram, a month ago and I was accused for Vandalism. So, I tried to complied with the explanation I got and file complain using the same name (vandalism). Therefore, I change mu complain to improper behavior.

All articles are listed in Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England.

My complains are not about "notability" but about thoughtlessly marked for deletion within 10 minutes, about 70 articles.

What about one of the oldest Polish parish in east cost of USA St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, Chicopee?

If User remove post from Project discussion instead of adding comment or discussion such action with the Project Administrator, is it proper behavior? Sincerely,--WlaKom (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WlaKom, I don't think it is thoughtlessly, he could just have deleted them all. Instead, he considered, and decided to propose them for deletion, as they do not give their notability. This should be an incentive to you to provide e.g. references to establish their notability, otherwise they still may just be deleted, as for me it is (for a couple) not clear at all why they are notable.

It may be 10 minutes after their creation that they were tagged, but we are now 2 days later.... --Dirk Beetstra 09:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

About 70 articles in 10 minutes? Sounds like New Page Patrolling at its finest. You can easily start seeing a pattern, and those articles become very easy to patrol. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not notified of this conversation, but anyway... I noticed WlaKom creating many pages on parishes through new page patrolling. I left him a message, asking to temporarily stop the creation of such pages, since they appeared to be about non notable entities.. WlaKom did not reply to this message, but continued his article creation. I then proposed 56 pages for deletion (not 70) in 30 minutes (12.06 - 12.36, so not the claimed 10 minutes at all). I looked at all pages I nominated, and deliberately skipped St. Joseph Parish, Webster, which had some claim to notability. This indicates that I paid attention to what to nominate for deletion and what not. After WlaKom protested these deletions, I brought one of them to AfD. WlaKom accused me of vandalism on my talk page, and in the next post of religious discrimination. He removed the AfD tag from the article (it had already been removed by an IP and replaced) The same IP started a section on my talk page about my vandalism, where different editors pointed out that my actions were not vandalism before WlaKom again stated that I was a vandal. He then canvassed for support in the AfD and repeated this after it had been explained to him that this is not accepted here. He then started this section, where the basic facts are obscured by his misunderstanding of the processes used here, and the misinformation he provides on times and numbers. E.g. "User:Fram thoughtlessly removed within 10 minutes, about 70 articles written by me, without knowing the source material. Despite pay attention to him, did it again." I removed no articles, I proposed 56 articles for deletion in 30 minutes, and I did not repeat that action, but instead brought just one of them to AfD. I have no problem that this marked as resolved, just wanted to share my side of the story. Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

a) well said b) the situaton is as expected and c) sorry to not let you know (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at account compromise (or maybe just being annoying)

I awoke to an e-mail this morning telling me someone from 129.42.208.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) requested a new password for my account. This IP's recent edits overlap with Kystien (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, which I and other editors have largely reverted over the last day as WP:BOLD gone amok. I reported Kystien to AIV for persistent page-blanking, but no block went in because, in fact, there were no violations after my level-4 warning. However, this apparent attempt to fiddle with my account came after those warnings. Now, technically, this editor hasn't received a warning for screwing around in this manner . . . but, it's pretty shoddy behavior, and I figure worth drawing attention here. --EEMIV (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor is now making ricockulous page moves. --EEMIV (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriately addressed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IP disruption at Michael Dargaville

Michael Dargaville is currently at WP:AFD, and thus far the consensus is unanimous for deletion. That said, IP editor 116.254.200.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly removed the tag and has dropped all sorts of other junk on the page. He's been warned and appears to not care. I would suggest limited protection for the page or a block until the AFD runs its course. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've granted the IP a week's holiday. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:117.96.7.163

User continues to vandalize wikipedia pages. Has been warned multiple times, continues to edit the page child labour.--Penguin Warchief 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reported to WP:AIV already. Next time reporting there may provide a better response time. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cody Judy

I came across this article on the BLP boards. It appears that a) the subject is editing it and b) keeps reverting to an incoherent poorly sourced version. I have no real understanding of LDS politics and some more eyes are requested to look over the article and also someone who can engage with the subject of the article as I lack the medical training needed to do so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah a bit beyond me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the article brought up a connection with Orly Taitz and that appears to be a "third rail" situation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

user:Lovablehearts edits on Beanie Baby

The Help Desk indicated that ANI is the board most likely to be able to help me with this, so I'm bringing it here.

I'm not sure what to do with an editor who is adding un-encyclopedic walls o'text to an article and not responding to talk page requests to stop, but does not overtly appear to be operating in bad faith. The article in question is Beanie Baby, and a user who was first an IP and then user:Lovablehearts has been adding first-person, orginal-research-y commentary repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), despite my efforts, first in edit summaries (1, 2) and then in a non-template message to the user's talk page, to convince him/her that the content is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I tried cleaning up their contribution and integrating it into the article where possible, but they undid those changes in favor of their full wall of text. A check of the article's history tells me that I've undone their edits longer than than I probably should have (Beanie Baby does not appear to have a whole lot of regular watchers), and I'm not willing to carry on in that manner, so I need some sort of help.

Given the article subject and the editor's additions, I tend to think this is something more along the lines of an overenthusiastic kid than a POV or COI warrior, but given that they are not responding to edit summaries or talk page warnings, I don't know what else to do to convince them to stop. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: For my future reference, is there a venue that deals with situations like this? This is not the first time I've run into editors who, while not vandalizing or operating in bad faith exactly, do not respond to requests or explanations. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you (and Bencherlite) are handling the situation correctly and admirably with your notes on the user's talk page. If the issue continues, drop a note back here. Tan | 39 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More eyes please

A dormant conflict at Equality Mississippi seems to have been restarted and has potential to get ugly, judging from the previous round. It would be nice if an admin or two could keep an eye on it and step in if it becomes necessary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:130.209.241.193

This user has repeatedly vandalized Misplaced Pages, and has been warned multiple times to stop, and still has not. --NemesisofReason 15:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. Tan | 39 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User was not sufficiently warned anyway - only one warning in October; last warning was in March. Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

75.169.98.4

This ip user made legal threats at the AfD for Cody Judy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where? Tan | 39 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the same editor as User talk: 75.169.98.203 who made a legal threat on WQA last week. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:205.122.11.165

This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages and has already been warned with the level 4 im warning. Please consider blocking this user.--NemesisofReason 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:AIV. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When did we start using 4im level warnings for garden-variety vandalism? Tim Song (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Might want to address this on NoR's talk page, Tim. Tan | 39 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he figures that since he has a report on him at the top of the page, now it's his turn? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

Just to note, he has continued the behaviour he was given a last chance about in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#User:DreamGuy.

Main report is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DreamGuy_reported_by_User:Shoemaker.27s_Holiday_.28Result:_.29. Shoemaker's Holiday 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked 1 week by Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) –xeno 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a vandal

Hey there, I found the IP address of a vandal, and found he has a huge history of vandalizing pages. He even writes details of the bad things he's done. Can you block him, and stop his run? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/168.170.197.210 Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycombs (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:AIV. Tan | 39 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Walaa adel

Walaa adel (talk · contribs) is copying and pasting articles from article space into his User space. I've asked for an explanation, as he doesn't seem to be editing the articles he's copying over, and besides, why not copy one, edit and move back, instead of wholesale copying? I'm removing the interwiki lilnks and article space categories from each of his pages, but it started out looking he was copying all of Misplaced Pages there, starting with article starting with the letter "A". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There may also be a problem with fair use images. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, well, he's ignoring his Talk page and continuing to copy images to his User space. I see no point in my trying to clean up after him, so could somebody please deal with this when they have a moment? Thanks. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting them all as quick as I can as G12's (as he's not preserving the edit history, a requirement for any CC license involving the Attribution component.) -Jeremy 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also blocked the user to try and stem the tide; he was adding on faster than I could delete them. I'd watch his talk page and see if he provides an explanation as to why he's doing this. -Jeremy 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hounding/Gaming by admin SarekOfVulcan

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

I have been in conflict with Admin User:SarekOfVulcan since around mid-September, who has accidentally violated the admin policy on a few occasions with me involved which I called him out on. Because of this, he has continued to follow me around for the sole purpose of annoying me quite clearly violating WP:HOUND+WP:BATTLE. The following is a list of evidence from this month only.

1. Never edited Misplaced Pages:Masking the lack of notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me twice after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
2. Never edited Misplaced Pages:Wikipuffery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me once after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
3. Never edited Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BitchX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:KoshVorlon (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) until I edited them. Downplayed my comment.
4. Never edited File:Tubefilter.png but rolled back my first legitimate edit to it.
5. Never edited User_talk:Milowent but got involved when this user attacked me
6. Never edited Tubefilter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until I did. Monitored my reverts in a 24 hour period, so he could warn me then revert me one extra time for the sole purpose of annoying me then promptly reporting me afterwards, despite never having taken part in the active discussion on the talk page of the article, and still currently hasn't. He even admitted he was only doing it for reasons of user conduct. As he has no interest in the content, making it a clear violation of WP:GAME+WP:HOUND. As there were only two users edit-warring who are both discussing it, full protection would have been far more appropriate. Note this is not a dispute of my block.
7. Full list of the same pages edited here to see the full extent of it.

I honestly couldn't care less if users follow my edits to fix up articles I tag with problems and get involved with discussions I'm in. And can accept that users with similar interest in articles will unavoidably end up editing the same pages and get in to disagreements. But when it becomes this persistent and the editor is clearly only doing it to cause an annoyance and is doing it across articles, deletion discussions, essays and user talk pages, it gets to the point where it clearly violates WP:HOUND.

He even decided to gloat about it when I was blocked because of him ""loldom", "your first revert on the article BZZZZZT! But thank you for playing". The fact this user is an admin means they should have some basic knowledge on how to defuse a conflict, not continously fuel it by harrasing and trolling the user in which they are in a conflict with, which makes this all the more shameful.--Otterathome (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying an admin should not get involved in trying to resolve an edit war unless they've edited the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified SarekOfVulcan of this thread? That is usually the desired courtesy when you post something like this. — Ched :  ?  18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been following my edits for weeks, I don't see any reason why he would suddenly stop now. So no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. When you list a complain at AN/I you are must notify all relevant parties. This is written in bold letters at the top of this page. Manning (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gloat" is not the word I'd use. The text of the "loldom" diff above is 'I am mightily amused at the concept that you reverted 5 times because I was "monitoring" you', and the "BZZZT" links to a list of my contributions on that page, showing that the revert he claimed was my first was not. Re "downplaying" -- he claimed that the discussion had been "stinted" for 3 days, and the AfD should run an extra 2, even though the AfD had only been improperly closed for less than a day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed about half of the listed items.

(1) You claim Sarek "accidentally violated the admin policy" and you called him out. I see no evidence of that in your diff. You simply made a claim which was refuted by Admin Sandstein.

(2) You placed a CSD tag on File:Tubefilter.png. Sarek removed the CSD tag presumably because he disagreed with the basis (which also seemed fair enough). You then reverted this and wrote "no edit summary with rollback = abuse" in the ES. You seem to not be aware that one of the jobs of admins is to deal with CSD tags, and we are not actually required to have edited an article before making an admin decision. While ES's are always preferred, failing to provide one is not "abuse".

(3) As administrators we are REQUIRED to intervene in edit wars. Also it is preferred that we intervene in edit wars on articles we have not otherwise edited, so that we can remain "uninvolved".

(4) Re this diff and "only here for the conduct issues"... um, with respect - that's our job. Sarek was doing what admins are specifically tasked to do - ensure editors engage in proper conduct.

(5) Your comment of LOLdom has no basis. You were not blocked "beacuase of Sarek", you were blocked for 3RR violation. Unless Sarek held a gun to your head and forced you to press "submit" then that statement has no basis. Sarek was not mocking you, he was merely noting that your claim was unfounded.

In summary, so far I do not see any substance to this claim. Otter - you are for the most part a very good editor, but it is my observation you do not like being corrected and seem to take it very personally. So far a number of independent admins have reviewed a variety of the disputes you have with Sarek and all have sided with Sarek. This is not because we are "an evil band who always support each other" but because Sarek was basically correct in his enforcement of the rules.

Regardless, to keep you happy I will recommend that Sarek refrain from taking administrative action against you in the future. However if you persist in the same style of editing actions, and take the same level of offence when corrected, then I suspect you will be claiming further "admin hounding" in future, except with someone else. Manning (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are speaking about the edits individually, it doesn't matter who was in the right or wrong in any case, it doesn't explain the hounding. And I don't know what sandstein comment you are talking about.--Otterathome (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Manning means Zoeydahling, not Sandstein. -- Atama頭 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks, Atama. Manning (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And to follow up, Manning is pointing out how the entire basis for your claim is unfounded by picking apart each of your claims. I'm sure you're aware that WP:HOUND states, "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Manning has shown that each of the diffs you provided that are supposed to prove that Sarek was hounding you weren't done without an "overriding reason". -- Atama頭 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, to put it another way, the user is following me around and simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance. All above points are debatable. And if you must know Sarek threatened to block me over deletion disputes, in which he was involved, so it was a violation of WP:UNINVOLVED which can be see read in this archive. There was obviously a conflict before, and Sarek wants to continue it.--Otterathome (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sarek is "simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance". From where I stand he is simply doing his administrator's job. From a quick scan of his edit log, you are far from his only interest on Misplaced Pages. Ditto to your baseless claim of Sarek violating WP:UNINVOLVED. I have offered to recommend to Sarek that he refrain from interacting with you. You are unlikely to obtain anything beyond that. It is starting to look like that you are simply badgering us in the hope of getting a result negative to Sarek, and as multiple admins have already pointed out, that is not likely. It is probably time to move along. Manning (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, the evidence above are all debatable cases. And I have shown an obvious motive for it.--Otterathome (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "obvious motive" is that you "called him out" on "violating admin policy". I hope you realize what a ridiculous and dangerous precedent you're trying to set. You're saying that because you participated in an administrator review (which Sarek of Vulcan initiated himself) that he can no longer take administrative action against you. It sounds like you're the one gaming the system. -- Atama頭 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining about administrative abuse, this is hounding/user conduct spurred by a previous disagreements over deletions of pages, see this and this.--Otterathome (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Otter - let me make this very clear. You made a complaint. The complaint has been dismissed as having no basis. An offer was made of a possible compromise, which you have thus far ignored. Now you are badgering us and repeating your accusations against an admin. This is disruption. So let me make this very clear - we have been very patient thus far, but any more disruptive behaviour on ANI is going to earn you a block. It's over - move along. Manning (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to show it has basis, so I don't know what you're talking about.--Otterathome (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't get to decide the validity of your complaint. The admins who have reviewed this have decided your complaint has no basis. That's how ANI works. Now, due to your persistent refusal to let this go I am recommending that you be blocked for disruptive behaviour. I will let another admin decide if my recommendation has merit. Manning (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment saying my WP:UNINVOLVED claim was baseless with evidence, why don't you respond to that instead of proclaiming I'm clearly wrong, go away or you'll be blocked for disruption?--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome. It has been made clear in this thread that there is nothing actionable here. You're refusal to drop the WP:STICK is bordering on Misplaced Pages:Harassment. I implore you to cease and desist at this time before a passing admin. drops a block on you. This is not a threat - simply a bit of advice. — Ched :  ?  20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not the the following the other user around.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is engaging in conduct which he maybe shouldn't be making, it isn't unreasonble to "follow him around". I've reverted vandalism by IPs and others multiple times by checking their edit histories after having one of their acts of vandalism appear on my watchlist. If anyone does find that there has been such multiple errors, it is reasonable to check to see if they are continued. I don't know how much vandalism I've reverted in such a way. You have given no proof to date of malicious intent, and, frankly, based on the evidence you have presented, there is no good reason to assume any. As such, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to drop this discussion now. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about vandalism, I have shown this user to disagree with me across multiple pages they have never edited before for a variety of debatable reasons and have given a clear motive for it.--Otterathome (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with John Carter; for me, if I see someone is adding advertorial links, it's practically standard procedure for me to check up on their contributions for a while and see if they start doing it again; there have been multiple instances where I was able to find linkspam spreading across over 40 pages by doing this. This isn't limited to vandalism as you might claim; I've also done it for people who repeatedly add advertorial copy to articles, or add bad sources. The next time you persist in this discussion by accusing Sarek of stalking you and trying to start fights, I will block you for 24 hours for harassing him and persisting with this claim. Let it go. Veinor 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User is still continuing to hound me; Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_template.--Otterathome (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're actively editing an AN/I thread about me, and you expect me not to see what else you're up to?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you continue to do the thing that you are accused of doing?--Otterathome (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

points 4 paragraphs up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved administrator, I have to say that I don't see any fault Sarek's part. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Otterathome has been for 31 hours for pursuing his vendetta against Sarek after being told to stop. Veinor 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice ... Otter was all over these pages less than a month ago in one of the largest threads. His activity drew the attention of many an admin then - there should be no surprise that actions were taken, or that his edits were being watched. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Horrifically poorly handled matter and bad block

Discussing a problem in good faith on a noticeboard is not harassment. What an atrocious block. And Sarek cannot make statements like this one to an editor calling Otter a turd ":::Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it. And if you're any more explicit than the above, I'll need to block you. Yes, some of his edits are highly annoying, but that isn't license to attack him." and portray himself as an uninvolved and impartial admin.

The edits from Otter that I looked at were properly reverted, but Sarek actively siding with an editor making a vicious personal attack is inexcusable given the circumstances. He has no business stalking Otter's edits any further, and he isn't uninvolved. Sarek should have asked for other admin to help long ago. He excercised extraordinarily poor judgment, and it's unfortunate so many others in positions of authority are encouraging his behavior with an utter lack of empathy for a good faith editor feeling stalked and harassed. This is deeply troubling. Ched, get your head out of your ass. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Keep it up and I'll block you" is siding with him???? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You also said: "Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it." And this is in response to Milo calling Otter a turd. You're taking sides. You're not acting with appropriate restraint or impartiality. Otter may well need assistance and supervision, but if he feels hounded and stlalked you need to listen. You're not the only admin so you should've asked for help in keeping an eye on the situation and tried to defuse it instead of aggravating it to this extent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*looks askance at the edit history* CoM, sorry, didn't mean to stomp on your edits there. Feel free to restore, I was only trying to adjust the heading level.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've been known to unintentionally remove comments all together somehow. I think it has to do with having multiple windows open, but I'm not sure... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM Seeing as how you address me specifically - I ask you to refactor your statement. I consider it highly offensive, smiley face or not. I reviewed what was going on here - looked at the users talk page, reviewed the users block log, and offered what I considered to be constructive advice. Disruption comes in many forms, one of which is continuing to engage in Misplaced Pages:Harassment after several people have reviewed the situation, and offered advice. Let me be perfectly clear here - I am highly offended by your statement! I have always done my utmost to communicate with my fellow editors, I always strive to maintain a high degree of civility, and I certainty don't appreciate being spoken to in that fashion. — Ched :  ?  21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of block process applied to User:Epycwin

User:Epycwin was indefinitely blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert on October 2nd after edit-warring with another user at Organ donation in Israel. The reason for block was not edit-warring per se, but rather, being a "a single purpose account whose only purpose is to edit war and reinsert material on jewish conspiracies to steal internal organs, which has no sources which meet our reliable source policy, violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and is attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a battlefield to fight external fights." Please read User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Epycwin to see his rationale as explained to admins asking that the block length be reduced.

Epycwin's account is about three months old. He has never been warned about edit-warring. The only other talk page comment left on his page previous was left by an editor who was edit-warring with him who warned him against inserting WP:OR into articles. I understand the topics Epycwin was editing about are controversial to many. But that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions about his motives. A review of User talk:Epycwin will show this seems to be a reasonable editor who has responded quite graciously to the out of process block placed against him and has been very patient in fielding questions from other admins despite how poorly he has been treated. Yes, he edit-warred, but he admitted it and pledged not to do it again . Please, more eyes and some notes on the process here? Tiamut 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

An SPA dedicated to conspiracy theory pushing, especially antisemitic hoaxes about organ stealing, warrants a nice block. Any good reason for your strong interest in an unblock?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, it would be good if when commenting to uphold a block, you disclose your prior involvement with the editor (eg. having warned Epycwin about OR after reverting his edits to the introduction of Organ donation in Jewish law). Though you didn't bother discussing your edits at the article talk page there, I notice Epycwin tried to. Unfortunately, no one bothered to bring specific citations and sources to the discussion or the article that would have perhaps help quell the blind reverting and disagreements. But why don't we let other uninvolved editors comment? Or instead comment on your experiences with the editor, providing diffs and specific instances or behaviours that you believe justify a block. Tiamut 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I resent the implications you are trying to make about my motives here. This came to my attention because Epycwin started an article on Yehuda Hiss. (I had started one in my user space and added mine to his after I saw his go up.) When I went to check out his user page, I discovered he was blocked. After looking into it, I was shocked by the lack of prior warnings and the jumping to conclusions made by the blocking admin. I would hope you wouldn't repeat that same mistake. Tiamut 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Yehuda Hiss do you refer to? This Yehuda Hiss, that is being used as a WP:COATRACK to further the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Hiss was involved Operation Big Rig?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, I've never edited the articles being discussed, never had any run-in with Epycwin or Brewcrewer or anyone else in this dispute. I have to say that I concur with the block, reviewing Epycwin's recent contributions all I see is removal or reverting of content that is sourced with false (or at least arguable) edit summaries saying that the information reverted is "original research" or "rumor" (again, the info reverted has a source). A legitimate edit-war warning was removed from their talk page calling it a "threat". I don't see any evidence that this is a "reasonable editor" and I don't see that they "responded quite graciously" to the block (though they didn't exactly rant and curse either). I can understand the anti-semitism claims, since the majority of edits might indicate a bias against the Jewish people, though I myself would be cautious in labeling them that way without seeing anything more overt. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion focused on Epicwyn and civil, please.

I am open to other admins further reviewing, and if they decide to AGF under the circumstances unblock. I believe I have enough evidence to stop assuming that, but that's my personal opinion. Anyone who reviews and believes that the situation is recoverable and that Epicwyn can become a productive user moving forwards is welcome to work on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing another User's page

User:Gregbard created User:TheMathPeople/Sandbox.  While I cannot put my finger to a precise WP policy forbidding users from editing in another User's _User_ page, I know in my heart that this is not cricket.  I've blanked the page but would ask an admin to delete it. Gregbard can restore the material from the page history into *his own* user space. 166.205.134.10 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

TheMathPeople just needs to request the deletion, and then WP:CSD#U1 applies. Singularity42 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gregbard has also made a sockpuppet allegation against TheMathPeople. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering TheMathPeople was indef-blocked over a year ago as a sock, I don't think it's an "accusation". This also, of course, means he can't add CSD tags to pages. Also note that Gregbard's edit to the userpage was in May of 2008. --Smashville 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it seems too early to call resolved. But I'm not an administrator, so it's your call. Consider the chronology though:

• TheMathPeople account is created on May 12, 2008.
• Only contribution (other than add one character to his own user page and talk page) is to make a comment on Gregbard's talk page in response to another editor's comment (which is made the day after TheMathPeople account is created).
• Within 30 minutes, Gregbard accuses TheMathPeople as being a sockpuppet (with what seems to be no basis).
• On May 30th, 2008, TheMathPeople is blocked as a sockpuppet, probably after a proper SPI (of who, I'm not sure - need to look that up).
• Nothing until September 30, 2009, where Gregbard creates a subpage of TheMathPeople and begins editing it until October 5th.

This seems very odd behaviour by Gregbard. Any administrator want to follow it up? Singularity42 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You

I don't think that this issue fits on any of the more specific pages, and I'm not sure what to do:

User:Die4Dixie contains a not-so-veiled statement that the editor is glad that a Cuban politician died a couple of weeks ago, and hopes that more will die.

This seems like it falls under WP:UP#NOT #9 ("Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons..."), but I haven't seen anything like this before, so I don't really know how the community usually interprets this line, or how (if necessary) these incidents are commonly handled. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Removed it. Clearly polemical, not to mention gratuitous and unpleasant. Black Kite 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review

And, after persisting in re-inserting the offensive material, despite being reverted by myself and another editor, and having had both of us explain why on their talk page, I have blocked User:Die4Dixie for 24 hours. Their previous block log gives me no indication that they would be stopping their disruptiveness any time soon. I don't think this counts as "involvement" by the blocking admin, but review welcome. Black Kite 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict, may be mitigated by Black Kite comments} More action may be necessary with Die4Dixie (talk · contribs). I was recently involved in a conflict with him which got into WP:CIVIL territory - it ended with him accusing me of racism for mentioning this essay as apparently "calling a spade a spade" is a racist expression where he comes from. Ok, whatever, but the point is that this compliant is not the first regarding this user. I am not fast to file actions against other users and don't know what the appropriate venue to proceed would be should his actions persist in this vein after coming off block. RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

from the ANI archives This isn't the first time Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has got in trouble for hinting that he wished another editor dead. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards