Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fish and karate (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 14 June 2007 (→Anti-Jewish rant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research

He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored):

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks: Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seek dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools. If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, you can not spam Misplaced Pages articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources . user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article , I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in --Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC --Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz meatpuppets Pejman47 and Alexanderpar again reverting - now what it is suggested by third party mediator during RfC--Dacy69 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Misplaced Pages of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Misplaced Pages grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The usual place for speedy sysoppings at the moments is the 'crat's noticeboard, not RfA. --ais523 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think 3 months is too short a time (a summer vacation, or military duty, for example). Let's make it a year. And we can even use a recent Arbcomm ruling in addition:

• All admin accounts which have been inactive for a year may be immediately desysopped, and since they were desysopped "uncontroversially", they may be resysopped upon request automatically, without need to go through RfA.

I'm trying to think of any examples of how this could be seen as controversial, but I can't think of any. Anyone else? - jc37 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and www.arkive.org

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Misplaced Pages article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Misplaced Pages for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Misplaced Pages mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Misplaced Pages in general, but any link added to Misplaced Pages can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (www.wildscreen.org.uk), a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and Allaboutjazz.com for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote arkive.com using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Misplaced Pages. -- moe.RON 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept ARKive.org as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that ARKive.org is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The www.arkive.org discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So what now? The spam links are currently still in the articles, as I did not want to get into a back and forth revert war over this, but I still feel strongly that the spammer has been rewarded for their actions by allowing their links to remain. This whole thing is a little grey. I *think* I would be justified by WP:SPAM to continue reverting Uther, removing the spam links again, but is this whole thing worth edit warring over? Sigh. I just don't know. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will support you to revert. The archived discussion at WP:TOL deals only with links that are directly beneficil to an article. Wildscreen's WP:COI edits are adding links to images and videos, which are most likely copyrighted. -- moe.RON 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: ; ; --note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": .—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Misplaced Pages Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Misplaced Pages policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Misplaced Pages Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Misplaced Pages Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----Tea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Misplaced Pages. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Misplaced Pages. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----Tea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Misplaced Pages. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Misplaced Pages is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Misplaced Pages can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Misplaced Pages is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Corticopia guess what? This isn't a fuckin' debate about me. Its a debate about you. If you really feel what I have done is wrong, start a thread on me. Nobody will even consider what I've done to be wrong. My failed attempt to have America redirect to the United States? That's disruptive? No it isn't. It was an attempt to reach consensus, and you know what it failed. And I put the United States on top of the DAB page, because, in that "abortive" attempt as you describe, everyone seemed to agree that United States is what America commonly refers to. So stop shitting on those who you don't like (aka those who disagree with your agenda) and start helping to improve this encyclopedia. And by the way, my use profanity is allowed per WilyD. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive, arguably ... and it seems the end result has yielded an outcome which has yet to agree with yours. Anyhow, stop sh*tting on yourself: no one is a paragon of 'wikivirtue' and this is not a venue for the timid. I have no problem with others who 'disagree with agenda', but your attitude and expressed intent to block are precisely and partially why this whole thread is farcical. Apropos, I will refrain from commenting here and withdraw from these proceedings, which is sometimes necessary when things run as amok as this fruitless exercise. Corticopia 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in English is usually encouraged here, speaking with metaphors like you do is the mark of a sophist. And you have also not yet mastered the art writing comments in one try, the fact that you have to edit your comments several times before you feel satisfied is extremely annoying BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When last I checked, metaphors are part of the English language. Anyhow, your other comments and level of annoyance regarding this or that (single tear?) are of no concern and proof-positive of my prior comments. I shall waste no more time on this. Corticopia 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia is clearly trying to dodge the subject by talking about other's rule breaking. This thread is not about whatever article or subject you're working on. Frankly, I don't care about that. No one here should be concerned about that. What we're talking about is how you're handling the subject. You might say Ignore all rules, but I think you should look at what that means. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so: my actions are generally precipitated by other editors' actions -- so, when mine are called into account, it's necessary to point out the reasons why ... and there are quite a few. I make no apologies for my behaviour, but if you think the commentators above are wholesome in their conduct and commentary, think again. As well, IAR is policy, but WIARM is just an essay. And, quite frankly, if I was trying to dodge the subject, I would probably do better in completely ignoring this fruitless discussion ... and will hereafter resume that stance. Have fun. Corticopia 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Note that Corticopia was blocked for one month due to three reverts within 17 minutes on the Canada article. For more see here. On a personal note I applaud Dmcdevit for taking the necessary action by blocking Corticopia. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden

I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Misplaced Pages policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A diff: Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Misplaced Pages pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: Soccermeko (talk · contribs) trying to OWN their talk page

See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. —Kurykh 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner

This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.

I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with... Thanks for elaborating now, though. It does clarify the situation. Odd. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has "gotten into it" with many editors, from the beginning. He has been blocked several times recently for 3RR violations, by other admins. El redactor's behavior fits several points of classic sockpuppet behavior, and his connection to Tecmobowl has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when Tecmobowl is under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why are his first edits to add Tecmobowl's spam link back? As a side note, what exactly is your connection with Tecmobowl seeing as you keep running all over Misplaced Pages to defened him? IrishGuy 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Miss M's relationship is with Tecmo, but this is one of a recent series of pages on which she has sought to defend him, while posing as uninvolved and unbiased herself, and often while ignoring other's comments pointing out his questionable actions. A brief search will yield the examples to which I refer.

Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies with a recidivist obsessive and non-apologetic air, claiming that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) as he blanks his talk pages, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following will give some of the flavor of what I am referring to:

• (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
• (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
• (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
• (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
• (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
• (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
• (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
• (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
• (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
• (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
• (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
• (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
• (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
• (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
• (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
• (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
• (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
• (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
• (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
• (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
• (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
• (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
• (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
• (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)

Finally, as to Miss M's suggestion that he could just be a new editor, I note that he wrote to Amin Nishkid: "I am well aware of the full consequence of my actions and my behavior....//Tecmobowl 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--Epeefleche 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean this diff? That's a comment written by Tecmo (El redactor had no edits on the 10th) in regards to BLANKING HIS TALK PAGE. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I mean that as one example of his comments to the effect that he understands the consequences and his behavior. This relates to your suggestion that he may just be a new editor.

He has also made statements with regard to his view of what the directive to be bold means, along the lines of "... people want to discuss my behavior. Unfortunately, I am a person who will continue to be BOLD in my edits. I am sorry that seems to be a point of contention, but seeing as it's point number 5 on wiki's five pillars, it is going to be difficult to convince me otherwise." Note the absence of agreement to follow consensus, and the focus on others having to convince him in order for him to stop deleting urls.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irishguy--he only had to look at the article history page, as he probably would have done when making a REVERT! You also commented on the article talk page. But please stop arguing the sockpuppet case here. My only point was that the sockpuppet case should actually happen--you can't be lawyer, judge and jury for El redactor. This isn't where to file or comment on a sock pupper case--it's ANI--those comments belond there.
• Epeefleche--my "relationship" to Tecmo is very simple. I came to Wikiproject based asking for help finding sources for alumni. You can see a section where I asked (for the second time) above the Tecmo disaster. As such, WikipProject Baseball was on my watchlist. When that section got posted, I started getting a lot from them--more than usual (it started to look like ANI), so after a day or two I looked to see what was going on. And was subsequently confused and horrified as you can see by my first comment there that a fairly simply content issue had turned into flame throwing. Btw, I asked about the block not because I wanted him unblocked or I was requesting but because I was confused. I'd been watching the page at the time, didn't see evidence of edit warring and was generally interested in why the decision was made.

Do I always agree with Tecmo? No. Not by a long shot. But there's a reason I finally came here the other day, and I reason I posted here about this. I don't know much about Tecmo's past behavior, but whatever it is that is going on, he and the situation is being handled so badly, that generally whoever is dealing with him behaves worse than he does, or at least incites a situation. If everything that Tecmo was doing was so obviously bad, then the editors and administrators having difficulty with him shouldn't have a problem following the rules. If El redactor is obviously a sockpuppet, another admin will block--actually, even if he's not OBVIOUSLY a sockpuppet, so there's no need to Irishguy to do it himself without a case ever happening. If links Tecmo inserted were obviously against EL rules, then it should be a simple matter to explain it. But since I and other editors think that the site is a good site and ok by WP:EL standards, it's not ok to revert saying "spam" and not discuss content but go on and on about how it's Tecmo's site. Tecmo isn't inserting it anymore. If the paring of the ELs were obviously against WP:EL, then when Tecmo provides his explanations, or even if he doesn't, all you have to do is say why that doesn't work under WP:EL. But instead, all I here is about him and not about content. And that's the same thing I'm hearing now--I'm hearing nothing about the issue at hand and more about Tecmo, and now me as well.

Response to Miss M. , for example, shows you asserting that those who differed from Tecmo made "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the entry you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Misplaced Pages articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Misplaced Pages policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." Given that you indicate in the heading to your comments that you are a "really uninvolved editor," To be frank, I found it peculiar if you did not have some partiality that you would make such a gross misstatement. And, I might point out, that you would repeat that misstatement more than once after.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has gotten into it with a lot of people. And a lot of people have gotten into it with him. But that's not the point. We AGF here, which means not looking at the actions of an editor for reason for swift judgement etc when talking about a potential sockpuppet. POTENTIAL. Until there's a definitive answer that they're the same person, you could be punishing one person for something another did, or a precedent of behavior another has, and that's not ok. It's like anytime the word sock or vandal is whispered we forget our policies and that's how it's supposed to work. Show me where it says..."assume good faith except when you know that you're right and there's no other explanation"

If Tecmo's obviously such a big problem, then why the need for breaking policy and procedure on such a regular basis by so many editors?

I don't see the policy violations by the other editors that you suggest are there. I see many by Tecmo. There is a reason that he has been blocked repeatedly. I've never been blocked, and I imagine that if you checked the histories of the other editors you would find a similar record on the whole. He is a particularly disruptive editor. I am sure that Wiki would be better if if your talents and those of the other editors involved in this discussion were put to efforts of improving Wiki, rather than addressing his behavior, but when he engages in such disruptive behavior sadly we must address it or the problem grows.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw Epeefleche--good job not pointing out all of the cases where I'm pointing out the problems with Tecmo's behavior. AFAIK--and one of you can spend hours digging through my edit history to double check, I had the pleasure of meeting all of you, and your wikiproject when you couldn't have a civil discussion that would have taken care of matters in oh a couple days at most, and instead have dragged in numbers of outside editors and admins and taken your personal issues or whatever it is all over the wiki.

We are still stalled by Tecmo. See the discussion at . He is filibustering us despite the apparent consensus, and despite his prior comments suggesting that he agrees that the format of the url is unique. This is not about a personal issue. It is about moving forward while a difficult editor disrupts forward movement.

My only issue here is that because you think Tecmo is bad, you and the other editors are ignoring all rules--consenus, no personal attacks, coi, any policy and guideline I can think of off of the top of my head and it's not improving the wiki. However bad a problem is, editor or content or whatever, that doesn't give you or any other editor the right to railroad all of the rules we have in order to OWN. Because you could be right, or you could be wrong. El redactor could be a sockpuppet or he might not be. Tecmo might have been right about ELs, he might not or maybe he was partially right. BUT railroading over the entire system that's in place because you don't like an editor or edits or whatever is OWNing--OWNing articles, OWNing projects, OWNing wiki. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring all the rules. I'm not even ignoring any rules. I am the one seeking to enforce consensus. I'm troubled by Tecmo's behavior, but am not engaging in personal attacks. I'm really not sure what your motive is, but your accusations are baseless. You seem quite bright and quite interested, but despite the tenderest admonitions of Tecmo's behavior, you don't appear to be inclined to help address it.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true that you "and other editors think that the site is a good site". Other than Tecmo, only you do. Tecmo owns the site and he has used two IPs and three sock accounts to repeatedly add it to articles. El redactor had knowledge of my edit history that he shouldn't have had. Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. I put the sockpuppet report up because I wanted all the evidence in one place. I knew he was going to use his sock again and when he did I blocked him. I didn't open a checkuser case because it isn't necessary. His edits and use of socks are clear: if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. He is a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts to make POV edits and spam his own website into articles. IrishGuy 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So Lsi john and transaspie are Tecmo also right? Or are they me? And, this isn't a vote. I've heard several people say "but the site is tecmo's!!! <insert whine here" and no actual reason that the site doesn't fit the WP:EL guidelines or is not a good source. The page btw is protected so this is a great opportunity for you to actually come to the talk page and explain why you think it's a bad link. Please, I'd love to hear something about the content, something other than "it's Tecmo's site!!!!"

Yes, I know you didn't open a checkuser--one was only opened after El redactor was indef blocked. But you're still not getting it. You may be right, but I missed the part where you were granted the powers of all-knowing and all-powerful. Oh wait, you're an admin, you don't have to follow policies, guidelines or procedures. You can wiki-lawyer someone, and then be their judge and jury, unless someone complains. Well guess what? I'm complaining! The unbridled arrogance of assuming that you do know best and therefore don't have to even check is incredible. I'm not standing up and shouting from the rooftops that you're wrong about this, though I think that there's a chance you might be, I'm standing up and saying that whether you're right or wrong, this is the wrong way to do things. The ends don't justify the means. It doesn't matter what Tecmo did or what you think he did. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not true. The checkuser request on El redactor was issued half a day before he was blocked. Baseball Bugs 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel like I'm sitting at a table of two-year olds throwing bread at each other and each is screaming that the other did something and that they aren't in the wrong. Stop worrying about who did what to whom and make sure that your own actions are in the clear. How hard is that? Miss Mondegreen talk  23:28, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I should go to the article talk page? The one where you told me You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up? Tecmo has been using socks. Checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it is patently obvious. IrishGuy 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit rude, I'll admit, but it would be nice if you hadn't ridiculed the entire discussion process in the middle of a straw poll and not even bother to answer the straw pll questions. I still haven't gotten content related reasons that the link isn't ok, and I've listed more then once the reasons I thought it was ok, and still haven't gotten replies that don't include Tecmo's name. Baseball bugs just said, "It doesn't matter if it's the greatest website in the world...He and his website are inseparable, so talking about one is talking about the other," blatantly admitting that his problems with the link were not content ones, or rather, he might have content related objections...I just can't get him to tell me about them. So if you can come to the talk page and discuss content, and preferably not try and get Tecmo's goat in the middle of a straw poll, that would be really, really, great.

Also, sure, checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it's patently obvious. I'd definitely say it's a case for checking, but I don't see that it's patently obvious. And it's like sourcing. If something is obvious, it doesn't really need a source until someone disputes it. I'm disputing this, and I'm not getting content related replies but just more of how obvious it is. Well if it's obvious... Obviously, if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:06, June 14 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious. You simply keep making excuses. In your alternate version of events, somehow El redactor just decided to check the page history of five other articles and discovered that I had removed Blacksoxfan.com from those articles which, of course, would require him to even know to check those articles....rather than the quite clear interpretation that El redactor knew about it because Tecmobowl knew I removed them. IrishGuy 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

request that another administrator take over handling of this case

I'm officially requesting that another administrator take over the handling of the sockpuppet case and of Tecmo's current block. The current situation is just getting worse and running completely unchecked. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs and Irishguy should not be on Tecmo's talk page until all of them have cooled off and they can at least pretend to act like real editors. Irishguy in particular is a problem--he's the blocking admin for Tecmo, who's currently on an extended block for sockpuppet evasion of a block, a case opened and closed without a checkuser by Irishguy who has had and continues to have conflicts with Tecmo.

This entire situation needs to be taken out of Wikiproject baseball's hands. If the involved editors and admins cannot cool off and stop attacking each other this is going to get worse. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, nor do I require a "cooling off". He already had one unblock denied (which he blanked) and he has another unblock request up. If another admin wants to peruse the case, it is on his talk page, it is here, etc. Frankly, you are the one who keeps pushing this issue. His block will expire soon. IrishGuy 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about Tecmo's unblock, except that in I think it's stupid for those three editors to be commenting on Tecmo's page, particularly when he's blocked. I do care about the sockpuppet report which I think was handled badly. The worst thing that happens to Tecmo for that is that he stays blocked for an extra couple of days he shouldn't have been. The worst thing that happens to El redactor is that he's indef blocked for not being Tecmo. This was and is being handled very poorly. We don't collect evidence and request checkusers and dicuss possible sockpuppetry after banging the gavel, ruling and locking them up and throwing away the key. This is being done backwards. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:53, June 14 2007 (UTC)

As I have noted multiple times, I never requested a checkuser. The sockpuppetry was obvious and a checkuser wasn't necessary. Tecmo himself stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh which is a pretty clear admission that he and Blacksoxfan are one in the same. El redactor only edits when Tecmo is blocked. Until El redactor arrived, the only accounts that added blacksoxfan.com to articles were Tecmobowl and Blacksoxfan as well as Tecmo's two IP addresses. It doesn't get much clearer than that. IrishGuy 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know Irishguy--another user did. And this isn't the place to argue his case. My point is that you're playing too many roles, you were involved as an editor as well admin, El redactor's user page says that he's a suspected sock, but you've condemned him with an indef ban and didn't bother to file a checkuser or properly run the suspected sock puppets case--further, while you blocked him with the edit summary "sockpuppet" his talk page says that he's been indefinitely blocked for repeated vandalism. Are you kidding? Someone else needs to run this Irishguy--look over the case, look over the blocks you gave etc.... Stop telling me that you were right--I'm not arguing that, especially not here. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you end up being right or not about him being a sock, this is wrong. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:24, June 14 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dm2ortiz again removed the rationale from Image:Conan logo.gif and added a rationale to Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg which made no attempt to explain why an 800 pixel wide image was needed. I again tagged these articles and left a query on the user's talk page, but these have been reverted as "vandalism" and the user has responded with {{User DGAF}}. I don't see what else I can do here. Cheers --Pak21 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ready to block the user, yet, so try one more thing first. Please treat this as an editing dispute and list the image(s) in question at IFD. This will result in review of the image which you aren't going to get with the other tags being removed. Also, the user can not remove the IFD tag before the issue is resolved or they will be formally warned and blocked for sure. --After Midnight 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I've listed the two images above; the size problem applies to many of this user's images, but I don't see the need in flooding IfD with many nominations at this point). Cheers --Pak21 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the user finally began to understand what was being asked of him. The user has added fair-use rationales to images which were requesting it. -- moe.RON 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is both still not addressing the size issue, and is now nominating Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg (which I uploaded) for deletion as well. WP:POINT in spades? --Pak21 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean; as a rule, I feel album covers should be of a low resolution, ala All Music Guide, and not full blown scan as looks closer to what you got here. Having a high resolution is a no-no acording to WP:NFCC 3(b). So, yeah, in summation, I think your tagging the images for deletion based on them being high resolution is valid. -- moe.RON 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? Coldmachine 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

• Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Used the exact same language as SKRINE2. Compare edit comment by Coldmachine with AfD nomination by SKRINE2, both use the exact words "is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising".
  • More evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

• Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • User's second edit is to participate in an AfD. When it is pointed out in the Mandrake of Oxford AfD that the user is new, the response comes not from the user, but from an IP address in the range shown by checkuser to have been used by Emnx.
  • More evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). Coldmachine 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.

One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. Coldmachine 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: a checkuser request has been placed, which I think is an appropriate next step (as I didn't find convincing circumstantial evidence as to sockpuppetry here). Let's disengage for a bit; the checkuser request will hopefully be resolved in the next 12-24 hours, and the AfD will close when it closes. MastCell 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk

I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit (). Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Misplaced Pages policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can outside editors double-check my actions at La Toya Jackson regarding the readditions of the awards by Rhythmnation2004? He added them here and then I basically removed all of them; some of them didn't have sources and he felt were "common knowledge" and then the ones with "sources" were links to images in Imageshack which I feel really violates our reliable sourcing standards. Thoughts? Metros 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros AGAIN abused admin powers by removing awards that were CLEARLY SOURCED. See edit , where Metros removed tons of awards and achievements, despite the fact that ACTUAL IMAGES OF THE AWARDS THEMSELVES WERE PROVIDED. This is, once again, Metros using his own personal hatred towards La Toya Jackson to destroy a legitimate article. Furthertmore, no where in Misplaced Pages does it say that images are not allowed as sources, particularly ones hosted on Imageshack. If this continues to happen, I would be happy to put these images onto a web page and upload it to my web server, and source all the awards to that page. 71.100.17.36 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!

MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:

• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be undone? Looks like primary education should redirect to Elementary School, as does the talk page. What's wrong with it? ⇒ SWATJester 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that MrsMacMan has declared that the Way That Things Are Done In Some Parts of the United States Of American Trumps The Way That Things Are Done Elsewhere In The World? Or have I just not looked hard enough? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back and move protected it to allow a discussion to actually take place (I would say that the majority of the English-speaking nations refer to these as "primary schools"), and WP:MOS says stick with the original title in cases of US vs British English. Neil ╦ 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairish assessment. MrsMacMan is a new editor, and honestly doesn't see the problems created by her moves. She just copy-pasted middle school to junior high and didn't see the problem with that and then redirected the middle school talk page to the junior high talk page and didn't see a problem with that either. She sees the institutions as genuinely different and wants to split the article into two (ASAP!), but has yet to explain any difference (and the article makes no distinction), and hasn't quite grasped consensus or other basic concepts (like responding to talk page comments dated 2005 is pointless). She seems very willing to listen, but it's slightly difficult explaining when I have no earthly idea why she does some things. I'd be on the lookout for more big school moves or forks like this, because I'm not sure she gets it yet, but I do think that they are good faith edits. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:40, June 13 2007 (UTC)

MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Moved to SSP investigaton

This user's been blanking their talkpage - full of vandalism notices - several times this week, and has also made some very strange edits, and very few non-strange ones. As I told them, I suspect that they're a sockpuppet of Dwrules, France a, Secisalive! and Secfrance, the last three of whom are all indef-blocked, and were all self-confessed sockpuppets. Any suggestions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users are not obligated to keep comments on their talk page. It appears he's enforcing policy such as WP:NOT as well (and to a degree WP:TRIVIA, a guideline). Matthew 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over other editor's talkpages. MrClaxson (talk · contribs) is free to blank his talkpage if he so chooses (though archiving is always the preferable option). If you believe this person is a sockpuppet, open a sockpuppet investigation or a request for checkuser with evidence in the form of diffs.--Isotope23 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I do a WP:SSP on him, if there are two current accounts?--Rambutan (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List one as the main account and one as the sock. I'd make sure you have diffs for evidence though before opening as sock investigation.--Isotope23 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right!--Rambutan (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Diluvien

Diluvien continues to edit or delete content from articles related to gothic subculture to force them in line with his POV, and accuses those who try to discuss it with him on his talk page of being idiots. He's already been blocked once for personal attacks and disregarding revert rules.--Halloween jack 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for two weeks by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I noticed that this is the user's fourth block in less than one month. If when the user returns after two weeks and continues actions, I suggest you consider taking this to WP:CN for a permanent ban. -- moe.RON 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Diluvien has already tried to circumvent the block by using different IPs twice. See my recent reverts to edits made by two unregistered IPs. --Halloween jack 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are crap and taken without any investigation. --87.122.28.40 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannahrama

Hannahrama is with about 99% certainty a sockpuppet of Susannah_Mills. The user has made a personal attack on my talk page, erased a warning from her own talk page, and recreated a previously non-notable, conflict of interest bio of herself at Susannah Mills. I recommend a block. Chicken Wing 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now isn't that interesting. First edit is to the talkpage for Chicken Wing (talk · contribs), then moves on to recreating a previously deleted article and uploading several redundant versions of an image with no licensing or copyright info (and they appear to be copyright violations from the looks of it)...--Isotope23 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a basis for a block. Even if Hannahrama (talk · contribs) = Susannah_Mills (talk · contribs), I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. I will warn the editor about the talkpage comment though--Isotope23 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Already warned, and I speedily deleted the article under G4 (recreation of deleted material following AfD). I agree that I wouldn't block the account right now, but I left a warning to the effect that continuing to recreate the article or attack other editors will result in a block sooner rather than later. MastCell 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour at WP:CHU

Hello, I think someone may be monitoring WP:CHU and intentionally creating accounts and making an edit in them so they cannot be renamed or usurped, earlier today I requested as name change at CHU for: The Sunshine Man to Qmt and it was not registered at the time, it was created just a few hours ago, then User:Bealljoh requested a rename to 5minuteautoloan where the account was only created a few hours ago too, its as if someone is doing this in order to intentionally destroy the chances of people being re-named. The Sunshine Man 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note somewhere around WP:CHU explaining that someone is violating WP:DICK and urge the bureaucrats to allow these new accounts to be usurped. Checkuser might be worthwhile if you want to flush out whoever is doing it. – Steel 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally name changes are honored if the name did not exist when the request was filed, and logs exist to show this. Make a note on your request and on talk:CHU. A couple of bureaucrats have checkuser; if it's some IP he could be briefly blocked; if its a regular editor, he needs a stern talking to at the least. Thatcher131 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crats discussed this here and decided they would treat it as disruption and block accordingly.--Chaser - T 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a little update... 'Crats are renaming the distruptive accounts, so the the reqeusted name can be usurped and the user be renamed. Anyways, that is what I understood from the discussion... Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The accound I requested, User:Qmt could possible be usupred although it has an edit, if the user page is deleted then the edit will go with it so that would mean to keep the block log clear and there would then be no contribs, that may mean it could be usurped. The Sunshine Man 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That also is possible, and the above solution is for mainspace edits. --Evilclown93_(talk) 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Yet another one. Yosuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been copying news articles (from the Washington Post, CNN and the L.A. Times among others) and creating articles from their content, despite four boilerplate warnings and a note from EarthPerson (talk · contribs). I deleted several of the articles and have blocked Yosuf for 24 hours. Question is, should it have been indefinite? I'm still wary of blocking users, and would appreciate an opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for now. If he comes off the block and does it again, we could consider a longer block. Hopefully this first block will drive home the "yes, we're really serious about copyright" message. Friday (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Friday... 24 hr is a good "we are serious about this" block. If the message doesn't sink in and copyvio's continue to be posted, I would probably indef block pending a discussion with the editor on his/her talkpage where they affirm that they understand the policy and agree to adhere to it.--Isotope23 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep an eye on his contributions when the block expires tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours seems reasonable, with possible increases if the user doesn't get the hint. Indefinite blocking should be reserved for serious repeated violations of policy. exolon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD edit war

This AfD is getting out of hand. User:WATP added a comment insinuating that new account (User:Coeur-sang) was commenting heavily on AfDs involving User:Vintagekits. Vintagekits reverted/removed the comment. It's now turned into a revert-fest. I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to the Misplaced Pages namespace, but it's gone well past that point, with incivil edit summaries etc. Could someone have a word? Ta. EliminatorJR 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users warned for revert warring, if it continues I'll block. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting confusing messeges from different admins. Can you please clear up the position.--Vintagekits 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seem like different cases to me, should be resolved with check user, SqueakBox 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits behavior over the last 24 hours is unacceptable. Looking through his contribs just in the last 18 hours, I count another revert war (he was involved in one yesterday, too, and reported his opponent at WP:AN3), a personal attack on, of all things, what he thought were another's user's sports preferences (for the record, the user in question is not actually a fan of that team), and multiple incivilities . This is all after a stern final warning from me just yesterday. I would like another admin's opinion on a 24 hour block to put an end to this trail of disruption. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block, I was unaware of the previous edit war and personal attacks when I gave that warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I almost did it myself until I saw that Ryan had warned, and that was before I knew about the past history. A block seems to me to be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, how can what I did be wrong yet you said that opposite yesterday. Yesterday you said that Sqweeakbox removed that comment than that was OK, and then when I follow your ruling exactly then I am in the wrong. All I am look for it a little consistancy.--Vintagekits 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can this be ruled OK but when I do the exact same today its not. All I am doing is following the advice another admin (John) stated on my talk page yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for getting involved in that. One question for future reference - was it wrong of me to make the aforementioned comment? WATP  • _(contribs) 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think you were right to flag up what seems to have been a valid suspicion. As someone who has known Vintagekits since his very first edits here, I really hope he can learn to live with other people here and work better with them. I cherish his zeal and commitment to ridding Misplaced Pages of pro-British PoV (to be honest, as a Scot I often feel the same way), but some of the recent nastiness has crossed a line. If he can't accept that people are people, Wikipedians are Wikipedians, without bringing ethnicity and allegations of bias into every single argument, he needs a much longer break. I genuinely hope this won't go in that direction. --John 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello, recently user Metros deleted an article called List of Michael Jackson awards. There is an ongoing discussion about this move at the user's talk page. The user cited lack of citations for a lengthy period of time and the article's lack of compliance with the biographies of living persons for the deletion. I'm arguing, to put it briefly, that the article should be reinstated because legitimate articles have a right to be on Misplaced Pages, despite any problems they may have. There are many other articles like the one that was deleted with the same problems, yet no major push exists to extirpate all of them from our encyclopedia. I feel like the user's move was too rash and inappropriate and am requesting that the article be brought back. Thank you for listening.UberCryxic 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too rash? It's been tagged for sources since May 2006. It is subject to the policies of biographies of living persons as it is an extension of his biography which is subject to removal when sources do not exist, no matter how true or how positive or negative the comments are. Metros 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for how long it's been uncited. This is not a biography. It's a list of awards. The standards are not that harsh, and certainly virtually never harsh enough to delete the entire article (unless, among other reasons, original consensus decided that such articles shouldn't exist, which isn't the case here).UberCryxic 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I did on Metros talk page, I'm going to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whether UberCryxic thinks that argument "stinks" or not. Bmg916 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, I have a proposal, which I also explained in your talk page. I will thoroughly cite as much as I can from that article if you reinstate it. If I haven't done so within, let's say two weeks, then you can delete it again. It was not explained in the talk page of that article that legitimate articles met such harsh fates if they went uncited for long periods of time.UberCryxic 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create it in your User space, then when you're ready to display it, have a discussion with Metros? To recreate it right now when it was correctly deleted, would be rather WP:POINTy. Corvus cornix 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do that as well, but since I don't have the original page, I would have to compeltely re-create it. It's a very long article. I'd much rather have the original copy and cite what I can out of it, deleting the rest if necessary. Reinstating the page would actually solve all of our problems under my conditions: the article stays, satisfying me, and it will be cited, satisfying Metros. If not, it can be deleted again. I don't feel like this is an unreasonable request.UberCryxic 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to Corvus, WP:POINT doesn't apply here at all. It is so far removed from this situation that to bring it up is ludicrous.UberCryxic 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent version of the deleted page has been usefied at User:UberCryxic/List of Michael Jackson's awards to allow for UberCryxic to work on getting a sourced version created. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get on this and contact Metros when ready.UberCryxic 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Metros a chance to object to my actions, but unless he does object, I think we can consider this discussion closed for now. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that removal without sourcing only applied to contentious material. A list of awards hardly qualifies unless it included negative awards like "Most overrated singer" or something. exolon 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP specifically says it applies to material "whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". - TexasAndroid 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable" - this part of WP:BLP only applies to contentious material, so it's application depends on our definition and judgement of what contentious actually means in this context. exolon 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's contentious, based on this discussion. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Jackson has won awards is not contentious. What the article contains is not a problem; I suppose it's "how" it contains that material that's controversial (ie. uncited stuff). That still doesn't warrant blank deletion though. Another thing that irritates me is that no one dealing with Michael Jackson-related articles was contacted over this; the article was authoritatively deleted like it was just another administrative matter, seemingly with little regard that other people would get angry.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it doesn't apply. This material isn't "highly questionable" or contentious at all. It's a generic list of awards, one among dozens and hundreds that can be found in Misplaced Pages.UberCryxic 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that argument and have addressed it before. See above.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, the article did stand for over a year with a Citations Needed tag and no progress on the citations. IMHO, Unsourced article < no article < sourced article. Metros's deletion has finally spurred action. That's part of why I userfied it for you, to facilitate the progress towards a good, sourced, article in the end. That it should take such an extreme act as deleting the page to get things moving toward the proper end result is unfortunate, but after a year tagged I have to wonder what else might have worked. - TexasAndroid 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting something on the talk page would have worked very nicely. That's traditionally what we do in Misplaced Pages (ie. before a GAR or FAR): warn people prior to the impending doom.UberCryxic 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, this is the version I have. It contains citations for at least 90% of the claims. I will try and find the rest, but that will take some more searching. However, I think this version is good enough to exist as an independent article on Misplaced Pages and will check with Metros on whether there is agreement or not.UberCryxic 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now back up in mainspace. Take a look at it here. Those who have problems with the article should take their complaints to the talk page first.UberCryxic 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The new article's sources

I have concerns that the sources given in this article don't mean our standards as reliable sources. 90% of them come from a fan forum. I don't think that these are appropriate according to our standards. Can more editors take a look at the article's sources and weigh in on this? Metros 04:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are still sources, Metros. What's wrong if they come from a fan forum? Do they need to come from media outlets, most of which are biased AGAINST Michael? Also, this is an extremely notable page (after all this is listing the awards achieved by the King of Pop), but its deletion purely on the basis of citations is questionable at best. I strongly believe, regardless of the issue of citations, that this article should be brought back onto wikipedia.--Paaerduag 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources most dedicated to information like this are things like fan sites. I say "unfortunately" because of the reliability concerns raised above. The fan sites themselves get this information (mainly) from album booklets and other sources closely related to Michael Jackson. So the basic options are: go with the fan sites, the album booklets (redundant), or get rid of articles like these. Unless you can establish some wide-ranging consensus that these articles don't belong in Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid we are going to have to learn to live with the fan sites for now.UberCryxic 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. If you can't find sources outside fan sites ,then the article is basically unsourced per WP:RS and none of the problems it had previously are now solved. If an award is not covered in the mainstream press (and that includes mainstream music magazines of course), then it should not be included. On the other hand, things like the 2006 Legend Award can be successfully sourced with only a few minutes of Googling, but that one is currently unsourced... Create an article with those awards you can reliably source, and remove the rest. It will take more work, but it will make an acceptable article. Fram 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? what sources? 200 of it's sources are the same page! --Fredrick day 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard archived today.

Since the expiration of the 24 hour block (as per previous ANB/I discussion linked above), the user is still raining personal attacks. To be more specific (and this is a partial exert): "This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes."

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives."

-- Cat 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is only trying to get me banned. He's got something against Assyrians and he's resorting to some kind of censorship by trying to get me banned for speaking up about his motives. He's running around on Misplaced Pages and he's trying to get everything about Assyrian related stuff deleted (example ). We got a dispute here, and I'm not the one out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives." - What's wrong with that? If I believe that you have racist intentions in what you're doing, am I not allowed to point that out? EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, I had hoped that 24 hours would have been sufficient. Please calm down. You are accusing an editor of racism - please either provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. Your actions are becoming disruptive; the first thing you did after your 24 hour block was go right back after White Cat, again accusing him of racism. And accusing me of bias. I believe I have now been accused of bias both in favour of and against Turks. Carry on and you will be blocked for a longer period to prevent further disruption. Neil ╦ 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6

Would anyone be willing to help me out with a review of fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6? Some of you may recall that every image with an expired dated disputed fair use tag was deleted on that date, without any review to determine if the deletions were appropriate.

Until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that editors should not remove the tag if they address the concern; instead, an administrator should review the editor's effort and remove the tag. Many images were tagged as lacking a fair use rationale on May 31st or June 1st, had fair use rationales added in the next few days but did not have their tags removed, because the tag specifically said not to, and then were incorrectly deleted on the 6th.

Naconkantari stated that he would restore images on request, and he would also manually review his deletions. He stopped editing on June 8 and has not restored images since then, and he never even started a manual review or undeleted any files that were not specifically requested.

Is there an automated way that we can approach the task of reviewing and undeleting these files as appropriate? If not, would anyone be willing to split up the task with me? Depending on how many people would be willing to help, maybe we could divide the task into blocks. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any automated way to do it, but I'll help out. Just leave me a message on my Talk page with the block you want me to process. --Spike Wilbury 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

User:Ohmygeoffrey has created an attack page including a threat to kill the subject of it. Please take appropriate action. exolon 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)\

This user has no contribs, SqueakBox 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The users contribs were deleted. I found them and indef blocked for threats in personal attack articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. If that's what you meant, then great! But if not, then this user should get a indef block. Crap like that is garbage. No need for that nonsense!!!! Throw them out of here! Redsox04 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of a copyright holder

I came across a page on a NYC artist, Nathan Mellott, on a recent CSD patrol. The page has since been deleted, but images that were uploaded by Bluefortytwo (talk · contribs) remain. These images are the work of the artist, and are tagged with either GFDL release templates, or in some cases release into the public domain templates.

I have contacted the real life Nathan Mellott via email, and he objects to the release of his artwork under these licenses. Will an administrator kindly delete the image contributions in question and indefinitely block the offending user for impersonation and disruption. I will gladly forward the email conversation to an administrator who requests it. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted them all, it appears they have also been dumped into various articles and reverted as appearing as spam for the artists work. I notice from the editors talk the first few were initially given tags not permissible for use on wikipedia, so it looks like rather than work out the proper tagging they just tagged something which works. I'll post a warning and that if they can legitimately release under those licenses they'll need to send in proper permissions. It maybe worth keeping an eye on any further uploads. --pgk 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in voting

• User:Shoopshoop appears to be an account created just to comment and vote for deletions. It has just a dozen or so edits, all related to User:Sexyorge and User:Josmul123 I suspect they are coming from the same IP address to disrupt a vote. The patterrn also suggests: User:Falchamble387 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser--Isotope23 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules say, I have to wait for the vote to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing on DYK

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

I'm not an admin, but Justanother acknowledged his misunderstanding of the DYK approval process and apologised to the two DYK selectors in question, so... I think this issue is closed? Anchoress 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are once again bashing the Church of Scientology on the front page of this project by means of WP:DYK. Since DYK updates are admin actions I am posting here. Would you'all please take a look at the fact that with about 270 articles related to Scientology on Misplaced Pages out of how many total articles, DYK "facts" critical of Scientology seem to show up with alarming frequency? Most are the work of one editor, Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and she has had an inordinate number, well over 30, DYKs in recent months on her anti-cult soap-boxing (see User:Smee/DYK#Created). But I do not fault Smee here as all she can do is nominate, it takes an admin to elevate and Howcheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be her willing partner. --Justanother 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are any of those claims actually factually inaccurate? DYK works in tunnel vision, the main concern is just finding 6 articles for the next update, then doing that update. I am not aware of any attempt to balance the long-term content of DYK to give equal time to various sides, so I wouldn't blame Howcheng, he does a whole lot of DYK unrelated to Scientology, just choosing items from the available options. --W.marsh 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like the DYK fact in question is properly sourced within the article (by no less than the New York Times). -Hit bull, win steak 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your input. WM, I have complained about this before and Howcheng is well aware of my concern, I think. HBWS, there is something wrong if DYK is being used for POV-pushing. --Justanother 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Hit bull, win steak, for verifying that this information is indeed factual, and sourced to reputable secondary referenced citations in the article itself. I had thought that under an agreement with Bishonen (talk · contribs), Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) and myself were to avoid posting to WP:ANI in the future about each other. I see that Justanother has reneged on this, but I will restrict myself to this post itself. Smee 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scientology/DYK for DYK related to Scientology (one or two Scientology-related per week out of 30 - 35 DYK per week) and User:Smee/DYK#Created for total Smee DYK. Smee formerly worked mostly on est-related articles but has expanded her "cult"-bashing. Smee's cult-bashing accounts for a disturbing percentage of DYK entries. (EC) And Smee, re your above . . . oh puleese, I said this is not about you and I am not looking to get you in trouble; I just want this addressed. --Justanother 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I am unaware of having engaged in any Scientology-bashing. In fact, I distinctly recall being critical of some of Smee's DYK nominations (see Talk:The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled). Smee just happens to be a prolific editor who posts many nominations to DYK and I do a lot of DYK updates. You just happen to be looking at the intersection of two sets a la a Venn diagram. howcheng {chat} 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be easily accused of having a pro-Frank Lloyd Wright POV, what with all the recent FLW-related DYK entries submitted by User:IvoShandor. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an argument. If the most prolific editors get a 20-30% ratio on DYK (out of 1.7 million articles) just because they are prolific you are opening the door to any paid PR agent to promote their clients POV on the WP front page. COFS 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that paid PR agents probably aren't going to be able to source their articles to multiple secondary sources. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng, this "cult-bashing" thing has been going on for months and I have objected to it before. I think that putting up obscure trash that only serves to bash the Church is Smee's agenda; I would be disappointed if she found a willing accomplice. Surely you are not saying that today's anti-Scientology crap was the best of the noms? --Justanother 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything that gets nominated for DYK status will make it assuming it meets the minimum criteria of being 1,500 characters and well-referenced. Nominations where the subject matter is disputed may be skipped as well. In this case, there were no such objections. I made sure that the article was long enough (check), created or expanded in the last 5 days (check), and well-referenced (check). If the article passes the criteria, it goes up. There's not much more to it than that. howcheng {chat} 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And for a discussion on that, and to see how multiple editors/Admins weighed in on it: Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know. Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for this point of clarification. This report to WP:ANI by Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is a frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator. Smee 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Ps, Smee, NOW, with your "frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator", you are doing EXACTLY what we told Bishonen we would not do. --Justanother 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see, so now you get to decide what is and is not appropriate for your own posts to ANI ? Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Huh? I don't really get that. Anyway, we should knock off bashing each other, that is what we agreed to. This is about the, to me, undue weight given to your very specific POV on DYK. You are not being faulted for self-nominating your work; I am faulting either the elevating admins or whatever is causing other noms to be passed over to repeatedly play the cult-bashing game on the front page of this project. --Justanother 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Since I've just nominated the page for AfD, it might be worth considering to take that DYK down. But I'll leave that decision up to others. Mangojuice 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Curious if anyone disagrees with User:W.marsh and User:Hit bull, win steak's assessment, above? Smee 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

It is very possible that a neutral point of view may come out as critical of Scientology. 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is usually the one-sided and uninformed views that comes out that way. The ones that rely totally on internet criticism of Scientology to form them. Informed neutral POVs often come out neutral and sympathetic to the beliefs of others that are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their loved ones and associates. But we are talking about the undue weight of repeated front pages bashes, not one particular entry. --Justanother 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the bashing? The cofs hires a criminal to do their work, it gets exposed, and they scream like babies on ANI.--Fahrenheit451 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh ooh, I see some bashing! --Masamage ♫ 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite probable that a neutral point of view will come out as critical of Scientology. I suggest that you try and get hold of the recent BBC documentary on the organisation and watch it with an open mind. One incident of a screaming presenter aside it is damning inditement of the organisation which is very free from bias. David Newton 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen that and I invite you to watch it again. Sweeney went in as a troll with the stated mission to see if the Church would go after him. He had no interest in a neutral presentation, he was looking to make trouble and see if the Church came after him and all they did was follow him around as he played his little game; pretty innocuous, I would say. ps, did you see the Church counter-documentary? It is online. --Justanother 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And Sweeney was met by someone who could also be considered a troll named Tom Davis. The cofs counter-documentary is full of illogics.--Fahrenheit451 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not noticed any particular POV on the front page, other than the one you seem to be trying to create in suggesting the removal of certain articles. If you feel there are too many articles critical of Scientology, I would suggest you write some that aren't, using reliable sources, and then nominate them for DYK. If this can not be done, then there is no undue weight being given to the current articles. Bushytails 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally thing the DYK could have gone without the mention of the church. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entry from the current DId you Knows. An article for deletion linked to on the main page does not look good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, though at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram, a question about the timing of this AFD nom was brought up, by User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Smee 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't usually pay much attention to DYK, but while I do think that it would seem odd to readers who regularly peruse the DYK to see a preponderance of articles on a single topic, particularly if it's a contentious one, I don't think that there is any blame to be laid or sanctions/censures to be levelled. IMO the only logical solution is for those editors who believe the DYK should be more balanced to either create, expand, improve, or troll (not in the WP:TROLL sense) new articles and craft suitable factoids for submission to DYK. Smee's motives may not be innocent - I can't see into someone's heart over the internet - but the only way to frame this is as an active editor making lawful (morally and legally) use of a WP service. Something that any editor can do, should s/he feel sufficiently motivated. Anchoress 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Smee 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Well said. --Masamage ♫ 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really agree with Jossi, below, as well. Anchoress 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No one should be penalized for being a prolific contributor to this project. On the contrary. On the other hand, if an editor really cares for this project more that he cares about his POV, that editor would want to expose our readers via the main page to those tidbits of information that DYK so nicely provide, to these unknown but but nonetheless fascinating subjects and topics that Misplaced Pages covers. I extend an invitation to Smee and other DYK editors, to expand their range rather than focus on a specific subject that may be dear to their hearts. Think of the reader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of process DYK deletion closure?

I see that User:Blnguyen, another admin invested in the DYK (and another admin that has been elevating Smee's noms, IIRC), has closed the AfD on Eugene Martin Ingram less than four hours after it was opened by User:Mangojuice. Mango raised good points that should be considered and I think that the AfD is far from WP:SNOW and not a candidate for speedy close, especially as three of the nine Keep votes are bloc votes from the Misplaced Pages Chapter of the Scientology Haters Club. --Justanother 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother you are advised to stop your personal attacks. There is no such thing as the "Misplaced Pages Chapter of the Scientology Haters Club".--Fahrenheit451 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel attacked then, F451? --Justanother 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making personal attacks, Justanother? Is that a way to get your stats up?--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, if you are going to post to this board, you should have the courtesy to answer questions asked of you and not play your (usual) word games. This is NOT your talk page. --Justanother 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you sound like you are in a lower condition. What condition is it? Are you being punished for the Ingram article being featured?--Fahrenheit451 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, why the nastiness? Do you have something constructive to contribute? Anchoress 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress, Justanother has the nasty habit of engaging those editors he does not like in a scientology practice called "bait and badger". It is not the first time. It started with his personal attacks. If he is quite through, so am I.--Fahrenheit451 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, I fear that the student (you) has surpassed the master (whomever you think you are emulating). --Justanother 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I am neither your fancied student or master. It appears that you are projecting.--Fahrenheit451 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not mine, F451. I have no idea who you are emulating with your "bait and badger". --Justanother 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, whether or not that's true, I think that a) focusing on the problem at hand and possible solutions; and b) civility and kindness; are never misplaced. Anchoress 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed.--Fahrenheit451 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nine keeps, some of which were speedy keeps, zero deletes except the original nomination... seems like a good application of WP:SNOW to me, especially since it was de-listed from DYK due to the nomination, and now can be put back. Bushytails 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(inserted out of sequence) Had the AfD been open a bit longer, there would have been one explicit objection to a speedy keep. There were two clear BLP violations in the article. Did those voting keep not notice this? Gimmetrow 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My church gets bashed on too, so I sympathize like crazy, but WP:SNOW clearly applies in this instance. --Masamage ♫ 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a very poor application of WP:SNOW. One must recognize that the comments that come in in the first three or four hours of a debate are rarely a random sample of the community. In this case, most commenters probably found the debate via this ANI thread or from the Scientology wikiproject AfD page, where the debate was posted. This didn't have time to be heard from in general by the community, and I think it really should be reconsidered, since it's a WP:BLP issue: the article is basically a sourced attack article, describing only negative information about a private figure, created by editors with a clear interest in exposing Scientology's flaws. Normally, I wouldn't care, but this is a living person and they should not have their name dragged through the muck on one of the web's top sites, at least not without us properly examining that. Mangojuice 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A wanted felon, with a long criminal history, whose choices have resulted in numerous independent secondary sources is not notable? This is about editors seeking to protect their religion. That's fine, but it's been run through the process of examining it, and been found worthy. Please stop pushing the issue. Misplaced Pages has processes and policies. Clearly, they've been run through. You argue process was unfair, but I suspect that if it have had 9 deletes in the same amount of time, you'd be the one asking for a SNOW closing. ThuranX 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tired of people making assumptions about me. I'm not a Scientologist, not that it's anyone's business, and my arguing for deletion here has everything to do with WP:BLP. And, btw, WP:SNOW is not a process, it's a second-guess. This guy is not just some pawn in a pro-scientology vs. anti-scientology edit war, he's a living human being with a job and a reputation that this article is quite careless with. Mangojuice 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then exactly WHAT is your concern? A fully sourced article about a wanted criminal with a long history of carrying out Cos Anti-critic actions is bad? WHY? I still have yet to see anything beyond 'this guy is made to look bad by the article'. No, he's made to look bad by his actions. Actions which were duly reported by reliable sources, and collected here for the purpose of constructing an article. If we were to try to balance out articles in some 'make them look "neutral" no matter what' philosophy, we'd have the most bizarre articles about people like John Wayne Gacy and Ed Gein, who we would probably have to describe as a skilled tanner and leatherworker. ThuranX 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, then I suggest you address your concern by editing the article to bring it up to what you perceive are WP:BLP standards.--Fahrenheit451 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can simply contest the bits that you don't think are too good, and explain why you want to remove them. It does not appear that notability is in doubt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This habit of mine to snowball AfDs which are a clear keep is nothing new. In August/September last year I think it was me (or I asked Srikeit to withdraw his objection to this article, citing the existence of an AfD) closed an AfD early on some Indian (Indian as in from India, not indigenous) American kid who became famous for remembering hundreds of digits of pi so that it could go on DYK. It is nothing new and I would do it again in future on any type of article, where possible to stop some hard work which is referenced etc being rewarded on the main page because of some bureaucratic faffery. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While you may denigrate my concern for what I perceive as the misuse of this project, your stated reason for closing the AfD is ill-considered. I do not think that anyone will object to an extension of the 5-day rule if this article passes AfD so that Smee can get her shot at another DYK. It seems that you are the one thinking in terms of "some bureaucratic faffery" (whatever that is). That said, I do not think that the bit is of front page quality and, while I do not fault Smee for nominating, I think that the admins that minister to the DYK should think things like "Well, we have already had our Scientology bashing for this month, let's give another editor a chance to have DYK." --Justanother 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would mean a 10day lag on DYK. We usually let them lag a day or two if the improvement is worth it, but here it is more about whether the article deserves to be there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like those accusing Misplaced Pages of scientology bashing are, in fact, bashing Misplaced Pages.--Fahrenheit451 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is this journalistic section heading necessary? I appreciate editors' right to draw attention to seemingly untoward behavior, but an inflammatory tone is not the way to do it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If it annoys you then change it - this is a wiki. --Justanother 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. Anchoress 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother WP:DYK articles have to either be new or upgraded stubs. Without questioning my motive for posting here, are you suggesting no new articles be written that have anything to do with Scientology? If you are simply asking for more variety perhaps you could suggest why some of the overlooked DYK candidates should have been used instead? Anynobody 02:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, if you're angry about Scientology DYKs being frequent, write some DYK articles yourself. Quite simple.--Wizardman 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a number of editors here applying logic that I liken to "Justanother, if you object to bullies beating up schoolchildren, why not just beat up on some schoolchildren yourself." Obviously a bit of a joke on my part but those sort of "Why not write articles for DYK" advices completely ignore and marginalize the issue of what are we choosing to put on our front page and why are we featuring a basher with a very narrow interest range on a weekly or twice-weekly basis (or more)? Why? --Justanother 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the 'beat up some schoolchildren yourself'ers, it's really simple. To paraphrase, "To the editors go the spoils,". WP is a volunteer organisation, and volunteers who put in the work get the opportunities. For better or for worse, it's as simple as that. Anchoress 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

JA, your assertion is that rather than expand the pool of heavy contributors, we kneecap those whose interests run contrary to yours and who work harder at those interests. This is absurd. Those saying if you want more variety in DYK, ADD TO THE POOL OF DYK mean it. This is basic chemistry. If the concentration is too high, DILUTE the solution. ThuranX 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also if you have a problem with the DYK's that are posted, you are welcome to go to T:TDYK and propose alternate noms. I think alot of this issue could have been averted with a better worded DYK nom. Read through them, if you think there is a better one, offer a re-wording. Get involved with the Next Update process. There are many different ways to get involved in the process. If you have an issue, get involved fix it, dont stand around pointing fingers. As said above, this is a wiki, fix it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And people have also accused me of letting too many cricket articles (that I am a cricket pusher), a Eurovision pusher, and also sometimes a Frank Llyod Wright architecture pusher in my selection. If you want to present articles about the achievements of Scientology, then by all means do so. There are groups of Polish and Russian editors who sometimes complain about each others' articles, if it is sourced with RS, is NPOV, is of the correct tone, satisfies the length and the hook is not trivial, then it passes. If it is unbalanced, by only presenting one half of the info, then the only way to know is if someone brings this up. It is the responsibility of someone active in this field who understands it to do so. At the moment, the articles by Smee are on average, better inline cited than any other regular contributor. Mayn articles only have a few books listed at the bottom. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lots of good advice here. Thanks to all. I will AGF Howcheng that it is really is a matter of just about everything nominated gets posted on the front page. It does not look that way to me as there always seem to be plenty of noms and only 7 DYK per day but I will hold judgement on that for now. Blnguyen, I actually did nominate a non-bashing Scientology fact for DYK; that is how I noticed another bash elevated and I admit that, given the history that I have seen, it ticked me off. I will get more involved with the process over there. I really would like the admins to realize that we do not need to be bashing anything on the front page on a regular basis. Let's keep DYK a bit lighter and less controversial. Please. Thanks again. --Justanother 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it only seven per day? I was under the impression that DYK was updated every few hours (four times a day I believe). This perception may be inaccurate. Anchoress 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you are right (I looked). And therein lies the source of my upset (as a Scientologist, I know that most upsets can be traced back to a misunderstanding). I thought it was updated only once per day and, as there are plenty of noms, I thought that there was some cherry-picking going on. I apologize to Howcheng and Blnguyen. I would apologize to Smee but I never accused her of any wrong-doing in connection with DYK (my opinions on her editing in general notwithstanding). I still do not think that the nom I objected to is so great and I think that the article should have an AfD but no hurry on that. --Justanother 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Every batch must stay for at least 6 hours, so in theory 4 batches a day. In practice perhaps 2.5-3.3 a day. Depending on the lengths of the hooks and the relative size on either side of the page, there might be between 5 and on rare occasions 10 per day. So on some days perhaps 15 entries, another day maybe 30 entries. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Sarah777

I am being harassed by User:Sarah777. While there was already some history between us, this current phase happened following an AfD for an article she created as a POV fork of British Isles. Following that, she blames me and promised to another user to hold a grudge against me. (This diff is a particularly humorous example of her choice of attitude towards me, as is this one.) In a subsequent banning (for attacking the admin that blocked her for 3RRing the AfD'd article), she was released from the block on agreeing to "even forgive Sony" and removed what she called "anti-sony-ism" (and what she called "sony's anti-sarah-ism") from her talk page.

From then until after the weekend, I did not edit wikipedia. Upon returning, I made some posts to Talk:British Isles (in exchange with another user). Sarah replied to these saying that my objection to her fork ruined my credibility. I removed this as a personal attack, and she reposted it in a more civil tone. I responded saying that the AfD has been decided by WP:SNOW and that it had been a "universal" decision. She took objection to this and warned me that "We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice." While I was away, a proposal to move the Irish Potato Famine article had been made. This had been by Sarah - however, I do object to the move, I voted as such. A moment later, Sarah moved the article citing WP:SNOW and "universal" consensus, a clear reference to our exchange just previous. When other editors told her that this was in appropriate, she said that the rules "ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony." Subsequent posts in agreement with me were responded by her naming me as part of a cabal against her. She responded to my posts by attempting to blacken my posts as sarcasm and incivility, stalking. Apart from being untrue, in each of these, she took the approach of quoting policy - a cause of annoyance to her during the build up to her creating the fork that was AfD'd.

I warned her twice (here and here). The last of these she removed as "vindictive nonsense" and placed a similar notice on my page and went to User:Gaillimh claiming that I was threatening her. (I saw this only while going through her contribs. while collecting diffs for here.) I am especially concerned to see the problem resolved as issues with Sarah's behaviour are long standing. An informal RfC was opened after the forking incident. That was responded with concern about her before being cut short. She has harassed User:Bastun and at least one long-term editor (User:Djegan) has left Misplaced Pages because of her behaviour. I have in the past attempted to discuss matters with her, but to no avail. --sony-youth 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• "as happened recently with "Swatjester" who blatantly abused his power in a personal dispute" - oh dear, Sarah. I didn't know that DJ had left on account of Sarah but as I'm now tangentially involved, will stay out of any decisions here. - Alison ☺ 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Djegan - my bad, it would actually appear not. I've just looked through his contribs and, contrary to my assertions, he's actually alive and well. I just hadn't see him since this, "Note to serious editors: get out while you can", which was around the time he posted his leaving note on his user page. --sony-youth 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created a request for comments concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sarah777. --sony-youth 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass template changes by User:Java7837

This user is screaming through articles starting with A changing the {{reflist}} template to <references /> without any justification. Any chance of nipping this in the bud? Chris Cunningham 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only doing this for articles with 15 or less references as it increases the font it makes it easier to read --Java7837 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody think to contact this user before running off to get the administrators? The Evil Spartan 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it five minutes, though I forgot how uppity some janitors get when mortals request their council. My apologies. Chris Cunningham 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Further info: User:Java7837 (]) has taken it upon him/herself to mass replace the template {{reflist}} template with <references/>, under the apparent believe that {{reflist}} is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Other editors besides myself have been less than pleased, have written on Java7837's talk page, to no avail. Most recently, this editor has edited his/her talk page to delete all the complaints and arguments -- see the diff here showing the complaints/arguments before Java did this.

Moeron (see his/her comment above" as best I can tell is Java's sockpuppet, so I wouldn't count his/her comments for much. Evidence: Moeron left a comment on my talk page which was handsigned as being from moe.RON (i.e., typed or pasted in, rather than using the four tildes), but the edit history of my talk page shows that the comment was actually used made by Java -- see diff here. I am doing more research on this towards possibly reporting this sockpuppetry more formally, but in the meantime it would be nice if the mass edit of the {{reflist}} template could be halted, which is going against the consensus process on at least two articles that I & other editors have a long-term commitment to. (Alaska and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act). --Yksin 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moeron isn't a sock. Java7837 was quoting Moeron on your talk page, not signing a Moeron post. IrishGuy 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This template exists for a reason, which is to make the different formatting options easier to use, and to add class="references-small" which can be customized in each user's css. I don't see any argument against reverting all of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

15 or less references is not exactly a correct statement. Australian Broadcasting Corporation had 21 refs. If you think the print is too small, you can adjust it in your monobook.css. The default setting is .references-small { font-size: 90%;}. If you set it to 100% you can get the same effect without disrupting other readers. — CharlotteWebb 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy: I guess it's possible that Java simply didn't bother to sign his/her post, & was merely quoting Moeron. But whether they're socks of each other or not, both seem to be under the false impression that the {{reflist}} template is the same as the old {{ref}} template. Note Moeron's argument above, which favors replacing the old {{ref}} template with the <ref>...</ref> system. Fine as far as it goes. Problem is, Java isn't replacing the {{ref}} template, s/he is replacing the {{reflist}} template. And lest you caution that Java has a different rationale for doing this, note that twice s/he quoted Moeron's argument on my talk page with approval, apparently without having time to mentally digest the difference between a three letter word (ref) and seven letter word (reflist). And of course Java continues to make these changes without seeking consensus on any of the articles s/he's changing. This isn't WikiGnome activity -- it's disruptive, annoying, time-wasting, and productive of continuing complaint. Just see Java7837's talk page -- and make sure to check the history in case s/he has deleted the complaints again. --Yksin 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. S/he has. indeed deleted them again. Hard to WP:AGF here. --Yksin

I have asked this editor to please address the concerns and to cease the bluk replacement without discussing the matter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yksin 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped and is discussing it now. The large number of changes obviously were made without discussion and were apparently controversial. I went back and reverted most of the conversions back to there originial form. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{reflist}} exists to make the notes smaller, but there is no mandate to use reflist for everything, see Template:Reflist#Usage. The original edits were too marginal to do on their own, but it is just as bad to change <references /> to reflist without thinking, as many editors do. But I don't think either of these are as controversial as using Ref converter. Gimmetrow 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz - Unencyclopedic POV

I would like to request your attention to disturbing and unencyclopedic POV conduct of User:Hajji Piruz. He has recently created a collage image out of two different and unrelated images as admitted here . He is now trying to reinsert this handmade fake as a source in the article Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. I would like to note here that part of the image is taken without proper copyright permission from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Now Hajji Piruz along with User:Houshyar are trying to push this POV by revert warring in the article. Can you, please, pay attention to this persistent behavior, which is simply unencyclopedic and damaging to the scholarship in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Atabek 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the pictures are fake, I didnt "hand make" anything. Instaed of uploading two different images, I combined them and uploaded them at the same tim. WHy dont you read the edit summary of the picture:

I cleary said that I created the image using two other images, and I provided the links to both images. Anyway, I undid the collage and it now shows only the protesters. Also, the Image doesnt appear to be copyrighted.Hajji Piruz 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

63.98.135.196 unhelpful edits

Honestly I'm not sure whether this calls for a block, but User:63.98.135.196 just keeps putting a large dump of source material at Preventive war: see

Warnings on both the article and user talk pages have no effect; 63. seems to think that because Preventive War is poorly sourced and needs some help, it's ok to dump this material on it. ("Sketchy article plus fully referenced, and relevant, quote dump is better than article alone.") It would seem he's actively revert warring elsewhere as well, by the looks of his user contributions page. Perhaps a stern warning from an admin will help -- the guy is editing in good faith, he just doesn't seem to be willing to co-operate at all.

Eleland 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple libel

I just blocked 172.201.238.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism of Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, mostly the insertion of claims that he was anti-American, involved with the Taliban, etc. It seems like those edits should probably be removed from the page history as libel, but I thought I'd double-check. --Masamage ♫ 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the sockpuppets

Somebody is creating User IDs at a fast rate to vandalize Ravioli and David Oreck. I would ask for page protection, but what we really need is IP address blocks for this guy. Besides the IP addresses that he has used to hit the articles, he's also used:

• Adumbemo (talk · contribs)
• PlayazAthleticx (talk · contribs)
• WhItEzOmBiEfAn (talk · contribs)
• Afagaga (talk · contribs)
• Hjholla! (talk · contribs)

Corvus cornix 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

sProtected the pages. Will blcok any of the reported vandals in a sec with autoblock on. Viridae 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Treaties

Dear Administrator

It is unfortunate that several entries on Mutual Defence Alliances and Treaties from the Nineteenth Century have been deleted. An example of such is the "Treaty of Melbourne", it may be helpful for me to note that these entries were present at least a fortnight ago on the "List of Treaties" entry. They were extremely useful in proving the true nature of late nineteenth century diplomacy, a topic ususally covered in history studies at secondary schools and consequently these articles were advantageous to study. There were about 5-10 of these articles, some were stubs. However I consider the posting of entries only on the more well-known treaties to present a lop-sided view, which Misplaced Pages I am sure does not intend.

Thank you

Please consult the talk or discussion page of the article you are concerned with, as well as the edit summaries in the article history, to see if any reasons were given for the removal of the information you believe should be included. If you disagree with the reasons, or if no reasons were given, you should raise the matter on the talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has a long history of violation of WP:Civility as well as has been blocked for 3rr violations. Today in order to gain a consensus on a talk page edited a comment and signed my name to it. When in fact I didn't sign it. . This portion was lefy unsigned by 70.177.181.129 . I later placed that he had signed it . I find this to be a bit vandalistic in nature. BoriquaStar 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* 74.230.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 74.230.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) almost every edit has been a reversion or an edit that has caused an edit war. Has been given a final warning already. He is back on reverting multiple articles Falsely states wikipolicy, as in youtube links when one prominant article Alpha Phi Alpha used youtube links . Has been brought to AIV already Almost all of his edits are reverts or large deletions. BoriquaStar 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't look at all the youtube links removed from that article, but if it was copywritten material in those links or it was unclear if the uploader had permission to post the video there, per WP:EL those should have been removed.--Isotope23 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm crazy... but after looking through 74.230.193.91's contributions I'm more inclined to give him a barnstar than a warning or block. Vandalism removal? reversion of unsourced negative material? Looks like 74 is doing a great job... Am I missing something here?--Isotope23 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the youtube links? There was no copyright. His reversions or deletions on street gang Dominicans Don't Play have left the article with almost 90% missing. I was placing fact tags on the article and changing things on the article. Take a look at not just his reversions, but also the edit warring that it has led to in many articles. BoriquaStar 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure songs are copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Every single edit I've checked by this user, especially on the article in question, appear to be accurate. --Haemo 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the anon that the vandal is complaining about. I removed the youtube links because a 15 second glance at any of them demonstrate that they violate copyrights (through images and music), not to mention the fact that videos of someone throwing up gang signs over a 2pac beat adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of an article. With respect to removing chunks of the gang article he continues to edit, 90% of the references that he use don't support the content that is added, 5% use blogs or other disreputable sources, and he blatantly fabricates information that have nothing to do with the sources. I'm not going to add citation requests to content that he's clearly making up. All I've asked is that he use proper references, and he refuses, the fabrication continues and a glance at any of the sources he uses will support my statements. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, not a place for high school students to promote obscure gangs with incorrect references. 74.230.195.78 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am from from a high school student and as i placed on the talk page i'll place here as well. New York Times, New York Daily News, and New York Post aren't obscure sources or dispreputable sources.

The Boston Incident http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/1224507661.html?dids=1224507661:1224507661&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+28%2C+2007&author=MARIE+SZANISZLO&pub=Boston+Herald&edition=&startpage=8&desc=T+cameras+help+in+bust+of+Back+Bay+stab+suspect "While the victim has no ties to a gang, the suspects are in a gang called Dominicans Don't Play, or DDP, and it's believed that the victim had an earlier problem with a person in the gang or affiliated with it," said. After numerous interviews, and with the help of T cameras, transit police Lt. Mark Gillespie and Detectives Daniel O'Toole and Brian Harer determined the identities of the suspects, Pesaturo said. The T has installed hundreds of cameras in the past two years."
Union Square first incident http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4834376 http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:yXslKP-RKdcJ:www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/478249p-402323c.html+dominicans+don%27t+play+gang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us
Coney Island http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/06/15/2006-06-15_new_york_minute_van_kills_95yearold.html
Brawl at Times Square.. has fact tags.. feel free to remove.. Pelham Prep is a mirror of New York Post http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2005/031105nybx.html
Monroe DDP has fact tags.. feel free to remove
Potential for expansion has fact tags. Feel free to remove.
Spain "Rooted in well-established gangs among Hispanic populations in North and Latin America, groups such as the Latin Kings, the Netas (the Newborns), the Forty Twos, the Chicagos or even the bizarrely named Dominicans Don't Play, have made swift inroads among the city's rocketing immigrant population" http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:lIXbUoegBpUJ:observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1922745,00.html+dominicans+don%27t+play+gang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us
1,300 active members http://dr1.com/news/2007/dnews050407.shtml Rivalries.. there are some fact tags some are documented. BoriquaStar 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is obviously not an AN/I case, and seeing as you both are now talking on each others' talk pages, may I suggest you move things there rather than duplicating it on here? Thanks - Alison ☺ 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about his edit warring and near 3rr violation (off by 1 hour) by using Sockpuppets (2 ip address) on 13 June 2007 and 14 June
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=138056974 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137986505 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137811463 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chicano_rap&diff=prev&oldid=137761416 BoriquaStar 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You guys all look like you need a break. Edit commentaries like this and this are highly inappropriate. My immediate instinct here is to fully protect Chicano rap until you all sort it out on the talk page. Like I said already, that guy is providing plenty of discussion on the talk page for his deletions - Alison ☺ 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even on Chicanorap, but I looked at his user contributions I saw "revert vandalism - you couldn't block me if you wanted to because any wikipedia admin can see that you're adding unsourced info to an article that has remained correct for years." I'm on the DDP page, and am providing pletny of sources such as New York Times, Daily News, New York Post, WABC, and he says they aren't notable. How are major television news and newspapers not notable? BoriquaStar 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The page history for DDP shows a well-documented content dispute, far as I can see here. Am I wrong here? - Alison ☺ 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well IP user seems to be engaging in mulitple edit wars on different articles. what he considers important is far less than what many others consider to be important. Everything that is documented about a major international gang with a presense in the United States, Dominican Republic, and Spain from major Newspapers and Gov websites aren't proper to him. I'm going to wait and see what he says. I'm also going to see if a consensus can be reached. This though does make it right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring. BoriquaStar 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring". Has he done that? - Alison ☺ 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I only made one report. . I'm going to wait for a consensus. Possibly request an RFC. An organized gang and crime organization isn't going to document every crime they commit. The key is denial. Same thing with the Mafia. Everything is alleged, which is what I've placed in the article. Some sources state things like "there is an investigation into a link with the DDP" etc BoriquaStar 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining every single last edit on talk pages, that speaks for itself. Its not too much to ask that people add proper sources for their additions, and that those sources actually reflect the content added. 74.230.195.78 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks

] has made several accusations of my being a sock puppet, despite knowing that this is not true. I believe this is a Personal attack and would like it to stop. See the following diff:

1. ]
2. ]

See previous warning at: ]

Previous check into sockpuppet accustion unfounded: ].

DPeterson 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:A spade is a. Parts of User:DPeterson's user-page are copy and pasted from User:AWeidman, they have never disagreed with each other on any issue, and both make characteristic errors (eg., his inability to make proper external links, as seen above, and his inability to bold text without leaving extraneous apostrophes) ~] 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make a complaint about potential sock puppets then please use the proper forums. Do not make unproven charges of sock puppetry in article talk pages as an ad hominem attack on an editor acting in good faith. Given that the charge has already been disproven by checkuser, making the same claim over and over seems to be more like a personal attack then an attempt at problem resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser can only determine whether the same IP is used by both accounts, not whether they're sockpuppets. DPeterson's IP is in close proximity to the clinic which User:AWeidman owns. ~] 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, stop repeating the charge on article talk pages. And since AWeidman doesn't edit the articles that you're engaged with it doesn't effect you significantly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:S-man wishes to return to Misplaced Pages

First let me say that since I'm semi-active I'm taking no further action here except to bring this situation to your attention. As I type this I am dealing with stress and massive pain in my head, so this may come out weird. Here it goes.

S-man (talk · contribs · email) just shot me an E-mail earlier tonight with a wish to return to Misplaced Pages. He proceeded to explain that the "vandalism project" (what The Anome blocked him for) was merely a joke and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He was very apologetic for his actions and understands what he was blocked for. He wants a second chance and if he messes up just once this time then he's willing to be indefed.

Now here's the other thing. He claims Pizzachelle is his aunt. Take a look at the history page and you'll find that that's probably too good to be true. Same goes for BikeDog, whom he claims is his dad, but maybe not. It wouldn't hurt to poke a checkuser to see if this guy is legit. He is 10 years old and didn't deny that.

So, do what you do best. Reach a decision here. -Pilotguy hold short 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me like the user is too young/immature to really understand the project. Unblocking seems unwise. -N 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't he just create another account, never associate himself with the S-man one, and act in a proper way? Unblocking will be much more drama-enticing than that, and I'm sure he'd rather come back under a new name. His block was in August last year, so it's not "recent" either. Daniel 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot auto deletes a valuable and valid link

in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Distraction_osteogenesis, under the external links, shadowbot is auto deleting links of 'http://randomhero5.proboards24.com/' , which is a valid and correct link, as it is a website providing information,diaries, doctors comments, doctors informations for patients undergoing Distraction osteogenesis.

the block was initiated by a jealous rival website 'make me taller'. similar link such as 'make me taller'website has been allowed to be posted under external links

please allow for the proboard website to removed from the block and restored as its a valuable source of information

No, see WP:RS and WP:EL Betacommand 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

User:Esmehwp is following me around and reverts all my edits, simply stating "rvt blanking by ultramarine" I have pointed out Misplaced Pages:Harassment on his talk page but he just deletes it.Ultramarine 05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• ultramarine is consistently blanking out other people's work if that work does not sit well with his America should rule the world ideology I invite anyone to look at his behaviour on WP he is a diruptive all round bias creating deleting machine IF ultramarine only adds to articles without deleting other peoples work I will not trevert his edits however if he continues to delte other's work i will have to protect those people's workEsmehwp 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• by adding I don't mean adding words into other people's sentences to change their meaning, I mean add seperate sentences, basically don't be evil if you add information even if it is total BS I won't touch it but when you delete other peoples work to slant article's to suit ur own ideology and dogma (USA is the best country in the world) I won't let you I've had enough of you ruining WP I am going to watch you everyday from now on.Esmehwp 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The above speaks for itself. Esmehwp continues to follow me, calling everything I do "blanking".Ultramarine 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If you are an admin and are reading this I am begging you please go through this guys full record and see what damage he does to WP before making a decision, I don't want to fight this guy I just want an admin to have a GOOD look at what he has done please read my comment on user:brownhairedgirlEsmehwp 06:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If you disagree, add your own material with sources. Do not follow mw around and simply delete all of my edits without explanation.Ultramarine 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• don't talk to me I won't reply I've seen what you doEsmehwp 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution, thanks. Daniel 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately he makes no such attempt. He just continues reverting my edits, calling everything "blanking".Ultramarine 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• can not resolve dispute this case needs someone willing to look at how this guy deletes other peoples work please read my letter on user:BrownHairedGirl talk pageEsmehwp 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have explained all my edits carefully, you just follow my edit history and reverts them without explanation.Ultramarine 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep repeating yourself I don't care.Esmehwp 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also makes a personal attack and encourages another editor to not try to resolve disputes by talking.Ultramarine 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • he has never worked through consensus, he has a pattern of behaviour, talking to him is a waste of time.Esmehwp 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yet another personal attack.Ultramarine 07:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place for this. However, when this comes to dispute resolution, don't be suprised, Esmehwp, when people point to this edit as evidence that you are, indeed, regarding every edit made by Ultramarine as "blanking" without any regard for the actual substance of the edits. Also don't be surprised when people note that you have made zero contribution to the discussion of this edit on Talk:Freedom House, whilst other editors have, have made pretty much zero contributions to the talk pages of any of the articles where you are edit-warring, and have stated that you refuse to engage in discussion with the other editor. Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Uncle G 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

User:Gon4z has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages on June 12th for ongoing disruption, creating blatant copyright violations, incivility, worsening behaviour, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behaviour. Now he is back and editing under the IP address: 82.35.34.170 and keeping up his disruptive behaviour including his insults and threats to other users! see here. Also he is trying to hide behind a non-existent user, by overwriting his IP by with a link to the non-existent user:NC. Furthermore the articles constantly vandalized by him (Serbian Air Force, Military of Albania, Template:Infobox National Military Albania, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, List of Albanian Air Force aircraft, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Land Forces Command, ... ) have now all been vandalized anew, with exactly the same Albanian-nationalistic, pro islamic and anti Serbian bias Gon4z displayed before his block. i. e. Gon4z edit and 82.35.34.170 edit. Therefore I request that the IP 82.35.34.170 rapidly be blocked indefinitely too.--noclador 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: he is now deleting the block notices regarding him from OTHER useres pages! see here! noclador 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Gon4z again. Blocked 24 hours to stop disruption. Don't want to block an IP for any longer and it doesn't look like a proxy address - Alison ☺ 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: Checkuser result unrelated, user still indef blocked by User:Irishguy

Checkuser came back  Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl.

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy indef blocked User:El redactor, not filing a checkuser, stating that the sockpuppetry was obvious. I thought that he had a clear COI which was blinding him, and came here to ask that this be dealt with. I received only responses from involved editors. Now that this result, which was filed by another editor after Irishguy blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block has come back, can someone at least unblock the poor guy and apologize to him? Miss Mondegreen talk  06:36, June 14 2007 (UTC)

See prior report #misuse of admin tools by Irishguy. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:45, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Note that getting no checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean no sockpuppeting was going on - it could also mean that someone was good at it and knows how to not get detected. I don't know about the rest of this case, but it's worth keeping that in mind. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. But if you see the earlier report, Irishguy had prior disputes with Tecmo, or visa versa. And Irishguy filed the report and within 12 hours blocked gave El redactor and indef block (without bothering to file a checkuser) and extended Tecmo's block. He believes that it was such an obvious case that there was no need for discussion or a checkuser--something I disagree with. I also thought that as he'd been involved in the situation and filed the report, someone else should have made the block. Generally someone files a sockpuppet report and an uninvolved editor looks at the report and decides if a checkuser is necessary, if the users should be blocked right away or whatnot. Blocking and then conducting the investigation is not ok and it's especially not ok to persist in it once a checkuser has returned a negative result. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:40, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I find Matthew Brown (Morven)'s comment to be persuasive. In addition, glancing at the history on his talk page, Tecmo (whom you refer to as the "poor guy") has a history of blocks by other admins just this month. --Epeefleche 07:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean that the sockpuppet case should be closed. But we don't ban users upon accusation and then wait for the case to proceed, or for evidence to surface to clear them. What are we doing, waiting for proof that he's not Tecmo? The sockpuppet case was not handled the way it should have been--the only people involved in this entire process have been a few other editors, including you who also have a COI regarding Tecmo and myself. That's it. I shouldn't have to be coming here and arguing for processes and procedures to be followed, for basic policies and guidelines to be followed. This is ridiculous. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche--I referred to El redactor as "poor guy", because if he's innocent which is looking more and more likely and I like to AGF, he really is. As bad as a 48 hr block for sockpuppeteering charges that aren't true etc. is, it expires in 2 days and Tecmo knows what's going on. El redactor is being hung out to dry and most likely doesn't. That's what I meant by that. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Lots of this case seems troubling to me. You say that there's a newer editor being Bitten a lot, and that other editors are ganging up. You seem to accept that there's some bad behaviour from Tecmobowl. Has anyone offered some kind of "mentorship" or dispute resolution for all involved? It seems odd that a group of editors cannot agree about a set of links. Dan Beale 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well one key page in question Shoeless Joe Jackson is under full page protection and discussion is theoretically ongoing. Additional editors have commented, but the editors who originally have had problems with the link have yet to make content related contributions to the discussion. If I can't get content discussion there in a day, I'm going to ask for dispute resolution in addition to the page protection. I've been avoiding it up until now because there's I was hoping to have actualy content related comments by the time I dragged in dispute resolution.

In terms of the other issue, which has been the EL cleaning done by Tecmo, I'm going to ask for that too, but the same issue exists. Editors have an issue with one link that's being taken out and have discussed the merits of the link, but haven't dealt with why it was taken out. I've gotten no reply from Epeefleche about why he did complete reverts instead of partial reverts as he has made no complaints about the rest of what was removed (just reverted it) and even reverted places where Tecmo deleted duplicate links. Yes, this needs dispute resolution too.

This was put on the back burner though when Irishguy filed a suspected sock puppets report and then decided that his own opinion was good enough, and without filing a request for checkuser or waiting for the report to go anywhere, indef blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block. I've been trying to get those actions undone since, especially now that a checkuser (filed by a different user after the blocking) has come up negative. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:56, June 14 2007 (UTC)

H and content disputes

I recently had a very pointless conflict with Athaenara, who insisted on reverting my own revisions of my own content in the article subtlety. It turned into a brief but heated edit war where I tried to insist that other parties provide detailed motivations. I was pretty upset about what I believe were very erratic and high handed edits. After a few rounds of reverting H (an admin) appeared with comments like Lets start by getting consensus for the merge, then making a major change. Despite acting like like an impartial arbitrator, H wound up participating in the edit war and for reasons unknown decided that consensus was Athaenara's version (i.e. my own older version of the article with the addition of a comment on sugar sculptures). It was only after I presented a detailed explanation for the third time that I was let off the hook, but not without a rather condescending pat on the head and a very partial summation of the conflict. I've been in these types of conflicts with H before over medieval cuisine and Black Death and I believe his attitude is very problematic since he demands a great deal of respect regardless of his knowledge of the topic he is commenting and he extends this demand for respect of uninformed or ill-founded opinions to to other users as well. His fact-taggings in medieval cuisine (as User:HighInBC), for example, were very high-handed and he seems completely oblivious to criticism from other users. He also seems quite adroit at needlessly polarizing discussions about both policy and content.

I think the problem is best represented by a comment he made at Talk:Subtlety after the dispute was already settled:

I am not a spokesman per se, but I have been chosen by the community for my judgement to be an admin, and to enforce and interpret policy.

Telling people to play nicely is all fine and well, but I believe H is more often than not confusing his own opinions of me with community consensus. And I don't see how this could be considered an appropriate comment from an admin with aspirations of being such an adroit arbitrator of disputes. I've always been under the impression that admins are supposed to interact in disputes with more caution and wisdom than stubbornness and righteous indignation, and this has hardly been the case here.

Peter 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per the heading of this page "But this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment." H doesn't appear to have abused administrator tools, merely claimed prestige for himself. I would suggest you try mediation or rfc. -N 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw the disclaimer, but figured this was appropriate since it's not actually a content dispute, but an misinterpretation of admin duties and authority. I'll try a formal request for mediation instead. Peter 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading block

User:219.89.173.110 and User:219.89.163.234 (and various other IPs in the same range) keeps blanking IP talk pages,edit warring and being abusive in edit summaries. He has admitted to being User:Recoome. IP keeps changing but the range is the same (New Zealand). I am not reverting any more edits he makes as I do not want to get blocked. Anything to be done?--The internet is serious business 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatant and unapologetic uncivility

Can someone please block Dharmabum420? His recent messages left for other editors are completely unacceptable and he or she knows it (And please direct all ] style responses into your father's loose asshole, since I could give a fuck.). --ElKevbo 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish rant

User:Alex mond, who appeared in Misplaced Pages on June 5, seems to be an essentially one-purpose account pushing extremely nationalist fringe views on Armenia and Armenian language. User:Dbachmann is the only editor who had the stamina to argue with him, to revert his most impertinent edits, and to help him with kind advices. After he understood that the case is hopeless and desisted from time-consuming arguments, User:Alex mond started pestering Dbachmann on his talk page:

• We think you are a Jew (and no its not Just Misplaced Pages that you think im referring to Jews propaganda), dont waste our time here
• By the way you are disguised as German. You're obviously the worse of the Jewish type.
• You are probably the worse of that type with your race, I dont know your race, but does it matter if I do??
• Dbachmann, I guess I was right, you're not serious about this, you are full of it.
• And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide

How long will this last? I request someone to investigate the situation. Why should Misplaced Pages tolerate such editors? I believe anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks only drive serious wikipedians away from the project. --Ghirla 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned by Alison at 17:14 on the 11th, and all of those diffs are from before then - unless there's been more comments since then, the warning may have done its job. Neil ╦ 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is disappointing. Could you refer me to a useful edit from this account? How much time you suppose people should spend arguing with him on talk pages and reverting his eyebrow-raising edits in mainspace? Thanks, Ghirla 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Has he made any incivil comments or personal attacks since being warned? If not, then there is no administrative action required at present. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If he has stopped, then there is nothing to prevent. Neil ╦ 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot