Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rockpocket (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 26 June 2008 (→Giano reblocked for disruptive editing: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Fasach Nua

This user has already been discussed at AN here, but no real solutions were found. After continuing the disruptive behaviour, I issued a block (for full details, see this version of user's talk page). The user has since declared in multiple places that this block was based on lies and bad faith. Out of curiosity, I asked the user where exactly I had "lied", and in return I got a fairly civil, if not cryptic response. I replied, and then again got called a troll. This user has unfortunatly learnt nothing from their block, but I have: it appears that critisism towards this editor is often met with acusations of trolling, lying, and buckets of bad faith. This is in addition to the root problems this editor has, namely the constant removal without discussion of images they feel fail NFCC - a perfectly valid cause at first glance, but destructive when you consider that it is often done without discussion, repeatedly (thus violating 3RR), and abusivley (in my case at least). There are two issues here: this editor's behaviour and interpretation of the NFCC rules; and this editor's abbusive response to any challenges. Any help or input from other sysops would be appreciated. _TalkIslander 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread here, notice very, very promptly removed here. Without an accusation of trolling, suprisingly enough. _TalkIslander 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the user has tended to taken an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use and run with it, IfD'ing a lot of images for removal. He has specifically noted his opinion that essentially, certain types of articles don't deserve images. Were this hyper-deletionist editing behavior to occur in article space, the user's pov edits would likely draw the attention of numerous RfCs, AN/I complaints and resulting blocks. The sheer number of IfDs across a lot of articles allows the user to escape cursory notice, though the user was in fact blocked for this sort of behavior before. Fasach Nua has not learned from it, and continues to edit as before. I affirm Islander's comments that the user seems intent on a razor-thin interpretation of NFCC that consensus has not intended. - Arcayne () 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to say that FN has repeatedly shown himself to be disruptive despite broadly based condemnation of his approach. His interpretation of the use of non-free images is excessively narrow. He refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with other editors and will not consistently afford them a fair opportunity to challenge his views in open forum or through established process. There is a clear disdain for other contributors and frequent references to the process of developing concensus as being little more than "mob rule", which is incredibly anti-community. He plays the rules that suit him and ignores the rest. Its appalling to have to watch one petty duel after another and the ongoing assault on other editors views and contributions. Anyone who has to consistenly accuse such a large number of others of trolling, wikistalking, lying, etc. should really be taking a hard look at what it is they are doing. I'm not sure what can be done, but its something that I suspect will be an on-going nuisance, because although its papered over by a veneer of correctness, at its core there is an unhealthy and distasteful well of disregard for others. Wiggy! (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it's going to take for him to get banned. I think he's had ample time (six months) to change, and he's not. Sceptre 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I share Wiggy's frustration over what can be done concerning FN's behavior. Maybe a limiting of the behavior, so as to protect the project might be part of that resolution, such as a limit as to how many IfD nominations he can make, while at the same time attempting to counsel the lad as to the more accepted interpretation of our image use policy. However, that is me, trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As evidenced by the dust-up over at WProject Football this last May, FN has shown himself to be an adept editor who is not some newbie. He has a history of repeatedly engaging in pointy behavior and failing to follow consensus. If we give him the strongest warning possible regarding an impending ban, it just might help to rein in his more extravagant efforts to push a pov. I am not entirely convinced that the user is irredeemably beyond our assistance. He clearly knows how to edit, and I am of the impression that, if properly guided by someone FN can respect, he may yet be a positive editing influence in the Wiki community. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, judging by previous behaviour, anyone who tries to warn him will just be instantly labled a troll, and I see no way around that. _TalkIslander 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to remove him, and thus avoid the need to warn him. I think that's a bit much, but he has served to piss off just about everyone who comes into contact with him. We are a community, not his parents; if he doesn't think he needs fixing, then we can't parent him. We can kick him out of the clubhouse, though. - Arcayne () 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(untab) Not sure I entirely agree with what your saying, but it's undeniable that something needs to be done, and I cannot do anything, as I'm too involved. I don't wish to give this 'editor' any more ammo. Help from another administrator needed. _TalkIslander 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Involved admin needs uninvolved admin assistance

I am ready to block General Mannino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user that I have been involved with on more than one occasion for personal attacks, harrassment of other users, and disruption. I'd rather someone else make the block because of my involvement. Please review his contributions and take heed of the warnings I've issued. I issued this warning less than 24 hours ago and now this and this is what is pushing me over to the side of blocking. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - what a strange exchange. Can't say I'm comfortable blocking because of that last bit, but you can probably find another admin who is less tolerant. Tan | 39 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar. Do you have other diffs that are block-worthy? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing recent, but it does show a similar pattern of behavior. I'll have to go dig. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel personally threatened by this individual. He is Sicilian and just made this threat: "You don't earn the title "Don", you're no Mafia Boss, so go sleep with the fishes." That was after If you continue to do this I will inform an Admin. Please stop! "From now on, I don't what to hear from you, ever again, and if you message me ever again I will report you for a personal attack of harassment. Got it?, but then he left me message after that point. I didn't leave him a message after that one until he left me some. I really feel upset and threatened by this individual. What can I do? Change my user name? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a week. Telling another user to go die is wholly inappropriate. I welcome review on the block (as always). If anyone feels it was too harsh or too lenient, we can discuss that (personally I'd say too lenient over too harsh based on that last post). Metros (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This all started over Marlon Brando and the Talk:Marlon Brando talk page. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the whole "sleep with the fishes" thing is more of a dodgy Godfather joke, but it's still an inappropriate one considering the history of negative interactions with WikiDon. The 1-week block sounds about right to me. ~ mazca 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user has a stillborn untranscluded self-nom RFA with quite a history. I don't know if we let these stay or just delete them? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Generale d'Armata Mannino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just made a similar threat on WikiDon's user page. Account blocked for sockpuppetry and implied threats. I endorse the original block and perhaps a change to indef for sockpuppetry (maybe a CheckUser to confirm would be helpful). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And a sock puppet: MI General (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- (forgot to sign: ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Definite sockpuppets - the commonality "Starship Troopers" links them up. Endorse indef blocks all around. Tan | 39 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I mean what kind of person nominates themselves, and then uses a sock puppet account to give support? And that is the only support they get? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Oh I know, the same kind of a person that calls them self "General". Is that a Neapolitan Complex? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably enough taunting, WikiDon. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I was just about to say something like a week seemed a little too long for incivility (that wasn't a death threat), and that I wasn't completely impressed with how WikiDon and MBK004 seemed to escalate things (IMHO), when the sockpuppetry account stuff pops up. So, I now endorse the 1 week block I came here to oppose. The RFA should be deleted; it's only purpose is as "evidence" of sockpuppetry, and that's no longer really necessary. I hold out some hope that the one account could be turned from the dark side (they have made some good edits), but they've used up quite a bit of goodwill, so I wouldn't argue too strenuously against upgrading to indef. But my own personal choice would be to see if a week changes his behavior. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Nevermind. Can't have that. --barneca (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The two (known) socks have been indef blocked. Per Barneca's diff above, indef blocking main account (if it hasn't been already). Tan | 39 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't behaved exactly how I should have, but after looking at the veiled attacks, I would hope that that this is regarded as an understandable lapse of judgment that everyone has once in a while. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Check user around?

Has anyone seen a check user around in the last half hour or so? I kind of want a CU to take a look at this. I have this sinking feeling that he actually is telling the truth that this recent one isn't his sockpuppet and that it's another returning vandal...I know that's sort of fishing, but I just have this odd feeling it's not his sockpuppet. Metros (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree Metros, and will ask a Checkuser (since I stepped into it and indef blocked the main account). --barneca (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only two seconds before I was going to block the main account, also. The names, the Starship Trooper references, the RFA, common pages edited... WP:DUCK. Tan | 39 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no one's disagreeing with you on that one Tanthalas39. He's even admitted to it being his sock. We're concerned about this recent one though. Metros (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, User:Generale d'Armata Mannino? One edit that threatens MBK? Quack. Tan | 39 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When you do, could you let me know who's looking into it? I'd like to email them. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah, too many edit conflicts on too many pages; you whippersnappers type faster than I do. Does anyone here do IRC (I wouldn't have a clue)? Might be quicker to find an active CU that way, and Metros could provide his comment in provate once we found one. If I don't hear soon, I'll do the plain vanilla WP:RFCU. And Tan, I think the point is, this last account could, conceivably, have been created to "frame" him. I know, Iknow, but something doesn't sit right with me, now that I blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been a valid indef block without this sock, Barneca. I wouldn't worry. Tan | 39 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it on the user's talk page, the second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll theory, er, I mean, second-sockmaster-on-the-grassy-internet theory, is largely discredited by the account creation time of the 2nd sock: 17 hours before this thread started, and 20 minutes after this edit. I'm with Tan on the WP:DUCK criteria now. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in case you were all curious, the thought I had related to the magic bullet (theory)Magic Bullet (appliance) fact that there's another sockpuppeteer out there who likes to harass WikiDon. I thought he possibly leeched onto this to attack WikiDon. But I, personally, don't feel inclined to pursue this further after seeing the creation log (silly metros decided to take a blocked user for his word when he said it was created after the block, what the hell was I thinking with that WP:AGF bologna). Metros (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm pulling my hair out with a completely flaky computer crashing on me every ten minutes. I missed all the fun. The RFCU is up now, for anyone who's still curious: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino‎. I personally would still be more comfortable with a CU confirmation. --barneca (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is choice. IP4240207xx (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

Just an update on this: General Mannino (talk · contribs) is now requesting an unblock which includes a possible personal attack against a checkuser and the involved admins plus continued accusations of wikistalking. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please hold off on this for a moment. Myself and another checkuser are discussing the matter right now as this case is not closed yet - Alison 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since he removed my comments to him from his talk page: I had planned (after running it up the flagpole here) to reduce his block back to 1 week, since the second sockpuppet was determined by Checkuser not to be his. But his behavior on his talk page today leads me to believe it would be better to leave the indef block in place. I plan to modify his block log to show I was wrong about the sock accusation when the RFCU is complete (it is still ongoing). If anyone thinks the indef block is too much, they're welcome to review my decision, and if I'm not around, I'll defer to their judgement. --barneca (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case has now been concluded. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino. It has been revealed that WikiDon (talk · contribs) has also been involved in abusive sock-puppetry and I'd really like an uninvolved administrator to wrap-up this case - Alison 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And my jaw hits the ground... I think this may warrant an entirely new thread, to attract uninvolved admins. Any objections to me doing so? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's for the best. I have a long paragraph ready to add, but I'll wait until you make a new thread. --barneca (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ultraexactzz has already reduced General Mannino's block back to a week, maybe a new thread isn't needed. I sort of disagree with the reduction, but have no serious problem with it; if General Mannino does not alter his behavior, he will be blocked again soon enough. However, the question remains what to do about WikiDon. I advocate an indef block for eggregious abuse of our trust, trying to frame another user, and wasting our time with fake death threats. This can't possibly require a "warning" that you shouldn't do this. I'm going to step back and let an uninvolved admin deal with it, though. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked WikiDon indefinitely - richly deserved, in my view. I'm doing up all the templates and niceties now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiDon, since then, has taken things rather badly. He's left a message on his talk page detailing what apparently happened. He's also left this conversation on my talk page. As what he did was more of an aberration rather than a long-term ongoing issue, and that he'd been a good contributor for years up until this, I've modified his userpage somewhat, and removed the indef notice. It's not something I'd regularly do, but we're not here to brand people nor cause any RL impact on their careers, for example. Let's cut the guy a little slack here, please - Alison 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What a messy situation. Little did I know that it was a sockpuppet I blocked, just not the one I was thinking. Alison and Thatcher, thank you for your hard work in sorting this out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass again

Please review. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this guy just isn't getting it, and his tone straight after an unblock suggests that he isn't going to, however much he protests. Penitence is not a convenience, in my book. --Rodhullandemu 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I better not see an unblock. This guy's wasted his welcome. Wizardman 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy is begging and pleading for yet another chance. His act reminds me of a WB cartoon called From Hand to Mouse. The mouse keeps begging for the lion to let him go, and each time the lion lets him go, the mouse exclaims, "Sucker!" Baseball Bugs 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask the question: Is there any admin who'd be willing to unblock this user? With a couple more responses of "No" to this question, and in the absence of a "Yes", I think the community ban can be effective - I think it's necessary too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Fclass has had more than enough chances. Neıl 龱 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would only defer to User:Mcelite on this, otherwise I see no reason for the indef block not to remain. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you see no reason for the indef block to remain for a user who has deliberately been so disruptive after making assurances that he won't be? :| Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on LessHeard vanU's edit summary (which was simply "good block"), I think he meant to say the opposite.... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes...I knew it was unbelievable :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a double negative, same outcome as I see no reason for the indef block not to remain. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I think I missed the last 'not' when I read it - that makes sense now. Cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Those can throw me too, I had to read it thrice before I got it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Philknight has also indicated his unwillingness to unblock. The community ban is effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good block, no unblock from me. _{1 != 2} 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is no unwillingness to not unblock. Baseball Bugs 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there is no misunderstanding that the consensus is not to be unwilling to not unblock. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note Barneca's canny double-double-double-double (octuple) negative: I do not disagree that there is no misunderstanding that the consensus is not to be unwilling to not unblock. The pith bein', keep em even numbered, y'all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Also, while I'm here, for posterity: Ncmvocalist didn't misread LHvU's comment; LHvU sneakily snuck a "not" into his previous comment during a fake coughing spell, after the fact. Sorry, LHvU, there are narc's everywhere. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr @ LHvU...lol. :) Thank you Barneca - I do read things properly after all :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"...and I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids..." (per every villian on Scooby-Doo) ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by GoRight

GoRight, a civil POV pusher on global warming related topics, recently returned from a 6 month hiatus. Since coming back, he has proceeded to disrupt numerous global warming related articles. He's already been warned by myself and R. Baley, however, he continues in his pattern of adding specious or fringe theories attributed to less-than-reliable sources, and then edit warring when they are removed. Can someone please look into this? Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is particularly concerning, but the remainder is something that should be sorted out through civil discussion to the point that there is consensus. Edit-warring when there is no consensus isn't helpful - if he doesn't cease with that, then please leave a note as I think a topic ban would then be warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may cease with that particular edit, but that's not going to stop his general disruption on GW articles. I like the idea of a topic ban, though. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - since he's continued to edit war on the Fred Singer article (adding a hitpiece written by ex-Wikipedian Lawrence Solomon about that article) I've warned him that the next time he does, I'm going to block him. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor has engaged in extensive discussion at Talk:William Connolley and gone on to reference those remarks to similar issues at Talk:Fred Singer. Blocking is not justified in this case unless the editor violates 3RR. I suggest you use dispute resolution instead. --A. B. 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I also disagree with your threat to block GoRight if he makes the same edit again. You are involved in these articles yourself and you should not use your admin position in this case. --A. B. 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite block page protection

Admin, User:Ryan Postlethwaite has blocked IPs, , from adding their say to Talk:The Great Hunger. There is actually no disruption on that particular page and I believe User:Ryan Postlethwaite is going beyond his brief regarding Misplaced Pages policy, "The Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". He has effectively blocked me from any comment on that page because I did not agree with admin-User:Angusmclellan barring User:Domer48, here. I ask the page be unblocked please. 93.107.74.10 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue is not currently suited for this forum. It appears you have not attempted to discuss this with Ryan Postlethwaite before bringing it here (see the notice at the top of this page). Also, requests for unprotection go to WP:RPP in the first instance. I suggest marking this thread as resolved for now.  Sandstein  05:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please log in (you clearly hve an account) to leave a message on that talk page. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does he have to? The page isn't protected. I'm not trying to be funny here, but is there a good reason why this user must log in? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan is one of three neutral watcher appointed to mentor that page as created by the ArbCom decision in the GIF case, and is well within his rights to act to try to eliminate perceived disruption in his role as a mentor. SirFozzie (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is within his rights to do so, as it is also within my rights to demur. I believe that he has gone too far with the IP block measure, and I believe that it is uncalled for. I especially want the block to be lifted so I can have my considerations heard on the talk page. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems strange to me too. In the meantime, feel free to tell me anything you want said on that page, and I'll be glad to post it for you. I've yet to find anything you've said to be disruptive. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ned, although I know four computer languages, I still don't know my way around Misplaced Pages too well. I'll leave things hang here until Ryan gets on the scene, if that's okay with everybody. Thanks! 93.107.142.179 (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page because we've had a number of suspicious IP postings recently that are clearly from established users wanting to avoid scrutiny from their main account. 93.107.142.179 for instance is editing from a cellphone - that doesn't look good in my eyes. As a lot of problems with the page in the past have been assosicated with IP's and and banned users, I've protected the talk page for a couple of weeks to stop the nonsense and allow some conensus building to take place (discussion has reached a critical period). Ryan Postlethwaite 09:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Ryan, I have caused no problems on the page, and have added constructively at all times. If you believe any differently, show the diffs. I notice that you blocked IPs almost immediatly after I challenged Angus over his topic ban on another very learned editor. Many of the other involved editors are also very uneasy with the train of events over the last couple of days. I urge you to reverse the IP ban. This, "is editing from a cellphone - that doesn't look good in my eyes", got me quite amused, don't understand that.93.107.142.179 (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are seriously wishing to contribute to the discussion, why are you contributing from a cellphone? Why aren't you logging in, for that matter? Discussions like this can get very heated, and it's generally accepted that those with accounts are more highly regarded (in such discussions) than those without. If you choose not to create an account and log in, that's your lookout. Also, please get your terminology right - he hasn't 'blocked' anyone, he's semi-protected the page. Big difference. _TalkIslander 10:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ediors do not have to log in. And Ryan have you any evidence and if so can you supply diffs. BigDunc 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also by semi protecting he has blocked all IP from editing. BigDunc 10:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On this page they do, because of the problems associated with it. Also, we have one user who is currently banned from editing the talk page, and with the editing from a cellphone IP, it's extremely difficult to see whether or not it is him editing as an IP. This is clearly not a new user and it's comments like this that reduce the decorum of the page and turn it into a mud slinging match - we don't need that, especially on Talk:The Great Hunger. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, this isn't a new editor This IP editor had edited the talk page and article before as 93.107.137.69 (talk · contribs), 93.107.131.116 (talk · contribs), 93.107.143.66 (talk · contribs), 93.107.135.22 (talk · contribs), but of course being a mentor on that page you were aware of that already? Obviously not! BigDunc 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They are all me, and now Ryan has blocked me. I never said I was a new editor, but I am interested in this topic , and in the name change. Some editors on that page, I believe, are misinformed about the name of the topic, and I was adding some input to the discussion, as I have several history books on the topic. I am still expecting that this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". 93.107.142.179 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan has not blocked you from contributing. You can use your regular user account (which I am also sure that you have) and contribute into the discussions, rather than pandering about with multiple IP addresses in order to avoid scrutiny by your regular account. I'm closing this, because there will be no resolve and I see no issue at hand. I don't know what you wanted to resolve by posting it at ANI, when you need to seek another noticeboard. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, WP:RPP won't be a good place to resolve this. This is a matter that needs to be discussed by admins and other editors in order to reach a consensus before any other admin at WP:RPP will act. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you blocked because of the "silly" word, I have seen adjectives on Misplaced Pages that would put silly to shame. It was a very "questionable" block on the part of Angus, and pardon me to inform you that many other editors think that too. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are either Domer, or an editor closely in touch with him. This is exactly the reason why the edits need to be accountable on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We are know the sort of shit that goes on around the troubles article - more power to Ryan's buttons I saw. --Killerofcruft (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, theres an instance of "shit", stronger than "silly" I guess. Actually you are doing yourself a dis-service by saying "You are either Domer, or an editor closely in touch with him.", because you are totally wrong. I never ever engaged with Domer at any stage, only the evidence that I brought to his page today. And it does get out of hand when people make up events. Everything that I allude to is here to be cross-referenced on Misplaced Pages. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an IP not causing any disruption. It does not matter if this 93 has an account or not, because anonymity is highly valued on Misplaced Pages, and always will be. Heaven forbid we look at the merits of his actions themselves. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and general disruption by User:Furtive admirer

] (] · ]) has been POV pushing on Jonathan Pollard. I reverted his mostly unsourced additions and gave him a {{uw-npov2}} warning. He then reintroduced his POV edits, this time introducing blatant vandalism (notice the last part about "cause of global warming"; Furtive admirer later claimed that this was to prove a point). This time I gave him a {{uw-vandalism4}} and included that diff in the warning. His response was to accuse me of being paid to edit. I then warned him not to make personal attacks, and expanded on my reasons to revert him. He also was warned by another user against making personal attacks. And yet, he choose to once again attack me ("You should go to law school and then you will be paid for your attempt to intimidate and impeach witnesses", "Go find someone else to bully. You enjoy it a lot" ...)

What can be done about this user? Rami R 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, it seems Furtive admirer is going to step back from the article. If she does so, then this is moot. If she continues ro POV-push and add deliberate misinformation, please bring this up here again. Neıl 龱 10:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent my revisions to Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister last night after responding to Rami's threats. I did not log on here to have such difficult interactions and verbal abuse. I thought this was a credible source; obviously, you can't handle the truth (Jack Nicholson).

Carol's response is: "I wish you peace and thank you for such a nice job you did on the entry.

XXX Carol"

FYI: If you want verification of any of the additions I made, her email address is: <deleted email>

I have also contacted Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's father, and though he is in his mid-90's, I suggested he deal with you directly, and/or have author, Mark Shaw correct (see footnote #24 on Pollard Page: ^ Shaw, Mark. Miscarriage of Justice, The Jonathan Pollard Story. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. 2001.) your errors with his sources. Obviously, you have serious issues here with writers and regretfully look at the glass half-full. I didn't realize how skeptical you are; you appear to alienate anyone with a triple digit IQ; it obviously reduces the quality and the integrity of your project, which now bears no weight in my ongoing acquisition of cultural literacy. My brother did warn me in advance about your treatment of contributors.

Rami, it is obvious you did not realize i was a female. You probably would have behaved better. First impressions are lasting. My dad always said, "You can catch more flies with molasses than vinegar."

This is definitely a waste of time and energy...

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with Rami R's "rvv" edit summaries, and the general treatment of Furtive admirer. While a lot of the stuff FA added to the article had severe bias and style problems, there was also some relevant and cited information mixed in -- and in any case, it certainly was not vandalism. When I see cases like this, I feel more sadness than I do anger... FA is clearly trying to do the right thing by protecting the reputation of a friend and making sure the "real story" (as she sees it) is told. The fact that her edits go against numerous Misplaced Pages policies is due to a lack of knowledge, not malice.

I'm going to see if any of her edits from yesterday can be salvaged. -Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) On a side note, you may actually be able to catch more flies with vinegar, but we get your point... ;)

Well, okay, less of the edits were salvageable than I thought. Still, I really don't like people throwing around the V-word, especially in a sad case like this. I'll leave it alone for now, but what it with that, please? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added a note on FA's talk page (I didn't realise until today that she had left me a message as that was on my User page) hopefully explaining the issues. I agree with the comments about vandalism - I am prepared to assume good faith, and labelling those edits as vandalism is not helpful. It was full of bias and undue emphasis, but I doen't think she was deliberately disruptive or trolling. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to the article "Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming." is clearly vandalism-- for whatever purpose it was added. DGG (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was added by an IP, and Rami reverted a dozen edits by Furtive admirer along with that edit in the "rvv" edit summary. Even though FA later admitted the IP was her, I don't think that was known for sure by Rami at the time. So I still don't care for the edit summary. I'm not asking for admin action on it or anything, I'm just saying I wish we were nicer to users who are clearly trying to do the right thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless I read the diff wrong, that bit of vandalism was added by Furtive admirer, at . a few edits earlier, at , she added the edit "Following Pollard's arrest, Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova boasted to Jonathan that he would make it impossible for any Jew in America, let alone anyone, to support him.", an unsourced BLP accusation. I'm looking at the edits under her name, not at Ramis. Anyone who would add those two edits, let alone all the other violations, should be prevented from further work on the article. DGG (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you are right. I got confused because of this, which re-added the WP:POINT-y joke from an IP. I did not realize it had been already added earlier.

I have struck a number of my comments above, in accordance with this. Perhaps I should strike more, I'm not sure... I have been imagining what I would feel like if I knew someone who was sentenced to life in prison under circumstances I felt were unfair, and I admit that may be clouding my judgment in how this user ought to be treated. Because of events in my personal life right now (nothing major, just some property fines I feel are ludicrously excessive) I may also be particularly susceptible to the image of a "hanging judge" messing up someone's life for no good reason. If I'm in the wrong here, I apologize. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atten: Jaysweet and StephenBuxton--- Thanx much for your rational sensibilities. Your parents brought you up with a PMA ! (positive mental attitude) Having been involved with the Pollard Case for more than 18 years, I happened on your site and was appalled by the typical mess the contributors have sourced. I didn't realize the technical requirements were so copious --- beyond my scope. so... i have enlisted author Mark Shaw, author (see footnote # 24 on the Pollard page) to review and make corrections. His book was neutral, written from the Defense and Prosecutorial points of view. He will take up matters. If you edit him out, you just might as well shut the site down!!! He will clarify with his sources many of your omissions and errors. For example, that in fact: "From March 6, 1987, until June 10, 1988, Pollard was held for all practical purposes incommunicadoo in the hospital wing of the center set aside for the Criminally Insane" in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners..."According to a communique from Michael Quinlan, director of the Bureau of Prisons, the order to transport Jonathan Pollard to Springfield was directed by 'Attorney General Ed Meese, the Justice Department, and the Office of Navy Investigations'."(see Pollard page footnote # 24 p.148) or that "while in prison Jonathan could have won his freedom if he had singled out certain jewish leaders as coconspirators". (same footnote , p.157); or the Alan Dershowitz affidavit attesting to an exparte conversation with Supreme Court Justice Goldberg and Judge Robinson (p.123);or, "Joseph diGenova encountered the media on the courthouse steps and continued his venom-filled tirade against Pollard. 'The sentence imposed reflects the severity of the damage...It is likely Pollard will never again see the light of day.'"(p.143) I read the history of the page and it seems you have been struggling with this page for more than 5 years. That is unreasonable. It may be in part because it appears none of you are American Citizens and haven't realized or perhaps are now beginning to with the treatment of the prisoners held without charges since 911, that America treats selective prisoners much like the KGB. Misplaced Pages can be a great source for the Truth rather than sourced material contracted out by the Federal Government, especially the CIA, which is how the notorious Seymour Hersh receives his primary earned income. I really think there are too many chiefs patrolling this website and not enough Indians, if you get the US metaphor. Perhaps, you might want to insert the sourced info above and salvage some of my efforts. Finally, I strongly recommend you remove Rami from this patrol assignment and reassign him to a less controverisal page. He is negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature. he does not know how to handle people. he could have seen i was new to the site, simply based on my entries. he does not teach; he dictates. best regards for a postive outcome to this issue, both on your site and for Pollard's sake. "The Truth is on the march and nothing shall stop it." Emile Zola Furtive admirer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you can all see, User:Furtive admirer clearly does not understand Misplaced Pages's purpose, and continues to make personal attacks against me. This cannot continue. Rami R 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

I try to avoid this page, but seems this is the only option. I speedy closed the above AfD, as a previous discussion was closed four days ago. However, "Killerofcruft" has disagreed, and reverted my close, twice now. I find this to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate help in the matter. Thank you. Al Tally 12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the notability questions he has posed? Baseball Bugs 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - I became aware of the article after reading about it here on AN/I today, before that I had never heard of, edited or had any connection to the article. I carefully reviewed all of the sources and found that there is not a single mention that is not either a listing, by the author itself, trivial or entirely unconnected to the subject matter. There are literally NO Reliable Sources for this article - it is not notable in any way shape or form. It exists and that's it. Generally there is a gentleman's agreement (and as far as I'm aware that's all it is - a suggestion not a policy) against re-opening AFD so soon (and I'll confess I missed the fact that it had been AFD's so soon) but my understanding is that is to stop involved parties using the AFD process as a weapon to hit each other over the head with. I have come to this article cold, I have reviewed it, I have searched for reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources, I cannot find any non-trivial sources. On that basis, I have made a good faith use of process. If this is closed, I'd like someone to be specific about the minimum period I'll have to wait because as soon as that is up, I'll just AFD it again - again in good faith, because of the lack of notability and the lack of reliable sources about the subject matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll list it, without regard for the current state of the article? Assuming that it currently fails RS now. That hardly sounds like a good faith nom to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - obviously I meant with the qualification of if the sourcing remains the same. apologies for any confusion caused by my brevity on this matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't typically care for rapid re-noms.. and even though IMO KoC's username has a dash of implicit bad faith, which I also don't care for... my inclination would be to let the AfD play out. The article has major notability concerns, and the previous AfD only really dealt with the COI concerns.

However, DilligentTerrier should weigh in before any decision is made. He has been involved with the cleanup of the article and his opinion would definitely count for something. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This prior AN/I section re Killerofcruft should be noted. Similar behavior is continuing; the issue is not notability of the article but incivility, which is particularly a problem in AfD where tensions tend to be high. Koc acknowledged being a "returned user having exercised his right to vanish" which explains how a new account is suddenly so active in such a manner. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to my incivility in that AFD? please be specific and provide diffs. Your constant accusations and bad faith attempts to slur my name are getting tiresome. If you have problems with my activities here - open a RFCU, if you have a problem with any particular edits of mine - bring it up on the relevent article talkpages. in all cases, provide diffs and don't throw around accusations you are unwilling to back up with specifics. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it was in that AfD, though I have not reviewed it. It's here in AN/I and elsewhere. Example: the response immediately above. The effect of my post was

• (1) To connect this report with the prior AN/I notice,
• (2) To separate the issue of conduct from that of notability, which is not an issue to be resolved with AN/I, ordinarily, AN/I being designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, but some are easily distracted. I.e., an editor might (this is not necessarily a present claim against Koc) be grossly uncivil or disruptive in, say, proposing an AfD that is a proper AfD, i.e., the article is actually not notable. More to the point, an editor might close an AfD in a manner ultimately found to be improper, which is then reverted by another instead of (a) discussing it or (b) going to DRV. The second is considered to require the first, and both are preferable, and sometimes even required, in lieu of using reversion. Edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue. *Any* revert without discussion, where the reason is debatable, is arguably edit warring. and
• (3) The editor has been uncivil, repeatedly so. My response is a graduated one, which has not yet reached the level of requiring proof; however, everything I've said could be backed with diffs, and will be if I come to the conclusion that it's worth the effort. At this point, I'd only suggest reading the prior AN/I report, which contains examples, and the User's Talk page and contribution history. Next step is to formally warn the user on User talk:Killerofcruft, that the user had not been formally warned was one of the arguments against block in the prior report; I'm refraining from doing that myself, at this point, but I will if any reasonable editor suggests that I take on the task.

At this point, my comments are discussion, of user behavior, not a formal attempt to sanction the user. Koc narrowly escaped being blocked in that last AN/I report and I had nothing to do with that; in fact, my comments probably helped reach the conclusion that action against the user was not yet warranted.

So that's a "no I'll just keep making accusations" --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations, no. I'm not making accusations, generally. I point to evidence, sometimes I present obvious conclusions from the evidence, typically quite solid ones (though I make mistakes from time to time, and I try to apologize for them promptly when they are pointed out). However, what Koc considers "accusations," yes. Consistent with policy, guidelines, and the welfare of the project, I will continue to comment on what I observe, as part of the essential process by which Misplaced Pages regulates itself. There are now two AN/I reports in as many days over Koc behavior, involving different users, with no sign to me that Koc recognizes that his behavior is at all problematic. The first AN/I report, referenced above, was closed with a comment that it should be sufficient as a warning regarding his edit summaries (though more was mentioned in the AN/I report than that). Subsequently, Koc commented that it was closed "because it was a lot of crap." I would call that defiant disregard of a warning.--Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

just so people don't think I left this hanging - I will make no further comment to abd - it just seems to feed ... well whatever this is suppose to be. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The first AFD was handled improperly, as it resulted in a keep but without a discovery of whether adequate sources exist. The second one should probably run- the first one wasn't useful. Friday (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was procedurally correct. It just so happens that nobody had much to say about the notability and verifiability. I still feel uncomfortable with starting an AFD so fast after the last one was closed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many aliases in this discussion. In addition to KoC, Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs). Unclear what that means. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the article, I've made my comments on the talk page and in the AfD. There's no third-party confirmation of notability. I've tracked down the unlinked citations in the article. (See the talk page and AfD page for links.) The cited articles are on line, and they're very, very brief mentions of the article subject. This is self-published original research by a new editor writing their first article. The article looks better-cited than it is until you find and read the citations, and discover there's almost nothing there. I was planning to send it to AfD in a few weeks, after allowing time for it to become clear that it's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 editors on that second AFD who are saying "too soon to renominate", totally ignoring the point that the original AFD ignored notability. Thus, this apparently self-promoting and dubious article will likely get retained. Misplaced Pages at its finest. NOT. Baseball Bugs 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The inventor of the language and the main author of the article seems to bang the lid down on this one --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the RS or notability issues, the 2nd AfD should be procedurally speedy closed. The first AfD had its chance at the article and to renominate four days later is disruptive as it takes time and energy better spent on writing and improving articles. This also points out the need for policy on a minimum interval between nominations. A collaborative project the size of WP has to have process, or it won't work. Keeping an article that may, or may not, be notable enough does infinitely less harm than violating process, in spirit or letter. The editors voting to keep in the 2nd AfD (due to unseemly haste to renominate) understand that problem and are correct. If the article is still believed to be inadequate later on, come back in three months and renominate. Also, Killerofcruft as a username seems to display an inherent bias toward deletionism. — Becksguy (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting the right answer is more important than some arbitrary time limit between AFDs. As pointed out, the first AFD ignored the sourcing issue, for some reason. Friday (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If sourcing was so important, it should have been included in the 1st AfD. It had its chance at the right answer. It's not about arbitrary time limits, it's about minimizing the disruption to Misplaced Pages. We have an overwhelmingly large number of AfDs, more than anyone can keep up with, even in their areas of expertize. Renominating because someone wants a second (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) shot at an article, especially within short time periods, just adds to that massive problem. And four days just boggles the mind as disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Becksguy. The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Killerofcruft has it right. If the subject is self-promotional and not notable, then the first AFD is irrelevant. The "you had your chance" stuff is childish. Getting it right is all that matters. Baseball Bugs 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And according to my count, the previous AFD had a grand total of TWO "Keep" statements aside from the original author. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article, and the "you had your chance" argument doesn't hold water. Even without bringing up notability, it was teetering on being deleted. Baseball Bugs 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should take the time to get it right. That includes working on the article to find reliable source, sometimes it isn't obvious, and, in fact, it may not be obvious to the original author. The claim, above, that the inventor isn't aware of RS and therefore it does not exist, is a non-sequitur. Now, for me to find out the truth of this, myself, could take hours of research, on a topic where I have no knowledge. This is a community project, and we take advantage of community resources. It takes time. For this reason, when an AfD closes without consensus (which was the case here, in fact), immediate renomination disrupts the process of improving the article. Yes, it was "teetering on being deleted." Should we keep it teetering? I'd say we should give it a month. It survived AfD, and debating notability doesn't find sources for the article. Patient work does. Sometimes RS exists and is not googleable. If no RS appears in a month, nobody would be questioning the renomination. It is only that it was done a few days later, by a newly registered "returning user who exercised his right to vanish," an apparent deletionist from the user name, that is the problem. That user edit warred to keep the 2nd nomination openm which was the cause of this AN/I report, which got distracted by the notability question. User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name -- may indeed be right about the article, but what's the hurry? What's the problem with taking the proper time and following the proper process, which does not include edit warring? --Abd (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't argue for "speedy" deletion. But if the author himself can't find a reliable source for this article, then what likelihood is there? Baseball Bugs 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last two days something like (and this is from skimming) >80% of Abd's edits have been a) about me or b) have involved subjected I was already editing or discussions I was already involved in. At least 3 of those edits were removed as personal attacks. People asked me to tone down the edit summaries - I did that. People said my name could cause problems - I changed it. I have no problem with people querying my actions - when asked on my talk page, I have answered. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like he's out to get me. Maybe it's in my mind but I honestly feel he's following me around try to cause trouble. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this content dispute on ANI? People have a right to bring a rightful AfD if they so wish, they are entitled to their (IMHO rightful) opinion that this should be deleted and IMHO no-one should ever be on ANI for creating an AfD in good faith, just because the complainer on ANI disagrees with it. If Crufty's name is ensuring he's harassed, then maybe he should be encouraged to change it, but apart from that leave Crufty alone!:) Sticky Parkin 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sticky Parkin should look at the beginning of this discussion? It was brought here because User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name to User:Allemandtando -- was edit warring with an administrator. The discussion, which was originally and properly about user behavior, was sidetracked into what should have been a question resolved through ordinary process (discussion and, in this case, DRV, if discussion fails -- but discussion wasn't tried -- unless an AN/I report is "discussion"), that is, whether or not the article is notable. Above, Allemandtando dashes some hopes that he is going to change his behavior as well as his name. He's done a number of things worthy of comment. The appropriate thing, when comment is made, isn't to challenge the comment but to examine the behavior. He claims to have done that, and we can hope that he does, but what do I have to do with this AN/I report? Or, for that matter, the one filed yesterday? If I were "out to get him," the number one thing I would have done would have been to warn him, so that his behavior would then have been promptly blockable. I'd have, by yesterday, filed an SSP report, just in case, and I'd have taken several matters to AN/I. But I didn't. I see now that he has also withdrawn the problematic AfD nomination, and a compromise seems to be in the making. Good move. I haven't pursued him and I have no plans to. However, given what's come down, I do plan to keep my eyes open. I'll grant, it is not easy to recover from the level of negative attention he has drawn in the few days since he registered; offenses that might not raise an eyebrow otherwise can result in a block. But he's not in danger from me, personally, only from the consequences of his own actions as seen by the community. Which I do not think blockworthy, yet. As was the conclusion from the last AN/I report, he can be considered warned. User:Arcayne may have played a role in calming the waters, for which he is to be commended; let's hope they stay calm.--Abd (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Killerofcruft/Allemandtando has withdrawn the AfD nomination, but reserves the right to renominate in eight weeks, pending the addition of sources. I endorse that compromise. Will a uninvolved admin/editor close as withdrawn by nom, without prejudice to renomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as there are other delete or delete/userfy votes, it isn't automatically closed if withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were to adopt a "negative" kind of username, it would be along the lines of "Killerofcruft" -- something like "Death to spam". Several of us will be watching that article, so its author had best come up with some sources, or he'll be hearing about it again soon. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to the author alone to come up with sources. This is our project, not his. In any case, if the original attempt to close the AfD had not been interrupted by edit warring, there wouldn't have been those delete or delete/userfy votes at this time, and we'd either see an adequate article down the road a bit, or another AfD, this time a proper one. AN/I didn't work this time: properly, seeing the rapid renom after close, without going to DRV instead, the user involved should have been warned about edit warring, and the AfD promptly closed by a new administrator, avoiding a whole lot of wikifuss. Next time, please, administrators, don't allow a proper AN/I report -- and this one was proper on the part of User:Al tally, who reported instead of edit warring, himself, -- to be derailed over content issues, as this one was from the beginning by Baseball Bugs, who asked Al tally a question about notability that was, for our purposes here, irrelevant. The user could be right as rain about the notability of the article, and the edit warring still not permissible.--Abd (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the spammers and self-promoters win. So far, they've won this one. Baseball Bugs 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A note on the players in the AfD:

• Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs).
• Killerofcruft (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Allemandtando (talk · contribs).
• TotientDragooned (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely pending a name change.

Have I missed anyone? --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think things are getting too muddled here. Really, the 2nd AfD isn't out of process. The nominator was unaware of the first nomination and, in good faith, nominated an article with no reliable sources for deletion. Now, if we want to be slaves to process, the correct procedure would have been to close the 2nd AfD, file an appeal at DRV stating that the 1st AfD did not have enough participation to get a result and that it should be relisted to gain a consensus. Which would wind up either re-opening one of those AfDs, or creating a 3rd one.

Rather than tying ourselves up in red tape, I'd say it's more effective to simply let this AfD run its course. The final decision could be appealed at DRV if you really wanted, but I'd say it's frivolous. If the article is kept, it should stay for at least a couple months before being renominated. If it's deleted or userfied, there's no reason it can't be written (or undeleted) later with proper sourcing. Process may be important, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but I think this is a case that calls for it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even now, the article's defenders are working feverishly trying to prove notability, i.e. trying to find some shred of evidence that anyone besides the article's author has ever heard of this computer language. Baseball Bugs 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

sock master User:Generalmesse

• User:Generalmesse
• User:Captainantoniocorelli
• User:MedagliaD'Oro
• User:Drunkgeneral
• User:Michaelsweatt
• User:RadioBerlin
• User:Rasputin65
• User:Solarinoridge
• User:Flylikeadodo
• User:Steyr2007 seem to be all the same user;

reasons:

• strong nationalist POV pushing of always the same (false) claim that "7th Bersaglieri took 6500 POWs at Mersa Matruth" and
• strong nationalist POV pushing in topics dealing with WWII battles with Italian participation
• this being the only topic that seems to be of interest to the users
• discussion resistant
• none of the above signs comments
• this: ]
• all are experts at using google book search
• insults - i.e. this one - also this is the 1. edit in six months and it exactly supports the opinion of the above and insults User:Kirrages and me - or this one insulting User:Nick Dowling
• all have a very aggressive and threatening ton in their comments
• his primary sources are: "Radio Berlin" (during WWII - go figure! what a neutral source!) "Radio Rome" or even worse: "The three Italian divisions have held their own through the rigours of winter, which was particularly bitter for them," Hitler told the German Reichstag" (in April 1942) - he uses that (!) as a source to prove that Italians fought bravely during WWII
• if he is not pushing nationalist POV he is trying to justify the Dirty War in Argentina by quoting official (!) 1980 documents published by the perpetrating junta to describe the "danger" of the Argentine left...

in short: could an administrator please give him a stern and clear warning to cease socketpuppetry, to refrain from using sources that are unacceptable and to calm down in discussions. thanks, --noclador (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

just in: another insult --noclador (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an inkling this editor may cause trouble. I mainly edit on Falklands War topics and I noticed this comment on the talk page of an editor I'd collaborated with. The comment "I believe I have done much to rectify their image as 'poor fighters'", caused me some concern, as it indicated a desire for a POV editing campaign, so I had a look at what this editor has been up to. Some of his contributions seems to reverse the emphasis of the article. I don't know enough about the subject matter so I can't comment but at least one of the sources he'd removed (which someone else had commented on its reliability) contradicts his edit. Also he seems to dismiss official histories as biased and diminishing the contributions of the Italians. He also seems in the habit of adding extraneous external links to articles that aren't referred to in the text. At the time my impresion was of an editor who may simply be misguided but genuinely thinks he's making an improvement by overturning what he sees as false impressions. Justin talk 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to keep an open mind on this editor over some consisderable time. I've taken the view that the articles on North Africa are rather Allied-centric written using for the most part British / Commonwealth / US sources. I thought that a contributor with access to Axis sources might add balance i.e. even if he has an axe to grind, an Italian perspective would add value provided the text is NPOV. There have been considerable difficulties however because this editor 1) tends to be very undiscriminating - often choosing obscure and small engagements completely at odds with the scale the rest of the article employs 2) Sources are dubious (see above) and undocumented (e.g. a link to a website with no obvious author, credentials etc) 3) As aresult I have spent endless time copyediting (including the tedious business of formatting and documenting citations) 4)Huge reluctance to engage in debate to establish sources and create consensus - and on the rare occasions this has happened my moderate tone has been confronted with a rather more intemperate attitude. It's all rather frustrating. I wonder if it's the same guy as User:Giovanni Giove who behaved in a very similar way and is now blocked....Stephen Kirrage 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

noclador -- have you considered filing a report at WP:SSP? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment much on the content, but I also had started to suspect sock puppetry, particularly a link between User:GeneralMesse and User:RadioBerlin. Mostly through their edit style, reference formating (or rather lack thereof), edit summaries ect.--Caranorn (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did consider to file an WP:SSP, but as the problem hasn't got out of hand I choose to file a report here. But now that Stephen Kirrage has pointed out that this might all be socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove I will file a WP:SSP. --noclador (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Report filed at: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets#User:Giovanni Giove 2nd --noclador (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody loves me - User:Roger Blitzen

Would somebody mind closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (3rd nomination) as a bad-faith nomination? It is obviously just an attempt by Roger Blitzen (talk · contribs) to tweak me (see contribs). I wouldn't bring it here except (a) the wrong AfD is listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 24, and (b) the subject of the article is harassing someone else off-wiki in the belief that they are me, so I don't want to touch it myself. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section from the already closed AFD discussion and gave the user a warning for attacking another editor. Dusti 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dusti. I didn't notice that it was the old AfD because of the strangeness with the names. Would someone else mind finishing this off - removal of AfD notice on article, unlisting AfD, blocking user? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I remove dthe AFD notice and will unlist the AFD.....but I don't have the right tool to block the user....for some reason my name isn't included here yet :) Dusti 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a look at blocking this user? First contribution was inserting references to my username into an article. I'm not sure if the intention was to bring attention to me or the subject or themselves. They followed up with a somewhat misguided AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/A_Band and then the clearly bad faith AfD which prompted this ANI thread. Add to that the two cases of vandalism of my user page . I'm not sure Dusti's templated warning is going to prevent future disruption. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The AfD on A Band was not suitable for a non-admin close, was it, as there were some delete votes, and it only ran for a day or something. Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not sure that germane to the block request, but you may want to bring it up with the closer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If my block request is inappropriate or misguided, at least please give me some feedback. Thanks Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. this thread seems to have slipped thru the cracks, and the user seems to be in that awkward grey zone between blocking and warning. I'll leave a somewhat more strongly worded message on their talk page than Dusti's; Roger's made some indication on Dusti's talk page he won't push things anymore, so I'm not comfortable blocking him right now, tho it's close. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, barneca. That ought to do it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Death Threat

Was brought up in a backlogged AIV notice, please see this Dusti 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly credible. Blocked. -- zzuuzz 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that it deserves a longer block that what it got. I know IP's can't get an indef block, but they can recieve year long blocks. If you look at the ARIN report, its registered to, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, another ARIN lookup I did this morning to an vandal IP 121.44.87.131, was also registered to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre. Dusti 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Vandalism including death threats, even if it appears to be a pure hoax, cannot be tolorated. Personally, I think 3–6 months would suffice. Juliancolton 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user will probably have a new IP address within a few hours. Even 31 hours is probably excessive for a StarHub IP. -- zzuuzz 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's actually owned by StarHub Cable Vision Ltd, Singapore; APNIC is just the higher-level domain registry. I blocked for 72h but clashed with User:zzuuzz. If he comes back tomorrow evening (where I am), however, the next one will be much longer. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I still gotta push for at least a month, due to the nature of the vandalism. If this was a new editor, the account would be blocked indef. Dusti 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages have official policy on what to do with Death Threats? I see topics like this one come up every week at ANI. IMO it should be a indef block for users making death threats and a one year block for IP's making death threats. D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. How do you know the vandal is still at that IP - Isn't this a dynamic IP? If so, what does a longer block of that particular IP achieve? --barneca (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I can't find an official policy, can someone help out here? Dusti 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need an official policy? We block them for as long as they are using that IP/account. -- zzuuzz 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Relative to what Barneca says, if this is dynamic, then collateral could hit those who wish to edit, who are in no way involved in the past editing on wiki. Rudget (logs) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All the more reasson to see what happens when the block expires first. If they come back aggressively with the same IP, a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial. If it's a dynamic IP, well, they probably already aren't coming back, cuz they'd be back already, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Rudget (logs) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If they come back aggressively with the same IP, a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial - no. It's trivially simple to leave a modem connected for days at a time, waiting through the shorter blocks, then reconnect once the block gets long enough. People especially dedicated to the cause could probably pull off a repeat of the David Gerard vs. Traverse Mountain, Utah travers-ty, or the similar Yamla/Martinp23 vs. Qatar incident. These are all good examples why people who have blocking privileges should be expected to understand the fundamentals of I.P. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, so what's your suggestion then? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks which are long and/or wide should be limited to checkusers, who are more likely to understand the limitations and who have better tools to explore the harmful effects of particular blocks. There are a lot of foolish blocks that get made, such as /16s that span multiple ISPs, indefs of /32s that are clearly dynamic pool IPs. But getting people to accept limitations on their rights is often hard. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is that it was misunderstood what I meant when I said "a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial." I meant, if an IP makes a threat, gets a 31-hour block, and comes back and makes another threat, blocking them for 2 weeks or a month or something seems pretty uncontroversial to me -- it's the next step in probing to see how serious the troll is, etc. A huge percentage of 'em go away at that point. And those who don't, well, we take it one step at a time.

I'm not trying to say a six-month /16 rangeblock would be uncontroversial, dear god no :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JacobDyer08's edit summaries

JacobDyer08 (talk · contribs) uses a very non-standard edit summary when editing. It's long, unrelated to anything he's actually doing and it usually goes like this:

my name is jacob dyer and i live in bristol. it is fantastic. i sound like barnaby bear. i like barnaby bear. one time he went to france. i went to france. but some kid burnt my neck. i didnt like it

or, after he was warned (again) about using such summaries

but my name IS jacob dyer and i DO live in bristol!

Although it might be humorous, it's diruptive to the other editors working on the same articles because, other than checking one-by-one all of his contributions, they have no clue as to what he's actually done before typing such an edit summary. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits are OK. They are mostly reversion of vandalism. The summaries are, however, seriously disruptive. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is a good-faith editor. What I think might be causing the problem is, when he was told to use edit summaries, he was not told what an edit summary is or how to use it properly. While I know there was a link, it seems like a plausible mistake, especially for an inexperienced editor. Just try to have a civil, non-warning like, discussion with the user and see what happens. Juliancolton 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is good advice. I struck an earlier stern warning, and replace it with this. Perhaps young Mr. Dyer was just confused :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After I added the first note about edit summaries, I didn't see any further edits for a few minutes, so I assumed good faith and guessed that he was reviewing the edit summary page. I had considered bringing it here in the first place, but seeing the pause seemed good enough for me at the moment. As he's a new editor, I hope that he takes this issue to heart as vandal fighters are generally helpful. Slambo (Speak) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some established editors nearly always use blank edit summaries, or terse, one- or two-letter summaries, which convey no meaning to other users. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these types of edit summaries any better? GlassCobra 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No better at all, but they don't get templated or raised here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that a blank edit summary is better than the one he was using. It clutters up the history and makes it harder to identify changes.

The 2-letter edit summaries can actually be really handy sometimes, depending. I agree "rv" is pretty useless (yes, we know you reverted, thanks), as is "+" (we can tell you added content), but "ce", "sp", "wkfy", etc., those are pretty handy, IMO...

Anyway, I think Juliancolton was right that the poor kid just didn't understand what an edit summary was. As long as he stops, it's fine. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a personal battle and this is just one of the many examples

Ok it started with me wanting to add some information to the Kanto (Pokémon) article. The User Artichoker kept removing my edit and it turned into a edit war. He told me that i would have to post in the talk page and get on consensus before i could add it, and everytime i tried to put the info back he removed it. He called it speculation and non notable and i cited it properly and everything. I went to the third option and this is what came of it. this cane be found on my talk page

Re: I'm being attacked and picked on by user Artichoker

I saw that; I posted on the talk. He's asking for consensus, but as yet he's the only one to oppose that I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it started going off course and Artichoker kept responding with sarcastic and demeaning comments on the Talk:Kanto (Pokémon) page. To make matters worst he continued to try and belittle be despite my best efforts to calmly show that the information has creditable sources, and could be cited properly as JeremyMcCracken commented on its proper citation. I even found creditable sources that not even he or anyone could depute but he continues to disrupt the article by trying to police it.

He tries and manipulate the conversation by taking thigns out of context, and getting me off topic. He also accuses me of personal attacks, and even put a warning on my talk page for the violations that he himself is guilty of too.

He also is trying say he is using policy and telling me to read and i have but no where does it say the info i want to put on the article is in any violation. And he keeps accusing me of personal attacks like i said but he has posted thing such as this

I think the pictures should go there and Useight thinks we needs some, so for the time being i don't see why we can't have them up why are you being so difficult about this, why must it be you to undo my contributions>? why couldn't you wait and let someone else undo it? you seem to be on of the few people with a problem, until this all started you were the only one with a problem.

You are not the police of this articleYami (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He told us he did not have experience in images, and once again please read WP:FUC. Artichoker 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going read anything. I stand by my belief that this belongs in the article and what does his lack of experience with images have to do with anything Yami (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are not going to read Misplaced Pages policy and instead try to violate it, then this can't be helped, something more drastic will have to be done about you. Artichoker 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read all those policies he has given me even the one i said i wouldn't and i see nothing wrong with the info i want to add, he is the only one that seems to think there is. Yes some have joined him but both have proven to be a little unreliable in terms of being able to make a unbiased decision that could drastically change this dispute's direction.

This is getting out of hand. All i wanted was to add some info, if it needed to be rewritten or changed a little to better fit the article I'd be fine with that. But to have one person try and tell me what i can or cannot put on the article is insulting.

I have put lots of time into this matter. I found everything he wanted but he still denies my contribution notability.

Every time i try to add it when i think its safe and i have proven its notability he just removes it again and it is only him. Him alone.

I'm losing my cool on this situation, and i know i've lost it a few time alreadyYami (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A concise summary of the underlying content dispute is the latest addition to WP:LAME, for anyone interested. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I must unfortunately admit I had contributed to said discussion, let it be known that Yami has on many occasions refused to accept Misplaced Pages policy.

Plus, when he actually did add in the info in a very indirect way, it really doesn;t sound all that great... TheChrisD 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see where I have attacked this user. He continued to violate Misplaced Pages policy and accuse me and others of things we have never done i.e., "manipulating his words," "policing the article," "personally attacking him." I have never even come close to committing any of those actions. I instead calmly brought up the policies he was violating and asked him to read them. He refused and continued to beat around the bush, argue, and bring up irrelevant facts. He had no decent sources for the inclusion of your information, and his image violates WP:FUC. The point is that he behaves harshly to anyone that disagrees with him, calling them biased and discouraging them from commenting. The evidence is all at Talk:Kanto (Pokémon), if anyone wants to read through that entire mess. Artichoker 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea Change

The end of the intro to the article Sea Change has an obviously weasel-worded statement lacking sources, so I added the {{who?}} tag at the end of it. User Stan Simmons removed the tag without providing a source, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he's new; then I added a {{ww}} tag. He then removed the tag again, so I went to his talk page and gave him a link to WP:WEASEL (to which he didn't respond). I then expressed my concern on the Sea Change talk page, and he didn't seem to get what I was saying, so I took the matter to WP:3.

After going to WP:3, Juliancolton agreed with me (and the guideline) and reinstated the tag, but Stan Simmons simply removed it again. I re-reinstated the tag and told him that I would seek an admin's help if he didn't stop (or at least add sources), but today he just removed the tag again.

Can something be done about this? Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user does not appear to comprehend what a weasel word is, so it might be best to leave a stern message on his talk page explaining what a weasel word is, and what may happen if he continues to edit war over whether {{ww}} should remain in the article. I'll keep an eye out for 3RR violations. Juliancolton 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried leaving a message before, and like I said, the message was unanswered. The way this user's going, leaving even a stern message seems like it would be a waste of keystrokes. Anthony Rupert (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just posted another message on Stan's talk page, as well as a similar message on the Sea Change talk page. But I didn't reinstate the {{weasel}} or {{ww}} tag because I don't want to be accused of an edit war or violating 3RR. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea change... isn't that what you get back when you spend a few sand dollars? Baseball Bugs 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound bitter, but why haven't any admins responded to this yet? There have been several incidents reported after this fact that have since been resolved. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admin action is required. I've made a non-admin contribution to the Talk page. Let's see if it helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need fresh eyes in the case of User:WikiDon v. User:General Mannino

• WikiDon (talk · contribs) (socks: HoundDog23 (talk · contribs), Generale d'Armata Mannino (talk · contribs), IP4240207xx (talk · contribs))
• General Mannino (talk · contribs) (sock: MI General (talk · contribs))

This is in regards to this thread above, which now needs fresh eyes.

A quick recap: General Mannino and WikiDon got into a conflict earlier in the day in regards to the Mannino article. Things escalated into personal attacks, with accusations of stalking on both sides. MBK004 (talk · contribs) was considering a civility block on GM, and after this edit, perceived by some as a death threat and others as an innocent joke, enacted a 1-week block on General Mannino.

A few editors were about to step in and say the block seemed excessive, but then new evidence came to light. This aborted RfA was uncovered, which, among other things, was polluted by GM using the sock MI General (talk · contribs). And then, this infamous edit occurred, and everybody freaked. General Mannino was indef blocked -- not solely because of the threat from the Generale d'Armata Mannino account, but the diff was known at the time, so it is hard to say exactly how much that came into play.

It has now emerged that the edit above () stating an explicit threat and implications of IRL stalking against WikiDon, was in fact from a sockpuppet of WikiDon himself. It was also uncovered that HoundDog23 (talk · contribs) is also a sock of WikiDon. The latter account has generally been used in a positive manner, but also participated in the earlier edit war at Mannino. To date, no action has been taken against WikiDon, so that will clearly need to be an outcome of this thread, I am afraid.

To muddy the waters further, General Mannino, in responding to what he felt was an unjust indef block for a sock that he claimed was not his (which ultimately proved true), made a rather unwise unblock request, in which he complained that Alison (talk · contribs), the admin running the Checkuser, may be biased against him because she is Irish and he is Italian. A quite unflattering moment for GM, and normally I would think this would be the nail in the coffin that would mean the indef block should stand -- but I can't help but wonder if he would have said something so dumb if WikiDon had not pulled the fake sock shennanigans.

Alison has wisely requested that this be handled by a previously uninvolved admin. I agree fully. This situation has just been too confusing for those of us who have been deeply involved. Clearly, action needs to be taken against both users, but it is unclear exactly what the severity should be. To those who chose to sort this out, I say: Good luck :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Update: Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) has reduced the length of General Mannino's block to six days, i.e. restoring the balance of the original 1-week block for personal attacks. It remains to be decided what action to take against WikiDon. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) False flagging and attempting to frame another user (for threats, of all things) earns you an indefinite block in my book; this is not the type of person who usually has a demeanor compatible with a project built on collaborative editing. GM's conduct isn't above board either, but his current six-day block seems about right for an immature threat probably made in anger. We can always keep an eye on the latter's behavior and see if they reform. east.718 at 21:19, June 24, 2008

(e/c x2)I'm most certainly involved, but I can't help chiming in. First, Metros enacted the 1 week block after reviewing MBK's thread here, not MBK004. Then, I upgraded to indef (prematurely). Ultraexactzz has already revised General Mannino's block back to the original week, and although I'm not sure how i feel about that, I won't argue. I would say GM's situation needs no further discussion; I don't really see Ultraexactzz's decision being overruled, given what's happened.

However, the question remains what to do about WikiDon. If you look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino‎, there's yet another sock of his uncovered. I advocate an indef block on WikiDon and all his socks for eggregious abuse of our trust, trying to frame another user, and wasting our time with fake death threats. This can't possibly require a "warning" that you shouldn't do this, and I view trying to frame another user as just about the worst use of sockpuppetry there is; worse than block evasion, worse than vandalism. I'm going to step back and let an uninvolved admin deal with it, but that's my two cents. I'm now off for a quick self-administred trout slap for the hasty indef block. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already indef-blocked WikiDon based on the above thread, before this one existed. If you think that was premature, my apologies, but this appears to be a pretty flagrantly deserved indef block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist indef blocked WikiDon. I am satisfied with that, so marking this resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, I am very sad to see a contributor as prolific as WikiDon disappear over such a dumb, dumb incident. I don't see how it can be anything but an indef block, but this sucks.  :( --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that in his explanation he talks about the dark side of human nature, in others, while it appears that he went down that path himself. :( Baseball Bugs 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, given the conversation on my talk page, I'd love to see a finite date placed on his block rather than the indef that he got. While what he did was seriously wrong on a whole number of levels, I see it more as an aberration and something that is decidedly out of character than an ongoing thing. The guy needs a break from enwiki - no question of that - but indef? That's a bit harsh, IMO - Alison 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. I'm seeing a degree of contrition that your typical bad user seldom displays. Baseball Bugs 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What? He was in a dispute, and created a sock account with the sole intention of getting his opponent indefinitely blocked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He has posted a very sad story to your talk page, Alison, and I can see how it would elicit some sympathy, but he's only sorry because he got caught - do you think if he had gotten away with it, he would have felt sorry? Balls. If we have to have a finite date, I would make it some time in 2108. Neıl 龱 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(I have commented out the resolved tag, since there is now discussion on whether to make WikiDon's block finite)

This situation really, really depresses me.  :( I was about ready to say that I endorse reducing it to a finite block, but I thought I'd pop over and see what is going on at his talk page.. and then I see that IP4240207xx (talk · contribs) was also a WikiDon sock. I am very disappointed to see what he wrote in regards to it there... He says the sock existed due to a login problem and that Jimbo was aware of it, so therefore it was a legitimate alternate account. That is all fine and good, but you can't take your legitimate alternate account and use it to give the appearance that multiple people are taunting a blocked user you recently had a dispute with, as he did in the pile-on at User talk:General Mannino the other day.

Since our blocks are preventative rather than punitive, I really don't like to see a long-standing productive contributor disappear over a single incident, no matter how egregious that incident is. If there's no reason to believe he'll do it again, why punish him for it? "Good for the goose/good for the gander" is poor logic here, IMO -- we don't operate on simply truisms like that. (No offense Neil, I have a very high level of respect for you, I just think you're wrong in this case :) )

That said, even though I keep wanting to forgive WikiDon, I keep finding out something else that makes my jaw drop. What on earth was he thinking??  :(

I guess, on balance, I think I would support reducing it to a finite block, with the following restrictions:

• No use of sockpuppets, or even legitimate alternate accounts, or an IP, or anything. All edits are from the WikiDon account, no matter what.
• No communication whatsoever with blocked editors. I would even go so far as to say no commenting on blocked editors, unless specifically asked by someone for details related to ongoing enforcement.

(Oh geez, I had not yet read his plea on Alison's Talk page... just read it now. Now I'm even more depressed about this... heh...)

Anyway, that's my proposal. WikiDon did about the dumbest thing he could do, but he only did it once (or at least, only over the course of one day). Do we really believe he's likely to do it again? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment... thinking about the goose/gander thing, here is why I think it is different: Yes, if we lift WikiDon's indef, some people will say, "Hey, you are letting him off with a free pass just because he's done a lot of work for the encyclopedia! Enforcement should be the same!" However, this logic is deeply flawed, because again, our enforcement is preventative, not punitive. If somebody had been at enwiki for a week, and then did what WikiDon did, we might rightly be suspicious that they were planning this all along and/or that this is likely to be the normal M.O. for this person. But clearly, I don't think WikiDon edited for four years so he could build up enough trust to --- to what? Momentarily confuse a few editors & admins, and get a dubious contributor's block extended? And I think it's obvious from his past contributions that this is not his normal mode of behavior. This is not "that type of editor," and we all know that perfectly well.

I still think a case can be made that the indef should stand -- this was about the dumbest thing he could have done -- but arguments that involve something along the lines of "we wouldn't even have this conversation if he was a new editor" are flawed, IMO. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see a pressing need to have this conversation now. Indef isn’t the same as infinite. There have been other people that have been allowed back on after a suitable interval (which seems, historically, to be between 3 months and 1 year, depending on the severity of the problem, the level of friendship they cultivated, the personality of their mentor, and (most heavily correlated) the results of a random number generator). I also sympathize with the issues he’s been dealing with.

However, I suggest leaving it indef for now, rather than finite, and have him request an unblock in some number of months, at which time he will hopefully be in a better frame of mind, we won't be quite so pissed off, and we can discuss it then. I will say that his long explanation seems to indicate still not "getting it", but I see that conversation as better for later, than now.

Alison suggested somewhere (can’t find it now) that he pick a different Wiki, like Simple or Commons or Wiktionary or some other language, with less conflict, and start the long journey of building back up the broken trust. I agree; I’d look more favorably on a return in X months if there was a history of good work elsewhere. I’d also add my opinion (which I suspect others disagree with) that the key is to simply avoid all significant disputes at his new Wiki, and accept that with his history, he’s probably always going to be at a disadvantage in that he’ll always kind of need to walk away from a fight, including here if he returns. The price you pay, I think. Others probably will want to see evidence of good dispute resolution, I don’t know.

Anyway, executive summary is: leave indef for now, suggest work on another project for a while, open possibility of unblock review in some number of months, when he's got a decent editing history elsewhere, and perhaps gains perspective about how unjustified his actions were. --barneca (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

After a suitable interval, like some number of months or a year, he could ask for an unblock. Allowing an unblock too soon, if it's to happen at all, would open a serious can of worms. Baseball Bugs 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I kindof hope WikiDon sees this. Might make him feel better to know we might consider an unblock at some time in the future...

I'll put the resolved tag back in, since it is resolved, for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

I recently removed the 'controversy' section on the article Jon & Kate Plus 8, which contained dubious and somewhat libelous information about the parents on that program, in accordance with WP:BLP. The editors involved were shut out of discussing the show on Television Without Pity, which I had become aware of after many posts were brought over to a site I do frequent (an anti-TWoP website; the moderators can be heavy-handed at TWoP at times), discussing their behaviors in criticizing the parents, especially the mother (the TWoP moderators, who had regulated the thread rather tirelessly for months, shut the thread after the actions of some of the regulars passed into off-site harassment, going as far as to call churches to cancel the parents' speaking engagements, and filing complaints with Child Protective Services for "abusing" the children by having them take part in the series).

I learned yesterday that they had moved to Misplaced Pages, so today I read the article (the first time I had done so, to my knowledge), and saw the "Controversy" section is basically a laundry list of their own personal grievances plus what they've aired out on Gosselins Without Pity, where the posters went after they were shut out from Television Without Pity. I removed the section, went through each sentence and reference, and suggested what needed to be done to rewrite the section with legitimate criticism and controversy (which this show does have, just not on the scale purported).

Now User:AintThatAShame and User:Wjcwm have outed me here complete with copying posts I wrote on the other site. If pressured, I guess I have a tiny conflict of interest, mainly in that I knew in advance that they were coming to Misplaced Pages because I knew who the people were to begin with. In my talk page discussion and advice, however, I remained neutral, like I was supposed to. I don't feel like I should be punished for knowing of these people, while I think I was doing a good job of being impartial in my analysis of the discussion and the recommendation that a new section be written due to BLP concerns. I've been here for four years, been an admin nearly that long, and actually interned at the offices when they were still in Florida; I don't like being shouted at that I must "be paid by Jon and Kate" to make their article accurate.

I do believe whatever I may think of those people or their posting has been checked at the door and that I'm acting more than fair in this dispute. I would like thoughts on how to deal with this down the road. Mike H. Fierce! 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this and based on the information found offsite (on BBB, GWoP, etc.), decided to block both accounts on the grounds that they arrived here in bad faith solely to insert negative fringe material in BLPs and grief any contributors that get in their way. There are already a number of uninvolved editors commenting on the talkpage there, and the presence of these two particular editors and their mudslinging won't be missed. east.718 at 23:05, June 24, 2008

Endorse the blocks, completely. Misplaced Pages's not the place to take your crusade against people global when you get kicked out elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Took a long time looking into this, and came here to say I thought blocking would be appropriate (accounts created only to harass), only to find that once again I think and act too slowly. So, while I'm here, I'll just endorse East's block, and also endorse Mike's actions on the article and article talk page. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a follow up note, LordyBe! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) followed this up with a complaint on WP:AN about Mike H. As this is an obvious member of the group above, I have indefblocked this account. I would expect more throwaways soon. SirFozzie (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Mike, East, and SirFozzie's actions here. If any more throwaway accounts appear, I think they can be safely blocked. krimpet✽ 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm now receiving harassing notes on facebook:

Subject: hey babe!

"Diet much? maybe some laps around the yard instead of sitting your fat ass in your moms basement playing on Wiki all day would do you some good. You pig."

I reported them to facebook abuse but I just wanted to leave this note here so people can tell me where to proceed. I figured off-wiki harassment would happen. Mike H. Fierce! 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unoriginal troll is unoriginal. ⇒SWATJester 13:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the article as well. Upon checking my watchlist, I saw that Shalomsteph (talk · contribs) has been replacing the Controversy section despite warnings. Googling this nick brings up the BBB forums where this user is basically discussed as being disruptive elsewhere. Therefore, I've indef blocked this user as a SPA as well. LaraLove|Talk 04:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With the disruption spreading to the talk page and to off-WP, I semi-protected both the article page and the talk page for 96 hours to cool off any new SPA's that might come crawling out of the woodworks. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral viewpoint needed

- this is a waste of time. it ends now.

I've come across an editor User:Manhattan Samurai whose behaviour is very inconsistent. Most of the time he appears to be making valid and useful contributions but occasionally he behaves completely inappropriately. For example here a whole page was replaced with a comment. And his use of talk pages goes from this to this. That was just the response to a deleted prod! Although I expressed my annoyance the reply was unexpected. I restored the page he wanted (with a reminder to be civil) and notified the user who prodded it. I'm not sure if this counts as threat, but it's not far off. He's removed all reference to these incidents from his talk page and has continued to be helpful in other areas since. He's been a user for less than a month. Is any action necessary? I don't care if anyone wants to have a go at me on my talk page but when it starts happening to others I feel the need to at least discuss it. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mallanox 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

i hae notified User MAnhattan Samurai about your decision to report him to the administraotrs. Smith Jones (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: That was a rather inelegant way to "notify" him: . --barneca (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

fine ill edit it. It justs that it makes me angry when someone brings a WP:ANI page about a specific person, badmouths them behind their back, and then fails to notify them. Im sure that Mallanox intended nothing bad but it is still incredibly impolite that to report someone and not even give them a chance to harked themselves. and speak as to their own reasons for why they did what they did. Smith Jones (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Mallanox's "badmouthing" is the real concern here; did you read the diffs provided? I don't think Manhattan Samurai is in any position to complain about "badmouthing", and Mallanox appears to not be welcome on that talk page anyway. Back on topic: I'm puzzled, the other 190 edits seem to be very useful, very polite, very kind. Getting pissed off once in a blue moon, I suppose, can happen, but the vampire lit diff is just puzzling. Anyway, I've attempted to leave a note on MS's talk page, not sure if it will help or hurt but I tried. --barneca (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai seem slike a resaonable, responsible contributer and deserves what User:Barneca has attempted to do for him. He also deserves fair notice that his actions have led to his being writen up on WpA:ANI thats it. Oh, and it was really decent of you to go after my mispellings. Picture of politeness. Thank you for trying to reach out to User:Manhataan and get a better view ofwhy he blew like that other volunteer editosrs on that site. Smith Jones (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not really puzzling. I thought there was some Art in making a kind comment by blanking the page that I knew would immediately bounce back. I had seen it happen before with vandalism. That article on vampire literature is really fucking cool. I hope it keeps improving. It caught my attention at GAN. Also, how is my threat, "There will be no further pursuit. If you are looking for something to do then perhaps you could determine the age of Mr. Cabal, some of his exploits, and a further clarification of his gonzo journalism (I don't dispute this fact, but let us explore it), as well as any literary circles he may be associated with. yr. Most obedt. & very humble Sert." a threat? It suggests improving the article rather than pursuing further deletion. I do hate deletion especially when it occurs to a journalist or other notables.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mallanox. His behavior is erratic and completely uncivil to the point that WP:AGF is impossible to take into account even when he apologizes for something. In one edit he stated that I was not to pursue AfD on an article that I prodded, was deleted, and then restored because he later contested it.. Yet in the very same edit, he called himself my humble servant. It's ridiculous and hostile. I'm sorry barneca, but threatening to shoot something, fictional or not, doesn't seem to make a "very useful, very polite, very kind" individual or even a sane one for that matter. However, the incident is quite recent and I believe it's likely too early for action. Still, this user needs to be watched or possibly enter into some sort of mediation. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong; I don't know that I interpret the comment he left you as telling you not to pursue an AFD, but you might be right. And the "shooting fictional characters" comment was obviously one of my two examples of his NON-useful, polite, kind contributions; I was commenting on his other 190 contribs; this seemed out of character (I'll make it 189 if we, reasonably, count his comment to you as bad too). I agree on the watching, I'm hoping/assuming this was an abheration. --barneca (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the stupidest thread I have ever seen. Manhattan, behave yourself and watch your language; you know what you're doing, now stop it. That is my gentle scolding for him. Now, the rest of you, please go away. --Selket 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your deal is, Selket, but I will most certainly not "go away" on your say so, and I'm quite curious to know who the hell you think you are. --barneca (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Selket meant it like that necessarily. I took his/her comment to be an observation that no real action can possibly result from this thread so it's odd that it's become such an ordeal. Perhaps I was mistaken? --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source of my original outrage has returned. It would be better if everyone here went and voted on whether the Alan Cabal article should continue to exist. I think it is good knowledge and more should be written about him.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Selket's response made me laugh aloud and I actually agree. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members

Camden, New Jersey could use protection against IP edits. It's currently the target of an ongoing campaign of vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses, as its history reveals. It's apparently a coordinated effort by members of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity according to this comment on Cooper University Hospital, which has been the target of similar, persistent mischief over several months. See Talk:Camden, New_Jersey#Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members for detailed information about similar vandalism on other articles. This has been going on for months and continues to escape serious administrator intervention because the edits are coming from so many different IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've semi-protected this article, with an expiry time of 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please place such requests at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism campaign is more complex than can be addressed by protecting one article, which is why I posted it here. Perhaps my comment above wasn't clear enough. It's a campaign of ongoing vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses on multiple articles; Camden, New Jersey just happens to be the latest target. It's disheartening that past appeals for administrator intervention against these vandals have gone nowhere. Instead, the typical response is a quick scold on a minor procedural point, which ignores the bigger issue. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What other action were you looking for? Is there a pattern to the IPs? Or to the targets? Or something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no obvious pattern to the IPs. Some of the targeted articles involve Camden, New Jersey, but not all. The frequent edit-summary taunts about "the Network" and references to "TKE" are what suggest it's a coordinated campaign by fraternity members using different PCs. Background information is here and here. The action I'm looking for is an administrator's guidance on how Misplaced Pages handles this kind of persistent vandalism. There must be a more effective way to respond than just blocking IP addresses one at a time and protecting individual articles, right? Especially when there's ample evidence that the vandalism is coordinated, has been occurring for months, and almost certainly will continue on other articles from other IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more steps need to b taken so I have decided to void the "resolved" tag since its not really resolved per se. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a user formerly named "Teke", I'll take further action. Keegan 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the chapter in question a call in the morning. I spent two years as a TKE president, and I'm quite ashamed as a proud Wikipedian. Keegan 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect external action will need to be taken. This "network" is not going to be stopped by simply blocking IPs. Enigma 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the university should help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what university or chapter would that be? The TKE Chapter Map doesn't show a chapter in Camden and the disruptive edits don't suggest an obvious geographic origin to me beyond Camden. &#151;Whoville (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's Rowan University. Keegan 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I contacted the prytanis of Rowan chapter as well as a couple others in surrounding areas and told them if they heard anything, please ask them to knock it off. Other than that there's not a lot much more we can do. Keegan 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) most of the TKE stuff is because Wikileaks has posted their manual. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. And, of course, all websites using MediaWiki are actually just secretly subsites of Misplaced Pages. Makes me glad there are no fraternities in Australian universities. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:70.89.163.245

User engaged in vandalism, as seen here. When warned about it, he inserted a userbox claiming me to be a nazi. He has done this with three other user accounts. . See also his contributions.

McJeff (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK poor fact checking issues -- does it matter when articles on main page are wrong?

Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Misplaced Pages could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not quite the Oti, either. In fact, I think the location marker puts the park in Benin on the wrong side of a divide. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have felt for quite some time that our obsession with keeping DYK featuring only Misplaced Pages's newest articles results in a sacrifice in its quality. I really think we should drop or substantially alter the five-day limit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a suggestion to use facts from recently listed Good Articles but I don't recall the outcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea--reward articles that have had people work on them and review them. I started a discussion at WP:Did you know, talk.] I would like to see more people care that the encyclopedia doesn't get its facts straight, and then highlights the incorrect facts along with plagiarized material on its front page. It's something I think the writers who get their facts straight and the writer who don't plagiarize would care about a lot. Because someone of the other kind may be editing along side you discrediting your work. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only do two updates a day, and require articles be 2500 characters. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate Blechnic that the people currently working on DYK don't care to "get the facts straight". I just spent three hours singlehandedly vetting DYK submissions for eight viable hooks for the current update. I don't recall seeing you there trying to help, nor in fact have I ever seen you trying to help on the submissions page. But you seem quite keen on criticizing the actual contributors who you claim don't "care" enough about the quality.

As for your criticisms - you claim that plagiarism and mistakes are rife on DYK but have only up to now provided a single example. So there is no evidence that this is a serious problem. We only have your word for it. But I must say I haven't actually seen you doing anything to correct any of these alleged problems, so again it appears to be a problem you want somebody else to fix. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A single example? No, they are all over the place. I just read one article, it's plagiarized.

Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized from this page. Maybe it's in the public domain, but it doesn't say that it is. --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles written by Carol Spears that appeared on DYK were plagiarized. The article Deux Balés National Park moved one of Africa's major drainage basins to the other side of the divide. I haven't seen a single article on DYK that wasn't plagiarized or wrong. Are you going to correct Beth Wambui Mugo or shoot the messenger? I'm betting Wikipedians will continue to shoot the messenger--it's much easier than finding a solution. Actually, I tried to correct it the first time I found plagiarism in an article on the main page, I got attacked viciously by half a dozen editors and three admins, blocked for a week, and threatened with a ban if I ever tried it again, so don't tell me I haven't done anything.--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized, I have to take the rap for that one, I didn't check it thoroughly enough and it should be pulled from the front page and the DYK removed. But I can't do everything. We simply don't have enough people on the project, and while I've picked up many examples of plagiarism, one or two are bound to slip through. But I don't think we get that many.

As for Carol Spears, I didn't know about this case but we do rely to some extent on the good faith of our contributors, and if someone is routinely plagiarizing material it's not unusual on wikipedia for someone to take a while to pick it up. I can't actually recall Spears submitting any articles to DYK but maybe she did. So again, one or two examples do not prove there's a chronic problem. But anytime you do find plagiarism at DYK, by all means inform us so that we can deal with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Carol was the one promoting or suggesting the articles she wrote be put on DYK. I don't know who did. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have pulled the Beth Wambui Mugo article from the front page as a possible copyvio until further notice. Thanks Blechnic for picking that up. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This a direct product of DYK's current format, the fact that articles appearing there are usually 2 - 5 days old precipitates the ammount of these situations. If DYN is supposed to attract interest to articles, then we should try to rotate it towards Stub/Start class articles that we already have, those are becoming more ignored by established users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the current system, any article expanded over 5 times is eligible. That is an incentive to work on start and stub class articles. For instance, I took Christopher Smart to 50k and submitted it to DYK. There are many people like myself that do such work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plagiarism in DYK articles before as well. I feel fairly confident that I could create an article based on plagiarized content and submit it to DYK and it would pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Caribbean H.Q., find a way to reward responsible contributors: those who don't plagiarize, who spend the necessary time to write an article, and wind up with just a stub or start class article. It takes me five days to write an opening paragraph for a brochure on a plant pest, and that's after every else has done the research, and I've read their research. Yes, Akhilleus, it would be pretty easy. --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess one step we could quickly take would be to formulate sanctions for those who submit copyvios to DYK. First offence - three month ban from submitting articles to DYK. Second offence - indef ban from DYK. Something like that should help deter users who are tempted to take short cuts in order to gain a DYK award. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the DYK medal by itself makes much difference to article-writing incentive. If a person thinks purely along these lines, they would have to write 50 articles to get 2 medals. It's much easier to get barnstars by grandstanding, etc. Writing articles is not an efficient way to get barnstars, in the case of a person who planned their wiki-routine on optimising their barnstar count, they would not write articles. As for things being on the main page, a lot of FAs with blogrefs, non-RS, COI references have made it on the front page. That's not to say anything about articles with deliberately concealed POV pushing etc. A lot of articles are only of interest to the author, or people from a certain country or ethnic group, in which case the person/group can do whatever they want to. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK are supposed to include hooks that are cited in the main body of the text. With that in place, there should be no copyvios (as cited) and it should meet verifiabiltiy (as cited). As such, there really is no problem with DYK, and there should be no alterations to it. The admin who work DYK put a lot of effort into it and perform a thankless task. Perhaps we should instead take the opportunity to actually thank their contribution that dramatically helps Misplaced Pages as a whole instead of bringing up issues that aren't actually issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of both articles, I apologise for any inconveniance I have caused. The park coordinates was a mistake, and I completely messed up on that one. As for Mugo, I automatically assumed Kenya was the same as the US in terms of government sources, and I would like clarity on the issue. I was on a wikibreak while all this occured, and I am not cutting corners to work for the 50 DYK barnstar; instead, it is simply an area that I work a lot in. I'm an Editorofthewiki 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Kenya's copyright laws, but why not always state clearly that it is copied verbatim from a source, or simply rewrite it? It wasn't particularly well written, which is how I knew it was a copyright violation or plagiarism or just plain copied and pasted.

Ottava Rima, are you saying that any crap that winds up on the main page to the shame of Misplaced Pages should be left there? Interesting since not a single person responsible for the crap agrees. Thank you Editorofthewiki for simply apologizing for the park coordinates mess up and saying you blew it. If you need help in the future on West African geography, or fact checking on west African geography, geology, or natural history, let me know. I can usually add some specific details, and link appropriately. I also know some of the geopolitical boundaries, like Black Volta Province is called Mouhoun, and can verify information like this, and often source it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I appreciate what the DYK admins do, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I don't blame the admins, but I do find fault with the system. And just to clarify this: I've been opposed to the five-day limit for quite some time; not just because of this incident. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using pejoratives to describe pages does not mean that there is a problem. DYK is there to supply interesting information to draw people towards a new page so they can start editing. All that is required is an interesting fact that is provided in the body of the text and cited. If it is cited, it cannot be a copyright violation, unless it is a quote over 300 words (aka fair use). Regardless, your problem seems to be with the pages that happen to be on DYK, not the hooks which are displayed on the main page. DYK does not cover the pages. It only covers the hooks. If you feel that there is a copyright violation, please go to WP:CP. However, it is the article, and not the DYK, that would be the problem. Your anger is misplaced. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write the word shit 500 times in an article, then put in a good hook, well-referenced, and researched: this meets your criterion for a DYK. No, you've made assumptions that have no basis in actual Misplaced Pages policy. I could be wrong, please do provide me with a link to the policy that says any crappy article that has a single good line, well-reference can be a DYK. Oh, look, when describing the hooks, here's the language: "While we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles, articles dealing with living persons are especially sensitive. Please keep the Biography of Living Persons policy in mind." Notice it doesn't say "accuracy and neutrality in the hook," but rather, "accuracy in all articles." This is what an encyclopedia strives for: accuracy. Keep dismissing its importance all you want, but it just makes Misplaced Pages look like shit. --Blechnic (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamming content into an article is a disqualifier for DYK, and it is one of many things checked. Each article is reviewed before being processed for something as obvious as that. However, it is not the job of the DYK admin to search for every sentence in order to find an unattributed citation. It is not the place of the DYK, nor should it be. DYK deal only with hooks and the size of an article/content needed for such. There is a forum for copyright violations. If you feel that you have found some, please take it there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, remove that sentence about article content from the DYK page, so that their idea of the requirements conforms to yours, rather than letting readers think the page describe the DYK process and guidelines, instead of you being the only one that describes it. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am at a lost to see what you are actually asking. I can quote directly from the page, if you wish, but I am sure that you can easily scan over the page and see that my information conforms to what is said here. Now, I believe your only problem is with the articles themselves, and that you cannot put forth an argument that directly links the DYK process to the copyright violations. So, I suggest that you work with the WP:CP investigators and you can patrol the DYK candidate list hunting them down if you prefer. Heaven knows that Misplaced Pages needs eager volunteers willing to scan for copyright violations, and you have made it abundantly clear that you have such desire and eagerness. Your contribution would be a great boon for the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Angelucci

• Michael Angelucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about a musician which asserts some notability, however the creator is: User talk:Mangelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...so I tagged for COI and references, after he removed the tags] Brewcrewer tagged for refs, which Magneluccie also removed ] after adding a couple of questionable refs. I reverted and warned him on his talk page and then a few minutes later User talk:Michael Angelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starts editing the article and removes the tags again LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Legotech,

Sorry for the confusion! I'm brand new to this and unfamiliar with all the procedures. When I first saw a message indicating that my page had been flagged, I went back and added links to some of my concerts and awards for verification and then deleted the flag. I assumed the message kept appearing automatically since I didn't include any references in my initial page. I didn't realize that a real-life person was creating those messages each time!

Please check out the reference links I added. If I need to do more to legitimize the document please let me know. I appreciate your help - my apologies again if I stepped out of line somehow.

-M Michael Angelucci (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED

Well, even after I added references to my work I'm still getting flagged. I've decided to delete the whole page and pass the details on to an administrator.

As an aside, it seems to me that more discretion is warranted before someone blithly writes up an incident report on another user, particularly when that user has been registered for less than 24 hours. Give people a chance to adapt and learn the system before you threaten to ban them from posting/editing and basically run them out of town ...

Michael Angelucci (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you also pay more attention to messages left on your talk page and if you don't understand them ask the relevant editor for assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

Copied from User talk:Giovanni33 per request. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a period of one week per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. Upon reviewing New antisemitism and its talk page, it appears that you have not discussed your changes to the lead since last month. Also, you have been slow edit warring on the article, as opposed to seeking a consensus for your edits by discussing them. This block will be added to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Log of blocks and bans, and I will make a comment at WP:AE. Khoikhoi 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. You certainly haven't addressed your last two reverts to the lead as far as I can tell. Also, your second link was to a comment made after you had already been reverted. A comment made after your change has already been reverted cannot possibly comply with the requirements of your parole. Khoikhoi 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at and . It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|False block. I'm blocked for not discussing my changes. Completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the talk page refutes this false claim. See:] The specific edit I made on June 21st, was discussed here by me on the same day:],] The only time I made a change it to before that was about 2 weeks ago, in which I also discussed this:] The section that you refer to brings up a change that no one is disputing, or discussing, so it stands to explain my edit. Surely, I don't have to copy and paste what I already wrote? That would be irrational. Also, I'm not reverting once a week, either. Like I said the last time I did was about 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for editors to comment and voice any objections or suggestions.}}

User:Metagraph

User:Metagraph appears to be an editor with an axe to grind, who takes polite suggestions during policy debates about Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and suggests that anybody other than him is being "insulting" yet refers to authoritative resources as "blogs run by a bunch of mates." I would suggest that User:Metagraph is not only the party who is being insulting but that User:Metagraph is abusing Misplaced Pages:Huggle solely based on this bias without being qualified or expert enough to understand the issues involved. He seems to act as though his authority to edit is a divine right and "the free site anyone can edit" is strictly his domain, upon which he can have peasants shot who dare to hunt the king's rabbit just so they can eat a meager meal. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, id like to explain why this isn't huggle abuse and my rights should not be revoked.

I reverted and warned using huggle to his first edit which violated WP:RS, WP:BLP, and didn't make sense. The editor in question re-added the information, so i ceased to use huggle and politely explained to him why this information was reverted. Huggle use stopped there. No violation of any policy, and i went out of my way to assist an editor. As per , i believe this annon editor assumes i reverted his additions with huggle, which i did not. They are all done manually, as one can see by these diffs; ,,,,,,,,,,.. the list goes on. Notice their is no (using Huggle) at the end? Huggle abuse has not occured. This leads me to believe that this whole report is due to this editor feeling rather bitter, and attempting to take a cheap shot at me and my creditability.

Also, other editors that reverted his edits (I do not wish to incriminate, but show that i was not the only editor here that assumed his site was non-notable/other reasons): ,,, and more which i cannot locate at this time (but will if requested by someone apart from the reportee.)

Anyone that reads into this situation further will find that all this is taken out of context completely, and instead of a incident report is a biased, out of context personal attack on my good nature and character, and i hope this is taken care of swiftly. Metagraph comment 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain myself here. What i did was remove this users website from the list of professional sources of some hip-hop articles as he fails per WP:ALBUM. The user ignored wikipedia policy, has a COI with adding this in the first place, and my so called 'authority' was sticking to Wiki policy to prevent the articles from becoming clogged with non-notable reviews. This user appears to have taken this rather personally, insulting wikipedia and my intellegence. As for the whole 'axe to grind' thing, i simply stated 'Insulting me will get you no where.' I am not sure how this editor took this, but it was indeed in my opinion a friendly reminder that insulting me or the project will not further this discussion. I admit i may have some fault here, however this is in no way just. Metagraph comment 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why i reverted his additions in the first place as well, i was following the standards of other editors deleting non-notable sources. I actually can't find this in WP:ALBUM, but im sure there is some legislation against it, and if not it is still considered in violation of WP:NOTEMetagraph comment 08:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor's identity outed at Open Office XML

An editor has been outed, and his real life identity has been revealed. See the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#Conflict_of_interest. It began some days ago with this edit by Ghettoblaster (talk · contribs), which cross-matches external web pages to identify the editor. The particular links have been removed, but the identity of the user is still visible. Warren (talk · contribs) also added the person's real name to his post. The identified editor has not returned to Misplaced Pages since the outing. Here is a message I sent to user:Ghettoblaster, and a message I sent to user:Warren about the incident.

The article is a hotbed of edit waring. I'm not sure if you also want to deal with that issue, but on my subpage is a documentation of the edit waring on one of many content disputes happening simultaneously. The place is a madhouse! Looking down the article history will show more reverts. I note that HAl (talk · contribs) has already been blocked multiple times for edit waring on this and related OOXML pages. --Lester 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion on my talk page, I was not aware of breaking any Misplaced Pages policies by adding a conflict of interest warning with proper references to the original discussion. I removed the real name of the editor in question and the weblinks from the discussion as soon as I found the Misplaced Pages outing guideline. My intention was to inform other faithful contributors that the editor in question in all likelihood had a confict of interest. I have already been informed that I posted my findings at the wrong place and I will add all my findings to the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard later. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a google search on the user's handle is a big deal. WP:OUTING is a bit of an over reaction, mostly caused by cases of stalking and intentional harassment from the past.

Also, the irony of this situation is that these kinds of posts attract more attention than the situation normally would have. It seems this was already resolved on the article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The links have been removed, but the guys place of work is listed on the first post, and his real name is still listed on the second post. It's still there now. I pleaded with the authoring editors to remove it, to no avail. I was hoping someone here would remove it. It's a sad way for an editor to be knocked out of Misplaced Pages by having his identity exposed. --Lester 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like an admin to take notice how several editors aided by quite a lot of anonymous edits repeatly removed information from an article even after 6 or 7 reputable sources to substantiate the information that Office Open XML is and free file format and open format file format were introduced. I would suggest an admin look into the use of sockpuppets by any of the users that were removing the words free and open from the article. I would note that already twice people with a grudge against Office Open XML have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting whilst editting the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 - Vandalise again.

See talk page on 141.228.250.137 for previous "edits". My vote is to block this IP range for significant period again such that we can concentrate resources on other matters. Electron9 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has made three edits (1, 2 and 3) since April, none of which are classed as vandalism. An IP isn't re-blocked simply because a past block has expired. ——Ryan • (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 changed the capacity from 4 to 8 GB for standard sd-cards which is a completly untrue statement. And quite obvious such with the proof on the same page.. So this together with previous block make me think that the behaviour will be repeated. Electron9 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More trouble at Barack Obama

User:Scjessey has again claimed consensus without actually having it, and has again reverted, triggering another edit war with this edit:

Don't protect the page. Block and topic ban the offender.

Someone skating on thin ice like yourself isn't in a position to demand blocks/bans. AN/I's not to be used as an implement in your Obama-related content disputes, Kossack4Truth. Shem 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When threatened with a two-week topic ban, Scjessey took a voluntary two-week "Wikibreak" from the article, but returned after only four days (demonstrating his dishonesty) and immediately started causing trouble. See discussion here. Scjessey has consistently employed false accusations, snide remarks and edit warring, rather than dialogue, to advance his cause. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously K4T's claims are absurd. Please see this edit to refute his ridiculous claims of dishonesty. Obviously one edit doesn't count as "edit warring". Kossack4Truth is not even taking part in the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, so it isn't clear why he has made this baseless incident report in the first place. I am completely bemused by this accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI report here is quite problematic. K4T has been tendentious here in the past and was nearly topic banned. He is not currently contributing to the talk page or main page. His only involvement is the above report, calling on an editor he has had repeated run-ins with to be blocked and banned over a single edit that ended up getting adopted within a few minutes but that he mischaracterizes as an "edit war". In so doing he rehashes a personal attack he has made before over a trivial issue he knows is resolved, that Scjessey's early return ten days ago from a self-imposed wikibreak is "lying" or "dishonest". Making a false report like this is certainly disruptive, and seems to have succeeded in disruption as evidenced by the drama and unnecessary article protection. No slight intended to administrator involved - thanks for the quick action but with all due respect I think you were hoodwinked :). Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Urgh, 2 weeks full protection (for the time being, if someone can say that a consensus is reached then I'll drop it back to semi). Petty argument won't get anyone anywhere. - Penwhale | 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. There was no edit war, and certainly nothing going on at the time the report was filed. If you look at the talk page, there is indeed a consensus for the edits. The entire sequence of edits here is as follows:

• first edit by Scjessey:
• reversion (removes edit) by Noroton:
• reversion (restores edit) by Clubjuggle:
• reversion (removes edit) by Akron:
• final reversion (restores edit after apparent consensus) by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:

All users involved reached consensus:

• Scjessey and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agree to edit:(implied - they made it)
• Noroton agrees to edit:
• Akron and Clubjugle agree to edit:

All of this was more than 16 hours ago', and as you can see all parties agreed to implement the edit as an interim edit that preserves the status quo, while making a minor clean-up of language, while the consensus discussion is ongoing on a larger issue. The article has been stable for two weeks now, ever since the last edit protection was lifted. Under the circumstances I urge that edit protection be lifted so that the diligent editors who are working on the article can continue, as they have for the past weeks, to work on a stable article. One thing we could use, though, is some sage guidance on matters of civility, and also in terms of moderating to establish consensus or lack thereof. We also have a fair number of outstanding sock puppet reports that need some attention from people who have experience in that regard. I will probably comment, separately, about the filing of this ANI report, which itself seems to be disruptive. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've also requested unprotection at penwhales talk page. I really hate that my ill considered revert last night might be responsible for this. Please reconsider. Arkon (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure a consensus has been established yet (see bottom section of talk page for what I'm talking about), although I've temp. lifted it. - Penwhale | 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed all are agreed that there is no long-term consensus yet as to the final state of the article. The brief series of reverts last night concerned an interim version that people agreed will stand until then. There's some lingering incivility but nobody seems to be ready to give up on the discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment - Someone protect my user page please?

Hi there, I've had to revert edits by User:Certified.Gangsta twice in recent days: edit, revert, edit, revert.

I've been in several disputes with User:Certified.Gangsta before, which is why I now avoid all contact with him. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to try to provoke me with false but provocative edit summaries like "please make your identity as a sockpuppet clear, otherwise it's deception".

I'm reverting his edits as a matter of principle: I'm leaving my user page blank at the moment because I'm not happy with the quality of writing that I had there before; but I feel I have the right to leave my user page in whatever state I wish to.

Anyhow, I've posted a warning on User talk:Certified.Gangsta, here, but he is persisting. I really don't want to get into a dispute again, but I can't stand having my user page messed around by an editor I don't particularly like. Help, someone? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Chairboy has warned Certified.Gangsta - if CG edits your userpage again, he will be blocked. Neıl 龱 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've done a selective deletion of the 4 most recent edits to your userpage - in case anyone is wondering why he's linking to revisions that don't exist. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CameronPG

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

Could someone take a look over his contributions today (especially the redirects). He has a past history of going on rather disruptive editing sprees and being blocked for it. After a 6 month hiatus, he's started again creating all kinds of strange re-directs, new categories, and odd articles and adding links to said articles all over the place. Apart from the two "speedy delete" warnings I put on his talk page today, I'd rather not interact any further with him personally, or his father, who took me to task for warning his son about his disruptive editing last December and wrongly thinks I'm an administrator. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirects look OK to me. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are pointless but harmless, but many of them are re-directs to articles which have been deleted, in one case (Musical Notebooks) which has now been deleted for the second time. Does some sort of bot clean all that up? Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to have created 2 articles: List of Musical Notebooks songs and Musical Notebooks. He created several redirects to those two articles from other possible search strings. The two articles in question were deleted and that left about a dozen or so redirects that were linking to a deleted page. It's really not a big deal. All of the empty redirects are being speedied as we speak and the issue will be solved shortly. As far as any of the other redirects or categorizations this user has made today, I see nothing that would raise a red flag, it's all legitimate.

By the way, he should have been notified of this thread as a courtesy. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking the redirects out and for notifying him. That was remiss of me not to have done so immediately. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Giant-Killer

Has Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) actually made any non-disruptive edits? In addition to all the various warnings on his talk page, he's now engaging in such flagrant editorializing at Viktor Rydberg that I'm just rolling him back. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking it over, but a cursory glance shows me it's just a content dispute. He appears to discuss his edits though. I'm still looking over it, regardless. — _Maggot 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at his edits in this content dispute? They are awful (putting it mildly). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If Jack the Giant-Killer has ever made constructive contributions, he is long past that stage now. I frankly see no reason to tolerate a single-topic pov-pushing account around just for the sake of entertainment. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC) the urgency of this appears to be petering out, thanks to Moreschi's intervention. I do not think any further action is necessary for now. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, marking as resolved. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand POV vandalism

User:Gilabrand is repeatedly renaming the article Zionism and racism allegations to Racist allegations against Zionism and vandalizing the article so as to make it an accusation that allegations against Zionism are racist. Strongbrow (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. Strongbrow would do better to concentrate on improving the article rather than blanket reverting any attempts to make it comprehensible. This is an article that was slated for deletion and has improvement tags on it. If I am not allowed to improve it, in the way I believe it should be improved, because Mr. Strongbrow doesn't like it, then I have no reason to continue working on Misplaced Pages. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding statements into the introduction such as "The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is very thin, and some believe they are one and the same" is clearly an attempt to inject your bias. Strongbrow (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had a problem with that, you should have gone to talk. For your information, I was paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." --Gilabrand (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI. Please take it to the article Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The 13th Apostle"

This site is getting weirder every day. I was doing some NPP last night when I stumbled across a new user's article titled The 13th Apostle. The complete text was (and is) as follows: "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" without even so much as a period. Both authors were redlinked, so I tagged it as an A1, especially since the person who posted couldn't even say what it was about. It was still here this morning and I thought it might have been because of a backlog...but another legit user removed the tag, stating in the edit history that there was enough content and that I should take this to AfD. There is no way I am going to clog AfD with something like this; it's a waste of the community's time and mine as well and I'd just as soon nominate it for a feature before I did that. Would someone kindly do away with this? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently it seems to have a G2 tag on it (which makes no sense to me, it's clearly not a test page). However, I agree entirely that it's CSD:A1 material. ~ mazca 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know and I'm sorry about the tag, but I didn't want to get in an edit war over it. My original tag was A1. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • A quick Google shows it's a self-published work (). Speedied under A3, no substantive content. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • The amazon page has HarperCollins listed as the publisher... --Onorem♠Dil 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • HarperCollins also say that HarperCollins publish it . DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. It's always nice knowing that you have my back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (SIX EDIT CONFLICTS LATER) Scratch some of my last - a Google search when my brain is working shows it exists (), but no reviews in any media, no reliable sources out there. Drs Richard and Rachael Heller have co-published a lot of non-fiction books, many of which have appeared on the New York Times bestseller's list, but do not have an article. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 28,000) As does Harper Collins. A little less haste may have been in order here. Does the fact that we have a bad article on our hands equate to a speedily deletable article? I was on my way there, having read this thread to see what could be done, but it had already gone in a puff of smoke. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the removal of the A1 tag. There was clearly enough context to figure out what the article was about. The article may have been short, and there may not be any reliable sources for it, but the book's title along with the author's names provided more than enough information to identify the subject of the article. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't anything there except a declarative sentence; see my original comment. You wouldn't have had much to work with.  :) I'm certainly not against its recreation with proper content. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a prod next time. Not sure this needed ANI attention. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Exactly - the entire content was "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" - by all means if you can find reliable sources and some more content, go for it. Neıl 龱 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • With multiple best-sellers, might they be worth an article themselves? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: This site is getting weirder every day.  :) I apologize for creating such a problem, but I wanted to avert an edit war. I wish the original poster had put this much effort into the thing first! :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Grey Knight; it's strange that a pair of established authors like these have no articles. I feel better about this; it seems I may have uncovered a couple of glaring red links! BTW, I dig the username. It reminds me of a medieval playset I had as a kid. It was filled with...you guessed it...tiny plastic grey knights! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

admin assistance required by email

Would an admin be willing to email me to discuss a matter of concern. I don't want to discuss it here for reasons that will become clear in my response. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody's gotten in touch with you yet; if not, you may have better luck picking an admin that appears active and has e-mail enabled, and e-mailing them. I'm not sure anyone is going to jump on a request like this one, since it sounds both mysterious and tricky! :D (I'd offer to help, but me != admin) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoot Allemantando - you can email me if you want. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm available too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks - will do, don't worry it's not that tricky - need a second view on something without a lot of wikidrama. I'll fire something off to Ryan. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go next?

An IP (User:158.230.100.102) has repeatedly added the same uncited, and possibly POV-pushing (Space Wolves are the best-type thing) edits to Space Wolves article, despite being asked repeatedly to either give some references, or to discuss it on the articles talk page (as on his talk page). I gave the unsourced references to lvl 3warnings, and the general level 4 warning, but the editor still refuses to discuss anything, so I'm unsure of what I do next. RfCU seems to be out, because no-one else has tried to engage the user over these edits, and the editor doesn't seem to want to discuss anything and a (admittedly probably to early) AIV report was dismissed, so I'm unsure of my next step.

I also note that User:Ashleythor8sxd has also made the same edits, though I'm assuming that this is the IP above logged in. This is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I recently became aware of just how much in-universe material there is on Misplaced Pages about Warhammer 40,000. It was kind of fun for me to read some of it, as it reminds me of when I was in my early teens and used to play it :) But a lot of that stuff is faaar too much in-universe detail for an encyclopedia article.

Not sure if that relates to this case or not. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK delay

Hi - this may not be the right place, but there aren't any active DYK admins at the moment and the DYK update is delayed already. I've prepared the update, but an admin is needed to update it now. Vishnava _talk 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You could probably just go on #wikipedia-en and ask for an admin to update it. Juliancolton 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Insults from user MauritiusXXVII

I want to report that the user MauritiusXXVII has insult me on this talk page saying me"xenophobic and racist user". It is not the first time to do it so i would beg some administrator to block him because this behavior is not admitted on Misplaced Pages. Even he make a call to other users to go against me on this same edition. He has gone beyond the tolerable limits.

He does not like my edition on Chile article but you can check yourself that Chile is painted in green on third world map and it is listed on the developing countries article so he is trying to deny the reality.

He is involved on edit warrings on Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Notice that he (and other user) does not accept what prestigious sources say so he undo it all my editions to change them for his thoughts. And notice he has not supported his editions with sources but only his points of view, even when he brought a source he falsified it .I am editing with sources and do not waste the time to reply all his offensive comments against me on my page talk, so i want protection from injury. I want to be able to edit on Misplaced Pages without suffering mobbing.--Sclua (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that Sclua is complaining about personal attacks, see the third warning on his talk page about making petty vengeance edits on Chile, all of them reverted by uninvolved editors and my warning for using edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying ].

See the previous ANI thread where Sclua is reported for personal attacks and POV and winds up doing again personal attacks against me and Maurice, questioning my neutrality, implying that it's ok to answer to "you push a catalan POV" with "you are anti-catalan", and a long etc.

Add to this: repeated attempts to remove and misquote sources with a clear POV bias, blanking of warnings on his talk page with complains of harassing against him, and jumping with accusations of fascism, nationalism, liying and POV pushing against anyone questioning any of his sources.

I guess it's time to start a RFCU. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to point the admins to my past report about Sclua, which remained unsolved. The situation has got worst and worst. I beg the Admins to seriously take action about this situation.

This user has repeatedly been breaking Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

• Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
• Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

• "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
• "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

After calling me "Southamerican" in a clearly despective and disruptive way, he decided to vandalize (there is NO other way of calling it) the article of Chile, just because I have some userboxes in my talk-page related to that Country and that Sclua believed I was a citizen.

He vandalized the article a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

Each and every time but the last (which was me), it has been other users who have expressed their nonconformity with these edits as you may see here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Tangerines) and here (user:Likeminas).

Even another user claims having reported him for this behavior here

It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... user Sclua is consistently attacking this article simply in order to personally attack me. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

As per WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL: "Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I asked in Chile's talk-page for other users' help to revert what is clearly vandalism and personal attacks against me (and all the people of Chile), something I believe Misplaced Pages (and his admins) should IN ANY WAY tolerate. But User Sclua blanked it.

I ask the admins to take a look at Sclua's talk-page and see the enormous history of warnings this user has have... All of them blanked each and every time by him.

User Sclua has just limited his contributions to erase, criticize, insult, revert good faith and referenced edits by other users in articles related to Catalonia and to vandalize the article of Chile.

User Sclua is clearly not assuming the good faith edits by other users and is privileging of the passivity of the admins to warn or block him for his disruptive behaviour.

I believe my point sufficiently explained but I am open to bring further explanations and references if the admins desire so. --MauritiusXXVII 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

97.92.41.0 and Fark.com

Anonymous IP has been making several WP:NPOV edits to Fark.com and appears to be currently involved in an edit war with TheRegicider (). I just reverted and warned him on his talk page just now. May require a future IP ban. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth bringing up again if the edit warring flares up. For now, seems to have been calm for several hours. Will check back. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket block of Giano II

Bad block, but there's no need to shoot rockpocket over it - let's move on, the block has been undone. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Giano_II#Revert. Even with the history of Rockpocket's using every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano, this indefinite block stands out. Can this be addressed swiftly without the ArbCom hassle to save on drahmaz? --Irpen 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Once again a sysop is attacked for attempting to enforce the same rules everyone else has to follow on Giano. Of course, it is the same old crowd doing it. _{1 != 2} 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which rule is this? The one against alleging sockpuppetry? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks very much like a bad block to me, but I really don't see this as desysoppable, and certainly not as being desysoppable outside of normal channels. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to desysop anyone over one bad block - there there's a pattern, take it to RfC. Let's just get a quick concensus here to unblock Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see an unblock of giano, and some other forum to review rocketpocket's activity if folks feel the need (I don't know enought to have an opinion, and it's not an emergency). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to unblock Giano (I believe I'm relatively independent, since I've hardly ever contacted Giano, aside from an article query). This very much looks like a bad block. Rudget (logs) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Rudget, Ryan, Rocksanddirt, etc. Ill-considered block, and I would support unblock. Risker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This happened 20 minutes ago and Rockpocket hasn't even bothered to report it for review on ANI? An indefinite block of an established editor, and it's not put up on WP:ANI, nor on WP:AE? I can't believe it, are you drunk or something, Rockpocket? You don't know to do a simple thing like that? Of course you do—but lrpen has to do it? Words fail me. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely if this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere, one would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor— even an administrator— with a sense of honesty.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RP has unblocked. Rudget (logs) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked per unblieveabe consensus that this block was wrong - Let's remember all that mistakes can happen, and it was easily corrected, we shouldn't get the pitch forks out for Rockpuppet. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For someone who's filing a report to minimize 'drahmaz', you've sure chosen a neutral, non-inflammatory header for this section, Irpen. Can we wait for comment from Rockpocket – and geez, guys, it's been less than half an hour! – before we get out the gibbet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping the specifics of the case, I don't think there's a need for a more rapid/streamlined demotion process, because admins can simply be blocked if they're taking unambiguously abusive action (they can unblock themselves, but that's a sure way to get demoted). Dcoetzee 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply unblocking is not sufficient.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No way this is "resolved" until we find out what happened. I removed the resolved tag. Sweeping it under the rug would guarantee the reruns. --Irpen 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(For the record, this ongoing thread was tagged "Resolved" by

Apparently, we're playing some sort of "game" with the unblock now. . I suggest we do not do that. It appears to have been a bad block, there's consensus here that it was a bad block, and, if this continues to be the case, I am going to wait a short while, then undo it. We do not leave editors blocked on bad blocks, to give the blocking admin enough rope to hang themselves with. SQL 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agreed with Nick because I wished to see what Rocket's interpretation of the matter would be. Thus resulting in an unblock, and perhaps a reflection opportunity for Rocket. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I misinterpreted your comment, My apologies. I hope you can see why it appeared that way to me.... SQL 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I am always happy to clarify. Rudget (logs) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we see that Rockpocket does not "consider a mistake at all". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)

Relax - I am sprung! Now why has this happened, (I see 1=2 was quick to involve himself, sadly, he is yet again dissapointed)Now to the nux of the matter User: Sussexman's return - What the hell is going on? Who gave Kittybrewster permission to argue his case as a sock? Giano (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not disappointed, I expected it. Multiple sets of rules, got it. I have stopped using my admin tools some time ago because I can't keep track of which rules apply to which special editors. _{1 != 2} 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, please vent your frustrations over the project in general elsewhere. You can make a pose regarding sysop strikes all you want but I am sure you will never give away your sysop tools voluntarily. We are discussing a specific incident and what is to be done about it. Rockpocket's "hit and run" (block and duck out) adds more bad smell to all this. I raised the issue of desysopping on the spot not because this is an emergency, he is unlikely do anything for a couple of days. But because the abuse is so blatant here that I see no need for a full arbcom case. We do not need to an arbcom to block especially bad editors when the editing abuse is so obvious and in the plain view. Here we have the admin tools abused so outrageously, that I do not see a need for a long arbcom process. But if this is required, fine. Let's have ArbCom look at this. --Irpen 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a desysop be made with less hassle than going through ArbCom? Not really. Should it be possible? Yes. Should it happen in this case? Not according to any uninvolved administrator. This thread is all over bar the shouting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello everyone. I'd just like to note that I did not "block and run" as has been suggested above. I am just not a very quick typing and prefer to make considered responses. I spotted the ones on my talk page first, so that is where I have responded first. My position is detailed there at the moment, but I will be happy to explain myself here too, when I get a few moments. Giano has been unblocked so there is no emergency, I don't protest that considering the weight of protest here and elsewhere, but I do feel that my actions were justified and I will explain why. If any editor feels my actions requires a RfC, then feel free to make one and I will co-operate there also. It goes without saying I don't think an emergency desysopping is appropriate, and I'm sure this can be resolved without ArbCom. I'd also like not note that my block was not "Giano specific", in that I treated it differently because of who was involved. I warned twice then blocked as a preventative measure just as I would any other editor.

Also, the suggestion that I use "every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano" is interesting. I admit Giano and I didn't first meet in the best of circumstances, but in the last few months I would say we have been on excellent terms. I would urge Irpen and Bishonen to review my position the last time Giano was discussed here and also review how Giano and I worked closely together in the lead up to Vk's unblocking recently. Perhaps then they may come to a different conclusion. Rockpocket 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

• This is silly. Everyone has overlooked the problem of disruptive edit-warring and focused on whether there is 'outing' or not. A user is entitled to remove comments they receive on their talk pages , yet Giano II seems to be a special user that gets to decide (by way of disruptive edit-warring) if his comment is removable or not and since his unblock, . And predictably, nothing has been done about it. Or am I mistaken in what I've just said? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an indefinite block seem a bit excessive for removing comments, which weren't interpreted as 'outing' by many of those participating in this discussion? Rudget (logs) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it was a bad block on those merits, but there is problematic conduct warranting a block imo, given his history, and given that he removes comments from his own talk page at his whim (so he's not unaware). I'm thinking out aloud whether it should've just been a reduction in the block duration instead of a complete unblock - see what edits he's made since his unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The block length was indefinite, not forever. Rock said he would unblock as soon as he said he would stop posting the message on that talk page. It could have been over in two minutes. A message that the user talk page's owner removed and asked not to be returned, as he is allowed to do and Giano put back repeatedly. I see a lot of mischaracterization of events here, and I sure hope people do their own homework and don't just take the summaries presented here as gospel.

Yet Giano is allowed to return the post yet again, who dares to remove it? Not me. Giano apparently can blank stuff from his page often, but refuse to let others do the same. _{1 != 2} 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, accounts in good standing are pretty much given a very wide scope of what they can remove from their user pages, while other parties are subject to the usual WP criteria - simply, if anyone posts on anothers talkpage (and it otherwise does not contravene WP policies/guidelines) they need the permission of the page owner for its removal. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "page owner" made it crystal clear that the edit was unwelcome, and the page shouldn't subject to an edit-war over it. Don't you think so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is just my point. The user did remove Giano's post, and asked him not to return it. Giano just kept putting it back in, that would get pretty much anyone blocked if they did it over and over. _{1 != 2} 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It regularly does result in blocks, for ordinary established users anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The question remains, who gave permission to one of The Troubles editors to change username, given the massive history of socking all over the place involving just about every one of them? It was an obvious alternate account, and it was doing exactly what the "master" account had done before. And, while I see the point about the reverts, when a block is made for reasons that are so egregiously wrong, and the admin had better ways of addressing the linking of the two accounts than to post about it on one of the most-read user talk pages on Misplaced Pages (the block button worked, but the delete one didn't?), then the block needs to be rolled back completely and without hesitation, as was done in this case. Risker (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one needs "permission" to have a fresh start under a new account, especially when one's personal details are irrevocably attached to their previous account. That said, considering the history of misbehavior and abusive sockpuppetry among Trouble related editors, there was an understanding that editors would stick with one recognizable account. However, there has also been issues of harassment (which I would rather not go into in public). One editor made it clear to me that they no longer felt comfortable editing from an account that is linked to their identity as indicated he would like to edit from another anonymous account. Being aware of the harassment issues, I told him that was justifiable on two conditions, 1) that he make admins familiar with The Troubles aware of it, so that I could be monitored for The Troubles ArbCom rememdies. 2) That he stick to one account and one account only. The editor has since made me aware of his new account (and I believe he made at least one other admin aware also) and I have been keeping an eye on it. A few editors with an interest in the Troubles have expressed interest at who this new account may be and on those occasions I have told them (privately) that I am aware of it and asked them not to out it by publicly speculating. All other those responded in the good faith one might expect from editors: they all said "ok" and never mentioned it. All except Giano.

As for the suggestion that I am responsible for the outing: that is nonsense. Lets be honest here. The moment Giano wrote that first comment the game was up, the identity was compromised and the editor in question would create a new account. What is important, and remains important, is that Giano appreciate that he cannot go around linking accounts to real life people (even accidentally, if it was as such) for no good reason other than to irk someone he has bickered with for years. Harassment is a serious issue and it deserves our serious attention. If Giano thinks his jollies are more important than that than I think he deserved to remain blocked until he reconsidered. Rockpocket 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the initial rollback, but are you suggesting the egregiously wrong judgement of one administrator excuses the continuing disruption of the now unblocked editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question, and brought it up with Giano why he shouldn't add it again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano reblocked for disruptive editing

Ok, Giano has ignored my request, and readded the section again to Counter-revolutionary's talk page. I'm not sure if he's beyond the electric fence of 3RR, and quite frankly, I don't think I quite care at the moment, this is WP:DE, and I have placed a short term 3 hour block for preventative purposes for disruptive editing on him. SirFozzie (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse this block. I was writing up a 24 hour block and hit the button a few seconds too late. Giano's actions are beyond unacceptable and 3 hours is a gift. - auburnpilot talk 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear case of 3RR. Giano is the first to point out to you that users can remove content from their talk page if they want to. The issue has gotten plenty of attention already so returning the post is just pointy. _{1 != 2} 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I unfortunately endorse this - it was a clear case of 3RR. I thought the first block would have been enough of a warning to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, clear 3RR violation, and, should have been obvious that this was going to happen if he persisted. SQL 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap. Editwarring is not the answer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled that Giano seems to have interpreted an admonishment to stop being POINTy and disruptive to mean 'use the next three hours to draw as much attention as possible on your talk page and to attack all the people who were trying to help'. I've asked SirFozzie to have a look, as I'm not sure Giano has taken to heart the reason for his current block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Thatcher's post to that page might be of interest; although, at the end of the day, Giano can only be seen to be pointy on that page if people bother to read it. Editors get to be somewhat snippier on their own pages than elsewhere. Anyone who finds Giano to be annoying or pointy need only to remove his page from their watchlist and stop tracking his edits. Risker (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the issue here, which is that disruptive 'Troubles' editors are being allowed to start new accounts because the original account (where the disruption started) was linked to their real-life identity (apparently), so that for some reason means that they have a ready-made excuse to switch to a new account: (1) resume the old behaviour and get "outed"; (2) switch to new account because of "privacy concerns". I'm not quite sure how that sort of situation can be dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't need to switch to a new account if one hadn't been harassed. Anyone can switch to a new account at any time, last time I checked. The caveat, with the Troubles editors, is that they can not do so to edit in a disruptive or problematic manner to avoid detection. It was preferable that all editors stick with their known account, but there is a harassment issue here. Your use of scare quotes suggests you are skeptical, but if you would like to email me, I can give you a rundown on it. Therefore, unless you wish to penalize editors for being the victims of harassment, the next best thing is to permit an anonymous account that can be overseen by trusted admins. The account in question was not editing in a problematic manner, there was no resumption of "old behaviour" in that sense, therefore there was no good reason to "out" it (not least because Giano has no way of knowing he was outing the right person, which risks someone else being harassed). If the account had in anyway been used to violate The Troubles ArbCom I would have blocked it myself immediately as abusive sockpuppetry. I believe we need to assist editors who have suffered harassment, not punish them because someone else decided to abuse them. Rockpocket 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue with Giano, and Thatcher is trying to explain things to him now. Hopefully this will be the end of things. SirFozzie (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the rules are there for a reason. Experienced editors should expect less slack, not more. Otherwise we can throw our rules through the window. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is certainly running out of rope. If his latest "new" account fails to avoid the behaviors and patterns that got him spotted twice before, I don't think there will be much support for a 4th regeneration. Thatcher 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the same "behaviors and patterns" is human, it does not mean you should be outed, because someone is able to spot you by your characteristics. I just don't think we should be encouraging editors to go around outing others, when there is no good reason in policy to do so. That said, I has been made clear to me that it is one thing to edit in the same subject area, another to get involved in more personal debates. I appreciate that and it is difficult to justify anonymity when one gets involved in personal disputes. Rockpocket 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Would another admin take a look at my recent actions on this article? I think I'm reverting insufficiently-justified deletions of sourced content, but I could see how others might think I'm merely edit-warring. Thanks. Dppowell (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that it might be viewed as edit warring by "others", then I suggest that this is a strong indication you should stop reverting and start discussing the matter with the other party(ies). This is not the place, anyway, to get support for your editing decisions, but I would advise not reverting again without opening a dialogue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My request was not intended to "get support for my editing decisions," thanks. I've little knowledge about Conrad Black, and less interest; the article made my watchlist some weeks ago when I noticed vandalism during RC patrol. Rather, I thought someone might be able to tell me whether reverting the deletion of sourced content in this instance legitimately constituted vandal-fighting. It seemed like a grey area. It's a moot point, as another editor has since moved the text in question to Wikiquote. I'll take your opinion of the appropriate use of ANI under advisement. Thanks for responding! Dppowell (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your reversions so far at this article are/were a matter for an admin, nor are/were they a matter for discussion here. They were the actions of an editor. I can't see how you think you did them with your admin's hat on. You were not, as they say, wielding the mop. Move along please, nothing to see here, people. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but I might have within a few minutes, had the situation continued to escalate. I was (and still am, really) seeking input on whether that would have been inappropriate. Per the top of this page: If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. By asking for other admins' opinions, I was trying to ascertain where the line was before I stepped over it. I suppose I'd be getting better answers if I'd done a better job asking the question: when is deletion of sourced material vandalism, and when is it an editorial issue? Compare to a situation I recently encountered at P.E.O. Sisterhood, where a group of editors was also trying to suppress sourced material. In that case, temporary semi-protection of the page was appropriate. That clearly wasn't appropriate here, but had the anonymous editor continued to blank sourced content, perhaps a block would have been. On the other hand, LHvU's opinion is that I'm an involved editor, so that would seem to rule out a block. Was it really so inappropriate for me to seek guidance here? I don't think so. I wasn't wielding the mop, but I had one hand on the handle. Dppowell (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN might have been better, but I'm sorry I didn't read this sooner or I would have responded (something about the title of the thread repelled me). If you are acting as an editor in an article, the same editorial assistance is available to you as to any other editor -WP:3RR, WP:RFPP, etc. Just yesterday I asked for page protection for an article where there were some messy SPA/BLP issues because I had recently edited the article - a neutral admin made the decision. I *did* remove a BLP violation after protection, but that is explicitly covered under WP:BLP. Does that help? Risker (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A little. I think the reason I'm hung up on this is that I have never edited Conrad Black for content and didn't see myself as having "a horse in the race." I thought that by reverting the removal of properly sourced content, I was undoing obvious vandalism...but I wasn't sure, which is why I came here in the first place. :-) Dppowell (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dppowell, I don't think it's that complicated. First of all, your reverts were not controversial. They haven't inflamed the situation. Secondly, there are a number of admins and non-admins who frequent AN and AN/I who would be more than happy for a quick one-to-one conference. Ask them - they're there to help. Regarding removal of sourced material, the question must always be "Is there a very good reason to revert this under the five pillars?" But that's an editorial decision, not an admin one. I think that here the golden rule surpassing all others for admins is that "If I would do this as an experienced editor, knowing as I do the fundaments of the encyclopedia, it must be OK for an admin to do so too". Wielding the mop is not something you've done here, so no worries. You have only acted as an editor, but let's look at your case exactly from an admin's POV, to finish. Firstly, don't go over 3RR - get someone else involved. An outside opinion is what you need here. If you're right, they'll tell you, and vice versa. Secondly, no admin powers were on the table, as I read your case. You weren't talking to people as an admin. Lastly, if you want to mop up because it's turned into a brawl (which it hasn't here) put a 48 hour prot on the article, send 'em all to talk, and remember that there's always plenty of admins around to look in and back you up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Murphy9977

This user continues to try to add inflammatory and admittedly unsourced comments to Joe Torre's page, in regards to the Mitchell Report. So far he has ignored warnings. This is not exactly vandalism, it's more like edit-warring, albeit conducted over 3 weeks time instead of constantly. Baseball Bugs 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give this the "quick once over" and perhaps reply on the basis of taking it to AIV when they next transgress - but I saw the editors comments to Wknight94 and enacted a 31 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put it here instead of AIV because it was a bit more than just random vandalism. 31 hours might not be enough to get his attention, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards