Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 12 March 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauer ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Misplaced Pages. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.

And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.

In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.

A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.

There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.

ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen hasn't edited since the 8th, this shouldn't be archived untill he has a chance to respond. Seraphim 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Misplaced Pages admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And SSP case was opened in this instance, here, but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JA here, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection. Seraphim 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editors for the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns in this case. The evidence and rationale behind the indef block is way too thin, or there is a serious lack of transparency. Either way, more process is required to substantiate an indef block. I'm also disturbed by the actions of Ryulong in reviewing the block with such apparent superficiality. —Doug Bell  07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathunder's admin abuse

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Page returned to state at time of freeze. Good faith assumed in that admin may not have realized page was move-protected as there was no {{Moveprotected}} tag. Further discussion as to proper name should occur on article talk page. -- Avi 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Jonathunder keeps moving Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag, stating that the most common name for this author "here in Minnesota" doesn't contain a diacritic in her name. I've been moving it back stating that her correct (and official name according to the covers of her own books) contains "á". I requested move protection for this article in order to bring the matter to the talk page, and it was effectively protected by Arjun01. Still, Jonathunder used his admin ability to edit protected pages to move it back to Wanda Gag after the protection. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you.--Húsönd 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an objective (?) third-party, I do notice that the usage of the diacritic is not consistent within the article and should at very least be changed to be internally consistent and consistent with the page title. Ryanjunk 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a first obvious sign that something's wrong. The name had a diacritic throughout the article since its very creation. The title also had a diacritic until Gene Nygaard decided to move it to a non-diacritic version two days ago (disrespecting a community probation).--Húsönd 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that Gene violated his community probation here - it was a non-contested move per the MOS and therefore ok. Once the move was contested, Gene stepped aside and asked an administrator to look at it. See Gene's talk page for more. --Duk 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this situation, but I just read the terms of the probation, and they clearly state that he can only move pages where consensus is clearly in favor of a move, NOT simply when there is no consensus not to move. They're two different concepts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In absence of any dispute, a move in line with the MOS is per consensus. --Duk 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,

1. This move by User:Tevildo was undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus.
2. It remained undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus in this move by User:Husond. Gene Nygaard 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've gotta say, regardless of who is right or whatever, an administrator involved in the dispute moving it after it was move-protected and the protection log admonished all involved to use the talk page is a blatant violation of the protection policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've notified Jonathunder of this thread; please remember to leave a note on users' talk pages if you start a thread concerning them, as instructed in the header of this page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My bad, sorry. --Húsönd 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 13:25, March 9 2007 Arjun01 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wanda Gág: Continued moves without discussion. Please use the talk page. )
  • 13:57, March 9 2007 Jonathunder (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag over redirect: Use more common name.)

Has anyone asked the user about this? Jkelly 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mind you, we do seem to be the only one of the top Google hits that uses the diacritic... Guy (Help!) 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, although that could be attributed more to the fact that a good number of people on the internet have no clue how to actually insert a diacritic. As an example, here is an Amazon.com page listing one of her books for sale; the page lists her name without the diacritic, but the cover of the book itself (which, I think, would reflect the spelling of her own name, would it not?) clearly has it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. The issue here is an administrator clearly using his powers to gain a leg up in an edit dispute. What's worse, it's actually worked: he's gotten off with a warning, and no one is reverting him in order to avoid wheel warring. As he clearly knew that what he did was wrong, I would say he should be told to move it back or face a 48 hour block. I've had enough of seeing administrators who know better manage to get the upper hand because no one is willing to castigate or undo their actions. If any uninvolved admin has guts to do what's right, please do ask him to move it back or block him if he won't. Part Deux 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it was an honest mistake, done because he didn't realize it was protected. Has anyone asked that? -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've notified him of this thread, but he hasn't been active since the move. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Husond is everybit as guilty of edit-warring and tryig to gain an advantage without discussing the issue as Jonathunder is. The article should be moved back to its original name, and if Husond or Tevildo want to move it, they can make their case for a move through {{WP:RM]]. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand, are guilty of perpetuating this kind of edit-warring. It is you who have caused so much trouble that had to be given a community probation regarding unilateral moves, the same probation that you have been trying to dodge. It is you who are most obliged to list move proposals on WP:RM. No WP:AGF for you, Gene.--Húsönd 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond, you specifically claimed that your reversion of my move was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because, in your words "You may not do so according to your community probation". Therefore, you were not making your move based on the merits of the case; something that was further evident from the fact that you already knew that the previous move had been objected to as being unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial--yet you provided no discussion, no references, no nothing for making your move. Therefore, if the only thing you were objecting to was me making the move, which in fact you explicitly claimed to be the case, then you have absolutely no cause whatsoever to complain about any other editor looking at it and making that same move, whether it be Jonathunder or anyone else. You had certainly provided no reason not to do so, had you? 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Regardless, Jonathunder should not have intentionally moved it after protection. Now, it is possible that he did not realize that it was protected, as I don't see a {{Moveprotected}} tag on the top of the article, so it may be accidental and not malicious, but I would think the article should be returned to the state it was in at the time of the freeze (albeit that too is the the wrong version ) and the discussion continued from there. -- Avi 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page back, and I'm going to assume that Jonathunder didn't notice the protection. As we all know, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Khoikhoi 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:69.132.198.252

A copending incident is posted here. -- Jreferee 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has become quite a problem for several other editors on the board for Shelby Young. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shelby_Young He has now flat out called me a racist, TWICE. The issue stems from him PRETENDING to be Greek. You'll note on Ms. Young's talk page, him posting in very plain English, harrassing Ms. Young, then reverting to "comical" broken English, which I find to be racist, seeing as how my father is a German immigrant. The user Leebo has been kept abreast of this, but I've had enough. I'm looking for admin intervention here. This user is wikistalking/wikiharrassing a teenager as well as wikiharrassing me. He contributes nothing of value to Misplaced Pages. If an admin takes action in this matter, would it be feasible to have someone watch Ms. Young's pages as well as those of Hailey Anne Nelson, specifically for baseless attacks from users coming from the North Carolina area? Thanks in advance. -- Ispy1981 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the main concern is that this user is edit warring with the real Shelby Young on the Shelby Young page. They are uncivil, but I consider this to be secondary. Leebo /C 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And now he has made a revert to MY TALK PAGE. Also, he has reverted his own talk page to the comment calling me a racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=114203745 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:69.132.198.252&diff=prev&oldid=114204118

Edit: Added diffs

Ispy1981 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you make you first post my user page, not my discussion page and i try change it to my discussion page and you get bent. Anyone see you first post my page should be block you, you have told other people in talk page how you think I am stalker, con artist, you think me a bad editor and you say "How is someone who is greek know so much about Shelby Young."

Not think the internet all america okay?

Any my edit anyone here can see, they can follow all my thing wikipedia and see you follow right behind me.

You make fun because I am greek, I read only what you write, how can you say pretend greek?

http://www.babelfish.com is what I am useing to follow wikipedia. The comments you make me are very racist and hurtful, I do not know why you jump onto me because I made one edit and now you mad at me.

69.132.198.252 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"I think you should get off the sock puppet account. It's not listed on imdb.com, hell even the guy who brings david letterman is listed on imdb.com. Enough said. Fan sights don't count here. Shelby Young's own agent said she didn't do the voice, so why come here and use her name as your account just to bolster your own claim."

Sound like something Babelfish would spit out to anybody?

Ispy1981 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SndrAndrss (talk · contribs)

Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · block log) is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, " has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."

This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:

• Template:Infobox Football club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Country data England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:ENGf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Nordic skiing World Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.

And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.

I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.

Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:

His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

Help...! – Elisson • T • C • 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly useful that he numbers his sockpuppets, which makes it trivial to confirm that he keeps evading his blocks. Persistently disruptive users such as he who show no inclination to communicate or cooperate with the community should simply be indefblocked, and their socks blocked and reverted on sight - which should be possible here given the vandal's narrow range of interests. He'll eventually go away. Accordingly, I'd support a community ban at this point. Sandstein 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that he is willing to communicate with others. He simply doesn't care of rules, warnings, blocks. Sockpuppetry is prohibited? Doesn't matter, he registers accounts with obvious connections to his main one. I support community ban against him, and recommend temporary semiprotection for his favorite pages. MaxSem 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Darwinek has been a big supporter of SndrAndrss, despite his refusal to discuss anything, including protecting pages to protect SndrAndrss actions

• Gilberto Aristízabal history
• Damir Matovinović history
• Antonio Márquez Ramírez history

Gene Nygaard 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm that looks like Darwinek protecting pages from being moved, by you, to titles without diacritics. Doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. Grandmasterka 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just didn't make my point clear. These remain User:SndrAndrss moves, part of what MaxSem talks about above: "combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves."

They remain unreferenced and undiscussed moves. Darwinek has done absolutely nothing to change that. He has added no discussion and no references whatsoever.

They remain moves to spellings different from the spellings used in the sources cited in the articles themselves.

They remain a part of the SndrAndrss legacy here on Misplaced Pages, every bit as much as the dozens of others in which Darwinek had no involvement. Gene Nygaard 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nygaard's "arguments" are as always not relevant. I am not a "big supporter" of SndrAndrss. In fact I have been many times a vital opposer of that user, reverting many of his wrong actions. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Gene Nygård (:P just had to do that), Darwinek is not a big supporter of SndrAndrss. In fact, it was Darwinek who notified me of SndrAndrss latest sockpuppet, which was what made me write the above post. And your problem with SndrAndrss or Darwinek, or both, has nothing to do with this discussion, as Grandmasterka says. Take your problems to a more relevant place. – Elisson • T • C • 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question, and ignoring the irony of Gene Nygaard's post, I think you probably should initiate a community ban discussion, either as a subsection here or over on WP:CN. Grandmasterka 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated a community ban discussion on WP:CN. – Elisson • T • C • 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations.

At Electronic voice phenomenon there has recently been editing from multiple IP addresses, and on the article talk page, editors User:Davkal and User:Martinphi have made the accusation that they are sock puppets of a registered editor. Most recently, Martinphi made the following comment: "I suggest that we only edit versions of the article which are the last by an editor who is not a sock puppet. Thus, all sock puppetry will be useless. Also, let several sock versions pile up, then revert or edit in the responsible version. The sock will be wasting his time." While it's possible that there is sock puppetry going on, this seems like a bad way to handle it (particularly if it turned out not to be a sock puppet). As far as I know, neither editor has taken any action with a sock puppet report or checkuser. Could an admin look into the situation? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at this? Multiple editors have been reverting IP edits just because they think it's a sock puppet. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please

A few days ago, I sought to open an RfC on Justanother after attempts to come to an understanding failed. I was concerned finding a single neutral editor for a "third opinion" option and opted instead for the RfC to get as many different opinions as possible. I consulted with another editor about how to get one started having little experience myself. The editor I went to also had little experience too, so they in turn went to Bishonen who didn't seem to believe that two editors had made good faith attempts to address Justanother on his talk page. As it turned out, Bishonen felt the other editor's attempts were insufficient while I had not. Since I was making the RfC in good faith, I assumed the worst that could happen is that it would be rejected. It was not rejected, and the RfC was active as several editors had posted and others had planned to. I don't want to give the impression that I'm unwilling to accept that the RfC was incorrect. The problem I have is that either out of loyalty or perhaps a bruised ego, Bishonen acted unilaterally to delete an RfC he disagreed with at the request of the subject of said RfC. I apologize for having to take up more space here for the same issue. Anynobody 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do keep User talk:Bishonen on my short watchlist. And I saw her (not him, by the way) patiently describe *over* and *over* (to no apparent effect) that user RfCs need to show demonstrated attempts to come to a resolution, not just any old talk-page arguing -- or, yes, they get deleted. Also clearly explained. Ignoring her clear instructions, you went ahead and the expected, normal thing happened. And now you want to blame Bishonen and make it personal?? (Loyalty? Bruised Ego? See WP:NPA and Comment on contributions, not personalities, OK?) Get a grip, Anynobody. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some links might facilitate review for those who don't have my talkpage watchlisted. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC). (This post has been deleted five times, i think due to some server issue--restoring it again.)

If I understand the situation correctly, when soliciting advice from an administrator one is required to take the advice in question whether it pertains to a POV issue or a procedural one? Procedure requires two editors make a good faith attempt at resolving the issue on the users talk page. If I posted the RfC by myself, I'd understand why disregarding the procedure would get it removed. Bishonen obviously felt that Smeelgova's attempts to address Justanother were not in good faith. I believe Bishonen said something like Smeelgova's attempts were nothing more than scolding and dropping warning tags. I have noticed most editors give feedback that way, the subject of the RfC Justanother appears to give feedback in this way. I have difficulty understanding why Smeelgova's behavior is considered an example of bad faith when it is so common. (Seriously, the first time I tried to create a username here I got an inappropriate warning and block without the admin telling me what aspect of the proposed username was inappropriate. Another time Justanother accused me of violating WP:CANVASSING by only referencing the tag. I've even caught myself doing it, despite my efforts not to.)

Even if I assume that I erred by submitting the RfC, the way it was removed seems unusual. Why would Bishonen ask a non-involved editor to delete the RfC on this noticeboard, and then delete it herself when none would? If she had just deleted it, I guess it'd be easier to understand. By asking someone else to do it it seemed like she wanted to avoid a COI. Respectfully, Bunchofgrapes I do have a firm "grip". As I understand it, places like this are the exact place to address concerns about personalities, whereas on the article pages it might be inappropriate. Am I mistaken on that too? Anynobody

Please don't take my questions as sour grapes or a smart-ass rhetorical question. I really would appreciate an explanation of my questions. Anynobody 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Smee's warnings etc. weren't in good faith. We are saying they weren't dispute resolution. See the difference? If other RfCs have been accepted for bad reasons, that doesn't mean they all should. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the difference, but based on your comment I must respectfully ask if you know all of the details. I'll briefly summarize:

1. Justanother wants to delete the article Barbara Schwarz.
2. I expressed concern to Justanother that he may not be looking at the issue with a neutral POV.
3. Justanother was unwilling to discuss the possibility, and became a bit hostile.
4. Smeelgova attempted to explain to Justanother that his response was inappropriate, as well as his hostile attitude, see User talk:Justanother/Archive4#Personal_attack_on_User:Anynobody,User talk:Justanother/Archive4#/Personal attacks in edit summaries, User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#Be_nice.
5. Justanother ignored our attempts (mine to address the possibility of a biased POV and Smeelgova's attempt to get Justanother to temper his attitude in responding (how can anyone resolve a conflict with someone who becomes hostile and is unwilling to discuss issues another editor raises? Either a third opinion or RfC.)
6. Bishonen didn't think there was enough of an attempt made by two users (by suggesting that Smeelgova's attempts were insufficient or inappropriate) to set up a RfC... the rest I think everyone knows.

I honestly think that these discussions are "dispute resolution", (User talk:Justanother/Archive4#Personal_attack_on_User:Anynobody,User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#/Personal attacks in edit summaries, User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#Be_nice.) since Bishonen deemed it to not be "dispute resolution" it seemed like she was saying Smeelgova was acting in "bad faith" based on her description of Smeelgova's efforts. (If Smeelgova wasn't trying to resolve anything by addressing Justanother's behavior, wouldn't that be acting in bad faith?)

I understand that Bishonen and some others may see it as a poorly executed attempt at dispute resolution, but it's important to note that the requirements do not say "Two WELL EXECUTED attempts at dispute resolution", merely that two attempts must be made.

I'd honestly like to know how to deal with an editor who not only spends a majority of his time editing articles related to his religion but trying to remove information which could any way be interpreted as negative to said religion, even though it may be appropriate. Further, the editor refuses to discuss concerns of a possible conflict in his goals and those of Misplaced Pages. (I'm not interested in editing Scientology articles on a regular basis, and personally don't care about the CoS any more than I do other religions, if anyone thinks I have a COI I'm happy t discuss it. Justanother will not even discuss his negative attitude let alone a possible COI). I'm not saying I am correct, that's why I wanted a RfC because I assume if I was incorrect that would have come out with the resolution of the RfC.

Which goes toward what Bunchofgrapes was saying about bad RfCs. I would never advocate a bad request get through just because others have. I just expected if it was a bad request an uninvolved administrator would say so. By Bishonen deleting it and essentially saying "I told you not to because not enough of an attempt was made to resolve the dispute" without suggesting how to make attempts or pointing out previous RfCs with attempts Bishonen thought were more worthy, I'm back where I started without a real explanation (by real I mean details about WHY the attempts don't work for Bishonen. I honestly don't mean to disrespect Bishonen, but saying the arguments are "no good" leaves the reason open to interpretation. Anynobody 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fou-Lu0014

this user did not break the 3rr, because it was on HIS userpage, this user is very angry and would like to be un-banned

"He" can post {{unblock|reason}} on his userpage if he'd like to be unblocked. Oh, and could you also tell "him" he doesn't own "his" userpage and that he shouldn't try to evade his block via sockpuppetry? Thanks. Picaroon 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR does mention that a users own space is "usually" exempt from the policy, but that certain actions can still be seen as disruptive. I have not looked into the details of this case though. _InBC 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for an incredible amount of move vandalism. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous comment, apologising and requesting to be permitted to return, has been posted at User:Fou-Lu0014. The same IP also restored the userpage content (userboxen, etc..) this has now been removed; the comment remains. anthonycfc 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moved anonymous comment originally placed in different section of this page, as it is about the same issue and can't be archived otherwise: no new action is needed, the case is still resolved. Fram 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ) "05:35, 25 February 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Fou-Lu0014 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Oh god what the hell is going on?)"

I only broke the 3RR rule on MY userpage!!! (Why did I even get banned?)

Certified.Gangsta

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

This is a content issue. Take it to the talk page of the article or WP:DR. Nothing belongs here.--Doc 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely had it with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In his latest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.

In this edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.

You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness over the deceptive banner on his userpage. It took only four editors and three months to get him to stop. --Ideogram 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want us to do? --physicq (c) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but "absolutely had it" is a little ... strong, perhaps :P? Yuser31415 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a revert-warrior. 3RR is an electric fence, not a quota. Limit him to 2RR. --Ideogram 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric fence may be the wrong analogy. Try minefield. :) --physicq (c) 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer machine gun crossfire, actually. Yuser31415 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now edit-warring on multiple pages. Just look at his contribs. --Ideogram 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Michelle Marsh (model)#English vs. British for an example of his debating "style". --Ideogram 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no (substantive) interest in Michelle Marsh, but his persistent, unrepetent, and endless edit warring on that article has come up on my radar. Since I've reverted him, there, it's not appropriate for me to intervene administratively. But someone uninvolved should definitely take a look. Nandesuka 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user can be assumed good faith anymore. He denies any sort of communication, and insists that his opinion is the only correct one. User have been edit-warring rather inappropriately for half an year. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

comments

(Quote) I'm not sure which dream world you live in, but its pointless to talk with you, as it always was. Believe what you please and do what you please. Demean me and Misplaced Pages on your private web forum - I don't care. I'm only here for knowledge, nothing else. P.S. - the controversy about Muhammad and pedophilia is a legitimate historical debate - criticizing Muhammad is free speech. But Baka's comments were meant as an insult to you, no doubt - I would have blocked him if I had seen that comment but I had not until much later. I don't know why the arbitrators didn't propose a decision against him - that's their business. Don't reply to refute this statement, as I already know that you don't respect me at all. Cheerio, Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Unre4L/archive2" (End quote)

This user has blocked other for stating "160 million people have been denied their history".

His excuse:"Insulting a nation".

And now he calls linking Muhammed to pedophelia "free speech". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.44.184 (talk • contribs)

Diffs please ... Yuser31415 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading this right (and I may not be, the formatting is odd) our anonymous friend is complaining about Rama's Arrow. The problem is, as near as I can tell, Rama's Arrow has never been blocked for anything, let alone making a statement like that. So I'm not sure what is going on here. IrishGuy 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he's complaining about Rama's Arrow but I think the block log you want is Unre4L's and a read of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive183#Block of Unre4L. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have any opinion worth expressing on the matter, this is the original diff. Gavia immer (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True name privacy outing

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it. I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deleted, restored without 4 revisions with personal information, request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user-page?

Can user-pages be used for attacks on Misplaced Pages, Jimbo, Arbcom and former editors? Please see this --Mardavich 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, in this case, yes. The user is upset and wants to let off some steam. We should let him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to violate restrictions listed in WP:UP, so I think it's fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

For the last few weeks, I've been (I thought) trying to moderate two warring sides at Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to reach a NPOV compromise. I think I am failing to do that; moreover, I've been accused myself of many things on Talk:Goguryeo. This might not sound like an appetizing situation for anyone to get in, but I'd like to ask for some help here in trying to resolve the situation. The article cannot remain permanently protected, but as soon as it is unprotected, another edit war will surely erupt due to the parties' inability to compromise and inability to be even civil to each other. Help would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to join the discussion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonty Rhodes

This was raised above, and marked as having been dealt with. I followed up the message, and found that Paul venter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indeed insisting on a peculiar placing of a huge image (e.g.), despite the clear consensus at the Talk page (100% against his view), and the fact that his edit goes against common practice throughout Misplaced Pages. I added my voice to the debate, so can't take action myself, but he's still insisting, breaking 3RR in the process. Could someone review the situation and apply a block, in order to give him a breathing space to calm down and think about what he's doing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz‎ and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet‎

Looks like user:Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden is enlisting sockpuppets and or meatpuppets again to protect his favored articles from deletion. See also his own website: , , (complete with gratuitous mentions of Brittney Spears and Madonna.) I don't think there's any point in conducting checkusers, as he obviously has access to several IPs, and I think he sometimes enlists friends to post on his behalf. But the behaviour is classic sock/meatpuppetry, as evidenced in the contributions. And it's a pattern that repeats over and over. I've taken a lot of personal heat just for standing up to this user, so I'd appreciate another, possibly more impartial administrator getting involved, or at least expressing an opinion here. He's already under a community ban - is there any reason not to go ahead and block all the suspected sockpuppets? See: Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Israelbeach --woggly 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody read my posts here? --woggly 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi

The article on Phi Kappa Psi is being vandalized by multiple accounts to remove referenced material:

• corruption by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona)
• deletion by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona; warned)
• deletion by SCollie76 (warned)
• deletion by 155.247.166.31 (Temple University, Philadelphia)

(The section involved reports a conviction and an on-going investigation of a gang-rape.) —SlamDiego 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update:

• deletion by 70.233.137.158 (SBC Internet Services)

—SlamDiego 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

File a request for protection at WP:RFP.--TBCΦtalk? 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Posts being removed, server issue?

My post under "Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please" above has been removed five times and restored four times, along with some others on the page. The last time it got deleted was in this edit by Sandy Georgia. I actually dare not try to fix the problem beyond re-posting my own post, I have seen too many odd things in the History for the past few hours, and will leave it to somebody more savvy. Please note that the other lost posts are missing still—click on the Sandy Georgia edit to see which ones. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

See thread immediately above this one and link to the village pump. Allegedly has been resolved now. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't see that, Brad. My point was, could somebody reinstate the lost posts please? Bishonen | talk 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Oy. Good point. Does someone have a comparison script? Newyorkbrad 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Enayzeeeye

Name of (indefinitely blocked) Enayzeeeye is thinly-veiled spelling out of “Nazi” — “En·ay·zee·eye”. User talk:Enayzeeeye contains post-block userbox with swastika, declaring “This user is racist and identifies as a Nazi.” Enayzeeeye was blocked for blatantly racist vandalisms.

I suggest that, at a minimum, Enayzeeeye be blocked from editing his or her talk page. I believe that it would be better to as effectively-as-possible delete the account and make the name unusable. —SlamDiego 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In a Newyorkbrad minute. :-) —SlamDiego 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs)

User:The Gladius is used by two family members, according to his/her/its user page: . The Gladius is also fairly transparently a sockpuppet of User:John Wallace Rich, as alleged at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/John Wallace Rich. Evidence includes:

• Similar Edit Summaries, With Every Letter Capitalized: .
• The Gladius edits John Wallace Rich's user page: .

User:John Wallace Rich has now filed a "revenge" SSP case, imitating the wording of the case filed against him, in which he accuses User:Stillstudying of being User:PocklingtonDan's sockpuppet: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PocklingtonDan. Could someone investigate this situation? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please go and help user:John Wallace Rich to find a Clue, as he has resolutely ignored every attempt made thus far. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delarion97 (talk · contribs)

I'm a little confused by the form to submit sock puppets, but I suspect this is one case. In any case, the user is engaging an agressive behaviour towards other editors (and admins) based on the fact that his page was speedy deleted.

In any case, he appears to be using multiple accounts:

• The capitalization pattern between Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) is similar to Delarion97 (talk · contribs)

• In all three accounts, 172.163.78.145 (talk · contribs) Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) and Delarion97 (talk · contribs), there's a strong assertion that Over The Hedge 2 was announced.

• Consistant edits among accounts: Jay-G7 has while 172.163.78.145 has three diffs restoring the same edit. .
• This diff seems to be clearcut proof where the user sort-of admits to sockking.

While this is on the early side for posting this request, I'd like to prevent any disruption as soon as possible. --Sigma 7 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal, Delarion appears to be a sockpuppet of the UPN Vandal per his choice of username. Jay-G7 appears to be a sockpuppet of Delarion, due to their similar patterns on contributions. The 172 IP falls into the UPN Vandal range. Logical2u_{Review me!} 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so if someone could look into this...? Logical2u_{Review me!} 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

protocols of Zion

Can someone with a bit more knowledge of the area take a look at those contributions? This site looks pretty dodgy and while I'm trying to AGF, within the context of the contributions and the content of that site... --Fredrick day 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who would have thought someone calling himself User:For Truth's Sake! would have strong opinions about the Protocols of Zion? Tom Harrison 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When a site has an entire section entitled Zionist Occupied Governments it is safe to say it isn't a reliable source. IrishGuy 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The site is inappropriate, to say the least. User should be warned.Proabivouac 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I stopped at the logo with the Star of David and Hammer & Sickle in the "C". The site looks... how shall I say this... unencyclopedic, to say the least. The contributions and username suggest an agenda. Maybe some educational material about WP:NPOV or WP:NOT would be useful, in the spirit of AGF and WP:DBTN? MastCell 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Any site called Jew Watch is unlikely to not have an agenda. Natalie 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read our own article about that site: Jew Watch. -- Avi 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Covert deletion of "Turkic alphabets" article

User (and Admin) http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dbachmann is deleting article "Turkic alphabets" by redirect and merge manipulations, effectively preventing public scrutiny of the article and open discussion of its contents. In forcibly removing the article in its infancy from the public view, and shutting down the "Talk" discussion the User:Dbachmann is abusing his admin powers.

Barefact 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab didn't use admin powers. This is a simple content dispute, and making redirects/merges is normal legitimate editing (and pretty good sense in the present case, because the article would otherwise have been a POV fork.) Dispute doesn't belong here on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely harsh, uncivil editor (possible sockpuppeteer) who won't allow contributions and makes veiled personal threats

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Virgil Vaduza aka (I suspect) Frank Thomas is behaving in a bizzare and frightening fashion in the Brian McLaren article.

1) Virgil will not allow me (Will3935) to contribute any edits of substance (only punctuation corrections). The contributions I have offered have been well supported by citations, yet they are promptly reverted in every case.

2)Virgil has been escalating hostilities while I have been trying to salvage a working relationship and make friends (user pages and discussion page will confirm this). His tone is exceedingly harsh and belittling, and he cannot be pacified. His many comments in the discussion page and the userpages have all contained personal attacks which are only getting worse.

3)After intense dialog with Virgil Vaduza along with mild intervention from Vassanya (admin), Virgil temporarily left the scene in favor of "Frank Thomas" an editor with no userpage who had not, to my knowledge, contributed to the article before this. Frank only had made a few previous edits in his Misplaced Pages career (most in subjects Virgil is interested in). Frank exhibited the same level of hostility and acrimony that Virgil had and echoed Virgil's arguments verbatim. Now Virgil has reappeared and the two act in perfect tandem, offering insults and attacks within minutes of each other. The intense level and frequncy of the attacks by far surpasses anything I have seen in my over 1200 edits in Misplaced Pages. Frank and Virgil's attacks seem to be clones of each other in tone, content, and severity. They have come in machine gun rapidity and in tandem. I believe my sockpuppetry suspicion is not unwarranted.

4)Virgil / Frank has repeatedly tried to bait me into revealing my true identity. I find this, along with the tone in which it is done, to be quite frightening. It seems to me that Virgil / Frank wants to take this conflict outside of Misplaced Pages. I have a personal life and a family to protect.

5)Though I did try to mix it up with Virgil at first, I have sinced repented and apologized. I have made many, many friendly overtures (the edit history on the discussion page and our userpages will show this to be quite true). Nevertheless, Virgil / Frank keeps escalating things to bizarre and frightening extremes.

6)Previous editors have apparently been scared away by Virgil's strong-handed tactics.

7)We desparately need intervention in the Brian McLaren article and any help will be appreciated.

Will3935 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version has been protected. Please hash out the differences on the talk page. Good Luck to all of you, and please 'ware WP:3RR. -- Avi 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

JB196 back again

Today he's editing as SPmilkshakeGuru8, and is doing his usual trick of self promotion on Rob Zicari, Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling. A quick check of the recent history of those pages shows nothing except him spamming and being reverted then pages being protected, then as soon as the protection wears off it's back to square one with whatever new account or proxy IP he's using. He has a long term abuse report, so can anyone please semi-protect these pages for a reasonable amount of time? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and added his sites to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to undo the blacklisting, as the OWW site is used in many articles legitimately. One part of it is already blacklisted, but it would cause too much collateral damage to blacklist all of it. He's basically a long term problem who uses open proxies frequently, right now he's now back with his second IP since his user name block. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could blacklist the Barber path, though. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is blacklisted on meta. A week ago he was adding the link in this diff, now he's having to link to the front page as the columns/jonathanbarber path is blacklisted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many other pages use OWW as a source? beginning to wonder if it's benefits are outweighed by JB's tendency to use it as a spam target. Since he's using a combination of IP addresses and accounts... any chance that he's found new proxies to abuse? SirFozzie 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter

This was raised above, and marked as having been dealt with. I followed up the message, went to Jonty Rhodes, and found that Paul venter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indeed insisting on a peculiar placing of a huge image (e.g.), despite the clear consensus at the Talk page (100% against his view), and the fact that his edit goes against common practice throughout Misplaced Pages. I added my voice to the debate, so can't take action myself, but he's still insisting, breaking 3RR in the process. Could someone review the situation and apply a block, in order to give him a breathing space to calm down and think about what he's doing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul venter is now asking for the image to be speedily deleted, as (he claims) he uploaded it under the mistaken impression that it had been given to him to use under Misplaced Pages's copyright regime. It's at Commons, so he's asking the wrong people, but this all seems more and more peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User 71.139.27.85, Griot - Vandalism

User 71.139.27.85, Griot, "stalking" articles by contributor since content dispute with Ralph Nader. Deleting sourced material. See User history and article history for details. Please assist. Thank you. 76.166.123.129 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a disinterested user, I see nothing wring with 72.139.27.85's recent editing history, although did only look at a few edits from the recent week. Are there any instances in particular of stalking articles that you could provide? Kntrabssi 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to quote the following from WP:HARASS: " does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In this case, I think any editor would certainly be well within their rights to check regularly on 76.166.123.129's contributions, given such factors as his/her repeated uncivil edits to my user page and his/her attempt to OWN Talk:Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny's Direct

This article has been delete and recreated 5 times, although until today the last occurance was was back in Nov. It was deleted under CSD A7, but was now been recreated a 6th time. I slapped a {{db-corp}} on it (althouhh {{db-corp}} would work too). An anon removed the tab giving no reason. I imagine re-adding the the sppedy tag or trying to prod it would be fruitless at this point, so I'd an admin to take a look and speedy or salt as needed. 206.126.170.20 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. —physicq (c) 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Aksi great

I am reporting Aksi great for his abuse of power as an administrator. It all started on a Vote in regards to the Category:Tamil_Americans here. I had noticed that both user accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were used in this voting process. These two users have been confirmed by another administrator by the name of Dmcdevit that they were both the same user here. I then posted a comment on the vote page about these two users here that these two user accounts were used to vote here. After posting that, I received a warning to get blocked by Aksi great here. Furthermore, Aksi great has went to the extent to accuse me of having three sockpuppets here, here, and here without any userchecks for proof against me.

Background

Sarvagnya has been a trouble maker for some time now pushing his POV on wikipedia. I have reported him on numerous accounts of misbehavior, vandalism, trolling, and confirmed sockpuppeting here in which nothing has been resolved. That report also talked about the sockpuppet issue of Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti. Sadly, these user accounts have another administrator Blnguyen who backs them up biasedly. When I reported them, instead of Blnguyen dealing with the issue like a responsible administrator, he started picking on me about images I have posted on my page in which I have respectfully replied him and took care of the issue. In the end, nothing was resolved, and Blnguyen did not do a thing about my report. I have placed a report on Blnguyen in the past for his abuse this favoritism towards certain users here. And, once again, nothing happened.

This problem goes even further when I was having problems with ARYAN818 in which I have reported his incivil and intollerant behavior towards other ethnic groups here. After this user was blocked here. After that, I have received a rather odd message from Bakasuprman here about how the Hindu editors on Misplaced Pages were upset that ARYAN818 was blocked.

Conclusion

It seems that there are a group of editors with the backing of a couple of administrators who are working together in regards to POV pushing using Misplaced Pages as their propoganda tool. I am being ganged up on by these particular editors for opposing their POV. This is really uncalled for and un-democratic with all this bias and bullying going on by certain administrators. I respectfully request for this matter to be looked into and my name be taken off those sockpuppet templates posted by Aksi great. Thank you. Wiki Raja 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see what the problem is. At the very least, Aksi great should file a request for checkuser if he suspects sockpuppetry, but I can't really see where anyone did anything wrong. ARYAN818 was given plenty of time to find a new username, and regardless of how it's used in one part of the world, it would still be a valid username block due to its other uses. --Coredesat 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to ARYAN818, he has also been engaged in a lot of incivility and trolling towards other users. Not to mention intollerance of other people's ethnic and religious backgrounds. As far as his name is concerned, that wasn't the issue with me unlike the others. Sorry to put all this in for you to read, but there are a group of biased editors backed by similar administrators who are just basically ganging up on me since ARYAN818 was blocked. Also, all of this is due to me disagreeing with their POV and voicing it. But, apart from all that commotion, Aksi great should not jump the gun and just slap my name on a sockpuppet template without proper confirmation. Don't you think that is a little irrational on his part as an administrator? Wiki Raja 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I spoke to soon. This group has eyes everywhere. Take a look at this post titled Ani report by Wikiraja. Wiki Raja 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to examine this at the moment, but the instructions for this page very clearly instruct you to notify someone on their talk page if you post about them on AN/I. Rama notifying Aksi that you started a thread on him/her is just cleaning up after your mistake. Don't imagine conspiracies that aren't there, please. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet case(here) filed by Wiki Raja (talk · contribs), has just now been closed with the conclusion "All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja". - KNM 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant conclusion having done no usercheck on me and only basing this on suspicion. Wiki Raja 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this. What? I don't understand... What? I said I don't understand... What? There is nothing wrong... What? I said there is nothing wrong... What? There is nothing wrong in informing Aksi great that there is a discussion/complaint about him on ANI. There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy against Wiki Raja or any other user on Misplaced Pages. Nobody is trying to gang up on anybody. What? Let's just build... What? Let's just build... What? I said let's just build an encyclopedia please. Rama's arrow 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Maybe you need to relax. Harassing me with a bunch of Whats would not solve anything. Come back and reply when you are ok. Wiki Raja 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

cant..er.. 'can't' Sarvagnya 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing now? Stalking me? Wiki Raja 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Aksi - I don't know what all this fuss is all about. Dravidian Warrior and Tamilguy07 were not blocked by me. They were blocked by Nichalp. The only editor I blocked was Jhnnyrj. I put up a suspected sock template. Nowhere does it say that the sockpuppetry has been confirmed. It is within my powers to suspect some account for sockpuppetry and block them. I have not filed a RFCU as the vote was not over yet. As per the rules of RFCU a request must only be filed after the vote is over. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when does this vote end? Wiki Raja 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-meta

Could someone please fulfil the protected edit request on the talk page? The template has been broken for long enough... -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User evading block

84.x.x.x seems to be evading his/her block; see the history of my userpage. –Llama man_contribs 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one of the 16,777,216 possible users do you mean? You mean 84.9.35.9 (talk · contribs) and 87.74.29.14 (talk · contribs)? --Edokter (Talk) 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Race under attack

The article on Race has been serieally modified by an anon user. I won't have time to follow this up, and one more change and I'll break the 3 revert rule. P0M 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, all good faith edits, all looking to improve the article. Suggest you work with the editor in question instead of accusing them of vandalism. -- Nick 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Original edits had a colon on the left margin that my small screen wasn't showing clearly enough. P0M 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User 66.93.144.171

Just a quick heads up about this user. I was shocked a few days ago when a mild joke I made provoked a furious response from this person (including reporting me here for "personal attacks"), so I took a look at his/her past history. Apparently this person has a history of picking fights on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=113910925 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARay_Lewis_%28football%29&diff=70167104&oldid=68852342 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=111048360 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=98805165 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=84020806 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=80872030 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=80502693

I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about this, but maybe a gentle reminder that WP:CIVIL applies would be appropriate? SkipSmith 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Attempting to impersonate a real individual for the purposes of defamation:

• User:Anti_Newberry
• User:Antioch_Newberry

User account created with the stated purpose of harassment:

• User_talk:Atom_Newberry

Image uploaded under fraudulent pretext, Ray Lopez does not own the image.

Stirling Newberry 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All three accounts were already blocked indefinitely. Do people think we should blank or delete the pages? Newyorkbrad 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As they are now indef blocked and they were creating with ill-intent, I think they should be deleted. IrishGuy 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're still there they can't be re-created. Anchoress 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the source for the image ? -- Nick 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) please

Hi. I can use a bit of admin help over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), please. User:Anynobody is injecting an extensive counterpoint into the middle of my signed comment that I opened the AfD with, diff. I originally moved his counterpoint to what I felt was a proper, and prominent, position at the end of the current discussion, diff. Anynobody continues to edit war with me over placing the counterpoint in the midst of my comment, which, IMO, detracts from my continuity to the detriment of my comment, history. I am pretty sure that sure Anynobody's placement is inappropriate but I would appreciate some help and input on a proper resolution. I did ask Anynoboy to self-revert and discuss on talk, here, but he did not respond to that request. Thank you very much! --Justanother 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Stebbins commented thusly: This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). - With such a long comment from the nominating editor, it does seem appropriate to have a counter point directly below the nom's comments, or better yet have an Admin step in and drastically shorten the nom's commentary. Smee 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to ask a related question: Is there a maximum size for nomination text in an AfD? This issue may not have ever come up before but it seems to me that there may be concerns about a nominator starting an AfD with an entire screen's worth of text, in no less than four separate sections, and accusing of "rude and inappropriate action" anyone who tries to respond to one of those sections before the nominator has said everything he wants to say in all his sections. It seems to me that dominating an AfD in that manner may itself be the "rude and inappropriate action". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (To place this in perspective -- my word processor says that Justanother's nomination text is 1063 words. The article under discussion, including all references and all links to references, including all headers and their duplicate appearances in the table of contents, including all links, is only 1260 words. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to give a count. Total words in AfD as of this edit: 7441 word; My total opening statement (with some overhead) and including hidden sidebar: 1180 words; My opening statement without hidden sidebar: 707 words; Anynobody's interjection into my reasoning: 276 words. I do not think 707 word is excessive but I can lose the sidebar and cut it to 500 words if that is appropriate. Just seems a bit late in the game for that. The length of the article is irrelevant. Thanks. --Justanother 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to bed. If an admin thinks that my original request has basis and would please move the material to a more appropiate position in the AfD I would appreciate it. Thank you and good night. --Justanother 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the comment out of the middle of the nominating statement to follow the nominating statement. I also replaced a comment from Justanother that was deleted by Anynobody. I will leave a comment on Anynobody's talk page asking them to stop being disruptive. —Doug Bell  05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the future I'll add relevant comments above the voting section, but below the nomination. I apologize for my mistake, I thought it was more appropriate to list notable/not notable arguments together. As long as the notability points aren't buried I'm satisfied. Anynobody 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just for chuckles, we should keep in mind that, when writing an academic paper or business presentation, the rule is 250 words is a page. Therefore, the nomination was 20 pages. It's probably best, if you're going past a "page," to put your arguments on a page in your user space and then say, "See pagename for arguments." Otherwise, the long slog that is AfD becomes endless. Geogre 10:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point for the future, Geogre. I don't know if the comment I added falls into the nomination. Whether it does or not if Justanother follows your advice on this AfD, I'll do the same. I don't mean to sound contentious, but in a situation where one person adheres to the rule and the other doesn't I think it creates an unfair "advantage", especially in this case. Anynobody 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter complaint against Will3935

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Greetings all, I want to file a counter complaint with the administration here against user User:Will3935. I have been a Misplaced Pages contributor for years now and I have contributed quality content to many articles as my busy schedule permits. I have never met such a threatening and arrogant user as Will3935 until now. He has flaunted his "credentials" with his very first entry in order to override opposing POV and despite his non-admin status he has threatened me with "blocking" when I disagreed with him. When another user challenged his flaunting of credentials he became even more irate, suggesting that he is being "attacked" when one person simply asked to identify himself. He clearly has no authority to "block" users yet he is implying this to end-users and threatening them with those actions in order to get an upper-hand in pushing a certain POV. Whenever I pointed out his ad-hominem attacks and language he always reverts to his "diabetes" problem!

Only once he has made numerous and substantial changes to Brian McLaren did he seek to collaborate with other contributors. Once I disagreed again with his "shotgun" approach he became irate and brought in numerous personal attacks, of which I quote below, some of which are of extremely personal nature, such as my health.

• "Frankly, I'm a little concerned about your health" (what the hell do you know about my health?)
• "makes me suspect you are a young man" (wikipedia is age-discriminating now?)
• "It's either Virgil's way or he goes and complains to admins" (I have never complained until just now)
• "it just shows how poorly read Virgil is" (pure ad-hominem attack)
• "Your ignorance should not limit the scope of this article" (another ad-hominem attack)
• "act more mature and quit picking fights" (implying another user is not mature)
• "if you feel a tantrum coming on just try to act normal" (implying another user is not normal)

Frankly I only expect fairness from you folks so the entire history of his attacks and interaction is in Talk:Brian_McLaren. You can read for yourself how this user has inflamed the situation and how he is now manufacturing attacks against himself in order to promote whatever agenda he has.

I am using my real name here, unlike him I am not hiding behind an IP address or a wall of anonymity. I never broke any Misplaced Pages rules, and I am simply asking that someone would intervene and stop an out-of-control maniacal user who apparently thinks no rules apply to him because he claims to have "credentials" that exempt him from participating in the collaboration process. Thank you all for keeping Misplaced Pages running! --Virgil Vaduva 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think about why his report was ignored before you posted this. —physicq (c) 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I never filed reports before so I have no idea how this works. I just wanted to make things clear. Sorry...--Virgil Vaduva 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's all right. However, posting here is often a double-edged sword, with both the reporter and the person being reported being scrutinized. --physicq (c) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand. All I want is to write quality articles, make corrections and participate in the Wiki process. Never asked for anything else. Have a good night. --Virgil Vaduva 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'all (on the article) should be really nervous about a 3RR block. Regardless, the article is now protected; please work out your differences on talk. Thank you. -- Avi 06:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikistalking by annoynmous/anon IP 66.227.137.56

After I had a disagreement with annoynmous (who is also IP 66.227.137.56 as this diff clearly shows ) on Kurt Nimmo and another page, he/she has started wikistalking me. Over the last couple of days, the editor followed me to the following articles I have edited recently: Six-Day War and Islam in the United States (both articles the user had never edited before, where he appeared shortly after I had made an edit there), systematically reverting my edits on those pages: I have warned the editor about wikistalking, but he persists. Isarig 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous block on the user was just a week ago, so re-block should not be a problem. However, the warnings on his talk page does not seem to include the recent wikistalking, but only his questionable contribution to Kurt Nimmo. Maybe you should warn him about his recent wikistalking to see if he responds. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User removing image tags, after multiple warnings

User:Hatto continues to remove {{Replaceable fair use}} tag from images he uploaded ( , ) despite multiple warnings ( ). Recently, an anonymous ip removed the warnings from 3 of his uploads ( ), raising suspects of sockpuppetry. He also removed a {{no rationale}} tag once. --Abu badali 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After I left a message explaining this user why a I believe "Discography" section in an artist's biography shouldn't consist only of a gallery of unfree album covers, he replied in my talk page asking me to f* myself.

Could someone help me in communicating with this user? --Abu badali 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

24h. We generally have less tolerance for those who drop the F-bombs quickly; and add to that he was repeatedly warned for removing the template. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User have long history of disputed behavior. If he is willing to communicate, things should be fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This user keeps adding unsourced information to Brigitte Gabriel and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages in direct violation of WP:BLP. This user has been repeatedly warned about this but is not getting the message. (→Netscott) 04:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User contributed to Brigitte Gabriel only, I don't know what you mean by "elsewhere", or is it simply an emphasis? It seems that the user have stopped re-inserting dubious information ten minutes before you made this message, and have tried to express his opinions in the talk pages since. The user is seemingly willing to communicate, but did not know how. I think you are in too much of a hurry, and is biting a little. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this user was warned by not only myself but another editor and despite these warnings continued trying to re-add the info. I'll concede though that they did finally straighten out after I further explained that personally experienced information could not be added to the article. The other areas that this info was being added was on their talk page and the Brigitte Gabriel talk page. (→Netscott) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the warnings were issued within an hour, so expecting a newbie just started editing to understand it is a bit tough. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c - was going to tag as {{resolved}} myself) - It appears to be resolved at this point. I'll take the biting counsel more into consideration in the future. Thanks for the helping hand with that. (→Netscott) 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgil Vaduva

This is a seemingly blatant meatpuppet/sockpuppet case. I'm a bit loathe to wade in the middle, as I have been acting as a neutral party, but it appears to be a fairly obvious case. I am not taking a position as to whether this is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet case, as Misplaced Pages guildelines explicitly treat them equally.

Virgil Vaduva (talk · contribs) has been very active on Brian McLaren/Talk:Brian McLaren. Frank Thomas (talk · contribs) has very recently joined in the fray. I provided a third opinion at the posted request of Will3935 (talk · contribs). I have been intervening since as a fellow editor/informal mediator, trying to cool things down. I have repeatedly asked that they take a breath and focus on the article. Just explaining how I got involved, now to the crux of the matter.

Frank's contributions are very suspcious. Warning flag #1, checking his contributions, you can see his 5th-8th edits show an intimate understanding of Misplaced Pages that are unusual for a new user. Such an early familiarity with Misplaced Pages rules is one of the primary warning flags for meat/sock-puppetry. Virgil was editing the same article, during the same time period. After a final edit to Talk:Preterism on 00:51, 7 January 2007, User:Frank Thomas did not return until 11 March 2007 to make a minor edit before launching into the current edit war. You can see from Virgil's edit history and Frank's edit history (not going to exhaustively link all the recent edits made), when the most recent edits were made by Virgil Vaduva and Frank Thomas on Brian McLaren/Talk:Brian McLaren and the striking similarity in tone and POV.

My apologies for throwing my hat into the middle of the drama on this page between the users. This is not an endorsement or condemnation of the POV or edits made by User:Virgil Vaduva, User:Frank Thomas or User:Will3935. This is just what I have noticed about the strong appearance of sockpuppet/meatpuppet involvement in this dispute. The atmosphere at Brian McLaren is already downright poisonous and if meatpuppets/sockpuppets are involved, that's just far too much to tolerate. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. Vassyana 06:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

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