Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 20 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)

• 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?

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: . I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Request on WP:AIV and WP:RFC/NAME for User talk:I Want it that way

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Misplaced Pages and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 59.124.99.83 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User is referring to -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonawiki and sockpuppetry

The person who registered the Jonawiki (talk · contribs) account is causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies, where he is using his sockpuppet Magonaritus (talk · contribs) (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined here. This user needs to be blocked. --G2bambino 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at Monarchy in Canada to make a point. --G2bambino 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Misplaced Pages. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted inside Misplaced Pages concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 74.110.212.198 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Misplaced Pages procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neurofunk&diff=prev&oldid=71784370). I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.

Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.

(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".

(3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of different non-intersecting editing interests:

• Magonaritus edited O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
• Jonawiki has edited Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada

(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

• Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
• Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

• Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
• Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

On the other hand, G2bambino has displayed what seems to me to be disruptive behaviour, and proprietary interest in the UCC article, given his several hundred edits on the article.

(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking WP:NPOV:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV

(2) G2bambino has been accused of violating WP:CIV:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:James_Buchanan#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation

(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism and 3RR:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Kingston_Community_Classifieds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War

Re: Wikistalking

(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

(2) Per WP:ANI, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... ... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

This seems a possible case of wikistalking per WP:HAR#Wikistalking. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per WP:HAR that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment, his behavior fits wikistalking.

I am no longer interested in this matter. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You put {{protect}} on an article. You didn't actually protect it. You aren't and never were an admin. You must go through WP:RFA to become an admin. IrishGuy 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole thing very disturbing. WormwoodJagger, you say that User:Blunders contacted you, but they don't exist. Of course there is User:Blunder (created 24 October 2005) but they have no edits. You provide a link to where the RFCU was removed as declined but forget to show Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magonaritus where the reason is given. Interesting too that several of your links don't quite match what you are saying and how easily you found all these when you are not active for months. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'll note that WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs) stated originally that he was contacted within Misplaced Pages; he has since contradicted that claim by stating he was contacted by another user via telephone. It should also be pointed out that the user who contacted him, Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs), was previously party to the debates at Talk:Upper Canada College involving the accused sock puppeteer, myself, and WormwoodJagger.

Now, for Wormwood's investigation:

1) My request for a CheckUser was not declined, it was deemed unnecessary as I'd already done sufficient work.

2) Having your socks disagree with each other once in a while is a tactic for throwing people off the trail.

3) & 5) Magonaritus', Jonawikis' and 66.208.54.226's edit histories cross paths more often than they diverge. If I make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki, I also make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Magonaritus; ergo, Magonaritus and Jonawiki could well be the same person.

Disruptive behaviour:

1) WP:NPOV

• I was accused of NPOV by a user who was attempting to edit based on his own POV and not factual evidence. I was supported by other users, and the accusing editor eventually resigned.
• Accusation of NPOV by the same above-mentioned editor.

2) WP:CIV

• Confronted because I called a tag "silly"; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Supposedly offended user stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Accused of violating WP:AGF by same user who stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV

3) WP:3RR

• Automated bot reverted legitimate change; no accusation of WP:3RR
• I removed linkspam; no accusation of WP:3RR
• Legitimate warning of WP:3RR against myself in an edit war with Magonaritus.

Wikistalking:

1) Same warning already mentioned above, does not constitute Wikistalking.

2) Agreed - did not perform the courtesy of notifying Jonawiki or Magonaritus. It does not excuse this omission, however 1) I didn't read the introduction carefully enough to take note of this, 2) I didn't want either user to stop their editing pattern and begin again under new user names. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

3) Jonawiki and Magonaritus were indeed causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies; I intervened to aid those who wanted to maintain balance, order and NPOV. I am free to edit whatever articles I please. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

4) Agreed.

5) Agreed.

All together, this is a pretty poor collection of "evidence" - a look beyond the mere surface shows that 95% of it is groundless. The other 5% I have, or will, accept responsibility for. My motives are to see nothing but the end of disruption and strife caused by a particular user; it is not up to me to decide how that is done, hence I have notified administrators of the issue and leave it to them to deal with.

It should be drawn to the attention of those involved here that Roguegeek (talk · contribs) has filed a proper suspected sock puppet report. --G2bambino 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on my name -- it's a little ad homine(o?)m. As for 'conveninence': as I said, I was conducting an investiagtion. As for withink wiki -- within wiki community. Now leave me alone -- please! I made an honest mistake and am really feeling beat up on (sniff).... Have some faith! Good luck! WormwoodJagger 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You called G2bambino a wikistalker and attempted to intimidate him with authority you don't have. You probably shouldn't be complaining about aspersions as you have tossed the mud yourself. IrishGuy 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino IS a wikistalker (see above). I never attempted to intimidate ANYONE -- I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. Clear? WormwoodJagger 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. You specifically pretended to have authority you don't have and told him what he could or couldn't do. Saying things like "I have been called in; it is too late" is most assuredly attempting to intimidate. IrishGuy 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No IrishGuy . I WAS called in & I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. THIS IS HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL. And G2bambino HAS ADMITTED TO WIKISTALKING JONAWIKI TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST HIM. WormwoodJagger 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, you did not ask G2bambino to contact you on your talk page. You invented some non-existant protocol and procedure and then told him that was where he was to contact you and implying that he was not to post here any more. As to your remark about G2bambino wikistalking Jonawiki. Well to ID sockpuppets you have to look at the edits they are making. Frankly, I too think that your purpose was to try and intimidate G2bambino. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm finding this very upsetting -- I'm not sure why CambridgeBayWeather and IrishGuy are even piling on me, here. If you go through my edits, you can see I thought I was an admin, when clearly I'm not, and I thought I was following correct procedure by having G2bambino's questions about my legitimacy moved to my talk page (you're wrong to assert that I did anything but ask him to follow protocol and not plug up the Jonawicki sock puppet discussion with anything else). I was asked to look at him in terms of wikistalking and, as you yourself note, without knowing his intentions, nor without having completed my invesitagtion, it certainly seemed as though he was wikistalking. He's had you explain his position very clearly now, and I am no longer suspicious, though I must say you two seem to work as a team, in my experience, as this reminds me very much of Upper Canada College last March. Furthermore, I don't care what you think my purpose was, anymore. Please stop wikistalking my posts here, and let the people who *can* resolve the matter of sockpuppetry do so. I will not be logging into this account nor checking anything for the next ten days, becuase, frankly, I feel like I'm being wikistalked and harassed when all I want to do is explain myself. I may even start a new account and close this one. Good day sir! I said good day! (imagine a Fez accent :). WormwoodJagger 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making silly accusations. This is an ongoing thread. If CambridgeBayWeather and I (or anyone else, for that matter) chose to reply to comments, that isn't "wikistalking". While you claim that you were asking him to follow protocol...it was a protocol completely made up by you. I'm also not sure how you could assume you were an admin. Who confered these admin powers on you? IrishGuy 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think you are going to get much of an answer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Korea history

Moved over from WP:CN:

When Korea history (talk · contribs) first showed up here, my immediate thought was that the name was inflammatory and perhaps showed a desire to edit war, but I decided to see how things would develop. Well, his/her edit history can show now, I think, that he/she edit wars, rarely discusses his/her edits, rarely puts in descriptive edit summaries (and when he/she does, does so in an inflammatory manner), and shows general disrespect to all who disagree with him/her. RfC was tried (and, while my summary was endorsed by two others, including another admin (Mel Etitis (talk · contribs)), was removed due to the lack of a second certification. I believe, however, that the user's behavior (which has only gotten worse since the RfC) warrants a community ban. A point of disclosure (in case it isn't clear already) is that I have had editorial disagreements with him/her, but I believe that I tried to deal with him/her in a reasonable manner, and that attempt to deal reasonably was not reciprocated. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to the RFC, (even if deleted, admins can look at it)? Diffs of other form of dispute resolution? Diffs of behavior? GRBerry 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No user blocks in the account's history. Suggest alternative forms of dispute resolution: Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, or maybe a polite referral to mentorship. Please review the model for dealing with disruptive editors at WP:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors. The ban proposal looks premature. Durova 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RfC is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Korea history. --Nlu (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user did not join a RfM with regard to Goguryeo, and rarely responds to anything that others write on his talk page -- including a couple Korean editors who have tried to communicate with him in Korean as to his behavior. (Since I don't know Korean, that is what I surmised from the garbled Mac OS X translation widget's rendition.) Most of the steps on WP:DE have been tried (other than blocking, which in this case, I feel, would require as much consensus on doing it as banning), with no effect on the user's behavior. If anything, behavior's getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple examples of the post-(failed) RfC behavior:

1. .

--Nlu (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why hasn't this resulted in even one user block? Consensus about community bans is that things don't leapfrog from let's sit down and talk to you're outta here. They get a 12 hour block, a 48 hour block, a one week block, and we hope they get the message and adjust to site standards without needing to get booted from the project. If you did convince other editors at this page to community ban at this juncture I doubt the remedy would withstand an appeal, which means arbitration and all its attendant headaches. What exactly is the reason no blocks have been implemented? Durova 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Because for me to block him/her would be a conflict of interest, and despite my calls for help on the subject, no other administrator has responded. That's what it comes down to. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You always take the side opposite mine. You shouldn´t force your ideas on other people. Only because of a different opinion, openly assail the wrong idea. Korea history (Korea history) 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, please post links to the threads you started at WP:AN or WP:ANI to request impartial review and action. Durova 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and I must say I misremembered; what I wrote wasn't Korea history-specific; it was a general request for intervention in Goguryeo and related articles due to edit warring; it wasn't a specific conduct issue with regard to Korea history, nor was his/her name specifically mentioned. Thought here: should I move this thread to WP:ANI in light of that? In any case, Korea history, the issue isn't my POV or your POV; it's that you can't seem to comply with policy. When you are removing citations to reliable sources and replacing them with non-citations to non-reliable sources, restoring grammatically incorrect versions, removing wikification, &c., it's getting to the territory of vandalism, and the behavior is thoroughly unacceptable. Further, you are not discussing your edits; you don't respond to people's comments; and your behavior is getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea to go to WP:ANI. Ideally we want to turn this sort of person into a productive editor. If short blocks achieve that goal, so much the better. Come back here if the problems continue. Durova 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect Nlu, We can't endorse community ban on the basis of one or two wikipedians. I suggest to put a neutral massage on related wikiprojects and invite others with both positive and negative attitude about him/her to participate in this discussion. For example you can write "There's a debate to ban Korea history (talk · contribs) in Community noticeboard. Because of his/her participations in Korea-related articles I invite all of the wikipedians who know him/her to write their idea about this issue in here." Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do that. Meanwhile, I'm moving this thread over to WP:ANI. (Will leave this thread up for about a couple more hours before removing it, but going to copy and paste over now.) --Nlu (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear what I'm asking now: in light of the discussion on WP:CN, I am asking other admins to review the situation and give Korea history an appropriate block in light of his/her behavior. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And right now, I'm asking for an immediate block. He/she is currently continuing to assert, even though both Korean and Chinese sources agree otherwise, that Battle of Salsu involved over 300,000 deaths, and is inserting that unsupported POV into multiple articles. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I am getting no response, and since then, we have behaviors such as this, I have given him/her a {{test4}}. If this is a conflict of interest, so be it. --Nlu (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user's behavior is not just directed at me, at least. See , . He/she also apparently sees every attempt at curbing his/her behavior as harassment. --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu asked WP:KO members to partake in the discussion about user Korea history. First of all, I am shocked by the very existence of "community ban". The recent trend of establishment of arrogant and bureaucratic policies in Misplaced Pages is reflected here. Anyways, I'm confident that Korea history is acting in his unique, Korean ways - his behaviors are not a purposeful or rebellious. I'd like to ask admin Nlu to reconsider.

• Kritik of Nlu's examples of failure to comply.

• 1: That Nlu listed this as a example of failure to comply really angers me. Allow me to explain the logic (from the perspective of Misplaced Pages procedurals) behind my opinion individually, I would have done the same thing here. This looks more like CPOV of administrator Nlu.
• 2: I'm not quite sure on what Korea history did wrong here.
• 3: This dispute should be seen plainly from the perspective of Misplaced Pages procedurals. Conflicting viewpoints.
• 4: The CPOV-KPOV wars on China-Korea related articles should be attributed to this edit. From Korea history's viewpoint, "the people north of Anju" are described in his sources under Korean pronunciation. The question of whether or not to use Chinese or Korean to name disputed titles, etc. spill over to here.
• 5: There is no dispute here. The 2 editors are working under good faith on the article "Battle of Noryang", the last naval battle of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Both of them celebrate the triumph of the Chinese-Korean alliance over the Japanese fleet.

• Conclusion

• Nlu is overusing his powers granted as an administrator. To ban a user on these grounds is ridiculous.
• Nlu, as an administrator, changed the way he views disputes and discussions. Anybody who challenges his edits are rebellious, or harassing,. Not a matter of difference in opinion, personal character, or usages of different sources.
• The CPOV-KPOV disputes spill over to here. Using his/her administrative powers, Nlu should stabilize the disputes & satisfy both parts in order to prevent these "harassing" acts by not only Korea history, but also other KPOV AND CPOV editors as well.
• The CPOV editors are just as bad. The salon.com's article on "history wars" used talk:Goguryeo as an example & specified an instance in which CPOV editors cussed at Korean editors.
• Korea history is acting Korean. That is, not all Koreans act this way, but there is this type of personality which is extremely aggressive against any attack on his/her country (=patriotic?), easily angered & easily inspired (in other words, emotionally unstable), & if you're friend w/ him/her, s/he's the best friend you'd ever have.

All the best. (Wikimachine 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

The issue here isn't Korea history's views. (I've had fairly spirited disagreements with people with views that are similar to Korea history's, as Wikimachine himself/herself knows.) The issue is that Korea history stepped over the line; look at the contribution history, and I don't think anyone, anyone can justify his/her behavior. It's Korea history's actions, not views, that is the problem. As the links I've cited shown, Korea history wasn't just reverting; he/she was reverting without discussion, restoring edits with worse grammar and style and less proper citations, and escalating in his/her behavior. Further, he/she was reverting everyone that he/she disagrees with -- not just me, and not just people with "CPOV." (I believe that is oxymoronic; there shouldn't be such a thing as "CPOV" or "KPOV"; Misplaced Pages is about "NPOV.") In the case of Battle of Salsu, for example, he/she was restoring edits without citations, and when pointed out at the sources don't support his interpretation, simply ignored the sources. He/she was even reverting people with "KPOV" just because he disagreed with them as well as to wording and as to factual characterizations. The behavior is not acceptable. Frankly, it was getting tiring to, in good faith, write lengthy explanations for my edits to have him revert without any explanation. Agree or disagree with my edits, at least come up with some reasons supported by citations, and further, don't wipe out my grammatical corrections as well. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If Korea history reverts my edits, I won't protest them because I know that they were all done under good faith. And I'm sure that all other editors at WikiProject Korea don't mind him either. It's for them to decide, not a single individual administrator, Nlu. If he causes too much ruckus, let us petition for his expulsion. At the same time, I'll try to talk to him on this issue. (Wikimachine 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

It should further be noted that his pronouncement, in Korean, on his user page (User:Korea history), while I don't know Korean and obviously the Mac OS translation widget renders fairly broken translations, apparently provocatively accuses Chinese people of stealing his legacy. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a result of Chinese provocation on articles such as Goguryeo long before (provocation, as in terms of a challenge against the status quo) (Wikimachine 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Do we have a policy for this?

Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there. Giano 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now. Giano 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the comment in question is violative of Misplaced Pages policy, and so should be allowed to remain (perhaps marked with a {{unsigned}} tag). --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. _InBC 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The particular article may be very good (for sure!). All Giano-heavily-worked-over articles may be very good (right?). Other individual articles may be very good (of course). But it's still much too early in the day for teachers to treat Misplaced Pages as a reliable reference work, as opposed to a useful research aid/starting point. The quality is much too variable for that. Metamagician3000 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Misplaced Pages is extremely unreliable" It is the "extremely" I object to, even in light of recent events, I do not think the project is that unreliable. Giano 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just another case of people whose imaginations and understandings extend from A to B, I'd say. No, Misplaced Pages is not extremely unreliable. In fact, it's extremely reliable. It is not totally reliable, of course. As the Science editorial review showed, Misplaced Pages can be the best source of information available to a student. Professors who allow no citations to Misplaced Pages are morons or think their students are. Those who allow Misplaced Pages to serve as proof of anything are as bad. Misplaced Pages is an invitation to research more, but it is research. It can never be the last word, but not allowing it at all is foolish. The "extremely unreliable" edit is vandalism, Giano. It should be treated as vandalism. It would be no more to the point than someone going in to the Pol Pot article and inserting, "a very evil man." He may have been a very evil man, but we're NPOV, even about ourselves, in article space. Geogre 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are just plain wrong - there is no other way to describe it. In no way, shape or form is that comment Vandalism. --Fredrick day 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment on a talk opining that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, seeing as vandalism is defined, narrowly, as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." Personally I wouldn't cite WP any more than any other encyclopedia, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not vandalism in the traditional sense, but it is certainly undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the whole project is "extremely unreliable" because it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - what are we all doing here? - What is the point? Why bother with text at all - why not just print a catalogue of suitable published references under each title and leave it at that. Of course there will always be mistakes - that is a risk everywhere in anything - but if we think and believe the project is extremely unreliable - then that is very concerning indeed. Giano 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's adding it that looks like vandalism. There are already pages that say that Misplaced Pages is not 100% reliable. We already put that in footers. To then go in and add "extremely unreliable" looks like an opinion being inserted, not a modification of a policy page. I'd read that as an insult to my article, if I were writing it, myself, and a bit of spray paint that I'd have to scrape off the walls. Imagine you were writing something on Goobers, and someone comes along and adds, "Really, really, really, really speculative" to a statement that said, "The origin of the word is speculative." Maybe it's a clueless edit, but I can see it being highly unwelcome and insulting (hence vandalizing). Utgard Loki 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A clearly well intentioned comment is not vandalism, even if it hurts your pride. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism says almost exactly that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A slightly thicker skin, or stiffer upper lip, is advised. --AnonEMouse 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think AnonEMouse - you are rather missing the point. It is not question of putting up and shutting up - it is a question of - is there any point at all writing a page, if the second it is finished complete with references etc, someone can come along and say on the talk page this is "extremely unreliable" - if it happened anywhere lese the editor would be asked what specifically is unreliable? If we the people writing this are happy to be branded "extremely unreliable" then there is little hope for the project. Giano 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I looked for "Giano is extremely unreliable" in that edit, and couldn't find it. I merely found "Misplaced Pages is extremely unreliable". Taking a look at the number of articles which have been edited to consist of the equivalent of "Eric is gay" in any given 24 hours, I'd have to say that's pretty much correct. Despite that, most of us still, somehow, find the will to live, and soldier on. Sigh. It is a hard and lonely road we walk, we few, no more than a million or so of us, Misplaced Pages editors. So defamed. So troubled. So misunderstood. On that last point, being misunderstood, I didn't mean to write anything about shutting up (and, in fact, can't see where I did - but heck, that's two things I can't see. I must need a new prescription. Do you know a good optometrist for mice?). If you wish to rebut on the talk page, and mention the Science study, or a dozen other good things about Misplaced Pages, go right ahead, and you'll find lots of supporters. That's why they call it an Article Talk page. Just don't call people who disagree with you in good faith vandals. At most, visigoths, please.--AnonEMouse 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh well, you're probably quite right. Misplaced Pages is for the most part completely unreliable. Giano 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say it's a work in progress. I'm going to go and check our article on the Visigoths, now. They were a very interesting Germanic tribe. Metamagician3000 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is pretty reliable because of people going around trying to make sure that it doesn't tell the world that Eric is gay. Therefore, having that insertion is an insult to the vandal hunters, the deletion hunters, the information adders, the editors, and the writers. An Alan is not going to welcome a Vandal saying that he's a barbarian. Utgard Loki 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of user MiddleEastern

MiddleEastern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indef blocked. The block was reviewed first by User:Sandstein who supported the block, and I have reviewed the block twice as per his request, and believe that the block is warranted as well. Given the user persistence to the contrary, I would appreciate it other admins can take a look. See: User_talk:MiddleEastern#Block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first that I have heard of this case and I have no involvement whatsoever in it--- nevertheless i would like to point out that over some time now I have observed that the actual practice of administrator Jayg belies his pretences of impartiality; he habitually uses wikipedia regulations and administrative privileges selectively to advance his particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.145.134 (talk • contribs)

...says the guy with no edit history other than this comment... IrishGuy 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hm... MiddleEastern was originally blocked by Jayig as a sock of banned vandal Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I think this is somewhat implausible: Frogsprog usually vandalises Korea-related content while MiddleEastern is focused on Israel/Palestine issues, and apparently speaks Arabic. Jayig (who has not yet commented on the issue) indicated that a checkuser has confirmed IP address identity, but we can't find records of a checkuser request. MiddleEastern meanwhile claims to have used some sort of IP obfuscation, which according to Jossi justifies a block per WP:NOP. Apart from all this, MiddleEastern has exhibited some unpleasant habits sometimes associated with single issue editors, e.g., blaming his troubles on cabals of "Jewish admins"...

Does all this justify an immediate indef block? I'm not quite sure. But my experience says it's rather likely that an user with this kind of attitude will not be a net benefit to the project. Sandstein 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He apologized though, says he "would like to offer an "olive branch" to User:Jayjg" and wants a "new start" etc.--Domitius 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting for Jayig's response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MiddleEastern appears to be a single issue editor. (S)he may or may not have a point on that issue. MiddleEastern should realize that There Is No Cabal, but should note that people with particular interests do tend to congregate. In this case I would think it might be on a per-language basis. We have a lack of arwiki<->enwiki translators doing adequate cross checking and sources checking. I would not surprised if both wikis were biased, POV, and out of sync on the topics at issue. If so, this particular case would just be a symptom, not a cause.

Do folks have ideas on where to dig up more arabic translators? (I'll go ask around myself too). --Kim Bruning 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not find MiddleEastern's claim of buying "IP masking" software on ebay credible. I did a search on ebay for a product with the name of "MaskMaster" and was unable to find anything in the current or completed listings. A google search also turns up nothing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no idea if MiddleEasterns claims are credible yet, but I did manage to start recruiting ar translators. That's something. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, why don't you just unblock the poor guy. He seems like he sincerely wants to edit wikipedia. He is obviously not a troll and not here to cause problems. I think this might be politically motivated and that is a shame. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had investigated MiddelEastern's case sufficiently to come to such an informed decision, you would have known "he" appears to be a "she". Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I said on his talkpage, the main problem I see is that the admin who blocked him was in a content dispute with him.--Domitius 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Was he? I cannot find evidence of that. Did the user provide any diffs to support that argument? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we hear Jayjg's justification prior to unblocking this editor. Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MiddleEastern was an incredibly rude and disruptive editor, so I have no problem with the block; the comment "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" sums up the problem. As for Sandstein's query about why there's no RfCU, first, there's no requirement to post a public RfCU, and secondly, Jayjg has check user rights, so he doesn't have to ask himself. :-) SlimVirgin 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: In your opinion (SlimVirgin), one off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL (for which MiddleEastern has apologized) is sufficient evidence in permanently banning a user? And further, you think that because Jayjg (or any other admin has check-user privileges that he is not required to post a public check-user notice? I just want to be sure I understand what your argument is here. Tiamut 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How could the remark only be "potentially anti-Semitic," Tiamut? Can you describe a circumstance in which it might not be? SlimVirgin 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could have been a mere description, and would therefore be simply a violation of WP:NPA. For example, someone here could write "Tiamut only cares about this issue because she's a Palestinian editor." Would that be anti-Palestinian? (or anti-Semitic? seeing as Palestinians are Semites) It could be, if "Palestinian" were being used in a perjorative sense. But it's not obvious that it is, now is it? As I wrote above, it's an "off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL." Tiamut 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You reveal yourself. SlimVirgin 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reveal what exactly, SlimVirgin? What shady thing is it that you are trying to imply about my character this time around? Tiamut 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know anything about my editing, you'll know that I rarely "try to imply" things. I'm saying quite clearly that I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you regard the remark "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" as possibly nothing but "a mere description." SlimVirgin 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said again. My use of the word "description" refers to solely to the possibility that "Jew" in this context might be merely a descriptive adjective and therefore not necessarily anti-Semitic, though certainly offensive for its implications that Jayjg cannot overcome bias as a Jewish editor and therefore: "an off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL". I think that's pretty accurate assessment, don't you? Lovely speaking to you and still waiting fo my apology, as noted clearly on my talk page and yours many, many times now. You can add this one to the list. Thanks again. `Tiamut 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That it itself may not. But add the use of proxies to edit WP; add the dubious explanations about his reasons for using a proxy, and you may have grounds for a block. We could change the block for a month or two, if she agrees not use proxies, and agrees to probation on WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just go and check this user's short edit history. See the edit summaries, see her questioning of editors about their Jewishness (see ), etc. OK, so we do not need to bite the newbies and second chances should be extended in most cases. But her behavior so far does not bode well at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The user looks like a sock to me: he started making fancy templates a little bit too soon for a newcomer. Even if the story about mysterious proxy is true, should it be allowed? (see Misplaced Pages:No open proxies) The fact that it is a single issue extremist POV pusher doesn't help his case. I support the block. (Disclaimer: I've conflicted with the user and removed some of his uncivil comments.) ←Humus sapiens 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there are at least two distinct, though related issues here. Firstly, is MiddleEastern really a sockpuppet of Frogsprog - because that was what s/he was blocked for. If not, then how and why was s/he blocked for that reason? Secondly, if s/he isn't a sock should s/he be indef blocked per WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues? Personlly I think that is extreme. However, even if the consensus on the second issue is to block, I would still like to get to the bottom of the first issue, otherwise we are open to allegations of using WP:SOCK as a difficult to challenge justification for blocking "nuisance" editors. Rockpocket 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Jay saw the evidence that ME is a sock of Frogspog so your second question may be moot, but frankly, in this case, I think an indef block for WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues isn't extreme at all. There are too many "nuisance" editors as it is, and MiddleEastern and/or Frogspog, like anyone else, could have come back without being disruptive. Had this happened, there would have been no reason to examine this editor, and he/she would not have been blocked again. <<-armon->> 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that, in my experience, users who come here and rant about Jews, Muslims, gays, or , don't mend their ways. Support indef. IronDuke 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ME's and Frogspog's "voices" are very similar. Both went in for lots of ranting (ME anti-Jew/Israel and FS anti-American), lots of caps and shouting, both appeared to live or have lived in the UK, neither were native English speakers, both made the same kinds of errors. Add the apparent technical evidence to that. But even without the sockpuppetry, the block would be warranted. SlimVirgin 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Jewish editor, I'm offended and support the block, per IronDuke and SlimVirgin. No comment on the sockpuppet thing, the vitriol is the reason that I support the block. ⇒ SWATJester 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support indef block per Iron Duke above.Proabivouac 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs like this and this and ignoring consensus (reminiscent of other banned users) such as here imply both a divisive editor as well as one who may have been around the block before. I did not know about WP:ANI in my first week. -- Avi 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that diff, but that makes me support an indef block also, Frogsprog or not. We can still wait for Jayig to comment, though, before closing that case. Sandstein 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sandstein. Rockpocket 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MiddleEastern was using the same IP as a very small number of other disruptive editors, one of which was positively identified as the permanently banned editor User:Frogsprog. MiddleEastern was clearly an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, though she claimed otherwise, and her edits were remarkably similar in tone and style to Frogsprog's, though in a different topic area. Her explanations for using the IP in question were unbelievable; that she was using a non-existent program ("MaskMaster") purchased somewhere which had never sold that product (eBay) which did something technically impossible (pretend your IP is from another country) for a reason which was totally bogus (to get to sites that are "banned in Israel", something Israel doesn't do). And if there is any truth at all to her claims, then she is still editing from a proxy, which is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. On top of that, reviewing her contributions in hindsight, they seem solely for the purpose of political advocacy, remarkably aggressive and hostile, and far too obsessed with "jews" and "Zionists". Finally, MiddleEastern has already made it clear she would honor no block, regardless of the decision made here. I am baffled as to why we are wasting so much time on this. As for the claims by MiddleEastern that I have a "vendetta" against her, and by Domitius that I was "in a content dispute" with MiddleEastern, as far as I know I had never interacted with MiddleEastern before the block, either on a Talk: page or in an article. I would encourage Domitius in particular to provide evidence of any content dispute, or apologize. Jayjg 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that those following the discussion read User:MiddleEasterns latest comments on her(or his?) talk page in response to some of the issues and questions raised above. Tiamut 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing new there, Tiamut. My understanding is that the block stands, and that this case is closed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. How does being an editor on wikitravel affect detailed knowledge of things unique to enwiki such as WP:ANI itself, that a n00b user would know about in his or her first week?
2. Using a zombie is forbidden in all wiki projects per Meta:No open proxies.
3. ZIONIST! We'll show you yet, zionist opressors, if you are pro-Israel you are PRO MURDER! Speaks for itself.
4. How is it possible for an Israeli to claim to be neutral? Speaks for itself.
5. User's 12th edit
6. User's 13th edit
7. User being disingenuos, at best
8. Especially when user soon thereafter posts manifesto.
9. “And I won't let you defend Israel in any way possible…”
10. Removing cited and verified information because it portrays Israel favorably (you don't see Isareli's doing that to Saudi Arabia, do you? )
11. Forget about an RfA after two weeks, she is canvassing as well.

There are other examples, but I would rather not bring the entire edi history. Judge for yourself, tiamut, if this user is someone who has demonstrated the ability to edit consistently within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. -- Avi 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that she has to date on her account at English Misplaced Pages. That's quite obvious. But I fully agree with Rockpocket that the issue that prompted the Check-User was a sockpuppet accusation and that that is what needs to be investigated here. While there are certainly violations of WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, all of us have trangressed these at one point or another. New users, particularly those who from places or backgrounds underrepresented amongst our editors here at English Misplaced Pages, may have a more difficult time than most when they first begin, for many complex reasons probably better discussed in a forum addressing issues of systematic bias, conflict resolution, cultural sensitivity, etc. My comments here are not designed to excuse User:MiddleEastern's editing work so far, nor her inappropriate or disruptive comments. I do want to point that she/he has expressed a willingness on her talk page to avoid editing at Israel-related pages without engaging in the talk and to turn over a new leaf in her bahviour. She even extended User:Jayjg an "olive branch" (almost poetic considering Arafat's famous quote about not letting it fall from his hand at the UN - but I digress). My point is only that perhaps we could try to be a little more empathetic, while still considering what is best for all members of the community. We could shut User:MiddleEastern out now, or we could give him/her a chance and see what happens. The most we have to lose is having to put up with a few more days of inappropriate and disruptive behaviour before she would be blocked again. Whereas blocking her now means that we risk turning a potentially good editor who might not even be a sock-puppet into a sworn enemey of English Misplaced Pages. Tiamut 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "olive branch" is about. Is MiddleEastern apologizing for the various false accusations she has made about me? It doesn't really matter; this is not a personal issue between MiddleEastern and me, so "olive branches" are irrelevant. She is either a sockpuppet of a banned user, or, if you believe her farfetched story, editing via proxies, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. Jayjg 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, the sockpuppet allegation has been investigated. Just because not concluded to your satisfaction doesn't mean no investigation has taken place. SlimVirgin 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Could any admin who has not previously done so please review MiddleEastern's unblock request and close this debate? I think we have sufficient consensus at this point on how to proceed. Sandstein 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it; I would advise you all to read my unblock decline comment. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

84.13.41.18

Well, I'm not sure what to think. Have a look at the edits in Special:Contributions/84.13.41.18; I was originally suspicious because of this edit, which changed some possibly important information. I am not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not. Yuser31415 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP just deleted this section of AN/I, as seen in his contribs (I forgot to CnP the diff.) ThuranX 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The same editor also blanked several sections of my Talk page today around the same time, which makes me rather suspicious. I warned the IP on its Talk page.--chris.lawson 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that edit linking to the Stansted disambiguation page rather than London Stansted Airport, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's a totally good faith edit and not vandalism. Original version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's six international airports, along with Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stansted and Luton

The IP's version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's 5 international airports, along with London City Airport.

The IP's version removes the redundant duplication, and also changes the incorrect figure of 6 as the maths is completely wrong. The article said London Luton plus 5 other airports make 6, but London Luton was included in the other 5. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're "not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not", some might say issuing a blatant vandal warning is incredibly poor judgement, especially as his edits weren't vandalism. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the IP's blanking of this AN/I, instead of a reply here, IS worth discussing, since it should be up to others to say 'nothign ot see here' instead of him removing it; if any accused could remove, that could lead to chaos here. ThuranX 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, ThuranX, I would say that since that IP just started editing here the day before yesterday, s/he probably isn't acquainted with our policies. Yuser, on the other hand, is an established user and should know better than to call another editor a blatant vandal. Considering this IP is so new, I think s/he is to be commended for such a calm response to such aggressive messages. Jeffpw 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agf, but still, an IP that can find and delete from AN/I suggests to me that it might also be a more experienced editor with a semi-static IP. but if nothign else shows up behavioraly, then I guess it's jsut a new editor learning. Could go either way. ThuranX 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PelicansPatkin (ref User:Netspine above and User:MelicanMatkins)

New sock/alias of User:Netspine. History behind all this is:

03:10, 16 March 2007 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) blocked "MelicanMatkins (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Account impostering User:MelicansMatkin.)

So today there's been User:Netspine (now blocked) and now User:PelicansPatkin (which I admit I haven't even looked at in depth) It's rather obviously a sockpuppet, or am I confused? Shenme 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PelicansPatkin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm. Why do I disagree? IrishGuy 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked PelicansPatkin (talk · contribs) as an obvious vandal and troll. --Yamla 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• note: aka Netspine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 74.109.244.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just for reference :-) Shenme 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that MelicinMatkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of this club and block. If nothing else, it's a username problem. Natalie 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also found and blocked PelicanPatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Natalie 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the IP's been given a longer block; hopefully that slows things down for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter

copied from Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Bturvey (talk · contribs) & 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been battling over this article, with 3RR violations and threatening comments from both to each other. The content dispute centers around allegations of perjury and falsification of credentials, that I haven't had time to go over. I'm signing off for the night, so hopefully others can step in. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All; 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section of that article. Clearly, this person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudulent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public -as the courts have already determined.

See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.

The acrobat file regarding the recent court decision was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it.

My question is how does it work when you have an anonymous editor who continually posts clearly false information - what is the recourse for the serious professional with verified court documents to post? Can anyone just keep ripping them down and posting fraudulent data. Misplaced Pages is routinely referenced (wrongly in my view) as a source for locating court experts and investigating facts related to an issue. In fact many look no further.

Please feel free to contact me directly.

Brent E. Turvey, MS

Forensic Scientist <email redacted>

Bturvey 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is starting to accelerate out of control. Add Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) to the list of involved users. I'll be making a request for page protection and there are some possible 3RR blocks to consider. Please see my talk page for some of the various statements by involved parties... -- Scientizzle 17:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was beat to the punch on the rfpp...the page has been fully protected. -- Scientizzle 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More Serafin sockpuppets

He has unleashed yet more sockpuppets, this time another IP address and user:Wiatr. It is pretty obvious Wiatr is him, as he makes a personal attack upon me here yet I have never dealt with Wiatr before, and it is clearly in the same style as Serafin's technique.

• user:Wiatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 155.54.204.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Jadger 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Wiatr's been blocked indef; the IP doesn't directly match what I've seen of Serafin (which could mean it's not Serafin, or it could just mean I haven't seen everything there is to see, which I haven't). FWIW, the IP is part of a /16 range registered to the University of Murcia. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon Telia user deliberately inserting false data in Misplaced Pages articles (III)

Earlier discussed here (one-week block) and here (two-day block).

What I believe to be a single user

• 159.190.251.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.20.114.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.20.115.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.181.178.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.181.178.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

has been making hundreds of disruptive edits to articles about female celebrities from a dynamic-address Telia account. Because the edits change just a few characters, he often goes for hours or days before someone goes through and cleans it up, and they often just give a caution. Potentially severe WP:BLP problems. The short-term blocks haven't discouraged the person. -- TedFrank 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow that is annoying. Try reporting 159 to AIV and point to the thread and WHOIS data that it's clearly the same person. Part Deux 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV will block for 48 hours. But that only works if people notice there's a problem and report to AIV, and that seems to take several hours, by which time a lot of damage has been done. (So far, I seem to be the only editor noticing this problem; AGF seems to be making people think that the repeated insertion of incorrect nationalities and Victoria's Secret models is just an honest mistake.) I'm curious if there's a long-term solution. -- TedFrank 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User 207.68.114.48

contribs

This appears to be a vandal only account, which I had trouble with regarding Kane, Pennsylvania awhile back. I think an indef block is in order. IvoShandor 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an account, it's an IP address, and we're very reluctant to block IPs indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful nevermind. No one ever wants to do anything.IvoShandor 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a nevermind, it's just the way things are. IPs are rarely permanently assigned, which is why they aren't permablocked. Long blocks maybe. Natalie 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am saying nevermind. Perhaps an explanation along the lines of what now appears on the talk page of the IP in question would have helped more than a one line sentence explaining reluctance. It just looked like no one cared. IvoShandor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Linz sisters

An admin placed a protect tag on a new article I was in the process of writing (Linz sisters), and he is inexplicably refusing to remove the block even after I discussed the problem with him. I need the block lifted so I can finish the article. -- Big Brother 1984 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But the article that you added was a straightforward copyright violation (every phrase or sentence that I checked was copied; there might be some linking material that wasn't, but that's simply not enough). If you want to write an article on this topic, then do so off-line (making sure that none of it is plagiarised from anywhere), and then ask an admin to remove the protection. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake here was saving the article before I was finished with it. My first save was a quick summary of the subject that I found on another site. I then expanded and reworded the article -- but before I could save it the article had already been deleted. I then saved what I have finished at that point as the new article, and then that article was deleted (and the page protected), even though there was very little remaining of the original article. I then explained to the admin that it was a work in process, and that there would be no copyright infringement whatsoever when I was done, but I was ignored. I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright. This whole problem started because I save my unfinished page too soon, but there was no reason for the admin to over-react in the manner that he has (especially after I explained my intentions to him). There is no reason to protect a page that clearly doesn't need protecting. This is starting to get ridiculous. -- Big Brother 1984 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted twice for the same reasons (copyright violations) by yourself. Following the second deletion, it was WP:SALTED to make sure there wasn't a third recreation. There's no case to answer here. -- Nick 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There really wasn't a copyright violation the second time it was deleted. The admin simply saw that it had been deleted before, and then deleted it again even though my second article was completely different from the first. I NOW HAVE A 3RD COMEPLETELY ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE RIGHT NOW AND ALL I WASNT TO DO IS SAVE THE FRIGGIN' THING. I apologize for shouting, but I am starting to get frustrated by everybody's reluctance to remove a block that never should have been added in the first place. I’m getting tired of being treated like a vandal. This admin protected the page before discussing the issue with me, and there is no reason for everybody here to uphold the block. I am a long-time editor, and I fully understand what needs to be done to correct the article in order to satisfy the admin's complaints. There is no reason to protect this page from me. None whatsoever. -- Big Brother 1984 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The second (i.e. last) version of the deleted article was a very clear copyright violation of ], with only some words changed, bt with the order and complete sentences copied verbatim. Both deletions of this article were correct. E.g. your article: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them, despite filing nine claims with the court for access. " The Times: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times." Fram 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, both the first and second version was a work in progress. The admin should have sent me a message instead of deleting and protecting the article. The finished article would not have had any verbatim sentences either, but I never got a chance to finish it because this admin over-reacted. And in any case, an occasional copied sentence does not make for a severe copyright violation. .But I'm telling you, the new article that I have here does not have any verbatim sentences. The proper course of action would have been to delete or reword the offending sentences, not the entire article. I can't believe that nobody will remove the protection. This is absurd. I have a new article to post and it is really starting to piss me off that I can't post it. This is such a minor issue, and I don't see why it is being blown so far out of proportion. Just unprotect the article and see what happens. I promise, I won't bite. ^>^ -- Big Brother 1984 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no position to do anything about it. Maybe try Misplaced Pages:Deletion review? --Onorem 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up. I posted what I have written on Talk:Linz_sisters. This story was international news, and should have an article. But as long as this silly protecting stays in place nobody is allowed to create the page. The protection is completely unwarranted, but I'm getting tired of trying to get somebody to correct this admin's error. I really don't care about the subject enough to go through all this trouble. -- Big Brother 1984 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested an approach that would enable you to write an article; if you don't want to take my advice that's your choice of course — but please don't pretend that it's wicked admins who are preventing you from adding an article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what this user is doing, or has says he is doing, or did I miss something.

He said: "I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright." And then came here, where admins hang out and requested it be unprotected. Am I just confused or did I miss something entirely. IvoShandor 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to hear a voice of reason. Now can somebody please unprotect this page? -- Big Brother 1984 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From my initial read this situation escalated because you re-added copyvio material. Now were some new pages monitors/admins overzealous, sure, but you initiated the copyvio; they were simply doing clean up work. The entire situation could have been avoided if someone, anyone, simply stubified the article with original writing. An article will come of this eventually. I would unprotect the article myself, but I'll recuse myself for a day. There is a case to answer here, a notable article was deleted for a good reason. (no deletion review necessary) That ideally shouldn't happen; instead it should be replaced with content; an original stub isn't hard to do folks. - RoyBoy 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted Big Brother was treated (warned) as if he was a new anon. I find that inappropriate and definitely not assuming good faith. So keep this in mind when assessing the situation. - RoyBoy 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block?

I noticed that 69.132.199.100 has been blocked for 24 hours, per WP:3RR. My question, shouldn't a longer block be warranted, given this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:69.132.199.100&diff=prev&oldid=116203066

Seems like a veiled death threat to me. Course, I'm not the most impartial person to bring this up. Thanks.

Ispy1981 13:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"sighs, some america not make me cry if they die." No, not a death threat, however veiled by the peculiar English. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

IP is just a set of 4 numbers separated by dots. Unless you have very good reasons to believe that the same person will be using the same IP tomorrow, punishing numbers and dots isn't very useful. Zocky | picture popups 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, there are always people who we do not mourn when they pass. Tens of thousands a day, in fact. Just someone being exasperated in pidgin. Utgard Loki 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. They're blocked for awhile more, their user talk got protected somewhere along the line. May as well let sleeping dogs lie, for now. If they come back and continue that sort of talk, we can address the issue again. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I guess I'm just being a touchy American.

Ispy1981 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible admin impersonation

Just saw this account User:Nguyenguyen created. It may fail WP:U but I'm more concerned about impersonation of User:Blnguyen, an admin etc. --Dweller 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nguyen is an extremely common family name so there's going to be more than one person wanting to create an account with that name. I think that the names are different enough to not cause a problem. Now, if somebody wanted to create User:B1nguyen (that's a number 1) then that's obviously impersonation of an admin. ;-) --Maelwys 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Listusers starting at "Werdna" is a good example. Many of the users there have nothing to do with User:Werdna and aren't trying to impersonate him, they've just picked similar usernames for similar reasons. (Some of the users there are connected with Werdna in various ways, which should be obvious from their names.) --ais523 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess many/most of the "Werdna" users are called Andrew IRL. I wouldn't refer a name like that here. This was different. I've never heard of the name "Nguyen" - the letters looked random to me (heh, lucky I never took Blnguyen to WP:RFCU!) - so worried that another user using that string of letters would be impersonation. Just one of those culture-gap issues. Happy to have been educated. --Dweller 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of this as a common name -- not knowing that, though, I can definitely see how that'd attract your attention. No skin off anybody's nose. I'll tag this resolved until/unless the person starts editing suspiciously (feel free to revert). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious case of Wikistalking

User:Necmate is obviously wiki-stalking me following disagreements on a bunch of articles (most recently Joji Obara, see also Yakiniku). He reverted my edits where I added "fact" and "citation-needed" tags to the Kansai-ben article - see & . His first edit summary is a copy of this one by User:Dekimasu. Necmate seems to have misunderstood the situation and HOPED that I reverted Dekimasu's edits so Necmate in turn could revert it, simply to irritate me. I reverted him and asked him to stop, but before soon had he reverted my edit again, this time with a mysterious edit summary, "It is not a rebuttal at all". This user has a long history of disruptive editing, see for example the history on the Yakiniku article. Mackan 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

Two entire sections of the article were moved last night, evidently by two warring editors, without discussion or consensus. Could someone please stop by and take a look?--Mantanmoreland 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On a quick initial scan, both sections were moved to new articles: Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings and Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Since the information for these two sections is quite long, splitting them out to separate articles seems reasonable to me. This practice is well known and documented on Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Slambo (Speak) 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Slambo. I'm going to suggest that they retain a paragraph or so in each section, as it is blanked out currently.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this article could definitely use more uninvolved editors. I responded to an RfC.--Mantanmoreland 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservipedia administration being done here

I notice that a number of users are using wikipedia pages to conduct Conservipedia business here, I've just noticed this one here. It seems to me to be a bad precedent to set, because it establishes that wikipedia is a free webhost. --Fredrick day 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A clear violation of WP:NOT. _InBC 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD here --Fredrick day 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Already people are ignoring the embassy(because of the deletion notice) and using the talk page for this sort of thing. _InBC 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD that too, then, I guess. Natalie 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably should just warn the user first not to misuse his/her main talk page, and see what the response is. Looks like Guy is already on the case. MfD'ing the subpage makes sense and looks like it has consensus behind it. MastCell 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal or not?

Smylei has several characteristics of a single purpose account (not that I would know ;-) ) - few edits, among the first few being to create own userpage and talk page, and is adding some very odd material to the Uncyclopedia article. There has been some disagreement over whether or not Uncyclopedia's "claim" that Misplaced Pages is a parody of Uncyclopedia should be added to the introduction, but Smylei has gone as far as to actually say that Misplaced Pages really might be a parody of Uncyclopedia (as in, the encyclopedia article currently states that it's possible WP is actually a parody of Uncyc), re-inserting it with an edit summary of dubious integrity. So, is this a single-purpose account here to goof around (I'm sure he's nothing sinister, just troublesome), or just a new editor who happened to find this article and decided this was a valid statement to include?

Anyway, seeking input here because I'm not sure of his intentions and I'm out of reverts for the day looking to resolve this as peacefully as possible, so some advice/assistance/feedback/opinions/whatever would be most appreciated. Milto LOL pia 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty hard for someone to accidentally find that article without being an Uncyclopedia reader first. It may not be a single purpose mugger sent from the dark alleys of Uncyclopedia's Latrine Row, but it's obviously jerking us around. Utgard Loki 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet of JINXTENGU.

Doomsquid (talk · contribs) admitted to being a sockpuppet of JINXTENGU with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --AnonEMouse 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. Acalamari 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas

User MarkThomas has been vandalizing my userpage by repeatedly shrinking the picture on the userpage. He should mind is own business. If it's too large for his tastes he doesn't have to look at. Please put a stop to his activities. Thanks. Billy Ego 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

on WP:USER I don't see anything that says (no offense) a big gaudy looking image can't be there, just that it has to be free. It doesn't look great IMHO, but it is your page after all... - Denny 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he may be trying to get me to break the 3RR but as far as I understand I can revert vandalism indefinitely. Is this correct? Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No one owns any page on the Misplaced Pages, including user pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:USER does state that extensive discussion not related to the Misplaced Pages is not appropriate... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is related to Misplaced Pages. Its the explanation of my POV so people can see where I'm coming from when I work on articles. Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't require an essay. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture blocks the navigation and toolbox menus on the left-hand side. If WP:USER doesn't prohibit that, it should. -- TedFrank 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

fixes it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, nevermind, actually didn't need that. Just removing the right alignment fixes it. Why was it right aligned in the first place? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this MarkThomas's statement On that level, I agree, it's quite helpful to know we're dealing with a self-professed Nazi. My father shot people like Billy in a war not so long ago. constitutes personal attack and/or break of WP:CIVL? -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you I was offended by it and felt it was a threat of violence against me. Billy Ego 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a personal attack; no, it was a threat of violence. El_C 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know that it wasn't a threat of violence. If someone told me that in person I would think they were planning, or entertaining the thought, of killing me and I would be fearful for my safety. I would be watching my back. I'm not too worried about it because he doesn't know where to find me, but that doesn't make it not threatining. Billy Ego 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that it wasn't an explicit threat of violence, anything else is subject to interpretation. El_C 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Again personal attack by user CPTGbr

Please look that CPTGbr called me troll diff on the deletion discussion page. Moreover he also was uncivil for me at the talk page for FSB, here is the diff.

Previously, user CPTGbr was given a warning see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys Vlad fedorov 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with DarthZantetsuken

Hello.
I'm having problems with user User:DarthZantetsuken. A while ago, I noticed that he had several copyrighted images on his userpages. Every time I've seen other people with 'fair use' images on their userpage, they were removed. So, after checking the policies, I saw that, indeed, they should be removed. So I did. So he wouldn't think he was just being vandalized, I explained in the edit summaries. Here is the first case, and then I saw a second one and removed it here. Note that, in the edit summmaries, I explain that copyright images can't be used in userpages.
His first response was to revert one of those removals, and restore a copyrighted image as seen here.
I removed the offending image again, and once again spelled it out in the edit summary here.
Disgruntled, he then proceeded to request protection for his userpage from "vandalism". The page was semi-protected, but he was informed that it wouldn't stop me and that I was right to remove the image anyways. Across several edits, he eventually added an accusation directly into his userpage, as seen here. I didn't vandalize, and I'd say explaining my reasoning calmly meant I wasn't being "childish".
He also decided to remove my barnstar from my own userpage, just because it contained the words, "playstation", and "wii". This was vandalism. (You can see the edit here.)
By now, I was a bit miffed. Just because I actually bothered reading the rules, I get accused of vandalism and got my own userpage vandalized for real. Rather irritating. So, I left a message on his talk page explaining the rules, including links so he could check them out for himself, and telling him to remove any and all false accusations from his user page. You can see that message here. (There's an intermediate revision not shown because I also added that he needs to fix things if he doesn't want me to seek administrative intervention)
Rather than realizing that he was wrong. Rather than seeing that the rules leave absolutely no room for ambiguity, he instead decided to do a series of rather childish things.
He changed my post on his talk page into, well, you can see it here.
He moved part of the discussion onto my own talk page (for some reason, leaving out the part where I signed, just so he could call me out on not-signing; as if nobody could just check his own page's history if they were actually interested). He then admitted to doing it as revenge (or, as he put it, "You cannot prove this. Also, you have violated my user page so, an eye for an eye.") You can see the results of this move here(nice and polite edit summary, btw).
Furthermore, at the very same time that he started having a beef with me, an anonymous ip has started vandalizing both my userpage and talk page. Including things like labelling me as homosexual (around the same time that darthzantetsuken decided to add a note to his own userpage indicating that he was straight), suggesting that "bladestorm should die", etc etc etc.
While although I've been annoyed with many editors, I've never suggested that they should die, nor questioned their sexual orientation.
If you take a look at the edit summmaries in my own userpage here, my talk page here, and his own changes here and here, I think it's pretty obvious that he and 158.123.134.2 are probably the same person (at least, likely enough to check it out with a checkuser). (Actually, as a possible coincidence, if you look at the contributions of both darth and 158.123.134.2, and go back far enough, you'll see that both have targeted CertifiedGangsta with uncivil behaviour. I'm sure CG has cheesed off a lot of people, so it could be nothing, but I still find that an odd coincidence.)
Any and all accusations against me having vandalized when it's irrefutable that I've merely done what the policies explicitly state I should have should be removed.
If darth is 158.123.134.2, then I expect serious action to be taken for both the vandalism, and the rather uncivil comments like "bladestorm should die".
All false quotes from me on talk pages should be summarily deleted.
So, can I get some help here? Bladestorm 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by NawlinWiki for a month less than an hour ago. I left the account a warning and if he continues that'll get blocked too. – Steel 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. However, if they are, in fact, darth, will that affect him at all? Bladestorm 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He can't edit from the IP, but still can from his account... which is one edit away from being blocked. – Steel 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not my IP, is there any way that I can approve it, oh exaulted one? DarthZantetsuken 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this suit you? This is my AOL IP thing. Yes, I'm an AOL User. Does it occur that other users could have done this? 63.3.18.130 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (aka DarthZantetsuken)

Um... Darth? Are you aware that you just connected yourself to an ip address that's also guilty of vandalism? And, more specifically, the same kindof vandalism on CertifiedGangsta's page that this first IP address did to my own user page? That is, 158.123.134.2 was used to add a homosexual tag to my userpage and persecute certified.gangsta, and the ip you supplied for yourself was used to add a homosexual tag to certified.gangsta's page here? Is that an admission of guilt? Bladestorm 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday has blocked DarthZantetsuken for 31 hours for rude and immature behavior. I've removed the personal attack from DarthZantetsuken's user page. --Edokter (Talk) 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (I know it shouldn't bother me, but I just haaate it when people accuse me of things) I appreciate it. Bladestorm 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeted personal attacks by use Evinatea and spam edits on Audio mastering and Talk:Audio_mastering as well as on other pages

After I posted this edit: (see bottom of this page)

"_{Please stop personal attacks and stick to the subject.
And the subject is: Your edits on Optimizing Frequencies are being suspected as self promotion.
And no matter how much you attack me or Sorenson or other people, your comments will be scrutinized here. Your last rant is just a personal attack with no explanation whatsoever in reference to Optimizing Frequencies, therefore I'm simply deleting it as spam as it pollutes this page and serves no purpose in furthering discussion on Audio Mastering. Please read the wikipedia policy on Personal attack If you disagree with me then you are welcome to complain to the administrators.
And I'm also requesting a rational explanation about your edit on Optimizing Frequencies. Please provide sources, and references to recognized publications and then I'm sure everybody here would love to hear them and consider your point of view for inclusion.--Biggy P 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}"

Where I requested for a rational explanation on the subject of Audio Mastering, and deleted abusive comments against me and other members. I was subsequently attacked again alongside together other users and my comments on the talk page were deleted without explanation. Please see the following edits by user Evinatea

Previous complaints against user Evinatea about spam and personal attacks have been voices by other editors. Please see Evinatea contributions. His entire edit history is about spamming Audio Mastering article and attacking people that dare to disagree. Please see some previous complaints by other editors posted on Fang Aili talk page talk and Talk:Audio_mastering Here is summary posted by Mike Sorensen talk and another complaint by -Chris Johnson — 207.136.232.46 talk • contribs
--Biggy P 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – IP has been temporarily blocked for anon users only, owner of bot notified

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved – Canvassing rolled back, user blocked

Resolved – Both articles semiprotected

Resolved – blocked

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