Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 1 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

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

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved – But question of disruption may remain DES 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked WikiGnosis (talk · contribs) for continuing to make legal threats. The latest was this edit which used a cutesy rhyming thing to try and get around the whole NLT issue. Specifically, the user had been repeatedly warned about legal threats (see his/her talk page, plus an item on Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk) so he/she described a behavior someone was doing as "starts with L, rhymes with bible". I've read this as a legal threat, and invite scrutiny of the block. I've counseled the user on his/her talk page to review WP:NLT and appeal once he/she is willing to commit to abiding by WP:NLT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Chilling effects are bad. ⇒ SWATJester 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the user had been going around deleting ANYTHING potentially critical claiming Jimbo Wales authorizes him to. This includes things that wouldn't even fall under the scope of WP:BLP. ⇒ SWATJester 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For example and . Also, after checking some of his edits, I seem to recall having run across his name on AN/I before. ⇒ SWATJester 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, status change, the user would now like to appeal the unblock. If anyone has a chance to check it out, it's here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You block him for making legal threats and the one edit you provide is merely him asking questions? There is no way that edit is a legal threat. I fully agree that it is a "travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule". Having said that you really just need to provide more links to his edits because he is obviously a trouble maker, but if you are going to ban him at least make it so it can stick because that reason is pretty much a joke considering what he posted.--Dacium 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Misplaced Pages "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." I denied based on that sentence. John Reaves (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to go back on that. The reason he made that statement was because of the way he was banned. If we agree he didn't make legal threat, then he wouldn't have been banned and he probably wouldn't have felt that way. And what does that comment have to do with the ban he was contesting anyway?--Dacium 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the two main "legal threats":

"I'm very confused about how things work on Misplaced Pages. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?" (diff)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Misplaced Pages while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

I don't agree that these were legal threats, at least not as I understand the term "legal threats", any more than the Misplaced Pages policies against defamation or copyright violations are "legal threats", or than an admin's warning not to link to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios would be a "legal threat". A statement about the law, or about what actions break the law, is not a threat to sue or file charges; it says nothing about the writer's own intentions.

See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Not trying to "wikilawyer", Ben /_HIST 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis. -- Ben /_HIST 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

View WikiGnosis's contributions. Nearly half of his entire contribution set says "Removing negative material per Jimbo Wales": misapplying the WP:BLP policy to remove ANY negative material, sometimes material that's not even negative (For instance, a person having cancer is apparently negative to him, as is a football player owning a restaurant after retiring from football). The argument that these statements are tantamount to libel, consistent with his prior accusation of libel, and disruptive editing, warrants a legal threat block. I close with a reiteration of one of his statements You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone. ⇒ SWATJester 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate in turn, Swatjester: "A polite, coherent complaint is not a 'legal threat'". Stating that one is deleting material from an article about a living person (not oneself), because it was defamatory to the subject, is giving a reason in line with WP:BLP, a policy we have from Jimbo and the WMF legal counsel -- and citing that reason is not a "legal threat". If the concern's misplaced in a particular case, that's an error, but still not a threat. -- Ben /_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has now accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point in this edit. This does not seem to be an editor operating in good faith, Ben. In regards to your concerns above, accusing someone of libel (which this user _has_ done) is a direct legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why it isn't clear to you that neither of those posts is a legal threat. Accusing someone of libel is not a legal threat, it is at best a personal attack. If he said he was going to take legal action, sue etc. then it would be a legal threat but what he said clearly isn't.--Dacium 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violating WP:NLT when, as far as he (or I or some others) could see, he hadn't violated it. He has responded with comments including: "I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Misplaced Pages 'real' world" and referring to this as "a dysfunctional community." His response has been cited back to him as the reason for declining an unblock. I think he's got a justified complaint. Following WP:BLP should not be a blockable offense, he had not violated WP:NLT (as the quoted sentence makes explicit), and to keep him blocked because he thinks the block's reasoning laughable (or Misplaced Pages dysfunctional) seems a bit pointy to me as well. Criticism of Misplaced Pages, its admins, or their actions is not good reason to keep someone blocked, and issuing blocks or declining unblocks for bad reasons seems to me capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive of the trust which is the foundation of any voluntary community. I myself find this incident terribly disappointing. -- Ben /_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, your disappointment is secondary to our responsibility to protect editors from legal threats. You and I disagree on whether or not repeated accusations to the effect of "you are libeling" is a legal threat, but to characterize that as a capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive seems to be going a bit over the top. The block is not because he's critical, it's because he's made repeated oblique legal threats, something that is not tolerated. I believe you've constructed a straw man argument by suggesting that criticism of admins is why he was blocked, and I hope you'll reconsider. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WikiGnosis has been "polite" or "coherent", but I don't see that he's made any legal threats either. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. The post in question may have been trolling but I don't see a legal threat. Saying "these statements may be libelous" is no a de facto legal threat- particularly as you can't sue for the libel of someone else. I think we need to be a bit sharper on identifying legal threats, "I will sue you", "I am thinking of suing you", "withdraw that comment or I will sue you", "I am taking legal advice" type comments may all be legal threats. But I'm not convinced a legal threat was made here. In particular WikiGnosis seems to have valid concerns about the thread he refers to- Daniel Brandt (a real, living person, whatever Wikipedians may think of him) was described with very strong labels and had actions attributed to him that were in fact done by third parties. Advice to be cautious was appropriate. That said, I am unfamiliar with WikiGnosis- if he's generally around to cause trouble and has a history of trolling, I'm fine with the block. But I see no legal threat- covert or otherwise. WjBscribe 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll unblock. If the user is trolling, I'd prefer a separate block that reflects that, but consensus seems to be leaning towards the text in question not being a legal threat. I appreciate the feedback, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the aboe quotes are legal threats. i have seen others say things like "If you add that satemtn to the articel it is libel" and no one calls it a leagal threat. it my be uncivil, it may be impolite, and it may be disruptive. I haven't reviewed WikiGnosis's contributions in detail. From the above descriptions, a case could be made that he is editing disruptively. But I simply fot see "You are libeling person X" or even 'You are libeling me" as a legal threat, unless there is at least an implication of "and I will sue if you don't stop". Saying that soemone else might take legal action is not IMO a leagel threat, at least unless there is an implication that the parson saying (writing) this will urge the third party to do so. I think that the blocks for violation of WP:NLT should be lifted. if anyone wants to argue for a block for disruption, or other improiper actions, that will be another discussion, or perhaps an RFC might be the way to go. DES 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see at least three editors who don't think this block is warrented, at least not for the reason given. I urge the blocking admin to undo the block, before someone else does. DES 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked, you may have missed my 16:08 message above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss it, but I've seen it now. The matter is over for me, unless you want my assistance in dealing with trolling or disruption on the part of this user, which i will provide if you wish. DES 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note another discussion below, different people, identical issue: #Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin. Do we need to hold a workshop on what does or does not constitute a legal threat? -- Ben /_HIST 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, Wikignosis should be blocked for disruptive editing: if the legal threat block is lifted, I will lay a temp reblock for disruptive editing (indef would not be called for, though longer than normal would be appropriate given the user's history of being brought up here). By the way, I'm sure this workshop would go over the concept of a chilling effect, no? ⇒ SWATJester 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the block was lifted by the blocking admin. And now you've blocked him again. I think this was somewhat premature; WikiGnosis hasn't been the most civil of users, but you have to remember that he was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet of JB196. I don't really see the reason for this block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one-week block for civility? After being blocked indefinitely? I'm afraid we are going to effectively run off WikiGnosis and, while my interaction with the editor has not been the best, I don't want that to happen. Other users are much less civil and don't get a one-week block. I don't endorse it. --Iamunknown 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben /_HIST 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To a point where we run off WikiGnosis? It's reality check time: WikiGnosis is a classic instance of disruptive editing. I lifted an indef block on this probable JB196 sockpuppet/meatpuppet as a gesture of good faith because this editor claimed to want to participate at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Instead of going there the user immediately came to my user page with a rude post, then followed up with resumption of the account's old borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation and insulted the project when another sysop reblocked. This account's main contribution to the project has been to misapply WP:BLP. New users don't behave this way. This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned. Durova 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "JB196 sockpuppet" accusation was retracted. If you want to revisit that issue, or make a new accusation, please present new evidence. In any case, that was not the basis offered for the present block.

"borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation" -- the two passages discussed held no such threat; they made a valid point about accusations of crime ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") against a living person, that if false these are defamatory and in violation of WP:BLP. As WP:NLT#Legal complaints states explicitly, such a complaint is not a "legal threat". And why are we revisiting this issue, when this too was retracted?

"This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned." This may be obvious to you; it is not obvious to me. In the absence of some clear showing, let's consider this username's edits on their own merit, shall we? WP:BLP is supposed to be followed, and this user appears to be trying to do that. If he's doing it wrong, then show him where and how he's doing it wrong. Simply blocking him for trying to discourage defamation seems to me a very bad public message to send. -- Ben /_HIST 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this through WP:RFCU. Durova 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ben: the original block was for the legal threat. There would have been an overlapping block for disruptive editing, however I chose not to issue it because of Naconkantari's block. Since the legal threat issue was nullified, that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited, and the 1 week block is preventative, to stop any more misapplications of BLP and other disruptive edits. By simply removing the legal threat block and not addressing the disruptive editing issue, you're basically giving him a free pass to continue being disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Naconkantari's block" ? The only blocks on this user were by Durova, Chairboy, and you.

  "that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited" -- Please specify, as you haven't yet done so here or on the user's talk page. Note Akhilleus's attempts below to guess what you're referring to; I have had no better luck.

  "misapplications of BLP" -- How and where has this user misapplied BLP? On his talk page he argues compellingly that in specific instances he properly applied BLP (and Jimbo's comment "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight."). But if he's mistaken in how to apply policy, perhaps you could begin by explaining his error to him, then (if he continues) warning him, before proceeding to a block. Frankly, I'd like you to explain his error to me too, because I seem to have made the same error in reading WP:BLP and Jimbo's comments, so this user's edits not only seem good-faith to me, but also well-based in policy (and journalistic ethics). -- Ben /_HIST 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be troublesome about this, but I'm still having trouble understanding the block. If "disruptive editing" means WikiGnosis' behavior after getting blocked on Apr. 19, it's natural to be irritated after being misidentified as a sock. If, on the other hand, the block is for his edits on Mar 31, when he deleted a bunch of material on BLP grounds, I have trouble seeing what the problem is. First of all, that was a month ago. Second, I'm not sure those edits qualify as "disruptive"--WikiGnosis' edit summaries are odd, but he is removing unsourced material, some of which is arguably negative or controversial--such as this edit, for example. At any rate, I don't see any discussion or warnings on WikiGnosis' talk page about those edits, and aside from one more edit on Apr. 19 I don't see that he's done any more BLP edits. So it's hard to say that WikiGnosis was about to go on a rampage.

Now, if you think he's a sock of a banned user here to troll us, I'd say either figure out who the sockmaster is, and block him on those grounds, or just wait for the checkuser to come in: WP:RFCU page on "MyWikiBiz". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh....what is with my system....I could SWEAR I saw a block from Naconkantari, which was why I applied the legalblock template......but now it seems to say Chairboy....⇒ SWATJester 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was looking at the block of Sdpate, who was on AIV. Irregardless, deleting that "xxx has cancer", when true, does not fall within the scope of BLP. Especially, when the rationale for removal is "Misplaced Pages should not be allowed to post people's medical histories, that is disgusting" (paraphrased, but accurate). So what, are we going to remove that Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons references? How about Ali's? That's just a single example of his misapplication of BLP, combined with throwing the alleged weight of Jimbo Wales' words around as if they supported his point in the slightest: they were completely taken out of context. (They were in fact related to the Daniel Brandt scenario: something this user seems to be VERY familiar with. And how many brand new editors come in and say "Oh hey, lets dive into one of the project's most vitriolic debates, especially one involving legal status and allegations of libel"? ⇒ SWATJester 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"when true" -- or rather "when verifiable" (cited, attributed to a reliable source) -- is the critical point here. The material WikiGnosis deleted was not cited or attributed at all, so how do we know that it was "true" ? This is exactly the condition under which Jimbo and WP:BLP advise deletion of biographical information about living people. -- Ben /_HIST 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser has come back "likely" (), so I have indef blocked WikiGnosis as a sock of User:MyWikiBiz. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" rather than "Confirmed", and with commentary that suggests an opinion rather than a finding? That doesn't seem like a high level of confidence. -- Ben /_HIST 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Jpgordon to be sure, but when he says "likely" I take that to be a fairly high level of confidence--one step below confirmed. And it matches with my intuition and other users', so I blocked on that basis. I welcome review of the block, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict).....My WikiBiz....im not surprised. ⇒ SWATJester 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, maybe we should have this discussion on a different page, but I have to agree with WikiGnosis on one point: Misplaced Pages shouldn't be giving out information on people's medical history unless it's sourced. We can say that Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's because many reliable sources have reported that information. But if we don't have a source saying that an obscure Japanese wrestler had colon cancer (or whatever it was) we shouldn't report it--first, because medical information should be presumed to be private unless it's been made public, and second, because it's possible that unsourced information might be false. (Of course, it's pretty easy to supply false information with a false citation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

D'accord. And that one point is at the root of the dispute. WikiGnosis deleted unsourced contentious biographical information about living people. His doing so was in accordance with WP:BLP, and with Jimbo's even more strongly worded admonition, and with journalistic ethics. He stated his reasons, including the danger of libel. For this he was blocked twice, once for "legal threats" (which he had not uttered) and once for "disruptive editing" (which these deletions did not constitute, in my opinion). This seems to me a very bad public message to send, since it may tend to discourage others from making such entirely proper deletions. -- Ben /_HIST 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that he was identified as a sockpuppet of a user who was banned from the project for making persistent legal threats, the issue is more to the effect of "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet who makes legal threats", not one regarding scaring folks away from BLP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"he was identified as a sockpuppet": "Likely" but not "Confirmed". "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet"...: The deletions in question appear to have been in good faith and pursuant to WP:BLP. ..."who makes legal threats": He didn't make legal threats. Here's the passage in question again:

The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Misplaced Pages while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds.

That's not a legal threat, explicit or implicit or any other kind. -- Ben /_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the wrong sort of message to send is when editors in good standing enable this sort of abuse by granting it undue attention and stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits. I've been doing complex investigations for a long time. Contact me offline if you're still confused. Durova 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the passage quoted above was not abusive. The deletions of unsourced biographical material about living people (that I've seen, and/or that have been discussed) were not abusive. As best I understand WP:BLP, or Jimbo's rather stronger statements on the topic, or the rudiments of journalistic and biographical ethics, these were entirely proper edits. On his talk page, after being blocked a second time, WikiGnosis said some things in exasperation -- and upon calming down a bit, refactored or retracted them with an apology. That's the closest I've seen to "abuse" from that user, and frankly, in my opinion it was mild given the provocation. Aside from that and the sockpuppet allegations, just looking at this user's edits (which seem to have been not only good-faith but actually in accordance with policy), I do not see the problem. Please, show me where this editor altered encyclopedia content in any unjustifiable way. -- Ben /_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova is quite good at complex investigations: I give a lot of deference to her/his opinion in such. For the record, Ben, my issue was that he was removing things en masse with a edit sum referring to a statement by Jimbo (appeal to authority fallacy much?) made regarding WP:BLP...but the things he was removing are not NEGATIVE information. Whether someone has cancer is not negative nor is it positive. Same with whether a person owns a restaurant or hot dog stand. I fully well understand that much of what he removed was unsourced anyway. Sofixit. But BLP was not written for just blanket removing something one disagrees with: it's for removing negative information so as not to libel someone. THAT is why I allege his edits are disruptive: he is misapplying the policy. My point appears to be enhanced by the fact that he was a sockpuppet who obviously knew what he was doing was wrong.⇒ SWATJester 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what matters here is that this is a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor. If he wants to make a legitimate comeback to this website he can sit on the sidelines, stop generating sockpuppets, and exert a sustained demonstration of good faith. Then after an appropriate interval he could request reinstatement. Until he does that no further discussion is necessary. Durova 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben /_HIST 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that he's trustworthy, right? Even if that were true, do you have any idea how many people from pennsylvania winter in florida? ⇒ SWATJester 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Winter in April, after Spring Break? In a retirement community, when one is neither retired nor within a decade of the minimum age? Wow, you're crediting him with a lot of advance planning, since he posted the photo as his fourth edit, long before he encountered any dispute or accusation let alone block, and had taken it even earlier. If I'm "stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits" (to borrow from up the page), what kind of stretching is this? -- Ben /_HIST 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, this level of advance planning is trivial, and not even clever. Take a look at the date of the photograph, anyway: the timestamp doesn't tell you very much. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if I hadn't been referring to the date of the photograph, why would I have asked "Winter in April, after Spring Break?" (He posted it in March, right before he edited The Villages.) You've looked at its date; now you're saying that two years of advance planning is trivial? -- Ben /_HIST 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt anyone took a picture in 2004 with the intention of using it on Misplaced Pages in 2007. On the other hand, I'm sure that thousands of people have photos from 2004, and it might strike some of them to upload those photos. If you're really nefarious, you might even alter the timestamp. If I have a point related to your comment (I'm not sure I do), it's that the date and place of the photo don't tell us much about WikiGnosis' age, place of birth, or current residence. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) block review

I have blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours for religion based hate speech directed at other users. Initially, I had blocked him for 24 hours for his hate speech and personal attack on the talk page of another user . (where he lambastes the user for his (assumed) religious beliefs ("khanzeer"=pig, and harami is another derogatory curse word in Urdu). After the block ended, the user went back to making the same type of hate speech.

Note that, Yahya01 has been vandalizing various talk pages by removing project tags (for example, removing the WP Pakistan tag from the talk page of a former Minister of Pakistan), and by making similar personal attacks/hate speech via swear-words-filled edit summaries.

I request a review of this block. Feel free to unblock the user if you feel the block is not ok, but please do look into his previous blocks ... he had been blocked several times before for the exact same behavior against users of other religions. Thanks. --Ragib 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. We cannot have such racism on Misplaced Pages, and think that, should it be done again, it should be a much longer block. J Milburn 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of further racist comments and hate speech by the blocked user on his talk page, I have extended the block to 1 month. Please feel free to review. Thanks. --Ragib 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned user

Following extension of the block, Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now evading his block by using various anonymous IPs from 89.243.*.*. See this for details. I request someone else to take appropriate action immediately. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further block evasion via IPs by Yahya01:

I request an Urgent block on the offending IP ranges, as he seems to be using dynamic IPs. --Ragib 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And more trolling:

--Ragib 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Those are all dynamic IP's from Opal Telecom's DSL network, and the range of that block is 89.241.0.0-89.243.255.255; 196,608 addresses. That's a hefty rangeblock, and may not be appropriate, even on an anon basis. -- Avi 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user keeps returning to add his racist comments and personal attacks. I don't know how such disruption can be prevented. Here are some examples of the anon's latest venom:

The IP's are all from Opal Telecom, UK. --Ragib 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

I request others to help in resolving this disruption. --Ragib 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

--Ragib 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And even more:

• --Ragib 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I give up. The banned user is making a mockery of wikipedia by jumping IPs and vandalizing User talk:Fowler&fowler 9 times so far. --Ragib 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some protect Lahore Resolution, and Jamaat-e-Islami. This is not amusing anymore.IP198 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!! Is anyone listening??? How long do we have to endure hate speech like this from this IP hopping banned user? Please take action to stop the hatred spewed by this user in various talk pages. --Ragib 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First thing first: Calm. The. Hell. Down. This is a complicated situation that requires a bit more than a "fire and forget" solution; as you've noted, he's hopping from IP to IP, so we can't just block one and toss up {{resolved}}.
I'd love to help, but I'm at work right now, and as a result, I can't get involved in something this complicated until I get a lot of other stuff done first. Keep in mind that we're all volunteers, and we do stuff when we can, not when someone else demands it of us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the two articles, for now. I'm not quite sure what else can be done right now. Disruptive POV-pushing ranters on talkpages are difficult to stop when they use dynamic IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know we are all volunteers. I've been trying to stop these throwaway IPs for the last day or so, but the user has hopped through at least 10 different IPs so far. So, after some time, it becomes very frustrating ... :( Thanks. --Ragib 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from Banned user via IP hopping

It now appears that the user Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is stalking at least 3 other users, and vandalizing any page remotely associated/edited by them. The hate speech continues, and also the vandalism continues. I have tried blocking the ips as they appear, but with a new ip switched to by the vandal every time I block him, I don't see any other remedy but a range block.

For the record, here are the IPs used by the vandal so far.

• 89.240.53.117 (talk · contribs) (Note his specific comments about intentional vandalism)
• 89.243.183.58 (talk · contribs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragib (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• 89.243.131.54 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.150.68 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.157.251 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.158.147 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.92.133 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.107.190 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.107.75 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.42.5 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.210.217 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.114.105 (talk · contribs)
• 89.240.35.225 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.90.110 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.148.196 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.71.42 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.65.91 (talk · contribs)
• 89.242.146.52 (talk · contribs)
• 89.241.150.192 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.176.94 (talk · contribs)

Affected articles/talk pages include

• User talk:Ragib
• User talk:Fowler&fowler
• User talk:Webkami
• User talk:IP198
• Bay of Bengal
• Talk:Chittagong
• Talk:Abdus Salam
• Talk:Muhammad Zafrulla Khan
• Fuzön (band)
• Hyderabad, Sindh
• Muhammad Yunus
• Talk:Rawalpindi
• Dina City
• Jhelum (City)
• Bari Culture
• Gujjar
• University of Dhaka
• Warid Telecom (Bangladesh)
• Talk:Bangladesh Army
• Bishwa Ijtema
• Genocides in History
• Drishtipat

I request an urgent resolution of the avalanche of anon IP vandalism. The IPs are all from a single ISP. Though a range block may seem excessive due to the IP distribution, that seems to be the only solution at this moment. Thanks. --Ragib 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You may find this page helpful, for the time being. That is an awfully wide range to block for anything more than a few minutes to an hour. From the looks of things, this has been going on longer than that, but if they keep up, a short block may encourage them to move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have range blocked portions of the IP from the ISP (Opal). Feel free to unblock that and apply any other suitable solution to stop this menace. Thanks. --Ragib 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the range blocks are 89.243.0.0/16, 89.240.0.0/16 and 89.242.0.0/16 . I know that this is a large range, and the block affects a huge number of ips. Please feel totally free to unblock or apply a shorter block (current block is 12 hours, the vandal has been active for longer time). Thanks. --Ragib 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. No Consensus 489 U.S. 153 (2007)

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the English Misplaced Pages. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the English Misplaced Pages, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save Jimbo Wales and this Honorable Court.

Anyway, today, I present to you a simple question, with meaningful consequences due to the high profile of the article. As you may be aware, there is controversy regarding the inclusion of a "See Also" link to the Virginia Tech massacre on the articles for Glock 19 and Walther P22 (the firearms involved in the shooting). I don't argue here the reasoning for the content: instead, I question the proper way to apply consensus, or lack thereof.

In the Glock 19 article, there is no question: consensus is to remove the information, bada bang, bada bing, end of story. However in the Walther P22 article, there is no consensus: it is split down the middle: it's about 16 editors against inclusion and 13 for inclusion. How then, to apply this lack of consensus? It is obviously not going to be changing. What then, is the correct action to take? For instance at AFD no consensus typically means the article is kept. RFA, no consensus means that the request is denied, same for RFAR.

So, in this case, what does "No consensus" mean in terms of action? (yay for forgetting to sign:) ⇒ SWATJester 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, concensus was not achieved at the Glock 19 article, and the issue of whether the link belong applies just as much to the Glock 19 as the Walther P22 article. Will somebody please help unravel this knot? Griot 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As ridiculous as it may seem, I suggest to adjudicate the two cases separately. For the article with consensus to delete the link, delete it, and for the article with no consensus, keep it. I consider content disputes about the inclusion of a link, section etc. to be miniature AFDs, such that the rules of thumb for AFD consensus apply.

I recall a few months ago that there were two AFD debates, one about "list of menu items at McDonalds" and the other about "Burger King." McDonald's got kept and Burger King got deleted, for reasons I will never understand, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. Such is life. YechielMan 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I guess that since the onus is on the person who wants to include information to justify it, a lack of consensus in this case means that the information stays out. Spartaz 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Put up a content RFC and get more community input (see WP:RFC). This doesn't sound like it needs intervention. 75.62.7.22 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an intervention request...it was a request for policy clarification. ⇒ SWATJester 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already the result of an RFC.

What we are dealing with is an addition of content. If there is no consensus for this addition of content, then the default is that the content is not added. The article remains at its state prior to the incident. Full disclosure: I have been arguing this already on the article talk page, but I think it's a reasonable approach for any similar situation. ··coelacan 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see that point of view. I think it may depend on how long the content has been there, but for a recent addition, a no-consensus can default to delete. I have no problem with that. YechielMan 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove the data from the 2nd article, they it should remain in the see-also section. THe first should be removed as there is nothing to 'see-also' Pretty clear cut (despite the fact that both appear to be the same thing the community have spoken!)--Dacium 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacium, it would appear that coelacan's version is the correct timeline...the article started without the information. It was controversially added, and then removed. Therefore, no consensus defaults to "remove" am I right, because that was the original state before the addition. ⇒ SWATJester 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the history of discussion at these articles, you will see that including a mention of the VT massacre at the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles was a compromise. There was much objection to mentioning the massacre in the main article, and a compromised was reach whereby it would be mentioned in the See Also section. Now editors have attacked this compromise. Please, let's stick with the compromise as arranged in the original debate. Griot 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment, considering that the new editors showed up after the RFC (their opinions were sought) and your underlying assumption seems to be that only those people who "got there first" should have a say about an article. ··coelacan 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I second coelacan's argument. While I personally believe the issue addresses a larger issue (as I elaborated in the P22 talk page), the previous status quo seems more appropriate in this case. I disagree with Dacium--there was no consensus on a compromise.--Dali-Llama 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was originally no clear consensus on whether or not to include any mention in the Walther P22 article when it was first proposed. Revert wars ran back and forth. I then started an RfC, inviting all participants that had commented in the discussion, regardless of their position previously, to weigh in, on whether or not to include information, in a formal RfC, and the end was no consensus with about a 50:50 split. To eliminate the revert war, it was then proposed that a See also mention be inserted into the article, linking to the Virginia Tech massacre. For the good of Misplaced Pages, I along with 3 or 4 others who were originally opposed to inclusion of a mention in the main article, agreed to this, and in my case, I agreed to this ONLY if a consensus neither way could be reached (relative to the main article). That arrangement was stable for only about a day and a half. This compromise did not stand, with users favoring inserting or deleting a full mention canvassing votes favourable to their position and sending people to the talk page. (See, for example, Griot's soliciting votes.) Personally, I believe that no mention should be made, as there is no consensus to insert this information. However, this is a very volatile subject, and there is a bigger picture to consider for the good of Misplaced Pages; hence, compromise seems best suited to eliminate the 3RR violations, editor blocks, and continued edit warring. Although it is not something I prefer, I could live with a see also link, in the absence of any clear consensus, just to prevent having to run the article continuously semi-protected or full-protected. However, this link should not include references, nor any commentary, and should not be anything other than being just a link. By all logic, there should be no mention. But, this issue is not about logic but is about emotion related to a criminal act that is not even in the same category of article as a firearm article, and a decision based solely on logic is not likely to stand with the emotional volatility that is evident. Hence, to avoid future problems, a simple link is probably about the best compromise. Is it right? No. But will it work? Probably. Yaf 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slow down. You guys are all completely missing the point of my question: In this case, what action does "no consensus" correlate to: Does it correlate to removing the information and leaving the article the way it was before the VT shootings, or does it correlate to leaving the material in? ⇒ SWATJester 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I just semi-protected (and will full protect if it continues) for 2 days - The most recent edit warring was over a new topic, whether to put a POV tag on the article or not, which had no talk page discussion at all. As I have commented in-thread in the talk page and have an opinion, I invite uninvolved admin review, but I believe that this most recent dust-up qualifies as semi-sterile edit war, and that the freeze is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of VinceB

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead. Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new one: 195.56.51.196. Tankred 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post here. The fact that VinceB self-identified through an IP sockpuppet at my user page and asked other editors to run a checkuser certainly raises my eyebrow. At the very least that demonstrates he's watching the situation closely. In general, when a problem editor goes out of his or her way to solicit checkuser it's because they've set up some meatpuppets that they're certain will pass that test. Durova 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say :

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page :

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, Orthologist. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coelacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Misplaced Pages that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Misplaced Pages can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder if anybody who uses the handle "The way, the truth, and the light" could ever be anything but contentious. Corvus cornix 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest

Puppet User:MountainClimber of Barbara Schwarz, diff Anynobody 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was resolved: block log. This can be archived to thin the noticeboard down a bit. Anynobody 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD overload again

Just look at the sad, sad size of the CFD category. It's starting to remain at consistently high levels for days at a time. I say we figure out who the top ten non-admin RC patrollers by edits are and give them all adminship. We are missing a huge number of CSDs that are falling through the cracks that were tagged, not acted on for awhile, and then eventually untagged by their creators. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See overkill. x42bn6 Talk 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is possibly overkill about granting adminship to the people who need it most, and would use it to the benefit of the encyclopedia by getting rid of crap before it slips through our fingers? --Cyde Weys 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them might have bad userboxes. --Elkman 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So we delete their userpages first. Big deal. We still need help clearing out CAT:CSD. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They might even not be endorsed by Wikiprojects. Bad idea. --W.marsh 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation makes me laugh. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, Elkman. =) I'm all for going with Cyde's suggestion. More admins is almost never a bad idea. ♠PMC♠ 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What will we use to judge their spelling if we delete their userpages? Frise 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of the backlog, I just knocked off about 50 articles. I'd encourage admins to use the Pywikipediabot framework and speedy_delete.py. It really makes quick work of CAT:CSD. alphachimp 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay, someone is using my bot! I'm happy. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is people with image experience. The articles are being deleted at a slow rate, yes, but it's the images that are always backlogged the most because no one seems to want to touch them. Metros232 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick, and subsequently feel like shit and don't want to do anything. Clearing out a bit of backlog is about all I can do right now. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't often deal with images because a system has yet to be devised to make image deletions fast and easy. The one tool that helps with images (made by martinp23) is too slow for any long term use. alphachimp 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing images, except that removing them from articles is cumbersome. Not everyone does that, I guess. I'm writing a play right now and I shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, but I'll get to the backlog later tonight, I guess, if it's that bad... Grandmasterka 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of identifying people who do a diligent, accurate job on RC or RP patrol (or any of the other mundane but important tasks) and speaking to them about considering adminship is a good one. (I do emphasize accurate because when I've reviewed CSD'd pages recently, I've found myself declining about one tag in five.) Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of incorrect tagging recently, particularly with A7. Perhaps the wording on the tag or on WP:CSD needs to be clarified or strengthened. Natalie 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just speedily deleted an image that had been tagged for a day-and-a-half. I'm thinking about opening an image-coaching project, and perhaps an admin backlog contest. Hmm... Grandmasterka 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of blocking, placing on probation, desysopping, et cetera we should issue penances of backlogs. John Reaves (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL... That would be great, if we could enforce it. Anyway, I have a small thing going at User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest. Feel free to comment. Grandmasterka 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could make WP:CSD more non-sysop friendly, like encouraging non-sysops to go through the list and changing/removing incorrect tagging, to remove invalid hangons (is that allowed?), etc. x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not only allowed, that is appreciated. Go for it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let anyone know who hasn't seen it, my script makes the "Reason for Deletion" with CSD stuff much easier. Here you go. ^demon 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If only it let me delete images faster. Anyone got a script that shows the license without having to scroll past 1000x1000 images? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, a tool which automatically removes the deleted images from the articles. Or does that maybe exist? Hope, hope. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin's wonderful NPWatcher automatically orphans images while deleting them. AWB works nicely as well, albeit a bit less automatic. Sean William 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

User is promoting hatred and violence (see here, moved later to his user talk by Petri Krohn). User Roobit has a history of improper edits and personal attacks, as can be seen from messages on his talk page. DLX 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I don't see anyone promoting hatred or violence. Maybe you can quote something specific for us? I'm not going to dig through that whole essay to see where the problems you perceive are. This is the user's only edit here in quite a while; hardly an ongoing problem. Why didn't you contact the user instead of taking this complaint directly to ANI? ··coelacan 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... calling Estonians Nazis/Ethnonazis, pushing political/hatred agenda ("Don’t buy anything in Estonia. Don't do any kind of business with Estonian companies and organizations. Don't invest in Estonian stocks. Don't travel to Estonia as a tourist. If you are American, write to your representative in the House of Representatives and ask why is the government wasting your tax dollars on support of Estonian Nazis? Demand that Estonia is kicked out of NATO before it becomes a liability to America and the rest of the world."), promoting lies (pretty much everything he says about Bronze Soldier is a lie), posting inappropriate material to Misplaced Pages talk pages.

Why didn't I contact him? Because last time I did that (outside Misplaced Pages, though), I got called names and threatened with violence ("We'll kill you and your family, you Nazi pig"). So I've stopped trying to talk with them and instead will try to notify people who are responsible for enforcing Misplaced Pages rules. DLX 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The content has been moved off the article talk page. I'll leave a note not to put it back there. It's off-topic. But seriously, it doesn't read quite like you're making it out to read. The user is saying that there are Nazis in Estonia, not that all Estonians are Nazis. I for one am not going to block anybody over one single off-topic post that doesn't exactly make the sweeping generalizations you're suggesting it does. ··coelacan 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll note that now that you're asked for quotes, you show nothing that "promotes violence". Honestly, this was already handled when Petri Krohn moved it off the article talk page. This is not the complaints department. Please make an effort to resolve these very minor issues with other editors before bringing them to ANI. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just strictly as a comment - try substituting "Estonians" with "Jews", "Estonia" with "Israel" etc. Would you still agree afterwards, that the message is peaceful and harmless? All nations and nationalities should be treated equally. DLX 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. The authentiticity issue is again important in deciding whether to mention it on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal

Jayjg has blocked these three articles based on biased reasoning. He claims that he is only blocking these articles to prevent edit waring, but he all but admited on my talk page that he specifically disagreed with my edits. He's pretending to be neutral so that he can block the articles after my edits have been reverted by some other user. This to me is wikistalking.

Case in point the Alan Cabal article. I have been involved with that article for less than a day and have only reverted another users edits one time and after that he blocked and claimed it was because of edit waring. It is my belief that he is going to any article I contribute too an then blocking it after my edits get reverted in order t prevent me from editing the article.

In regards to the Kurt Nimmo article he refuses to lift the ban even though the issue origianlly under contention has been resolved. He won't unblock it because he doesn't want me to edit other parts of the article, which I thought I had the right to do.

I am asking the Misplaced Pages Admin. to undo Jayjgs blocks on these articles. annoynmous 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He refuses to unblock the Kurt Nimmo article even though the original issue under contention has been settled.

He blocked the Alan Cabal article even though I had only reverted another users edit once. How is that edit waring.

He blocked the Ward Churchill article even though there were other editors who agreed with my position.

On my talk page he admited he blocked the articles because he disagreed with me, not because of edit waring. Shouldn't there be some punishement for giving a false reason for blocking an article.

He convientely blocks the articles just after my version of the article has been reverted. He never perserves my version. If this truly was about edit waring don't you think he'd perserve my version once in a while. This feels like a covert way of preventing me from contribting. annoynmous 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note to whoever looks at this, but "he" is referring to Jayjg ^demon 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: What do these articles have in common? Have you tried a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP? Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? ··coelacan 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Annonymous was edit-warring on them. You guessed, didn't you? Guy (Help!) 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, but I was trying to squeeze something a little more substantial out of annoynmous. ··coelacan 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Jayjg was using the false pretense of edit warring when he was really blocking them because of a bias he had against me. Under these circunstances I think the articles should be unblocked.annoynmous 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Alan Cabal article count as edit warring when I only reverted one edit. Doesn't that need to go along for a little longer before it's called edit warring. annoynmous 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we don't usually do unblocking here. There's a place for it. WP:RFPP has a section about unblocking. Why don't you go there and try to make a neutrally-worded request that doesn't involve a complaint about Jayjg, and you might get what you want. BUT! As I asked before: Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? If there aren't substantive answers to these questions, the articles won't be unblocked. ··coelacan 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, it has already been rejected at WP:RFPP, there is no discussion on the Talk: pages, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus that I can ascertain. Jayjg 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, you're telling me that there IS a cabal? -Hit bull, win steak 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago

Background

On January 19, 2006, 11 new user accounts were created in relative quick succession. They are listed below, preceded by the time of the accounts' creation.

• 09:53 Fallingred (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Presidentkennedy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Lilpixie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Katz* (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:53 Charlenecumberbatch (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Wardie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:03 Kirank (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:08 Aranshoker (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Kirandhesi1 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Harpzbrahm (talk · contribs · logs)

Commonalities

1. All 11 accounts were created within 17 minutes of each other between 09:53 and 10:09.
2. All 11 accounts were listed as participants in WikiProject PKPhilosophy by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) at 10:40 (see diff).
3. All 11 accounts were welcomed by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) within 6 minutes of each other between 10:44 and 10:49.
4. 10 of the 11 accounts have 0 or 1 preserved edits, made on January 19, 2006. The only exception is Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs), who has 8 preserved edits, of which 7 were made on January 19 (to the userpage).

Comments

Now, the manner in which I have presented the information above should make it quite clear that I suspect the 11 accounts to have been created by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs), especially in light of the fact presented in point 2. However, the creation of the accounts does not seem to fall under any of the "forbidden uses of sock puppets" listed at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. Judging from the preserved edit history only, the 11 accounts made no votes, were not used to "avoid scrutiny", did not create disruption, and were not used to circumvent policy. That said, the creation of the accounts also does not fall under any of the 5 "legitimate uses of multiple accounts" listed at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. The only purpose for the accounts that I can see is to create the impression that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject PKPhilosophy is an active WikiProject; what end that serves, I'm not sure.

Note: I have tagged the various user pages for proposed deletion and have started a deletion discussion for the WikiProject (see here).

Since Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) is mostly inactive since December 2006 (see here), I see no point in requesting a clarification on his talk page. So, in short, I bring this to the community's attention so that a proper course of action may be chosen. -- Black Falcon 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should post this on WP:RFCU, for confirmation. Anynobody 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidkinnen said he was a teacher, and the Wikiproject is connected to what he said was his school, this may well have been a case of a teacher inviting some of his students to sign up for some (not terribly well thought out) scheme of on-wiki classwork. The edits by the Biggsy accounts do look like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Looks like a school project of some sort. Frise 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... that makes sense. Given the harmless nature of the accounts, I don't think submitting a checkuser request is needed. I guess this turned out to be a non-issue after all. Thanks for your clarifications everyone. -- Black Falcon 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser data for activity that old is long gone. 75.62.7.22 07:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers ownership issues

There are some serious ownership issues on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit (suggestions for an alternative forum to raise such ownership issues welcome). Andy Mabbett 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather thought that the point' of WikiProjects was to provide some sort of "officially-sanctioned ownership" of articles in order to keep a sense of order and continuity? Maybe you can direct me to where I am mistaken? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This does not require admin intervention. Moreschi 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone holding a strong opinion in that debate, you have a vested interest. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may well be more about the attempt by Wikiproject biographies to WP:OWN every bio in existence - and stick hideous ugly standard boxes on them. But then, I could be wrong.--Doc 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Moreschi 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As indeed, you are. Regardless of the merits or problems with infoboxes, referring to another editor as a "guest" on a set of pages is unacceptable; as are other comments of a similar nature in that debate. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That much is true; there is a definite WP:OWN violation here. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the debate, and the language was certainly infelicitous, but Andy Mabbett's comments were inadvisable and needlessly contentious in the context of a project page that caters to editors with a common interest in writing about composers. Righteously bandying policy around and making accusations against other editors, impugning their motives, etc..., (many of whom have put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the various composer pages) was bound to elicit a reaction of frustration. The editors at the composer project certainly know they don't own composer articles. In its context, the comment was clearly borne out of exasperation. Taking this to ANI is somewhat inflammatory in the context of the discussion. A break from involvement in the debate might be a good idea. Eusebeus 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has exhibited WP:OWN issues in spades before. Not least was his repeated ad nauseum claim that WikiProject Biography shouldn't tag opera-related articles, one reason for this was that it encourages rock fans to edit them! :) I believe that a thorough examination of this editor's contribs (particularly at WIkipedia talk and user talk) would show it wasn't an isolated incident or as innocent as you think. The editor in question plainly believes that his WikiProject should have sole scope over these articles. --kingboyk 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the sole instance of WP:OWN being referenced here, I take back my comment and offer an apology. My suspicion is that the accusation is intended to address the general tenor of the debate, which impugns the intent of many other editors and that is not acceptable. Eusebeus 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please rephrase. --kingboyk 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing your initial report beyond the statement: There are some serious ownership issues on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit. That is the comment to which my reaction was directed. Eusebeus 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought my initial report (about which you, Eusebeus, failed to AGF), was perfectly clear - there are multiple breaches of OWN, including but not limited to the one I cited. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Eusebeus, but may I point out that no adminstrative action is, as of yet, required to address the actions of anyone, and that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion? Doubtless Kleinzach is not perfect, but then no one is, but he is a very valuable contributor who has done a huge amount of good for Misplaced Pages,so AGF. This is a bit of a blind alley from the real issues at hand. Moreschi 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone might be able to explain to me whether I am to consider myself a "guest" or whether I may edit in these topic areas? Is one invited to do so or must one have an established presence in the subject? If so, then what policies are to be followed and what are not? How does one stop being a guest? Is there a test to pass or something? Must I follow the policies of the composers project when aditing articles about classical composers and related subjects? Or should I follow sitewide policy. This is very confusing and I'm not at all sure what to do now. I wrote a new article today about an Offenbach Opera that no one had done before, but I wasn't sure what to do and whether what I had done was right. Gretab 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification for you: there is no sitewide policy concerning these infoboxes. They are entirely voluntary and not mandated by anything or anyone. Moreschi 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is none. His accusation was unacceptable in my eyes (as a normal editor anyway). You're within your rights to contribute -- productively -- to the discussion and make any edits you see fit provided they follow policy (and if they happen to go against consensus, should be reverted with a note as such). As for User:Kleinzach, I don't know him, but in light of the words, I am not surprised to find that he is indeed the same one who made this edit (with the resultant talk here ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the discussion has become unfocused here a bit. If Andy Mabbett's complaint is that Kleinzach referred to editors as "guests" of a body of articles, then I, and probably most others, would agree with him without reservation about ownership issues. As I understand it, though, the larger point was that a group of editors, regularly involved in Composer's bio pages, discussed the value of the boilerplate infobox that the bio group likes to put on pages and found it generally wanting with respect to specific issues pertinent to composers. The subsequent debate leans overwhelmingly in favour of not using such boxes. Because that debate largely involves people who are connected to the composer's project and because the consensus against infoboxes was formed within that community, they were accused of "owning" composer articles. That is simply not true; to bandy accusations of ownership around is disingenuous. Obviously a group of people who are actively involved in a specific area are going to have issues and viewpoints that exist simply as a function of that involvement. The slap-happy infobox taggers at the bio project should be sensitive to that. Eusebeus 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a stronger case of WP:OWN might be lodged at the door of Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Misplaced Pages. Might we hear his thoughts on that particular aspect of this matter? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Go look at the contribs as I suggested. The editor in question feels he has the right to prevent others from editing "his" WikiProject's articles or talk pages. That's OWNership. WikiProject Biography doesn't do that so you're way off the mark there. --kingboyk 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what Eusebeus and Phil have said. WP:OWN is a much wider issue and I strongly object to projects like WP:WPBIO trying to force their poorly-designed infoboxes everywhere indiscriminately. The composer bioboxes were particularly bad as they caused basic distortions of fact. Factual accuracy is essential for an encyclopaedia, infoboxes are not. --Folantin 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, while perhaps not the original intention of this report, it does bring to light what Folatin, Eusebeus, and Phil have said in relation to WP:OWN and wikiprojects. This is something I've been noticing more of lately; members of wikiprojects at least insinuating on talkpages that they somehow have more right to edit their project topics than non-project editors or using their project numbers to stuff AfDs. It is not a helpful trend.--Isotope23 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Misplaced Pages.". Your accusations are unfounded (if not, cite evidence) and yorur tone unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, you totally misrepresent the complaint raised here. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? Are you stating that your problem is limited to Kleinzach's comment about guests? In which case, you will get no argument here. Or do you have a wider issue? In which case, could you link to the specific comments you find objectionable and iterate your reasons for finding them unacceptable? Eusebeus 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fightback starts here.--Doca pox on the boxes 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect that's not a very helpful statement. The issue is perceived statements of WP:OWNership. It's fine to debate and reject infoboxes, it's not fine to say "you're not editing because I don't like your edits" or, even worse, "we don't want pimply pop music fans editing our articles". If they feel that way (and I can provide a diff to show this was said (minus the "pimply" bit), they can go to another wiki! --kingboyk 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, project perceived ownership is the issue here; not infoboxes.--Isotope23 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this a WP:OWN problem? Show of hands: who hasn't seen stuff five times worse than that diff on an average page? "The box wars are hot" is an understatement. "We should finish the template box debate" would be nice. "People get worked up about this" is a truism. "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported. "You are a guest" is the "own" thing? Ok, so that's one person with an opinion. Other people have other opinions. Geogre 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"How is this a WP:OWN problem?" - read WP:OWN, and the cited diff.

" "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported" Hence "exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit".

Andy Mabbett 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is about boxes? Good grief! Boxes are imminently foolish when they're applied by fools or when they are designed by fools. They are wholly inappropriate as a "must" on anything. The only truly consistent people are the dead, and I would argue that they're not consistent, either. In fact, a standardized anything works only when we are absolutely sure that all elements of the series have absolutely defined common points of importance. It's fair to have a blanket rejection of boxes for biographies (as I do), because it's fair to believe (as I do) that no two lives are alike and no two people can be reduced to any common points of importance. It's fair to tell the templateers to go away, as what they're doing is not editing the article but dressing it. Putting a decal on your bumper does not make you an automotive engineer. Geogre 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Oh, so this is about boxes? " No; it's about ownership. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, it's about conflicting OWNership, then. That's the problem. Boxes are not good or bad: they're GIGO. However, when WikiProjectX asserts control of all articles written under a particular subject matter, that is an assertion of OWNership, too. If two WP:OWN violations meet, we have problems. I think the impulse behind "we have a project that claims this article, so you must now have the following qualities placed here" causes conflicts across the project, and, of course, "I wrote it, so it's mine" does, too. The problem is that I see the edge going to the people who have worked on the content, and I regard boxes and templates as non-content contributions. Therefore, even if the content folks were ill humored and acid tongued, we're not really at the level of a WP:OWN violation -- just regular boorishness in the face of a conflict. Geogre 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"it's about conflicting OWNership, then." No. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Geogre. Bioboxes were an ill-conceived disaster from the start. Take Philidor, for instance, who was equally famous as a chess champion and a composer. Somebody has put him in the chess master biobox. Does someone now come along and add a composer biobox below? Or Ignacy Paderewski, still mercifully free from the box straitjacket. He was a composer, a concert pianist and a prime minister of Poland. Do we fill his page with three infoboxes? Or do we create a special, one-off Composer/Pianist/Premier version? Yet some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier. --Folantin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They also seem rather ill-disposed to discussion to boot. (The Paderewski example is judicious). Eusebeus 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, per Who OWNS what?, talk of "organised resistance" and "trolling" are certainly not helpful, and do not indicate a willingness to work towards consensus. Nor does talk of "BOX fascists". Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier": Do you have any evidence to support that remarkable allegation, or is it just another failure to mention breach of WP:AGF ? Andy Mabbett 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion between you and another user entitled "Why is persondata separate to infobox" isn't entirely irrelevant. You answer the other editor's objection "This would require every biography to have an infobox, which many editors are opposed to" by saying "I would question why they're opposed, and whether they're perhaps putting personal (aesthetic?) preferences before the convenience of users. That said, perhaps, one day, it might be possible for user preferences to include a 'do not display infoboxes" option, like the current "do not show TOCs' option". That's rather propietorial (although you do generously admit that one day it might just be possible to have a page without an obligatory biobox). Also, it's worth remembering some editors have personal preferences for things like factual accuracy. --Folantin 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by those comments, which neither prove your earlier claim, nor your new allegation of being "propietorial". Andy Mabbett 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think planning to impose infoboxes on every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not conflicts with WP:OWN then? OK. --Folantin 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think yet another false insinuation is unhelpful - nobody is "planning to impose infoboxes" on anything, much less on "every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not". Perhaps you might kindly refrain from inventing such things? Andy Mabbett 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woot hoot, this is actually quite funny. It doesn't matter who ownes what. Nobody is really explicitly claiming to own anything. The point is that these boxes are a joke. Again and again they have promoted inaccurate information, and such a simplified view of matters that the aura they project is misleading. I mean, check out this monster. His "associated act" was apparently the Pittsburgh Symphony. Right. This is not, by far, the only example: there are plenty worse.

This isn't about ownership. This is about inaccurate and oversimplified information being removed. Anyone can do that, WikiProject or no. I've tried to help out GretaB, so if there was any bad fallout from Kleinzach's remark, I've believe that's been dealt with. At any rate, these infoboxes, where they are inaccurate, are being removed and will continue to be removed. That is supported by consensus and, more importantly, the fact that Misplaced Pages must be accurate at all costs, regardless of whether the boxen make data-parsing easier or whatever. For future reference, it's not a good idea to apply boxen intended for those working within the tradition of more popular music to "classical" composers, and vice versa. Like applying a country infobox to a philosopher. You will have problems with accuracy and lack of NPOV definition. Moreschi 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I believe that issue has been dealt with. I've tried to clarify matters to GretaB, and Isotope23 has left a message on Kleinzach's talk. Fair enough. It may be worth noting that he was probably referring to GretaB not quite getting the fairly deep-seated issues at hand: I've also tried to clarify that. Incidentally, several people here have expressed a distaste for the lack of consideration in the mass application of infoboxes. Is there anything else you want done? If not, I can go back to removing more misleading and useless boxes. Moreschi 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Andy Mabbett's response strikes me as galling hubris. A group of editors who have committed a lot of time to improving composer and composer-related articles have concluded after open debate that the bio-project infoboxes are ineffective for composers. Andy aired his view in their forum. They disagreed, expansively explaining why. In lieu of accepting the issues raised, he instead bring the issue up - very inappropriately - as an administrative matter. Ridiculous. Eusebeus 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you completely misrepresent me. You also ignore the other, uninvolved, editors who agree that that there have been "ownership" issues; and the fact that one of the editors concerned has acknowledged, and rightly apologised for, his inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, so time to move on now I think. As Moreschi notes, the issue has been settled. Eusebeus 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'll leave the difficult task of interpreting Andy's comments and behaviour "correctly" to others if they are so inclined. There's nothing more to be said here. --Folantin 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice also that no one seems to have even informed Kleinzach that this discussion was going on. It's completely inappropriate to start talking ill of a user without telling him or her that the discussion is going on. Heimstern Läufer 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (I'm on a different timezone here). I have written to Gretab directly (also on the Composers Project page) to say that my comment about her being a "guest" was inappropriate. I've withdrawn what I said. The last thing I wanted to do was to personalize a difficult issue - not just of the problematic infoboxes - but about the way the different projects relate to each other. I had intended to avoid getting involved in the increasingly ill-tempered tail end of the Composers Project discussion, and I should have trusted my better instincts. --Kleinzach 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the note and the invitation to join the Opera project. However, in exploring the project further, I came across this comment concerning naming a category of opera in German. Could you please explain what the word "interlopers" means in this context? Who are the "interlopers" here? Gretab 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already explained to you directly, I didn't make this comment and I don't have anything to say about it. --Kleinzach 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from the context that "interlopers" refers to operas rather than editors. "German Romantic opera" is a very specific category. Some well-meaning users might be tempted to add items to the category which don't belong there (merely because they are German and involve romantic love, say). GuillaumeTell, the editor who made the remark, is suggesting that calling the category "Romantischen Opern" will prevent this confusion and stop people mistakenly adding the wrong operas ("interlopers") to the category. --Folantin 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, GT, is clearly referring to operas being added to silly cateogries rather than people. Moreschi 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of ink and ire spilled over box/not-box. Can't we leave it up to the editors of the individual articles to decide whether they need a box or not? Boxes work in some situations (cricketer biographies, for example, are almost always improved by a box, as it moves the stats into one place, neatly) but not others, particularly people whose "facts" are not well established or disputed. It is just as bad to insist that no article should have a box as to insist that they all must. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again: The issue was ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not really the forum to discuss the ownership issue either, but as you brought it up, yes, you do seem to be trying to own the articles on composers by insisting that they must have an infobox, contrary to the consensus that the other editors involved in the WikiProject seem to have reached a consensus that they should not. I understand their frustration when you insist that there is "no consensus" because you hold an opposite opinion. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM

The above-referenced users (User:Gnevin and User:Padraic3uk) have deleted my valid edits and markers indicating POV and unsubstantiated/unreferenced text from Thomas Begley, GAA and Brendan Hughes pages without providing any explanation or justification. 216.194.3.116 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

(after edit conflict) Looks like a content dispute to me. See WP:DR. Also, please don't post in ALL CAPS, be certain something is vandalism before you call it that - to accuse other editors of vandalism can be a failure to assume good faith - remember we are all here to write an encyclopedia, and try to work with other editors to find the best solution for any content disputes. KillerChihuahua 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tags without giving any justification either in the edit summary or in the talk pages of either article for doing so is meaningless to other editors, as we are not mind readers and are unable to determine wether you object to the whole article or one word or sentance as POV.--padraig3uk 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts invisible here? This is a content dispute. Dispute resolution is ---> thataway. KillerChihuahua 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please not that I believe that that IP address is a blocked editor see here.--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now 100% sure - please add this IP to the blocked list!--Vintagekits 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, except a clear sockpuppet of banned editor Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's RMS up to his usual tricks again. Blocked 1 week - Alison ☺ 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot needs to be stopped

Don't know the right way to request this, but I believe that ToePeu.bot needs to be stopped. I have left a note, to no effect yet. It is adding interwiki links to Template pages, but not checking for a "noinclude", so the interwikis are being inherited by the pages where the templates are used (unless noinclude was in effect). Example: Template:Lowercase‎. Notinasnaid 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot so that things can be cleaned up. I'll try my best to mass revert, but I'll notify the bot's operator of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, check out the interwiki list at Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources! The bot only seemed to be adding the Korean ones just now, did it add the Russian ones too, or is there another bot to stop? --ais523 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Yurikbot was doing this stuff. Am I hopelessly behind the times? There shouldn't be two bots doing the same or closely related things. If Yurik got tired of running his bot maybe he could let someone else run it instead, since it seemed pretty well debugged. 75.62.7.22 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

warning level?

user:Moironen moved Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? to DOMINATION BLACK. I moved it back. What level warning should be used for this? RJFJR 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:mp2}} seems about right. --ais523 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the fast reply. RJFJR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... personally, I think that {{Vandalblock}} is entirely appropriate... pretty obvious to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, some other admin has come along and killed the account. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism

The Rugrats Characters section has been vandalized several times recently, probably by members of the Barney Bunch.--Hailey 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to List of Rugrats characters. I will request semi-protection. YechielMan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it is the Barney Bunch, because most of it wa targeted at Drew, plus there were a lot of racist comments about Susie and her family and Didi's parents.--Hailey 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barney Bunch? Targets? Rascism? Do we have children's cartoons-affiliated gangs on the 'pedia? -M 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the choice of words, the vandalism was rather bad: check out . As the page is now, however, semi-protected, I shall tag this section with {{resolved}}. --Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by ShandraShazam

ShandraShazam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently has the {{unblock-auto}} template on her talk page. Since this appears to be a generally productive contributer who was trying to edit from a school IP, I was prepared to reset to a soft block. But when I looked at the block log for the IP listed in the unblock request, I see anon-only is already set. Could someone shed some light on this situation? —dgies_c 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry by User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2

As most of you guys know, I filed a community ban request for Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs) on the grounds of gross incivility, massive copyvios, and what appeared to be blatant sockpuppetry by way of Kd lvr (talk · contribs). I apologize for being a bit overzealous and bypassing normal process, but a sanity check of the affair after User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki saw them working in tandem on several editing disputes and AfD discussions revealed what appeared to be pretty blatant sock activity:

• Voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would theoretically allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again ,
• Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2.

The last one what clinched it for me ... it seemed EXTREMELY unlikely that two users could post within a minute of each other if they were two different people. Based on my previous experience as a moderator on political sims, I thought this was a case at first where process could be bypassed--and again, I apologize for being a bit overzealous. I'm hoping to be an admin someday myself, and one of my priorities if I become one will be zero tolerance for sockfarming.

Well, today, after a checkuser turned up negative, I mentioned to TREYWiki that they were clearly meatpuppets, based on this post by Kd lvr. Kd lvr responds later, "Congrats on finally figuring that out!"

To my mind, this is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:MEAT. Kd lvr created his account only a few hours after Kdkatpir2 created his, and both have worked on the same articles. From my sanity check of this, I can't see how this is appropriate, and would ask one of you guys to give these two a warning. Also, could someone close the community ban request? Thanks ... Blueboy96 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart redux

Dsmart-3000ad (talk · contribs) has made pretty explicit legal threats against some folks and was blocked for it. His page has quite a collection of denied unblock requests, and each of them appear to be (more and more) soap boxes which make more threats against an editor here he's involved in some dispute with. I just know the guy from seeing his name around here semi-regularly, and I know he's made some nice games, but considering the rhetoric flying over on yon talk page, figured I'd drop a mention here in case anyone is interested. I'm considering protecting the talk page, but if anyone else has any ideas, let 'em fly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the situation and while he made a legal threat, his "retraction" sounded sort of like "I won't sue you now, but will if my attorney suggests it", and the blocking admin wasn't really impressed either. Per the ArbCom case, Supreme Cmdr is still under ban, but friends of Smart can make suggestions on the talk page, though that still doesn't permit legal threats. —dgies_c 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about his quite litigious history, suing websites and magazines for publishing negative press and the like. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs · block log)-2 things that can be done.

I have been keeping an eye on User talk:Kkrouni and looking at some of the discussion on that page and I think there are only 2 things that can be done about this user.

1. Unblock- Frankly the best evidence I have seen to prove Kkrouni is a sock of Cowboy Rocco is a Checkuser. I would like to know if there is any evidence that I missed if there is any however. I don't think the possibility of a shared IP (Cowboy Rocco and Kkrouni being different people but using the same IP) was considered. This makes me think that there is a possibility of Kkrouni not being one of Cowboy Rocco's sockpuppets (I won't deny Cowboy Rocco is a Sock Puppeteer).

1. Fully protect User talk:Kkrouni- Technically Kkrouni has abused Template:Unblock 2 times by requesting an unblock again even though the decline template says not to do so. If Kkrouni is without a doubt a sockpuppet then I fell that his user talk page should be fully protected. Funpika 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Khrouni and Cowboy Rocco edit from the same IP and use the same signature (as do many, many other sock accounts I caught). I do not see any reasonable way to explain this other than them being sockpuppets or real life associates. Raul654 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw plenty of similarities in their contribs but won't list them here so as to not give suggestions for hiding in the future. I would have protected the talk page but it seemed like kind of a dick move for me to do it after declining an unblock. —dgies_c 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*edit conflict* In this diff he claims he does know Cowboy Rocco. Does that mean "real life associate"? Funpika 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Kkrouni wants to discuss this on this user talk page. He has made comments there. Funpika 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio of a print source

Is there a template used to report direct copying of Misplaced Pages articles from print sources? {{copyvio}} seems to assume a Web source. The article on Daniel Dancer is taken directly from p. 216 of Facts & Fallacies (1988), a Reader's Digest compilation. It should be deleted since there is no version in the history to revert to. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is such a template. My recommendation is to list the article at WP:AFD. YechielMan 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD is to slow - copyvios should be deleted immediately. Perhaps one could use the blank db template. Natalie 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked for warring on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

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

I really see nothing else coming of this discussion now. Whatever has happened has been undone from what I can tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three hours for continued bickering on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. Since the page has since been deleted, I would like this reviewed as there may now no longer be reason to keep the blocks active. Naconkantari 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the blocks. And why was the talk page deleted in the first place? El_C 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 (talk page of deleted article). --Iamunknown 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

G8, as in imperialist countries? I've deleted countless RfCs and always left the talk pages intact. El_C 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been deleted - CSD G8 doesn't apply to talkpages that contain discussions about the deletion of the page they relate to... WjBscribe 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the deleting admin may have intended merely to calm the forest fire. --Iamunknown 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it has that effect it may be valid under WP:IAR, but it isn't a G8. WjBscribe 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let it be IAR. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you treated everyone equally, and I think I understand your intentions here, but I submit that these blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Ugh, what an utter travesty. Can we unblock them and tell them to leave each other alone? Grandmasterka 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should all have been warned to stop before blocks were issued. WjBscribe 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock, the page has gone now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the talk page has been deleted you might as well unblock regardless of the reason for the original block. CMummert · talk 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x5, argh) I would support the immediate unblock of Friday; his role in the bickering was minimal. Sean William 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Naconkantari was fair in blocking them all; I just don't think any of them should have been blocked and I don't see how it helps the matter. --Iamunknown 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, i don't see how it helps; it wasn't a content dispute, it wasn't a wheel war, it was a dispute over who had the right to get in the last word at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking them all. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Naconkantari for submitting the blocks for review here. There obviously isn't consensus for them. I think we can release the blocks now. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to support unblocking all of them, so the blocking admins should act accordingly and let us never speak of this again. And undelete the talk page, please. Thanks in advance. El_C 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about undelete and indefinitely protect, I fear that it will only attract trolling. --Iamunknown 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks, endorse unblocks _InBC 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed bold for emphasis. I guess no one thought of protection instead of block-delete... El_C 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked the lot of them. – Steel 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page can also be UNdeleted. I don't think anybody is going to be edit warring there again soon. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(ecx13)I have no objections to removing the blocks. I felt that this was the best course of action to stop the fighting, as fully protecting the page would have brought cries of protecting the wrong version and deleting the page would bring cries of cover-up and would muck up DRV for another week. Naconkantari 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy here the only two edits that I made to the page in question. You tell me how I was "edit warring".

• Yeah, nobody can honestly claim that they didn't see it coming. If you disagree with it, try to change the RFC process ... but this deletion was on solid ground.
• "Incontinent"? I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means.

Nacontankari, you owe me one hell of an explanation. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion page should be undeleted, as this has relevant discussion on it. Or shall I bring this to WP:DRV? DES 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is right, he wasn't edit warring. Neither was Friday. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I restored the talk page with the following edit summary: As the admin who deleted the RfC, I think I should have been consulted. Especially since I outline my reasons for deletion here and the discussion was ongoing. I hope that's okay. Thanks again. El_C 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this boils down to this. Giano posts trolling calling another user "a powerless spent force" "incontinent and impotent" and "too old". When it is removed as an unhelpful personal attack, he repeatedly reinserts the trolling. But because Giano has the famous 'free-pass' on personal attacks, he can't be disciplined for this. So, in frustration at his immunity, an admin comes up with the wheeze of blocking both Giano and the person removing the trolling. "See that's fair." Yes, it is. In the same world where we equally punish the good and the bad! I don't blame Naconkantari here - I blame the intolerable mess that led us to this. (And before someone says I was edit warring - yes I was - justifiably, I'd say - but I'd already told Naconkantari that I would not remove the trolling again - so this block was not preventative.--Doca pox on the boxes 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

if you must quote me Doc, please do it correctly and in context otherwise peole may think you are deliberatly misleading them, anyone wanting to know what I said precisely please check history or wherever it hes been removed to. Giano 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the only editor on this project that has a "free pass" is Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but this is the free pass that's relevant to these blockings.--Doca pox on the boxes 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a desysopping. Maybe later rather than now, but definitely a desysopping

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

I thoroughly agree with NYBrad's that these "blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level." I also wonder where the blocking admin has been all the time.

First of all it has been repeatedly shown that the "cool-off" blocks only make matters worse.

What's more, the recent series of desysoppings has shown that unilateral blocks by the admins who are so eager to exercise powers that can't wait to confer and ask for advise get repeatedly desysopped. A bunch of names can be provided upon request. Extremely silly, harmful action no less harmful than past such actions by other eager-blocking admins.

Whether this will or won't be at ArbCom this time, mark my words that the community or ArbCom will desysop Naconkantari later if not sooner because another feature of trigger-happy self-important admins is inability to reform themselves. --Irpen 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not helpful. – Steel 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Steel is right. Let's assume good faith, even if we think the admin in question erred. Heimstern Läufer 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to run to the Arbitration Committee for every administrative dispute. El_C 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the actions were trying to calm down a situation and all is sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Punitive. Sean William 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but, in this case, taking someone out back behind the shed and repeatedly spanking them is impractical, even if one of the blockees was your big buddy. An effort, though not the correct one, was at least made here to calm a situation here. // Pilotguy radar contact 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the blocked, I'd say the blocking was a weak call, but done in good faith. No blame on the blocker.--Doca pox on the boxes 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you all have already seen this and this. -- Pastor David _(Review) 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as blocks should be preventative, not putative, the same should go with de-sysoping. _InBC 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Naconkantari quits

Aaaannnddd ... he's gone. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Annnd? Too bad I was editing the encyclopedia; had I seen it, I would have just protected the page. Then no one would have had to quit and everyone could have just blamed myself. El_C 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That's a pity. He was wrong in his blocks of at least Cyde and Friday, but errors are made in situations which seem to be spiraling out of control, and he certainly did the right thing in bringing it here for review. I hope he will be able to take a break and come back with less stress. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Errors happen. Then we pick up where we left off. --Iamunknown 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really get this. I've no real beef with his blocks, they were Bold, IAR, and good faith - even if wrong-headed. he doesn't come out of this too badly IMO. But what's problem now? He didn't need to get involved at all. If the situation stressed him, he should have just given it a wide berth.--Doc 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking with him on IRC and it appears that he didn't do any research into the blocks at all. Once he looked back at what he did, especially to Friday and I, who were in no way deserving of it, he probably felt ashamed and thought that this was his best way out. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has been jumping to quick conclusions this whole thread and in the lead-up to it. Let's see if Naconkantari stays gone - I suspect not. Grandmasterka 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming all too frequent I expect Cyde is correct, anyhow hopefully he will learn by his mistakes and it will be a valuable lesson for him. No doubt he will be back soon a better person for the experience Giano 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Without trying to cause a conflict on the above dispute, the above page is still fully protected on grounds of a dispute, with the discussion here now closed, where are people supposed to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is over? --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further issues can be resolved on the user talk pages, or an application for unprotection can be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss my deletion of the RfC on my talk page. El_C 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully support deletion, but what's the point in keeping it undeleted if it's protected? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I've always kept the talk pages of deleted RfCs intact and I see no compelling reason to change that practice now. El_C 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest removing the disputed template from the top? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. El_C 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is this dispute settled? Don't say in userspace because that's not what the tag suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just how the tag is designed. I can modify it if it's really important to you. Anyway, the point of having it undeleted even if it is protected (which happned after undeletion) is that it can still be read by non-admins. El_C 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm really not that bothered to be honest, but it just seams a bit stupid to have a template on the page saying it's disputed with no-where to go to settle the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified it to read something more generic. Hope that helps. El_C 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for clarifying the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to post to that page as well, but I realised my comment was more about RfCs in general, so I posted to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Incidentially, while reading up on all this, I came across this, which seems to raise an important point. Where is the dividing line between blocking vandals and biting newcomers who carry out test edits? The issues of cool-off blocks (bad) and blocking test-edit 'vandals' (bad) should be made clearer, or rather it should be made clearer that those who disagree with those assessments shouldn't carry out such blocks regardeless. Having said that, it did seem to cool the situation down, and I applaud those who were blocked but didn't get upset. One day, not having a block on your block log will be seen as a sign of not having been around long enough to get an unfair block or two! :-) Carcharoth 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comments. The former is the talk page I meant to link above (I've now corrected it), and the latter is a redirect to Misplaced Pages talk:Peer review. Seems confusing and might be to do with an earlier page move. Should the pural "requests" talk page redirect be pointed back to the singular "request" talk page? Carcharoth 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you having a conversation with yourself? I love those. El_C 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullies in a Barrel, or "Delete/Undelete/Call Names/Block"

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

This is pointless, and only serves to create more unnecessary drama and stress. Can we please let go, dear ladies and gentlemen? — Phaedriel - 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

---

What fresh hell you folks manage to make. Let's see: Cyde doesn't like Giano. That's surprising. Doc likes Kelly. Big surprise there, too. David Gerrard likes Kelly. Check. I don't. Ok. Now, to that, let's add selective hypersensitivity to what Giano says and immediate choruses of "free pass" and "cool down blocks." Right: so far, this is all according to the script. If we stay true to the path, we'll have someone totally uninvolved who somehow (gee, don't know how...couldn't be misrepresentations on IRC) gets tricked into blocking people. Ooooh, and we have that, too! Wheeeeeeee! Now we're in the "I was right all along, and I'm mad, and the other people were always wrong, and I'm mad" phase.

This is nauseating.

Confer. If a page's deletion is controversial, speak to the people protesting with an eye to finding a way to satisfy them. Have we learned nothing? (Right, of course we haven't.) Deleting it, painting the discussion brown and "archiving" it, and hiding it won't solve anything. It will make the people who disagree disagree more. Since these people are important, that's demonstrably unwise. If a page is going to get deleted on procedural grounds, try to find another solution other than breaking process to keep it.

Confer.

Block no one. Let every observer beware: If you're on IRC and any of the above names (including mine) approaches you to tell you about the awful things being done by any of the other people, do not block. It's a trick. You're being a sap. You're being played. Do not block. Do not block. Sit tight, investigate, research, listen, and tell the person telling you how awful the other guy is to try to work things out in discussion. As for the people named above: cut it the hell out. You may or may not be children in body, but you're damn sure being childish here. Geogre 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geogre. Could you explain what relationship this matter has to David Gerard? --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know it needed to. Didn't know I was accusing anyone. However, everyone is acting so predictably, so stupidly, and so according to the past that it's hardly worth watching which particular person spoke this time. David Gerrard was all over the RfC, along with faithful Cyde, in saying, "There is nothing here! <insult of complainer>" and then "It's a vendetta!" Yes, yes, yes. There cannot be any reason for all of these people independently complaining about one person. Pure coincidence or insidious plot, I'm sure. Meanwhile, let there be any discussion on AN/I, and it gets "archived" in an hour. "The discussion is OVER," we're told. We are told this by people who cannot see why anyone would dislike being told things. I'm pretty weary of the same childish statements from the same accounts, and always, surprisingly, around Kelly -- who, of course, is totally sinned against and never sinning. Heck, just mention Kelly and it's obligatory that someone will bring up Giano. It's like a residual haunting, except that a different face ends up being the one tricked into blocking every time. That's the tragedy, that's the hell. I repeat: if you are approached by any of these people, or by me, and urged to block one of the others: don't do it. Geogre 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano brought up himself, it would seem to me. Speaking as someone who normally likes Giano a lot and thinks he's got a good mindset, no one provoked him into coming to the RFC and say "Kelly Martin has been ruined because she messed with me", that was all on his own. You can't throw a grenade into a tent and then expect sympathy when the occupants come after you, weapons drawn. There may be a lot of situations where Giano is baited and treated unfairly, but I don't see this as one of them. Eh. And for the record, this isn't a minority bullying the rest, quite a few people supported K-mart in this RFC. Milto LOL pia 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's correct to say that Giano inserted himself into the RFC. That he's unable to express himself without making the grossest personal attacks doesn't really excuse those who respond to him (Ignore all Kelly Martins also means Ignore all Gianos).

As to the block, it was well meant but misconceived and (in case Geogre is interested) was actively canvassed against on the administrators' channel. If I'd thought a block would help, I wouldn't have hesitated to suggest one, but the situation as was known accurately from minute to minute on IRC, in a way that is never as readily apparent on the wiki, clearly indicated that the edit warring was coming to an end and no block or protection was needed. --Tony Sidaway 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See how much nonsense is being caused over fighting over who gets to post coments on a talk page? People think they're clearing up "disruption" and end up causing a crossposted cat fight... just look at the the theatric title of this header. At what point are these perpetual feuders going to lay down their arms and get over it already? Everyone would do themselves a favor to just not reply to this or any more Giano/Kelly Martin threads, it's not going to get anything but worse. Milto LOL pia 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Geogre. I just noticed that you mentioned David Gerard and some other people and then you went off into a familiar jeremiad about IRC. Nothing I haven't seen before, but I wondered why you happened to drop David's name in there. If you can't explain it, that makes two of us. You may have noticed that the RfC itself was dropped for lack of certification. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because, on the RfC himself, he was trying to get the thing gone and because, on AN/I before, he has said that he has no concern at all for what other people think. Since I was describing the usual behavior of people who don't believe in conferring with anyone, who believe that their insults are truth while anyone else with truth is an insult that should be blocked, it fit. As for "familiar" rants about IRC, you believe that the edit warring was accurately described on IRC minute by minute? That's enough condemnation of IRC for anyone, I would imagine. If one partisan thinks that IRC has been accurately keeping tabs, that's a great sign that it isn't. "Minute by minute" sounds exciting. I wonder why Misplaced Pages isn't a great big happy funtime webforum or a party line telephone call. Oh, right....rules and procedures and trying to get input from all sides -- some of us absurdly still believe in those things. Geogre 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't even go eat dinner without you silly sausages turning Misplaced Pages into lunchtime at the primate house. A pox on all of you, Geogre included. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh, block for personal attack! Block for personal attack! (I have antibiotics, thanks.) Geogre 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more pointless drama here than a bad community theater. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Highlights: Tony Sidaway: Ignore all Kelly Martins also means Ignore all Gianos (I've actually advised someone to ignore Kelly Martin in recent days - I felt a bit bad about it, but it seems Tony agrees). jeremiad; jeremiad ("a long speech or prose work that bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and often contains a prophecy of its coming downfall") - please let there be an article or at least wicktionary entry on this dellicious word! Best ending comment, from Luigi30: "There's more pointless drama here than a bad community theater" - maybe that should be framed and used as a template somewhere... Carcharoth 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more pointless drama here than a bad community theater.

User:Luigi30

• How's that? Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• GTBacchus (talk · contribs) said something similar at the now deleted Kelly Martin RfC and I think that was probably the most on point statement I saw there. We don't need to fear Daniel Brandt or Citizendium... we are going to Melrose Place ourselves into complete and utter ridiculousness at this rate.--Isotope23 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no. In any community you get episodes like this. And cliques as well. You can't avoid them, but you can ameliorate them. You can also remember that for every minute some groups spend at a noticeboard like this, there are countless others adding vandalism, reverting vandalism, adding their biased opinions, or (hopefully) writing a nice, well-referenced, encyclopedia page. Carcharoth 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for ruining my soliloquy by replying Carcharoth... :P --Isotope23 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not bad. Lacks a little je ne sais quoi. Maybe an old engraving of The Tempest? Humour is the best way to deflate people sometimes. :-) Carcharoth 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, did this kerfuffle have something to do with IRC? I suppose I ought not be surprised, other than perhaps a bit of surprise that more people haven't yet realized that sitting around in a chat room has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Chat rooms create friends.. and enemies. Misplaced Pages functions better without friends and enemies. Friday (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nice picture, though is Kelly the one with her arms in the air or the one weeping? Interesting comment there Friday "did this kerfuffle have something to do with IRC?" If that isn't a rhetorical question, I'll answer it - I doubt it - Tony Sidaway or David Gerard (one of them I forget which) has said that it was monitored second by second on IRC (interesting lives some people have) but they advised against blocking, that it is not their place on IRC to advise for or against blocking is neither here nor there. No they would not advise blocking me on IRC, in case I found out, and they know that would cause them amazing trouble. Also, they would certainly not advise blocking Doc and Cyde, not unless all the regulars there had been struck dumb. IRC is actually a spent force that can de dismissed from equations such as this. Giano 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Giano, here's a brilliant idea that I'm sure you're totally incapable of putting into practice: How about you (and your buddy Geogre) stop spending your force on the noticeboards, prolonging already pointless drama with even more pointless masturbatory whinging, and dedicate yourself instead to actually doing something useful? Great, look forward to not seeing more of you here. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly: "quod erat demonstrandum" Giano 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Blocked by User:Nick. WODUP 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Indef blocked. See block log DES 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – No immediate action needed, see below.

Resolved – IP blocked

Resolved – Sock drawer closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – No immediate action needed

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