Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 14 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)

• 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?

Using wikipedia as a battleground and other policy violations

Duraiappa stadium mass gravean article that appeared on DYK on May 9, an editor who has been warned by admins about his continious policy violations in his talk page at least twice has gone on to remove all relevant categories, reverted it 4 times, maliciousy tagged all sources as biased sources and has been very uncivil in his comments towards others editors in the talk page. The page is totally out of control, vandalized unless and admin helps to get control. Thanks 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuous violation of WP:LIVING concerning a President in office

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has continuously reinserted libellous information on Ahmadinejad article. The sources which is used for the information has nothing to do with the information provided. It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain Jewish admins who monitor the article, to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING. Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely user:Jayjg) not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage contrary to WP:IGNORE. (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.)

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Misplaced Pages.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating WP:WTA and insisting on it and ignoring all the calls to honor it. --Pejman47 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, please pursue the dispute resolution process. If you have WP:LIVING concerns, please use the noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by civil discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism is unacceptable, as is calling someone's edits "Jewish propaganda." Accusing someone of bias because of their religion or ethnicity borders on a personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office, was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address WP:BLP issues is the BLP noticeboard. Alternatively or in addition, you could try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Misplaced Pages editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet. Grandmasterka 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I've just taken an interest in that page, and while there's certainly some POV-pushing all round, and a bit of ownership, I've seen nothing that suggests admin misconduct of any kind, let alone anything stemming from ethnic biases. Even if I had suspected the latter, the rules of engagement here on WP firmly abjure me from actually modifying my actions to act on that suspicion. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Misplaced Pages; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Misplaced Pages tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....⇒ SWATJester 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.) Phony Saint 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus of voices calling for at least a retraction of the Jewish administrators statement and preferably an apology. This site's assume good faith policy requires editors to seek reasonable explanations for each other's actions. This edit dispute had a legitimate basis in conflicting reference sources. The reasoning behind the Jewish administrators assertion appears to be that certain edits might have reflected a particular viewpoint on Middle Eastern politics - from there one editor leaps to an unwarranted assumption that those administrators had a political bias - and another unwarranted assumption that these people were violating WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in pursuit of that bias - and a third unwarranted assumption that the supposed bias originates in these individuals' religious/ethnic origin. Etymologically speaking, prejudice means to assert a conclusion before seeing adequate evidence. I've watched this dynamic operate at Misplaced Pages before and it really doesn't matter to me which group gets targeted: prejudice is always an obstacle to collaboration. Durova 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, whether of editors, sources or conclusions, is always unhelpful and uncollegial. Gerash, apologise for your phraseology, retract the accusation, and read WP:DR. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because neither of the words admin or Jewish is negative, "Jewish admins" on Ahmadinejad article is not negative as well. It is used to categorize 4 admins, whom I did not want to name individually. Please note that if they were Muslim admins, then I would have said Muslim admins, and I am sure none of you would have mind that. It is very unfortunate that you fail to assume good faith per WP:AGF, because I have attempted to remove libellous and uncited comments from an article on a Muslim president, which contradicted WP:LIVING. Regrettably, this form of bad assumptions and calling a person who has attempted to adhere to to the WP:LIVING per Misplaced Pages's policies has resulted in severe and disgusting insults, such as being called "antisemitic". With this sort of paradox and negative views toward certain group of editors by assumptions of bad faith, I doubt that this behaviour by some Wikipedians is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. --Gerash77 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you Just Don't Get It, and that further discussion of the matter can serve no purpose. Let's all call it a day. Raymond Arritt 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sorry for this sort of paradoxic response and offensive name-callings from some wikipedians.--Gerash77 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're sorry that the Jewish Cabal is ganging up on you and calling you names? Come on. This is trolling, plain and simple. You know what you did, you just want a pointy stick to poke things with. ThuranX 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash, you can argue it all you want, but the phrase "Jewish admins" carries a negative implication whether you like it or not. We're not asking you to censor yourself, but to choose your words carefully, and to avoid making such comments in the future. You are engaging what the political world calls "parsing," and what psychologists call "rationalization," but the result is the same: that after the original intent of your words has been derided and condemned, you then find another excuse and reason to give a sense of mistinterpretation by others. Your continued denial will not obscure the fact that such comments, in whatever context, carry such a negative implication as to be found socially and morally reprehensible. —physicq (c) 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread has served one single useful purpose: to put an editor onto my radar screen. As I stated months ago at Raul's laws, any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Durova 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So much insults... So many threats. It is not surprising at all...--Gerash77 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats? Now you're just imagining things. Especially as you started this by labeling some admins as Jewish. Phony Saint 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash should certainly have chosen his words more carefully. There is a widespread problem on Middle Eastern articles with a clique pushing what's essentially an American/Israeli right-wing point of view, which seems to be what's going on here; just as elsewhere on Misplaced Pages there are problems with nationalist cliques, party political cliques, etc, etc. But labelling those cliques by their religious beliefs as "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever isn't helpful, and it's not an accurate description of the problem. -- ChrisO 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, and if any POV clique is demonstrably acting to violate WP:NPOV or WP:OWN I'd do my best to put an end to the problem. Burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of individuals who allege impropriety. For my own part I rarely edit on Middle Eastern topics but am neutral enough that I sometimes get solicited to settle disputes. Here's one example from yesterday User_talk:Durova#Request_for_help. Durova 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know what; Misplaced Pages is a hotbed of POV arguments over everything from whether winning the war in Iraq is crucial to the existence of human civilization, to whether an overhead cam engine is inherently superior to a pushrod engine. And most of the groups in these arguments can be easily stereotyped as "Old guys who drive Mustangs and Camaros" vs. "Young guys who drive Hondas" or similar; but whenever it veers near an argument which boils down to "Jews are trouble", "Israel is a rogue state who control the US government", "the holocaust is a lie", etc., anybody who takes the other side, whether they think that Israel is a shining example among the nations or that Israel has made some terrible mistakes, gets lumped in as "the Jewish cabal on wikipedia". Nobody resorts to tarring aybody with "the Arabic cabal", "the Muslim cabal", even "the antisemitic cabal", although they are damn easily identifiable. Nobody argues about "the gay cabal" pushing their agenda on Misplaced Pages. Nobody tries to delegitimize edits as the product of "the conservative cabal" or "the liberal cabal". But the Jews; they're all acting together, you know. People can post according to whatever points of view they want, but anybody mentioning a "Jewish cabal" or similar is too paranoid to be deemed a reliable editor. Gzuckier 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for advisory opinion

I have two questions concerning a recent matter. There are two interconnected issues, and the narrative below is presented chronologically.

Background

• User:Certified.Gangsta maintains a UI spoofing banner ("You have new messages") on his user page: see, e.g. .
• This has caused much controversy, leading in the end to this policy discussion, which appears to me and to a number of other editors (e.g. , , to indicate a consensus, if not a policy, against UI spoofing (but no consensus regarding joke banners falling short of UI spoofing).
• Thereafter, User:Certified.Gangsta appeared to acquiesce to this consensus. For example, see my discussion with him at: User talk:Certified.Gangsta#Your user page banner.
• User:Certified.Gangsta's behaviour in this and other matters was at issue before the Arbitration Committee in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, as a result of which User:certified.Gangsta is on revert parole, limited to one revert (other than clear vandalism) per page per week.

Current events

• Following a number of reverts by myself and several other users (of whom, btw, I know nothing)I reverted User:Certified.Gangsta's restoration of the UI spoofing banner to his user page, with explanation referring to community consensus on this point; previous reverts by other users similarly referred to this consensus.
• User:Sean William reverts my edit without an explanatory edit summary.
• User:Sean William posts this message on my talk page accusming me of "baiting" Certified.Gangsta into reverting.
• Because I was at no point trying to bait Certified.Gangsta, I was indignant at this failure to assume good faith by User:Sean William. I removed his accusations, posted this message on his talk page, and reverted his edit to User:Certified.Gangsta with the Undo function.

The questions on which I ask for guidance from experienced administrators are the following:

On UI spoofing

1. Is User:Certified.Gangsta entitled to add the UI spoofing banner to his user page?
2. If so, am I acting within policy in removing the UI spoofing banner?
3. Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation?

On baiting

1. Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block?
2. Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? --Sumple (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you've heard one side of the story; now for the other. User:Certified.Gangsta was recently put under revert parole by the ArbCom (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram). I blocked him for 48 hours recently for violating this parole. (The circumstances for the block can be found on the arbitration block log and Certified.Gangsta's talk page.) Now, this user is not the first person to bait Certified.Gangsta to edit war with them; Ryulong blocked another user for doing the same thing. I can't recall who that user was off the top of my head, but I'm sure Ryulong knows. As far as I know, the UI spoofing discussion did not achieve consensus, and nothing was changed (although the practice is still strongly frowned upon). My revert was designed to go back to the original version, in hopes that Sumple would heed my warning and stop revert warring. However, he did not, as you can see. Comments on my conduct would be greatly appreciated; I'm not afraid of criticism. Sean William 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here... wasn't this question asked On the Request For Arbitration (Request of Clarification) board ? MrMacMan 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sean William seems to be arguing that User:LionheartX's intentions are somehow imputed to me. He continues to fail to assume good faith on my behalf, and he has now added allegations of "edit warring" to his prior allegations of "baiting". In light of User:Sean William's post, I might add another two questions:

1. Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta?
2. Is my ability to edit Misplaced Pages somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? --Sumple (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the UI Discussion, including the Jimbo Wales letter, indicate that only malicious 'spoofing' is to be avoided, and that banners about new, shiatsu, erotic or swedish mAssages are simple wordplay jokes? That people are now seeking to bust a user on 'parole' for doing something NOT prohibited by policy for jollies, malice, or boredom should be seen as a bigger problem than that he's got the joke. Can we knock it off with any number of these childish things and focus on useful stuff? This whole thing seems like the userbox issues. The obviously offensive should be stopped according to existing policy, and common sense. Arguing that sweidish massage is inherently sexually charged, and offensive, is asinine, as is arguing that having Allah is Satan on a userbox is NOT hateful minortiy view trolling. I keep trying to NOT get frustrated with Misplaced Pages, but 'issue' after 'issue' of childish beefs makes it very hard to. ThuranX 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not the "Swedish massage" message bar that was being warred over. Sean William 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. That's what all the reverts are about. He's got an obvious parody up, and a number of editors and admins who can't rise to the real challenges are out enforcing their perspectives on policy despite policy either being unclear, or the line defined by said policy being one requiring common sense, which isn't so common anymore, it seems. You can argue about if it's about him exceeding the reverts against his parole, but the obvious baiting by removing a NONoffensive spoof over and over, apparently b y multiple editors who are all waiting with 'baited' breath to pop him on it is 'dick-ish'. ThuranX 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Err no. We were disputing about the "You have new messages" banner on his user page, not the "Swedish massages" banner on the talk page. --Sumple (Talk) 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Six or half a dozen. Big deal, my comments still apply. Go improve Misplaced Pages, stop baiting the user. This whole mess reads like a bunch of people like to look at those on wikiparole like they are on real parole, and likely to criminally reoffend. They see someone on parole, and watch them like hawks, hoping the wiki-equivalent of jaywalking will occur, so they can get the parole revoked and get them off the project. It's like a truly screwed up Wiki-gentrification. It needs to stop. ThuranX 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not accept the presence of such practical joke banners: their only utility is to bring their posters a sense of pleasure at imagining that the are subjecting others to inconvenience and confusion, as they invariably do the first time they are encountered. While arguably a mild example of WP:BITE as they go, they are nevertheless objectively disruptive and add nothing of mitigating value.Proabivouac 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sumple: the thing with "baiting" is that it's a blatant violation of the Decency Principle, otherwise known as "don't be a dick". It is entirely possible to act like a dick without the subjective intent to be acting like a dick; it doesn't matter a bean what your intent is; once it's been pointed out you're acting like a dick, you really oughta stop acting like a dick. It also doesn't matter if you're attempting to "uphold community consensus"; you don't get to be a dick even when enforcing what you think are the rules. Regarding other editors' user pages: if you don't like the joke on the page, don't go to the page a second time. (If you fall for the joke a second time, well, oh my.) Stop looking for excuses to be an enforcer; go find some vandalism to revert instead. --jpgordon 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And on what basis do you label me a "dick"? --Sumple (Talk) 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?

Sumple removed the userpage banner. This happens to have been something that people have done before, so CertifiedGangsta was annoyed, and reverted it. I don't believe that he should be blocked for that, especially as it is his userpage. But anyway, how is that Sumple's fault, and why are we assuming that anyone who edit wars with someone under Arbcom sanction is deliberately harassing them? -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK. You originally edited has page two months ago and to this day seem to be under the impression that the UI spoofing talk actually came to a consensus against spoofing, despite others disagreeing. When somebody outside of you and Certified disagreed with the removal, that's kind of a sign that you should be talking instead of editing, even if consensus was backing you. Phony Saint 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling somebody else a dick is a form of dickery in itself, as Iamunknown points out below. In response to Amarkov: No, people who edit war with people sanctioned by ArbCom are not always harassing the user. However, deliberately starting edit wars with the intention of getting a user blocked is "harassment". I have assumed good faith until given evidence to the contrary. That evidence is here. "All of these show utter disregard for other Misplaced Pages users and Misplaced Pages itself. This, added to his offensive, racist, edit-warring behaviour, the refusal to discuss in good faith, frequent vandalism, and edit-warring, makes out a case for outright and permanent ban." Sumple, if you know that Certified.Gangsta is an edit-warrior and insists on having his fake new messages bar on his userpace, then why would you want to edit his userpage to remove the bar? Certified.Gangsta has reverted every attempt to do so in the past. What makes you think he'll stop this time? (I can't help but notice how much this resembles Carbonite's law.) Sean William 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm utterly confused as to why people won't simply be civil, assume good faith on Sumple's part (hey, he or she came here for open comments, he or she wasn't brought here) and just freakin' address the questions. Come on people. This is ridiculous. On the questions:

• Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation? - no well-intentioned edit, however misguided, should be reverted without at least a note (i.e. the "Undo" tool or a revert and a civil talk page note); preferrably none should be reverted, but using absolutives would not be in our best interest (e.g. well-intentioned but libellous or negative unsourced information of living people should be removed immediately, with a note afterwards)
• Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block? - no, because you aren't baiting, simple as that
• Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? - no, your edit was well-intentioned and you are, quite simply, not guilty of baiting
• Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta? - no, I think that block was a terrible precedent that should not be repeated
• Is my ability to edit Misplaced Pages somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? - no, the case did not involve you

On UI spoofing, the consensus seemed to be that only malicious UI spoofs should be against policy; others are indeed frowned upon, but not removing them is probably best. --Iamunknown 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and remember folks, those who invoke WP:DICK are WP:DICKs :)

Looking into it, Sumple was previously involved with Certified.Gangsta as indicated at an RfC, the RfA workshop, and Sumple's talk page. Sumple apparently has more of a background with Certified and really should just leave him and his user page alone. Phony Saint 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good investigation. I do wish that folks would just leave harmless (i.e. "new messages" without a link to some disgusting article) UI spoofing alone. But I do not think that Sumple was in bad faith; again, he or she brought this issue here for discussion in an open forum -- few people readily do that. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the matter of UI spoofing or policies regarding an individual's userpage because I'm not too familiar with those. But this quickness to label someone as "baiting" an editor on revert parole, or even blocking an editor for it when he hasn't violated 3RR, is a little ridiculous. Where's the good faith? And believe it or not, most of these reverts are well justified. There are good reasons an editor is placed on revert parole and in most cases there have been thorough discussions on why certain editors' edits are bad and need to be reverted. Stop treating editors on revert parole with kid gloves. They are fully aware of what they're doing, they don't get to be on revert parole without having been warned about their actions over and over again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And your previous involvement: , , and . There's not much good faith when one editor who had a dispute with another editor begins an edit war on the other's user page. Phony Saint 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Your point? Again, I won't comment on the UI spoofing or policies on userpages, and to note, I have not been edit warring on Certified's userpage myself. Having said that, Certified is the only editor that wants to see his version of the articles, there are numerous editors that revert his edits, and this is on the scale of a supermajority here. Believe it or not, some editors just make plain bad edits that need to be reverted, even if a lot of admins refuse to make a judgement call if only once in a while. There's a good reason why Certified is on revert parole and the rest of us are not, and it has something to do with his behaviour not just on one article, but across all of WP in general. Now that Certified has finally landed himself on revert parole for a year after all the bureaucracy of an ArbCom, he is still being treated with kid gloves. When did it happen that whenever someone reverts an editor on revert parole whom he previously had a dispute with, then it must be bad faith? His revert parole doesn't just apply to the articles he has edited before, it applies to all articles, this is an obvious clue to everybody that ArbCom has decided he needs to clean up his behaviour. Just block him if he breaks parole and nevermind accusing editors of baiting him. And I'm saying this as it could be applied to any editor on revert parole. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that Certified's edits on mainspace have nothing to do with his own user page, and that people previously involved in disputes with Certified should just stay away from his user page. Even if Certified is on parole, Sumple continually edited Certified's user page against the wishes of Certified as well as others - Sean William previously blocked him, yet still reverted Sumple's edits. Sumple cannot act as if he'd had no previous dispute with Certified, and wave away others' concerns about his edits by saying "I have consensus, see WP:USER and this talk page," neither of which indicate anything specific about the matter at hand. Phony Saint 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sumple did not "wave away" concerns. This conversation was started because he asked if what he did was justified. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • He started when he reverted Irpen, so from the start he was disagreeing with a third party. Sumple already has a negative view of Certified as expressed in Certified's RfA (linked above) and at Sean William's talk page, and now is bothered at the fact that somebody actually disagreed with him and his "consensus" and "policy." Were he just a random person who stumbled upon Certified's page, I would assume good faith wholeheartedly, but as it is, Sumple and Certified have a past history which Sumple has decided not to disclose, making it very hard to believe his intention is purely to improve Misplaced Pages. Phony Saint 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is a parallel (but less lively) thread at WP:RFARB here. --Iamunknown 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My two cents says leave the guy's banner alone. It's hard to take this issue at face value. If Sumple were acting in good faith I'd expect him to leave a polite request rather than remove a feature from another editor's user space. I'd also expect him to have a track record of similar polite requests at other user talk pages. And considering the past history between these two users and the timing shortly after the close of arbitration, I'd expect Sumple to act with particular discretion - such as posting a noticeboard query before acting or even bypassing CG among those polite requests - yet to my knowledge Sumple addressed no other editor than CG regarding this issue. That does give this the unseemly appearance of baiting. Surely we all have better things to do at Misplaced Pages. Durova 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:Iamunknown for that reasoned response. You have answered my questions. Thank you.

User:Durova: You are right, that this type of matters should be discussed first. Indeed, other editors and I have on several occasions politely requested that User:Certified.Gangsta remove the banner. My most recent request was at: User talk:Certified.Gangsta#Your user page banner, where I politely suggested that he remove the banner, and he agreed, and restored to another, non-spoofing version. Surely you don't expect other users to repeatedly post such a message all the time. Would you do that, when you are dealing with a persistent editor who reneges on earlier agreement?

You are also right that I haven't edited anyone else's joke banner. The reason for that is simple: I don't know anyone else with such a banner!!!!!. Do you think I randomly click on User pages searching for UI spoofing banners? I'm afraid I have more constructive edits occupying my time. I only edited User:Certified.Gangsta's banner because his talk page happens to be somewhere I have edited and therefore I have watched.

User:Phony Saint, your unprincipled and illogical argument is a disgrace. You are assuming that I edited User:Certified.Gangsta's page in mala fides simply because I have been in past disputes with him. Has it crossed your mind that I have been in good faith when I had disputes with him too? Has it crossed your mind that perhaps I am able to disabuse my mind of past disputes? Obviously not. By your argument, a judge should never sit on a criminal case again if he rules against a government prosecutor in one case, because by disagreeing with the prosecution he has established his mala fides in all future cases involving the prosecution. Well, I sure am glad that you are not a judge.

A fortiori, I did not list all the previous encounters I have had with User:Certified.Gangsta, because of the basic principle that each dispute should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by applying consistent principles -- a principle, I have no doubt, you would not agree with. To you, any suspicion of guilt condemns a man to all accusations. I have not sought to hide my previous involvement with User:Certified.Gangsta on this issue. The other disputes, including my involvement in his RfC, are irrelevant to my original request for comments.

User:Sean William I continue to be appalled by each new argument you raise. As another user pointed out above, is User:Certified.Gangsta to be treated with kid gloves just because he revert wars? Because that seems to be what you advocate! "User:Sumple knows User:Certified.Gangsta edit wars --> User:Sumple reverts User:Certified.Gangsta --> Therefore User:Sumple is acting in bad faith (even though User:Sumple in all honesty believes he is following consensus or policy) --> Therefore User:Sumple should be blocked"???? Let's substitute that with a real life analogy: "Policeman A knows habitual criminal B is easily provoked into a murderous rage --> Policeman A arrests B for robbery, prompting B to go crazy and injure several bystanders --> Therefore Policeman A is acting in bad faith (even though he honestly believed B had committed robbery) --> Let's sack Policeman A!! Well, boy am I glad that you aren't running the police service of your community! In fact, I didn't assume (as you did) that User:Certified.Gangsta would go revert war just because someone removes his banner. A part of WP:AGF is assuming that another user would not automatically resort to inappropriate behaviour simply because he has done so in the past. Or does WP:AGF mean nothing to you? Maybe you owe an apology to User:Certified.Gangsta too in assuming that he would revert-war at any minuscule provocation.

I came here for clarification on the policy regarding User:Certified.Gangsta's banner, my behaviour, and User:Sean William's behaviour. I did not come here to be pre-judged by you as to my character. I am sorely disappointed by the behaviour some of the editors posting in this thread, who seem to groundlessly assume that others are scheming "dick"s who are incapable of acting objectively and in bona fides. Even more ridiculously, they assymetrically apply such a prejudgment to editors who are not disruptive, and who produce constructive edits, and, for some reason, not to disruptive editors who have been sanctioned by ArbCom! If I were to prejudge anyone, I would prejudge someone who had been officially sanctioned! wouldn't you? Or are criminals good honest blokes and all cops corrupt machinery of the capitalist state to you?

Misplaced Pages is meant to be fun. Asking for the opinions of more knowledgeable administrators on areas of uncertainty is one way to keep it fun. Well, you have just made it un-fun. I won't be back on Misplaced Pages for a while, if ever. --Sumple (Talk) 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages was not meant to be fun. Nobody said it was going to be fun. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Maybe we should start treating it like one. Sean William 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages, the volunteer encyclopedia that expects you to help for ... what?" --Ideogram 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumple (Talk) I completely agree with your point on the UI banner, I fell for it once and then learned to not believe the banner unless I see it in an article or non-user talk page. There are some though who may be concerned with rapidly answering new posts, and it's inconsiderate to them. However the problem is the community hasn't been given a fair chance to add all opinions. If I hadn't been watching the AN/I board I'd of probably missed it. Even if that happens a consensus may not be found, as is the case of WP:ATT but all who might be interested could at least opine. Anynobody 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UI spoofing is not a harmless joke. It needs to be included in the definition of vandalism, and I expect it will one day, but the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly. Meanwhile, WP:AGF does not mean that we do not distinguish between constructive and destructive edits... else why would bans and blocks exist? Perhaps Sumple could have warned rather than reveerting — perhaps &mash; but let's not confuse the cast of characters in this little drama. The UI spoof is still there. The editor has been warned that it is unacceptable to the community at large. I ask you, who is baiting who(m)? Which edit is an example of baiting? The UI spoof is baiting. It is playground behavior that skirts the (currently exisiting) rules... and is baiting because the editor knows it is considered unacceptable to the community,knows people have objected to it via warnings and reversion, and leaves it there. That's baiting, folks. Ling.Nut 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumple, if you want impartial comments, file a WP:RFC against me. I've already argued my point, so I'm not going to bother to re-iterate it down here. Sean William 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumple, the fact that you and others obviously dislike Certified should have been stated from the beginning; if you wanted to be neutral, you would have stated your possible conflict of interest and why you didn't think it would affect this incident. Even if you believe that UI spoofing was against consensus or policy, you very well knew that it was Certified's user page you were editing and that you had a fairly good chance you wouldn't be neutral. As WP:HARASS states, "Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space." If you are clearly in the right, as you believe, a third party should also see your point of view as well. Which is where your judge analogy fails; judges and administrators are neutral third parties, and in this case you've been lambasting the third-party admin simply because he decided against you. Just leave Certified's page alone and let others deal with it. Phony Saint 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with UI spoofing as long as it doesn't cause any detrimental effects (phishing, etc.) I see no problem with having a little bit of fun every once and a while. At least until there's WP:NOFUN. .V. 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

About User:Rbj's chronic incivility again

This seems to be a once every two week topic here, but would someone please keep User:Rbj from abusing others thusly; He's previously been blocked twice for incivility and harassment but continues to insist on attacking others. Odd nature 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit you cite is indeed unfortunate, but generally admins only take admin action on WP:CIVIL matters that are really a lot more severe. While I appreciate that doing so is a thankless chore, I think that (if he has, as you say, a pattern of harassing and uncivil behaviour) an RFC or RFAr would be the next step. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a cas of chronic incivility. He's rude, he engages in personal attacks, he gets blocked, he behaves decently for a while, and then the cycle repeats. This is about the third time in the last two weeks or so that I have been aware of. I'd say a community block is in order, but then I think I said that when he made the anti-semitic attacks on User:Orangemarlin last week...or maybe it was the week before when his name was brought up here for personal attacks the week before that... Guettarda 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, while the AGF concept is nice and all that, r-b-j needs to g-o as the likelihood of remediation is roughly the equivalent to that of a blizzard in the Amazon basin. •Jim62sch• 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you all follow the steps in our Dispute resolution guidelines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute, Morven. What on earth is there to discuss? If you're suggesting an Rfc, all I can say is it would take days to paste all the diffs for personal attacks and hostility and disruption for this user, who has been asked politely, asked more pointedly, told outright, pointed in the direction of the civility and personal attack pages for his edification, and blocked repeatedly, most recently by me (for calling other editors stupid and lazy) - and although I certainly hope he takes my advice and reads up on civility and discussing the content, not the contributor, and applies it in his discussions with fellow editors - but I'm not holding my breath. The OrangeMarlin incident has never been resolved satisfactorily, and he used the attention on his talk page as a good audience for yet more snarky digs and outright abuse. There are times when an Rfc is simply a lot of time spent so people can say "Look, we followed dispute resolution - we knew it wouldn't do any good, but we also knew if we didn't act like Process Wonks no one would take action" - and this is one of those times. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a RFC or mediation would be pointless or has already been attempted, you can skip those steps so long as you justify them. Arbcom does accept cases that have not gone through those steps if the reason why not is argued well, or when the problem has been around for a long time without resolution and is clearly beyond RFC or mediation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? I wasn't planning on wasting their time any more than I was planning on wasting anyone elses. I suggested community ban when the OrangeMarlin incident happened; see here. I note Avi felt the admins involved were terse, but it wasn't like it was his first offense, or his twentieth; check his block log - and trust me, he hasn't been blocked nearly as often as he could have been. KillerChihuahua 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is about the most uncivil editor I've ever seen, you needn't spend more than 5 minutes reviewing any discussion section of any article he chooses to edit. He's rude, anti-semitic, crude, dismissive, condescending, and an all around disruptive element. I've seen the administrators here do more for a lot less problematic editors. He claims he's protected by Jimbo Wales, and given the lack of interest in dealing with this person, except by administrators who have either been the brunt of his uncivil behavior, or have directly observed it, I'm wondering if it is true. Yes, I'm still angry about what I believe is blatant anti-semitism. I even filed a complaint, but of course, Rbj doesn't even get his pinky slapped. This is really frustrating. Orangemarlin 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs for each of these offenses? Thank you. ThuranX 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did diffs. It was ignored. I give up. Orangemarlin 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to that, then? I'm not an admin, i'm just reading along, but I doubt most admins will spend half an hour crawling through things to find the problems. At least this time, someone's reading. ThuranX 05:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the hours looking up everything that he's done. But here's the diff to my ANI regarding Rbj. No one commented. Orangemarlin 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Undenting) Here is the last version of that section before it got archived. Lots of people got involved. Lots of people commented, including me. Please don't misrepresent things like that. ThuranX 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I missed ALL of this commentary. I checked once or twice, saw nothing, and it's impossible to watch since there are so many posts to this area. By the time I checked back, it was archived, and I couldn't find it. Thanks. Still, nothing happened. Orangemarlin 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just spent 5 minutes reading over the comments on my previous ANI. I do not know how I missed all of these comments, but it still bothers me at the lack of resolution to this matter. I know that several editors and admins dealt with the matter in a very direct manner. But Rbj's attitude was petulant and moved from borderline to distinctively anti-Semitic. I quit reading his responses to the matter, but now that I've looked into it more, the comments that he made in response were offensive to me. How dare he make any commentary on my religious beliefs, whether it was real or not, or whether I did it to make a point to him. I always use G_d in talk space, and have since I've seriously started editing here. And in my private life, I always spell it that way. If I make an edit to the article, it always uses the full spelling, if I must. It is my belief, and I find it offensive on how he chose to respond. But I am just one tiny target of his dysfunctional behavior. He needs to go. Orangemarlin 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm bored, let me list out my favorite attacks from this editor:

1. Get an education
2. Accusations of lying
3. Jimbo protects Rbj
4. Passive aggressive behavior
5. Still the most despicable statement from his fingertips

Orangemarlin 07:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Came by to see this thread around, so I'll comment a bit. User:Rbj's actions gave me a bitter taste in my mouth during my encounter with him about the situation regarding the banning of User:Nkras. —physicq (c) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So did my experience with him on the Marriage article. I'm sure I could go back through that and find all manner of him cursing out Bainer and Coelacan, and I believe some others as well. I see very little has changed since then. Seraphimblade 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that i've slept, I can reply to OM's comments above. OM, I read the last thread, and I think you're right, he's being a jerk. I also think that the lack of action last time has led to this editor escalating, as a result of a feeling of safety. As an involved(in wiki, not in this problem) regular editor, I'd like to see some action taken against Rbj. ThuranX 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What action(s) do editors feel are appropriate? I've suggested cutting thru the process mess and simply community banning, but no one has responded - would there be any objections? KillerChihuahua 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite many warnings and chances given he appears chronically incivil and clearly the community has about lost it's patience with him, so continuing as-is is not an option. A community topic ban seems a reasonable solution, and one that I would support. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A topical ban at least, if not a complete ban; at this point those would be the only options in my view. Is anyone suggesting that an overall ban is too harsh, and that we should just stick with a topical ban? Jayjg 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the behavior occurs on every topic Rbj touches. Before Intelligent Design it was going on at Talk:Homophobia, which even led to Rbj vandalizing someone's userpage. ··coelacan 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is the only remedy for someone who is beyond normal remediation. Enough of r-b-j, one of the most tendentious, disruptive, disrespectful editors I have ever had the displeasure of running across. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper into his contributions, this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit" are all completely over-the-top unacceptable. OK, I'm convinced; support a full indef ban. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if my $0.02 is worth anything more than that, because I'm not an admin, but I want him banned forever. But he does claim support from Jimbo, so I hope this isn't temporary. Orangemarlin 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have "support" from Jimbo. He was unblocked by Jimbo once because Jimbo didn't think that Rbj's reversion of the deletion of Nkras's legal threats itself constituted making legal threats. (Was that clear as mud? Sorry.) Long story short, if Jimbo feels that a community ban is fairly executed, he won't undo it. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, the last time I raised this "threatening meatpuppetry" thing, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#User:Rbj, he argued convincingly enough for me that he was not doing that. I would support a ban on all other counts here, but not that one. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four

User Beatles Fab Four was blocked for inappropriate username and "consider yourself also temporarily blocked for, and warned about, disruptive editing on Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. This includes edit warring, breaking the three revert rule, and breaches of civility".

Instantly after that, user Beatle Fab Four appeared and started the same edit war. He was again banned.

Then, after a while, same edit warring started from several IP's (links are to contributions list):

• 85.140.211.220 .
• 85.140.243.184 .
• 84.249.52.136 (also vandalized my user page (), but I am not sure it was him. Same style, though - disregard of Misplaced Pages rules, writing comments using bold).
• 85.140.211.200 (in this case, it is definitely him: ).
• 193.232.195.136 (probably switching to modem).
• 85.140.209.118 .
• 85.140.243.52 .
• 85.140.209.67 .

Also, at some point user User:Nazis Hunter appeared and started same edit warring. User Staberinde requested a checkuser (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beatle Fab Four), with result "likely" from two administrators.

Now the original ban for Beatle Fab Four has ended and he is back using that nick again.

I am not quite sure what it is possible to do, as this user shows total disregard to Misplaced Pages rules and authorities (threatening administrator Sandstein, , also threatening me with Mossad, but I assume that was an attempt to joke). Bans are not effective, as the user is obviously on dynamic IP and will evade - I'd wouldn't like to apply for semi-protection for the article he stalks, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, as there have been quite a lot good edits from unregistered users, besides, most of his edits are now on talk page.

In any case, I would like to report him for repeated block evasion. DLX 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. And I'm not a vandal. On the contrary, this DLX constanly tries to purge controversian articles on the political events, avoids controversies rosolving procedures and cherry-picks admins to block users who disagree with him. In addition, he constanly expresses pro-Nazis view in discussions, which I stronly believe is inappropriate in Wiki community. Best regards Beatle Fab Four 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying. I haven't tried to "purge controversian articles" - give me even one example where I have done that. And my "pro-Nazis" views exist only in your imagination, I deeply dislike both nazis and communists - they are both equally evil, as far as I am concerned. As for "rosolving procedures", please give an example of avoiding those? Asking you several times to discuss your POV changes is "avoiding", apparently? DLX 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm anti-communist. So what? There are no exuses for pro-Nazis. They should discuss their views elsewhere. In prison, I presume. Beatle Fab Four 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, you started an edit war once all those not-reliablr sorcess you loaded were nocked-out by reliable one (For example me giving you quotes from the bock written by a Nazi Soldier, Tiggers in the Mudd, and by that nocking you out from half of your claims). Fab Four nocked you even in a more elegant way, giving a part of speach from your Prime-Minister where he admitts that Estonians colloborated with the Nazis. Once you lost, you started runing and complaining to admnistrators who feel bossy but dont even care to learn the case. You try to blame others for stuff you did. If anyone should be blocked, it's you. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So what has that got to do with me? Truth isn't pro-nazi, but denying the truth is worse then being pro-Nazi. And still no evidence of "purge controversian articles", I see. DLX 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Beatle Fab Four is the agitator, and edits where it looks like he's trying to pass himself off as DLX are also concerning. (He may be trying to indicate who is saying the things he objects to, his english seems lacking.) ThuranX 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that was not the case there (ie trying to pass as me), it is his style of editing - he comments into middle of comments by others, removes his own comments etc. At least I don't see that as trying to be me. DLX 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I originally blocked Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) (previously Beatles Fab Four (talk · contribs)) for disruption (mostly personal attacks and incivilities). I noticed the block evasion, but since he's editing from a dynamic IP, I refrained from blocking the whole IP range so as not to cause collateral damage to uninvolved editors. Nonetheless, in the case of any further disruption by this user or his socks, I will lock that IP range down. Beatle, for the last time: you are welcome to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but you must refrain from attacking others. Sandstein 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You didnt even learn the case, if you would learn it you would understand how your speach doesnt fit here. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked its DLX (talk · contribs) and Sandstein (talk · contribs). DLX started vandalising articles by writing stuff that try to put Estonians coloborating with the Nazis as "Inoccent". He supported those facts with NOT reliable websites. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) and User:Nazis Hunter tried to fight those acts of vandalism by deleting those lies from articles, but DLX started an Edit War against those users, but couldn't win it. He started an argumment on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn talk page, but when all the "facts" he tried to present were smashed he turned to Sandstein so to block Beatles Fab Four. Fab Four offcourse defended himself. Sandstein, WITHOUT learning the case, blocked Beatles fab for. When i tried to protest, he blocked me to, nevertheless, he didnt do anything to DLX. Yes, in the argument Fab Four made more then 3 reverts, but it was not his fault. DLX was the one who startyed an edit war, and by not following by the 3 revert rule in order to fight vandalism, Fab Four followed a more importent rule, that many administrators seem just not to know http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules so if somthing should be done about this case, is blocking DLX and taking the administratoe role from Sandstein. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Sandstein tries to fight me in a more "mature" way, saying that images i uploaded to Fab Four are not free domian, while i copied there licence execlly as theye were written on their original pages on Misplaced Pages. As i said, he isn't checking anything, is that what an administrator should be like? someone who isn't checking licence before he staits somthing about using those images? Someone who blockes people without learning the case? He isn't justifing his status. M.V.E.i. 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about finally giving some example where I "vandalised" an article? You both keep saying that without giving even one example of that - while my edit history is visible for anyone. I have provably not done anything you claim that I've done - however, you have failed to show any evidence to your silly (and quite frankly, insulting, racist and hate-mongering) claims like "They baltic people feel little, useless. Everything that the baltic countries now have is thanks to the Soviet Unian. Technology, ruads, everything, and that makes them hate soviets even more. In their everyday life they see that all that they have, was made by the Soviets, and that makes them feel small, and that makes them hate the Soviets.", "The Baltic tribes were always considered the most primitive among Europe. You forgot how your Baltic union The Lithuanian Kingdom in the middle ages started a war against Russians? You started it, so relax. The Russians were to soft ith you, you deserved more. Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people). How excacly did we take your freedom?? We gave you technology, everything.". Do I need to say more about you then "there not considered people"? That shows very clearly what kind of person you are, I think.

User:Nazis Hunter and user:Beatle Fab Four are the same person, evading block, something strictly against Misplaced Pages rules. Nothing excuses uncivility and rudeness. Oh, and sorry to burst your little pseudohistoric bubble, but there has never been "The Lithuanian Kingdom" DLX 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There have never been that kind of kingdom? unfortunately, there has http://en.wikipedia.org/Kingdom_of_Lithuania you dont even know your own baltic history. And then in turned into http://en.wikipedia.org/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania . I cant give examples because Fab deleted those plces were you vandalized, but if anyone would like, your all welcome to enter the Bronze Liberator talk page, and see the lies that DMX was repeating over and over, and us smashing that with facts and real proves. M.V.E.i. 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was Grand Duchy of Lithuania (please learn to create Wikilinks). That is not the same as "The Lithuanian Kingdom", (there were two Kingdoms of Lithuania, neither started a war against Russia). Also, all Misplaced Pages pages have a magical thing called history where you can see all changes done by anyone, ever. So, please go now to history of the article in question and show me exactly where I "vandalised" the article. Or otherwise, stop your bickering, insults and lies, please. DLX 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I offer somthing better, lets visit the talk page, its full with your lies. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the alleged vandalism? Couldn't find any, eh? Stop your insults and lies - and enough of this here. I tried to reason with you on your talk page, your responses were insults bordering on racism. If you want to talk, message me on my talk page, this is not the place for this discussion. DLX 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Me liying? And that i hear from a man who said that the Estonian SS didnt kill any Jewe your prime minister even says they did, and that i hear from a man who said Americans fought better then Russians while even a Nazi Soldier from WW2 says that one Russian was like 10 Americans? youve lost man, then and now. M.V.E.i. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.90.101.55 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Counter-revolutionary

Editor User:Counter-revolutionary has made this edit here . I have suggested on his talk that he does not do it again. Perhaps it would be better though if an Admin explained the consequences of such edits. From his page he seems to be upsetting a few others too - perhaps a polite reminder would nip this behaviour in the bud. Giano 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it appears thisis not the first incident regarding him and this page. I don't think we can have established eitors referring to the subject of a biography as a "cow" not in main space anyway. Giano 12:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually brought this up before, as he was stalking my edits that day. For example I made this edit to an AfD at 20:08 and he votes 1 minute later. Then when I reverted vandalism to the above article, his edit put it back five minutes later. I have no objections to anyone checking my contributions, as that's why they are logged, but I regard his actions as going beyond that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm begining not to like what I'm seeing here, especially when one looks at Peabody's talk page. Giano 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your link shows General Peabody trying to set up a revert tag team, and here's another one:. But note that he's a brand new user, I guess that's why people are being extra patient. (FWIW, he looks like a genuine noob, too--a sock would know to do these things more discreetly.) Bishonen | talk 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The user hasn't edited since Giano put a note on his page. But just to make it clear that we seriously can't have such behaviour on a WP:BLP page, I dropped a message myself, too. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

• The edit, and be aware I didn't write its contents, was a mistake! I shouldn't have made it. --Counter-revolutionary 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm quite struck by this. You reinstated an edit by somebody else without reading it...? How does something like that happen? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I think Bishonen is referring to this surprising admission. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an error on my part! --Counter-revolutionary 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

An error, to be sure. On that point we can all agree. But, it seems, the error is the result of a campaign on your part to revert anything done by One Night In Hackney. He reverted an ignorant, shameful comment, and you were quick to simply revert what he had done without being bothered to look. I find that disturbing, and what I find even more disturbing is that you seem to be motivated to do so by ideology, and not what is best for Misplaced Pages. ---Charles 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The horse is dead, quit tormenting it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This edit summary: m (Perhaps if they could source it...) doesn't look as if it were something you reverted without reading. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be problematic. His user page reads "Leave a message (unless user:Vintagekits)" which is needless uncivil. JoshuaZ 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re. the edit summary; I didn't read the whole thing. There are sources for her children attending a grammar school in NI, obviously not for her being a cow.

The reason I state that Vintagekits shouldn't write on my talk page is that he has "banned" me from his. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

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

Please consider taking any complaints to Request for Comments - such discussion has no place here. -- Nick 12:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am writing as a banned user in regards to the actions of User:One Night In Hackney. He recently deleted about 100 edits made by a User:Rcb1 (see ). This is not me, although we do have some similar styles and interests. User:One Night In Hackney knows this otherwise he would have named me as the sockpuppet. As it happens ONiH does not know or seem to care about the identity of the sockpuppet or to whom it belongs and has made no effort in finding out. He has placed no notice or template on the userpage and has not requested that the user be blocked or banned ().

ONiH has cast himself as judge, jury and prosecutor, and has been empowered by like-minded inviduals in his coterie or inner circle to carry out vendettas and delete whatever he chooses without an administrator's OK, although Admin. User:Alison seems to rubber stamp everything he does. He enjoys playing cat and mouse games (see below):

• (cur) (last) 13:55, 12 May 2007 One Night In Hackney (Talk | contribs) (83,501 bytes) (rv -going to have fun with this editor) emphasis added
• (cur) (last) 13:54, 12 May 2007 General Peabody (Talk | contribs) (83,498 bytes) (they are terrorists)

I admit that I have continued to edit Misplaced Pages since being blocked, but how could I not. I was/am a Wikiholic ("My name is Robert and I am a..."), if I may be permitted to invent such a word, and no one is offering any rehab. Also I diagreed with the grounds for my lifetime ban - engineered by User:Demiurge, a friend of User:Alison, User:One Night In Hackney, et al. - and let's not use euphemisms - indefinite ban is a lifetime ban - for what amounted to "exhausting the community's patience".

I am not even going to get into the fact that these censors all belong to the same ethnic and/or national background:

• User:Demiurge
• User:Vintagekits
• User:Alison
• User:Domer48

I'll leave it to you to figure out what that is.

In closing, let me add that while in the short run allowing these censors and vendettists to perform "security" (locating sockpuppets, which in general I agree with, except, of course, my own case) may sem OK, in the long run feeding the egos of this ilk and allowing them to do whatever they wish is not the sign of a healthy or true encyclopaedia.

Yours,

R. Sieger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.94.184 (talk • contribs)

Why was the above reverted? If there is no substance to this report then it will not stand. Erasing it makes it look like someone has something to hide. What are R. Sieger's previous edits?VK35 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He has stated he was a banned user. Banned users are not able to edit on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason. However, if anyone wants to immediately throw this frivolous request out my window (and essentially doing the same thing as reverting it), be my guest. —physicq (c) 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of the process, banned users are often blocked and then submitted for banning. Therefore, they have absolutely no chance to defend their position. I would assume that this creates a situation that they create socks. In order to decrease socks, we must try to understand their motivation. Sometimes, we may be able to solve this. I say these comments because I have worked with socks in 3RR and SSP cases and have, so far, resolved their complaints through informal mediation. Extreme POV and vandal socks are a different matter.VK35 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this banned user's account anyway? Funpika 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the group of editors he mentions do occasionally overstep the mark with regards to pushing opinion. I'm also slightly interested to hear why this user was blocked and what his username was. He states he was banned, whereas it may just be a block (a ban being an indef block no admin will lift; I can't know if I would lift it without knowing more about it :)). I suggest if he has true grounds for being unblocked he should post an unblock request on his old talk page.

All that said, I strongly suspect this is all a load of hot air from a rightly blocked and banned user. --kingboyk 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict with above post)

This has been reverted completely again. I have restored some of the regular editors comments so we can comment. By reverting out the entire comment, we are just asking for vandalism to occur.

Furthermore, the original edit says that he is blocked for being accused of being the banned user but that he is not the banned user. If so, reverting his comments is improper. Only the comments written by banned users should be reverted, not comments written by people unfairly accused of being blocked users.VK35 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick investigation suggests we could be looking at this user. Will (aka Wimt) 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left One Night In Hackney a note on his Talk page about this discussion. It's common courtesy. --ElKevbo 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If R. Sieger is rms125a@hotmail.com, I do not wish to participate in this discussion further. However, I still have not seen the contribution list (edit list) for R. Sieger.VK35 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP is obviously the rms125a guy. Something confuses me though. I can't find anything about either user's account creation. Funpika 17:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

R. Sieger made this original edit using an IP address and not a regular log-in. The IP has been blocked for 1 week. I believe R. Sieger will be able to continue editing next week. If R. Sieger later gets blocked personally and feels that it has been unfairly done, then I might be interested in listening to his/her complaint (not a guarantee)VK35 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It still seems obvious that User:Robert Sieger and IPs in the 70.19 IP range are sockpuppets of User:rms125a@hotmail.com. Funpika 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't believe User:Robert Sieger was ever blocked. Funpika 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the original RMS comment here because it contains useful context, because I'm mentioned personally there, and because it's a useful example of the editor in question. Please don't delete it as he'll only cry censorship. Comments to follow ... - Alison ☺ 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm glad this has been brought up here now as I believe in transparency and I've absolutely nothing to hide here. Robert Sieger, also known as just RMS or User:Rms125a@hotmail.com has been a regular feature on WP for about three years now. He has the dubious honour of being community banned twice now. While he often makes constructive contributions, he cannot keep his POV and his hatred of all things Catholic/Irish/Celtic FC (they being synonymous, apparently) in check. He has had an extensive history of sock-puppetry - easily in the hundreds now - which he uses to evade his ban. Just two articles John Charles McQuaid and Tim Pat Coogan are classic examples of his sockery and edit-warring (check the history). He has been the subject of at least one RFC which resulted in his first ban. He's been involved in vote rigging, which was exposed by CheckUser (the User:Jill Teed debacle). Contrary to his claims, I do not block the guy on sight at all . He's been incredibly offensive to others here, both on an off WP. He's posted rants to WikipediaWatch, complaining about editors and admins. Just this week, he openly mocked some other innocent editor who just happened to be on my talk page. The same day, he created an attack article on another editor which was speedied. And on and on and on and on it goes ... Recently, another admin questioned a block I placed on an RMS sock. I provided evidence in email and they were satisfied. I can provide extensive evidence for every comment I have made here, so feel free to question anything I have said on this thread. I certainly stand by every action I have made to-date pertaining to this phenomenally abusive banned editor - Alison ☺ 18:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, and he was trolling here on ANI just last week - Alison ☺ 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong generic statement in support of Alison and Hackney (don't have much contact with the others). This whole complaint is a load of bullshit, and physicq is absolutely right: Banned users should not be allowed to edit at all, for precisely this reason. It matters not two whits whether they were blocked or not before the ban: The ban is a COMMUNITY ban: as long as everyone else in the community can decide, it really doesn't matter what the editor in question thinks. I personally think I'm the greatest thing in the world, but everyone else I meet thinks I'm an asshole. As disheartening to me as it ends up sounding, guess who's right? (hint: not me).⇒ SWATJester 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, since you people don't seem to realize the point of my writing -- it was not about me or whinging for any favours, but rather about ONiH's abuses and his unaccountability regarding the below, which is probably the tip of the iceberg:

I am writing as a banned user in regards to the actions of User:One Night In Hackney. He recently deleted about 100 edits made by a User:Rcb1 (see ). This is not me, although we do have some similar styles and interests. User:One Night In Hackney knows this otherwise he would have named me as the sockpuppet. As it happens ONiH does not know or seem to care about the identity of the sockpuppet or to whom it belongs and has made no effort in finding out. He has placed no notice or template on the userpage and has not requested that the user be blocked or banned ().

ONiH has cast himself as judge, jury and prosecutor, and has been empowered by like-minded inviduals in his coterie or inner circle to carry out vendettas and delete whatever he chooses without an administrator's OK, although Admin. User:Alison seems to rubber stamp everything he does. He enjoys playing cat and mouse games (see below):

• (cur) (last) 13:55, 12 May 2007 One Night In Hackney (Talk | contribs) (83,501 bytes) (rv -going to have fun with this editor)
• (cur) (last) 13:54, 12 May 2007 General Peabody (Talk | contribs) (83,498 bytes) (they are terrorists)

R. Sieger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.102.179 (talk • contribs)

• Robert - I don't believe you. If User:Rcb1 has any issue with what's happened here, I'm pretty sure we'll hear from them soon and people here can address accordingly. Or not. It's very laudable that you're going to bat for this guy, but I somehow suspect your motives. Right now, you have at least 4 sock accounts active - I'm watching them right now - but they have not been blocked. And again, I do not "rubber stamp" whatever Hackney does. That's plainly false. - Alison ☺ 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here's Robert's impersonation of my own account. Here's some of my talk page comments from last year. Here's the original RfC. Here's the original ANI report from last year. Here's the second community ban from last month. Hackney brought this case to the Community Sanction Noticeboard, which is why Robert is so sore here. He's also been using sockpuppets to stack AfD votes. He has close-on 300 known sock-puppet accounts. Here he is on my talk page last week, which brought this thread to ANI last week. And here on my talk page about 1 minute ago. And on and on and on it goes .... - Alison ☺ 23:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alison- that (Allyoops) was a joke, nothing more. Did you seriously think I seriously thought it would go uncovered? I told you at the time, that it was the merest of bon mots.

Getting to serious stuff: Alison: My motives are nothing less than ensuring that Misplaced Pages maintain its integrity, even though I am excluded from its mainstream, much as Desdemona loved Othello even as he made her life miserable and finally took it from her. That is why I monitor ONiH and as an Administrator, why haven't you even asked him about the 100 reverts he made when he has not even (as far as I know) tagged the userpage and requested a sock-puppet block?? Much as I care for you, this shoddiness won't do. You haven't even checked Rcb1's IP, have you.

R.M.S.

P.S.- I haven't touched Michael Cusack, Glasgow Celtic, or the GAA in at least a year.

• You just posted a creepy, stalkery comment on my talk page just 5 minutes ago. And you've done this before. Why? And you wrote it in (bad) Irish so others can't read it. That's just weird. Re. the other account, I just found out about it when you reported it here. Now there are hundreds of admins who've seen it. Furthermore, I can't check non-anon IPs - that's the job of checkusers only. What's your point here? - Alison ☺ 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Rcb1, this is a clear sockpuppet without any doubt. I will be happy to email a link to a page making it absolutely clear that Rcb1 is a sockpuppet to any administrator who requests it. I will not post the link here due to WP:BEANS, as it will only make identification of further sockpuppets more difficult.

While it is true that I generally speak to Alison about new sockpuppets, I have frequently posted to ANI with suitable evidence for any admin to block a sockpuppet which is immediately clearly identifiable. However sometimes in-depth knowledge of the original editor is required, which Alison has. If any other administrator has sufficient knowledge of this editor, feel free to speak up and I will be happy to direct any future sockpuppet reports to you instead of Alison.

The comment of "going to have fun with this editor" is being misconstrued. When a brand new editor suddenly arrives with the sole intent on adding the word "terrorist" to several articles, it sets alarm bells ringing, especially when the editor refuses to listen to reason and acts like a troll. The addition of the word "terrorist" was not necessary in either article he edited, as can be seen below.

• He made this edit to Omagh bombing, ignoring that the lead already states The attack was described by the BBC as "Northern Ireland's worst single terrorist atrocity".
• He made this edit to Provisional Irish Republican Army, ignoring that the lead already states The organisation is classified as an illegal terrorist group in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The editor in question also created a page at User:One Night In Hackney/terrorist, and although I can't remember the exact wording, I seem to remember it was all in capitals, accused me of being a terrorist and that I should be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Naturally an administrator will be happy to correct me if I'm incorrect there please?

With regard to the comment of Nonetheless, the group of editors he mentions do occasionally overstep the mark with regards to pushing opinion by kingboyk, I request clarification.I cannot and will not speak on behalf of any other editors or attempt to defend them from an accusation without evidence, but I will speak for myself:

Before the creation of WikiProject Irish Republicanism there were a lot of articles in a poor state, and despite the efforts of project members and other editors there are still articles in need of improvement. If people wish to see me focussing the majority of my time improving those articles as evidence that I am somehow pushing a POV or have a certain political persuasion, they could not be more wrong. My aim is to improve the articles in question, nothing more and nothing less. The subject matter can be quite controversial at time, and attracts "POV warriors" from both sides. I am in fact neither, I have repeatedly tried to make sure the articles comply with NPOV. I have not attempted to hide any claims of terrorism, as the edits below show. I could find more, but I don't see the need to go overboard.

• I added Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations to Continuity Irish Republican Army.
• I added Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations to Real Irish Republican Army.
• I re-added Category:Terrorist incidents in 1998 to Omagh bombing.

You only have to look at the Gerry Adams talk page to see how I am attempting to prevent the whitewashing of Adams' alleged IRA involvement, and I would like clarification or a retraction please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before this progresses any further I think a checkuser on User talk:General Peabody (he has no user page) may well shed some light on what is going on here. Giano 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• People, why are we even discussing this? Even if it did merit discussion, which I don't believe it does, it would be material for an RfC not an endless self-serving whingefest on ANI by a user blatantly and by his own admission evading a ban. WP:RBI was the correct way of handling this frivolous complaint. WP:RBI was also the correct way of handling the edits of a banned user evading his ban, which is what happened here. I find my self wondering what part of "banned" Sieger is having trouble understanding. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another hi-jacking

Special:Contributions/Retiono Virginian. Either that, or the user has snapped. Will 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Looks like he's hunting for 'resigned' and inactive wikipedians to hack now? ThuranX 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that was. I think I've cleaned everything up though. Metros232 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked now anyway. Secretlondon 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this user snapped based on his edit summaries in his contributions. I can't be too sure however, can anybody provide checkuser to see if this account is really hijacked? It could be the same person who hijacked all 5 admin accounts.--PrestonH 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When Retiono Virginian resigned, he created a new account, Eaomatrix (talk · contribs) (see this edit for confirmation of that). The last edit from that account was at 18:08 UTC today. The account hijacking of his old account was 18:14 UTC today. Might a checkuser be in need here? Metros232 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yes. I also have my suspected of who hacked the old unused account. As the account, I asked for everything to be shut down to prevent hacking and it was blatantly rejected. It may be User:Mr oompapa who is responsible for this, as basically I was a target for him as Retiono Virginian, and partially a way to escape him for one was to have this new account. I am not responsible for this mayhem. Perform a checkuser. Eaomatrix 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eaomatrix, I use to edit as User:Tellyaddict (if you do not believe me then unblock Tellyaddict and I'll make an edit to prove it), I was accused of being a sockpuppet when editing as Tellyaddict (shown here) by Grandelkhan, I was not a sockpuppet, yes I edit as The Sunshine Man but dont worry about WP:SOCK, please perform a checkuser to show the truth, and take the worry out of Grandelkhan's head of thinking Retiono Virginian was a sockpuppet of me or vice versus. The Sunshine Man 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eaomatrix, I got a question. How can Mr oompapa hijacked your account? Did you use a strong password?--PrestonH 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Retiono Virginian account did Not have a strong password, which makes it quite vunrable. However I believe it to be Oompapa because he was always leaving abusive messages for me (many were oversighted as they contained personal information) and he may have clicked on that the account had resigned and comprised it. I'm not sure though, it could be anyone. Eaomatrix 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. If you didn't intend to use the account again, and in fact wanted it closed, why didn't you set a random password? The failure to take even minimal precautions here is extremely worrying. Why knowingly run an account on a weak password? Why, having done so, leave it exposed? --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After I retired as User:Tellyaddict I had my account indef blocked at my request and my user talk page fully protected to prevent using {{unblock}} as I never wanted to edit under that account again.The Sunshine Man 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries scream Oompapa to me. However, a Checkuser should set everyone's minds at rest. – Riana_ऋ 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell Demcdevit to do checkuser on your original account to see if it is that abusive sockpuppeter, a person who hijacked 5 admin accounts, or some other person.--PrestonH 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite guys, can someone throw out a link to his failed RfA from last month? Reg is just P'd off his RfA snow balled after his comments about Kelly Martin, - check his contribs just before he left, he either went crazy or gave someone his password. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

HERE YOU GO. Anchoress 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, I highly doubt that he went crazy in his account. He created an account named Eaomatrix a week ago or two before the incident today, so it is likely that his account has been hacked.--PrestonH 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he was annoyed. Really, who would want to hack his account? Anyone wanting to cause trouble would just create their own account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would quite like to see a checkuser - who knows, if the edit summaries are Oompapa like, Retiono may well have been vandalising on the sly with Oompapa accounts, and when he ran amock on his old account, he mistakenly used the Oompapa style, perhaps in anger. Martinp23 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A user hijacked 5 admin accounts?! Please state who they are, because I must have missed that disscussion, and is that user the same user that you accuse of hijacking this account? Also, is it possible that this user (the hijacker) could have an automated password cracker? I have noticed that sometimes a message is displayed to prevent automated password cracking, but this is very rare. Is it possible to block all of the ips of the abusive user from clicking "Sign in/create account", and prevent him/her from logging in under any username? Should a feature like that be created, to prevent banned users from doing so? Also, for banned users with changeable ips, is it possible to install a mediawiki feature to track a banned user's new ips, and automatically block them both from signing in and from creating an account? Also, should there be a thing that automatically checks the computer of a user (in the form of a cookie, etc, that is not malware) for any password cracking devices, and automatically ban them from entering the account signin/creation zone? Is such a feature possible? Or, do "we" just not have that kind of technology? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stuff you're suggesting is not really possible. However, mediawiki should probably track overall statistics of successful vs. unsuccessful logins and alert the devs to sudden changes, if it's not already doing so. 75.62.6.237 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to drop my two cents in; while clearly something was up with the On Wheels stuff, my accusations of sockpuppetry concerning the time period prior to that were unfounded; I had no evidence apart from a photographer's barnstar given to someone who habitually claimed that copyrighted images were his and released under a CC license. I had suspicions, but no actual evidence. grendel|khan 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Eaomatrix's past is relevant here, and should provide some background to my breakdown of good faith in an earlier comment. As has been admitted to me on IRC (a couple of days ago), Eaomatrix used to be User:Molag Bal, and all associated socks as confirmed by checkuser and the user himself. The user has had three or four "second chances" given to him by various admins. and each time has violated their trust by keeping one account clean, which vandalising on others. It is my concern that Eaomatrix is using Oompapa as his latest vandalism power craze, and as his controbs show, has seems to have had an uncanny knack of knowing which accounts belong to Oompapa, as he tagged a run of about 10 of them. Of course, I am speculating about the user's current activities, but feel that the information about his past should be made public, if only so that users here can determine that he has started afresh and he can go forward with clean conscious, knowing that the community trust him for who his was and is, not just the fraction of his history they know about. That said, I hope that this info gives food for thought, and may change the direction of this "investigation" (IRC logs proving my assertions are available on request, User:Nishkid64 can also verify the user's past, but has not himself seen the evidence of his latest incarnation). Martinp23 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like another Michaelesque situation...and that worked out well. — MichaelLinnear 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be irrelevant, but User:Retiono Virginia was created and blocked last week as a VOA. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not a hijacking, and the same as Eaomatrix (talk · contribs). Both users edit from the same IPs, all of the vandalism came from the same IPs they had used before, not a new one as with a hijacking, and Eaomatrix had used the same IP minutes before the vandalism. It seems to me that he just used the move summaries to obscure to try to take advantage of the recent troubles. Dmcdevit·t 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not cool, and quite disruptive. Perhaps help Eaomatrix with their wikibreak with a block for disrupting Misplaced Pages? Flyguy649_contribs 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Far out, that's disappointing. So is Retiono/Eaomatrix the same person as Oompapa? – Riana_ऋ 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the checkuser results show that the vandalism on the Retonio account was on the same IP as Eaomatrix. Nothing to do with Oompapa yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE. I'M GONE, and not returning. You better be happy now. Becuase I AM NOT this Oompapa troll or Molag Bal. Martinp23 is just some arrogant kid. Eaomatrix 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. What, we just block people whenever they feel like it? – Riana_ऋ 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Eaomatrix for a month. Vandalism is not acceptable, and then trolling when you get caught isn't either. Moreschi 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit weird to think that Eaomatrix/Retiono Virginian is Mr oompapa because Retiono Virginian's account did get affected by continuous vandalism from Mr oompapa and was 1 of the reason he left and created a new account and how the hacker managed to find his password might have been something to think about but I don't think it's the same person..It seems dubious though but it definitely ain't the same person..A checkuser needs to be done on Mr oompapa to clear this all and maybe the Admin involved with all this Chrislk02 needs to be brought in to solve this once and for all..----Cometstyles 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - but in the past (you'll have to take my word for this until I have the time to trawl through the relevant categories), Molag Bal/Eaomatrix/Retiono has used accounts later proved to be him by checkuser to attack his other accounts. I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but if you drop me an email or something, then I can send you the relevant IRC logs, should you wish. Martinp23 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange

This thread on ANI has been vandalised a few times in the past half hour, mainly by one IP and one user. The IP vandalism is like this, and was followed by this post to Dmcdevit's talk, attempting to avoid an IP check as I requested there. The user who vandalised ANI was User:Malcourno, who has blamed the vandalism on problems using Twinkle (despite the fact that the vandalism is identical to some of that done by the IPs). Malcourno is a name that rings a bell with me, and doing a search on my gmail account, I find out that the owner of Molag bal has emailed me from an account with "Malcourno .de-macht" in the from line. So, it would appear the Malcourno is Eaomatrix (emails will be forwarded on request). Now we come to the concerning bit - this edit under the same thread on Dmcdevit's talk page, deleting my request for a checkuser and replacing it with a reference to Yamla (AFAIK, Oompapa tormented Yamla, so is this a link?). It seems to be too much of a coincidence, and does heighten my suspicions about Oompapa/Eaomatrix. I haven't geolocated the IPs, but I would suspect them to be dynamic and/or proxies. Thanks, Martinp23 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I blocked both IPs and Malcourno, all of whom were obviously trolling. Checking WHOIS, the IPs originated in the UK, apparently. I'm not techie enough to tell whether they're open proxies or not. Moreschi 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The user behind Malcourno, Eaomatrix and the rest uses BT internet, which can geolocate anywhere in the country, and is dynamic to the extent that if one unplugs the router, and reconnects, one gets a new IP. Martinp23 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, (and prompted by a bit of vandalism to my talk page, especially) Retiono, et al., is certainly the same as Mr. Oompapa (and Malcourno). Dmcdevit·t 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me to welcome the vandals...anyone know if Eaomatrix/Malcorno/Retiono have any more socks, or have we rounded up all of them? --Kzrulzuall 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved admin wheel warring

After eight days on AfD, Drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this as delete. (It had previously been closed as delete by Daniel Bryant - but he chose to reverse himself and extend it for a bit). Drini's act was likely to be controversial - but he was previously uninvolved - and, frankly, any close was likely to be contested. Cool heads were needed.

However, Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who as a 'keep' voter was very much involved, took it upon himself to reverse the closer and undo the deletion (a wheel war)- and he did so, as far as I can tell, without DRV or any prior discussion. Two administrators have now challenged him on this - he admits to wheel warring, but is refusing to reverse himself or engage in further discussion - which is 'wasting his time'. I don't think this yet merits arbitration. But perhaps others could review and discuss.--Doc 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, wheel warring is a great way to do an RfA in reverse. _InBC 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess we'll now have to write up a page about Wheel-war reform and have oodles of discussion on it...--Srikeit 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How much discussion do we need to say "Don't do it"? _InBC 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, we've been saying it for ages and yet here we are... again --Srikeit 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad precedent. Daniel should have sent the user to deletion review, not reopened it. Drini action can be considered "necessary": the article must have been deleted in order to request the deletion review. Matt's behavior is unacceptable, though, as an interested side he should have not reopened the discussion, even if another admin had done so. We have a process for deletion review, and cannot just let administrators play the "he did it first" mantra. -- ReyBrujo 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness here, Drini's close was pretty much ignoring the debate: he wasn't evaluating arguments, he just made one of his own and acted on it. I think we could stand for an independent decision. In my view, the debate hasn't reached a clear conclusion, maybe it will with a little more time. Mangojuice 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's a view for DRV discussion - not for unilateral reversal.--Doc 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to agree here to restore an outcome of "delete" and send it to immediately to DRV. We have that forum for a reason, and wheel warring is obviously bad. --kingboyk 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Agree entirely. Should be closed as delete, and sent to DRV -- Samir 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. DRV would be best for sorting issues of admin behavior. Letting the AfD reach an independent conclusion would be, by far, better for deciding on the status of this article. The DRV would be a complete mess, we should all know that. Mangojuice 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't letting it run be endorsing wheel warring? Not that I disagree that the AFD could use more input, mind you. --kingboyk 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought wheel warring meant reverting another admin action more than once. I only see one undelete described here. Where's the wheel war? 75.62.6.237 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, arbcom defined wheel warring as reverting an admin action without discussion.--Doc 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

—dgies_c 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent - Sorry, guys, this article is not notable enough to be worth fighting over. There are cases where admins interfere in ways they probably should not do, but I don't believe this is one of them. Any actions taken here have been done in haste because there is too much other work to do. Admins should be given a free pass in this case. The real solution would be to create more admins, you're welcome to nominate me if you think I'm talking sense. PalestineRemembered 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're not. Whatever people think of the article - wheel warring is bad. If you think it is stuff for a 'free pass' then I oppose you being an admin.--Doc 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could we get Talk:Qian_Zhijun undeleted pending the afd outcome? Nardman1 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, not if involves undoing another admin's decision :) Let's draw to a conclusion here (quickly please folks!) and then the next step will probably have to be DRV. If it's kept pending DRV the talk page can be undeleted then. --kingboyk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I undeleted it, should be uncontroversial: it was deleted by Bryant who had reversed his own closure. Mangojuice 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I normally avoid undoing my closures, but the information and arguments presented were substantial to the point where my close was (by my own admission) incorrect. Hence, I undeleted the article, reopened and relisted the AfD, and made a suggestion that it run the full five days further.

I appreciate why Drini wanted to close it early, though, and acknowledge that he has free rein to do whatever he likes even if I suggest anything. However, what Matt did was totally unacceptable. I have reverted the AfD to Drini's close verion, protected it, and redeleted the article per Drini's close. The speedy, out-of-process undeletion had no merit.

And for those of you who argue I was wheel warring as I deleted it initially, I hope you can apply common sense and make the distinction between an action (which I in turn reversed) and the reaction to the undeletion. Daniel Bryant 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I commend Daniel's actions in this matter. And I feel that he correctly recognises that Drini's deletion was entirely valid based on the AfD discussion. His request in relisting was advisory and I'm sure was taken into account. When I first became aware that Matt Crypto had reversed Drini's close, I thought it was out of line. We should not reverse actions by other admins carried out in good faith. But I hadn't realised that Matt had been a participant in the AfD discussion. In light of this, it makes his decision to undelete the article all the more problematic. Wheel warring is bad. Wheel warring when you are involved in the dispute is utterly unacceptable. Cool heads are what are needed in discussions such as this one, not reckless acts clearly motivated by not getting one's own way... WjBscribe 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Matt Crypto's actions were wrong. I didn't like them before, and i had failed to note then that he had previously commented and !voted in the discussion, which only made them worse. I am sorry that I didn't revert them instantly and take the matter right to WP:DRV, as I considered doing (I didn't lest that seem to be wheel-warring and escalate further). That said, i feel that Drini's close is in no way supported by the state of the discussion when he closed it, unless he simply disregarded all the arguments on one side of the issue. Doc glasgow speaks of this AfD as being listed for 8 days, but for a significant part of that time, it was closed by Daniel Bryant. Daniel Bryant having relisted it because of "significant new information" as he put it when relisting, an early close is IMO not warrented when there were clearly arguments being made for both keep and delate -- this was not a "snowball" situation. Then when i requested, on Drini's talk page, that he revert his clsoe, he twice refused, citing WP:IAR as a justification. In an obviusly contentious matter such as this, such use of IAR is, I think, unwise at best. I have taken the matter to deletion review, becaue I was surely not going to wheel war furhter (in fact I did so before I was aware of this thread). It is said above that "comments made after a valid close" should have been reverted, but I and four other editors commetned in good faith on an AfD then listed as open. It is not as if I or any of the other four asked for the revert. Reversion of comments in good faith is IMO undesireable. DES 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Saintrotter (talk · contribs) is using his userpage as an offensive soapbox again, being disruptive

This guy was already warned and blocked once about this. , [He keeps putting the Israeli flag next to the name "Palesting" and the Palestinian flag next to the name "Israel". His user page shows an obvious antisemitic bias where he accuses Wikipedias of whing "pro Jewish bias". i thought this was taken care of but I guess not because he's back trying to inflame people. He needs to be blocked for a longer period or time or someone needs to set him straight and i think its safe to quit assuming good faith at this point. he also has a history of disruption using his Rastishka (talk · contribs) account and his IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs).

Here is what hes doing now, soapboxing, causing a disruption with his soapboxing garbage. . Please make him stop! The Parsnip! 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked him, for persistent POV pushing, trolling, and soapboxing despite repeated warnings and two previous blocks for doing so. Krimpet (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the offensive material itself, which is still on the user's page? MSJapan 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the indef block; he was given ample warning the last time. (I was the admin who blocked him.) If he wants to troll, he can do it on some other site. Per MSJapan's comment, I will replace his userpage with the appropriate template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support the indefblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also support block. Clearly not a useful contributor by any means. Sandstein 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support indefblock as well, per obvious evidence above. Smee 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Unblock review of User:AmendmentNumberOne

AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account initially created to participate in discussion of the article on the AACS encryption number on DRV. It may or may not be a sock or alternate account of an established editor, but if it is, I see no evidence of any violation of the sockpuppet policy. This editor's strong position, expressed in more strident terms than necessary, was in favor of keeping the article and publishing "the number" on Misplaced Pages. After a couple of posts to the DRV, DragonflySixtyseven blocked this account with the explanation that it was "a single-purpose account that had served its single purpose."

Discussion on ANI (now archived here) drew mixed reviews for the original block, and a couple of days later, DragonflySixtyseven unblocked, with the summary "Fine. Let's see if you behave."

After the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne made several posts to the ANI thread over a period of a few hours, claiming that the original block was unjustified and that the blocking policy had allegedly been violated. AmendmentNumberOne's only other post was a thank-you on the talkpage of an editor who had supported him. At this point Ryulong reblocked AmendmentNumberOne, with the rationale "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." AmendmentNumberOne did not initially post an unblock request, although another user posted on his talk that the matter was worthy of an arbitration case. Initial reaction to the reblock (see same ANI thread above) was primarily favorable, although no ultimate conclusion was reached because the user did not posted an unblock request.

As the users continued to fume about the block, I suggested that a review could be requested, and posted to Ryulong's talk that I had reservations about the reblock. My comments to Ryulong read:

Hi. I know you feel strongly that the block was appropriate, but I have some qualms about your reblock the other day of User:AmendmentNumberOne. The account was obviously created as an SPA and may well be a sock/alternate account, and I have previously opined on ANI that its approach to a difficult issue was unnecessarily confrontational and strident. Nonetheless, neither a harsh tone on talk pages nor an editor's protesting against his previous block on ANI is, of itself, a blockable offense. I don't see any other user misconduct (in fact, as you noted, there hasn't been any other user conduct at all yet, one way or the other). In your block summary—"User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia"—the first two sentences do not constitute a strong basis for a block, and the third is a conclusion based on what I consider insufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, I would have preferred, at a minimum, to allow more time to see whether problems developed before there was any consideration of reblocking. I'm sorry to be critical, and I'd welcome any additional thoughts you may have on this.

Unfortunately, Ryulong does not seem to have been online today, although a post he made yesterday to User talk:AmendmentNumberOne probably summarizes his position sufficiently. AmendmentNumberOne has now posted a formal unblock template request. My view is to unblock, but rather than act unilaterally and in disregard of the prior discussion, I am bringing the situation here. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Ryulong blocked the user for the exact same reason Dragonfly had originally provided. The block seems unjust, given that the user was only given two days to make encyclopedic contributions and it's understandable that they would still be riled up about being "unfairly" blocked. I would recommend unblocking this user, and keeping a close eye on the user for the time being. Also, as blocking policy states, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I don't see how this block is anything but punitive against the user. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, he could be considered guilty of soapboxing. As to whether that';s a bannable offense, I can't say. HalfShadow 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why unblock? This is self-evidently a sockpuppet of an experienced user. They've made their WP:POINT, time to move on. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the presumption is that accounts are left unblocked unless there is a reason to block them, not the other way around? Newyorkbrad 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and in this case the editor registered a sockpuppet account with a provocative name just in order to troll. There's three reasons in one. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked soapboxing from the very moment of enrolling that username, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned. Could have been blocked for advocacy per WP:USERNAME at very first edit. Also probable sock per JzG's analysis in the earlier thread (and just now, edit conflict). 75.62.6.237 21:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this all comes down to whether AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs) is a legitimate, non-disruptive sock puppet, as per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, or not. I haven't followed this whole brouhaha very closely, but the number of bytes spent discussing his behavior are not in his favor. Picaroon (Talk) 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize as I've had limitted internet access over the past couple of days (I am currently sitting in PBIA while awaiting my flight back to New York). In my eyes, AmendmentNumberOne had a full two days to make some sort of a mark on the encyclopedia, which (as I stated somewhere in one of my replies on ANI or to JNighthawk) that he did not make an attempt to edit any article, not even Puppy. The account itself was never one that was to make any sort of edits on the encyclopedia, and instead make his feelings known about how he feels about censorship (his name being a direct reference to such) and afterwards complain about how he was unjustly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven. In the past thread concerning the individual which has since been archived, my block was supported by anyone in the thread save for one individual, and it was obvious to anyone else that the account AmendmentNumberOne was not here to do anything but whinge and talk about censorship of the HD DVD encryption key. I stand by my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block They are clearly a sock of an experienced user. That, as well as being a SPA are not prohibited, but people are given accounts so that they can contribute to articles, images, templates, etc, not solely to try influence Misplaced Pages policy on talk pages and DRV. If this is a sock of an experienced user, I don't see why they need an alternate account solely to push POV while hiding their main identity. In the unlikely event this is a new user, then can be unblocked if and when they want to make a contribution to the project, rather than opine on the DMCA. —dgies_c 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block. Ryulong's judgement was sound. WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows use of separate accounts for "substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages," but in this case it's clear all AmendmentNumberOne was doing was promoting his point of view without actually contributing to our encyclopedia. Krimpet (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd just like to comment about this - I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss here. The way I see it, is that no clear policy-based reason has been extended for blocking this user - in fact, the reason extended is that the user "doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia". Frankly, I don't understand this - the encyclopedia is more than just the mainspace - it extends to all of the bureaucratic material which backs up that mainspace; and this includes deletion debates and reviews. Let's say there existed a user who solely edited to comment on deletion debate - I could not, in good faith, say that user was "not contributing" to the encyclopedia. The same is true if they only commented on deletion reviews. Like it or not, but these are essential parts of the encyclopedia, and commenting on them in an informed and reasonable fashion can be as important as writing an article. There is nothing wrong with being an informed editor, who comments on issues they feel passionately about, and bases their arguments on policy - even if they choose only to contribute outside the project mainspace.

It doesn't jive with my understanding of how this encyclopedia is supposed to function by blocking such a user, and it definitely doesn't jive to then characterize their attempts to be unblocked as "whining". There has been no evidence advanced that he's a sockpuppet, either. Let the user contribute - and if he actually breaks policy, then take action; not before. --Haemo 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As Haemo said, I don't see where these sockpuppet allegations are coming from. The user's edits may be suspicious, but who says the user is not a legitimate editor who created his account to address an issue he was watching on Misplaced Pages? I think we should be blocking people based on facts, not mere assumptions. I know assumptions are used when blocking suspected sockpuppets, but when we don't know who this person is (assuming it's a sock), then we shouldn't go around blocking people. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support unblock, as per Nishkid64. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Even if it is a sock, unless the puppet was supporting his/her main account in the discussion, or using it to !vote twice in the DRV, it's not an abusive sock. Unless we have evidence of that, there's no reason to leave the account blocked. Seraphimblade 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps ANO can show what he would like to contribute to Misplaced Pages aside from his personal beliefs in free speech and whatever that number is? Phony Saint 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it like that... I support unblocking him. But it would probably be more reassuring to the others to show that he does intend to contribute more than pursuing justice against admins who jumped the gun in some sort of WikiCourt case. Phony Saint 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence that this accoutn is a scok is IMO far from compellign, but grantign that, I see no evidence at all of thsi being an abusive sock, and none of disruption. The user was arguing a PoV, perhaps more strongly and stridently than was wise or polite, but that is not grounds for blocking, and neither is complaining about a block on the proper forum. There is no time limit within which uers must edit an articele or be blocked, nor are SPA's forbidden. And if we blocked every use who argued for a PoV, we would ahve far fewwer editors on controversial topics. No policy-based reason has been advanced for this block. Support unblock. DES 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• This reflects a problem we have with contentious discussions - namely, that admins are willing to block any SPA who joins in. He may or may not be a sockpuppet, but WP:SOCK certainly allows a seperate account for controversial that people do not want associated with their main account. Support unblock, if it isn't obvious. -Amarkov moo! 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Soapboxing, while probably not a good thing, is not against Misplaced Pages policy, even if done by a sock. As long as its not disruptive and doesn't violate other policies such as civility, there is no justification in blocking the sock. There is no rule saying that Wikipedians cannot participate in policy discussions with socks, as long as they are not abusive. —Dark•Shikari 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I need to reiterate, contributing to the encyclopedia is generally considered to be the main space, while the project pages, such as this one, are part of Misplaced Pages as a whole, it was obvious that A#1 is a single-purpose account created to soapbox and argue. If the user had not had been blocked by DragonflySixtyseven initially, the user would have no reason to contribute to any page. He was originally here solely at the DRV on the article that had the number as the title. Since then, the user behind the account (whoever it may be) solely whinged about the block. This unblock was in place for two days and only after I had blocked the user did the discussion about the supposed abuse get archived. The user was never here to do anything but soapbox and complain about censorship and then adminabuse. I have a feeling that once the account is unblocked, that it will initiate another massive discussion about how I abused my admin tools and not contribute anywhere else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a whole lot of assumptions on your part, I think, based on very little evidence. First of all, you blocked him for "not being here to contribute" - as has been discussed, that's not a policy-based reason for blocking. Furthermore, as I discussed above, it's not prima facie that a user who doesn't "contribute", by your definition, can't still play a valuable role in the encyclopedia. Past that, your objection is that the user is "whining" and committing "admin abuse" over being repeatedly blocked for this reason. Frankly, that's not compelling, given that a large number of people also disagree with the block. It's totally inappropriate to claim a user trying to be unblocked over a block which is widely debatable is "whining" or "abusing the admins", and it marginalizes the user essentially because he disagrees with you. Am I "whining" about this block? Are my comments "admin abuse"? If so, then there's something wrong with your definitions here - and if not, then neither are his.

Blocks should be based on policy, and not on personal beliefs about what does, and does not, constitute satisfactorily "constructive" contributions, especially when there is no evidence of disruption. Being a single purpose account is not blockable. Only contributing to deletion reviews is not blockable. Asking to be unblocked when blocked without any policy justification is not blockable. I don't see any reason why this user was blocked, and the justification given is not satisfying in the slightest. We have policies to govern blocking precisely to protect the encyclopedia from abuse - admins should try to abide by them, unless there is a clear reason to act on the principle rather than the literal text. --Haemo 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adminabuse" is generally abuse of administrative actions, not abusing administrators.

That aside, the user was only here to stir up already controversial topics and was blocked for being an account who directly made his way over to DRV. When he was blocked, he directly contacted the admin who blocked and there was other discussion that led to DragonflySixtyseven's unblock and apology. From what I saw, the apology was rejected and he spent the 48 hours that he was unblocked on this message board complaining about how he felt that he was unjustly blocked. Although I generally only apply blocks for non-contributive accounts on those that solely built up their user pages or user talk pages. There is nothing written in WP:BLOCK that states that single-purpose accounts are to be blocked. There's nothing written anywhere on Misplaced Pages that excessive complaining will lead to a block. However, when all a user does is complain, then that is on the thin line between discussion and trolling. While AmendmentNumberOne's comments were civil, they were all complaints in one way or another even after an apology by the original blocking administrator. I saw no constructive edits from AmendmentNumberOne. He was, in any definition, a troll. While I do know about assuming good faith, when good faith is not assumed by the other, and after 2 days, then good faith is lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Misplaced Pages. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of deliberate attempt to get Misplaced Pages sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Misplaced Pages or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but what does this project (i.e. the creation of an encyclopedia) gain if we unblock this user? It doesn't seem to me that this account is likely to contribute content nor has expressed any desire to do so. What is the purpose of this sock? Why can the original account not be used to make the posts this account makes? Without answers to these questions, I'm not really sure unblocking is a good idea. WjBscribe 07:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We gain an articulate, knowledgeable editor to comment on issues? As policy says, there's nothing wrong with being a single purpose account. Frankly, I don't believe it should work like this regardless of what we gain - users should not have to "prove" their worth before being unblocked, if the block was not valid in the first place. That's backwards. --Haemo 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really pissing me off. There is no policy backing up all 3 of his blocks (original, the unblock review, and the current one). None. Zero policy behind it. Follow the guidelines that are in place. They're there for a reason. Haemo has deftly argued the points of this case and I don't understand how anyone can agree with this block. Presumption of innocence? Accounts are not created on a probationary basis. A user remains unblocked unless there is a reason to be blocked. Honestly, have the admins that are agreeing with this block even read Misplaced Pages policy? This user shouldn't be unblocked because he pledges to contribute, but because he was blocked unjustly in the first place! - JNighthawk 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not really had much chance to edit Misplaced Pages the last few days, due to other circumstances, so this is really my first chance to comment about the issue.

This user may not be a sockpuppet: he could have heard about Misplaced Pages from someone else who has an account, and that may be why he knows a bit about Misplaced Pages. We should WP:AGF unless there is evidence that proves he is a sockpuppet. Just because a new user may know about Misplaced Pages policy, templates, etc. does not imply they are a sockpuppet - they could be friends of another editor, etc. (although wouldn't that fall under meatpuppetry??) Either way, we should let him edit again - and the single-purpose account policy says there's nothing wrong with it. I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion on this:

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block.

If he just wants to edit articles relating to freedom of speech etc. then that is probably permissible per the policy on SPA's.

Apologies if this seems overly long, I hope I've helped you with this one - it's a situation that is a bit of a hot potato at the moment. --SunStar Net 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This was a good block. The username has absolutely no edits in article space and he's done nothing but whine endlessly about censorship. Please don't waste any more time on this idiot. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Tony on this one. I don't see any valid argument for unblocking this guy. He's not here to write the encyclopedia, he's here looking for a discussion forum to advocate his views on "freedom of speech". This is what Misplaced Pages is not. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur also, minus the impolite expressions. Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked. If this account belongs to an established editor, I see no legitimate reason why they should not express their views on this subject under their own user name. Sandstein 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Totally silly block, no policies have been violated. Sandstein if you think "Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked" then you should change Misplaced Pages:Single purpose account to say that. But there is worse, the accusation of whinning is much more important here, one of the reasons for the continued block is the user complaining about the block. That is admin abuse, if the user had been uncivil about it then he should be blocked but to ban the user for going through DR proceedures is an abuse of power. Hypnosadist 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Disagree with the block by all means, but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously.

        One of the excuses for unblocking this disruptive non-article-editor is that he may be the Misplaced Pages:single purpose account of an article editor. If that is the case then his views can be expressed without a separate account. The account is not helping Misplaced Pages in any way and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Any diffs of this editor being disruptive then tony? Hypnosadist 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Does calling someone an idiot not violate wp:civ? Hypnosadist 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Its not just this case, many posts on this page have admins threatening users with blocks for trolling or whinning if they complain, this case is just one. This clearly has to stop as it is being used as a way to suppress complaints about how admins do their job and what policies they block under. Note you still fail to offer a policy that this user has violated, if the rules for blocks is "because admin X says so" then say that, if the rules are for violating policy then state which policy this editor has violated to justify this block. All i see are assumptions of BAD faith on behalf of the blocking admins. As to "but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously." thats the problem, first i did not yell admin abuse and second did you stop for a second to consider how this blocking without policies looks to non-admins or outsiders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I hope I'm missing something but I don't see the disruption. It seems to me that this user would like to contribute to the encyclopedia (by adding those magic numbers) but feels denied that oppertunity due to current consensus. Instead he has been trying to persuade a change in consensus and was blocked for expressing an opinion that most of us disagree with. What am I missing? --Selket 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, exactly. There has been no evidence of disruption on the part of this user. He was initially banned for being a single purpose account - which is contrary to policy - with additional justification that he was being disruptive and adding the so-called "magic number" to a bunch of pages. This appears to be patently untrue, and there has been no evidence given to support this. When he pointed this out, in requesting to be unblocked, he was told that "he was obviously acting in bad faith", again, without any evidence to back this assertion up. After requesting some actual justification, he was accused of "trying to get Misplaced Pages sued" and of "acting in bad faith", again, without any justification. After sometime, he was unblocked, with the comment "Meh, I'm being too nice" - and no acknowledgment of any mistake, or explanation for the actions of two separate admins. He then posted about this on this page, lodging an informal complaint, and was blocked for "not contributing to the encyclopedia" - again, another reason for blocking not based in policy.
        • There has been no justification for any of the blocks given - there has, however, been a whole lot of bad faith, outright mistruths, and accusations leveled at this editor with absolutely no support. Most jarringly, in my mind, is the fact that people seem to believe that agitating to be unblocked, after being blocked without justification, and using fallacious evidence, is "whining", and that attempting to get some degree of accountability from admins involved is "whining", and is deserving of a block. That is totally unacceptable in my mind. The onus is not on editors to prove that they meet some arbitrary, undocumented, and undefined level of "contribution" in the minds of any given admin in order to remain unblocked. --Haemo 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, my initial reaction upon reviewing this block was that it was not sufficiently supported by the blocking policy or by evidence. Rather than act unilaterally, I posted about this unblock request here. A wide range of views have been expressed, by both admins and non-admins, but unfortunately, no consensus appears to have been reached one way or the other. As in any on-wiki discussion the quality of the arguments matters more than the numbers; but numerically, for what it is worth, there was a slight preponderance of users opining against the block.

This leaves me to exercise my discretion as the reviewing administrator, and my conclusion remains that for the reasons discussed above, the reblock is without sufficient foundation to stand. Accordingly, I have granted the unblock request and unblocked this account, with the hope that this editor will proceed to make valuable contributions. I will, of course, monitor the account. My thanks to everyone who provided input in this thread. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. The editor in question obviously has no inclination to work on Misplaced Pages and the account should be blocked for that reason alone. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad for the time, effort, and thought you put into this unblock review, and ultimately unblocking me. Thank you everyone who argued in good faith both for and against. I plan to make valuable contributions, although after two incidents of unfair blocking, I have grown quite tired. It seems like a good time to sit back, relax, and watch. One last thing, before the opportunity slips away, since this thread does a good job of laying out both sides, I wonder if any other editors have ideas on clarifying WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:BP and other areas of policy so cases like mine can be prevented in the future. -AmendmentNumberOne 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV should be added to the list as well as admins calling editors IDIOTS is not appropriate especially as admins stand in judgement on civility issues over editors. Also the accusations of whinning need to be delt with, editors have the right to ask civilly for admins to account for thier actions. Hypnosadist 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block, I think Ryulong had the right idea. Even if the person is not a sock of an existing editor, the person has the same net effect. _InBC 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question as tony, what wikipedia policies has this account violated? Please provide diffs as we've seen lots of false accusations made against this user. Hypnosadist 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the place but who?

Not a serious question for here, but I wonder, and someone here will know - who first coined the phrase ""Misplaced Pages is not therapy" - I think I am going to need to quote it, and would hate to give a wrong attribution - was it Kelly? Giano 22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this any help? Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not therapy--Doc 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First edit on page: 13:29, 25 March 2006 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) (A start) It was apparently Fred Bauder. Funpika 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I first remember seeing it: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive4#Wikipedia_is_not_therapy. Jpgordon, 3 May 2005. I'm not sure if it came up before that. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly earlier citation (also from jpgordon) on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive17#Arbitration_notice - User:Irate:

"Misplaced Pages is not therapy, nor can it provide therapy. If Irate hadn't been recognized as a useful contributor, he would have been unceremoniously and arbitrarily booted for being an abusive vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)" -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I used to think it was a very mean thing to say, these days it just seems to be useful. Giano 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gabeyg sock clade

Gabeyg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefblocked by Nlu for abuse of multiple accounts. From what I can tell they've used 63.135.11.194 (talk · contribs), BBOPOPOS (talk · contribs), Gabeyc (talk · contribs) (note 'c') and OverQQ (talk · contribs). The master account, Gabeyg is requesting unblock. While it's annoying they seems to be socking, the only thing violating WP:SOCK is disruption by making it hard to track a single user's edits. They're not AFD stacking or 3RRing. My inclination is to indefblock all the secondary accounts for disruption and give the master a 24 hours block for sock abuse. Nlu has been informed. Looking for a second opinion. —dgies_c 01:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Nlu appears to concur, I have implemented the above. —dgies_c 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sock puppeter clade.. --AirFrance358 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page troll Nazrac

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

Nazrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive troll who, in the year he has been active, has never made a constructive contribution to any article namespace, and merely uses Misplaced Pages to troll Holocaust, Third Reich and race-related talk pages to try to antagonize constructive editors into pointless arguments -- usually only tangentially related to the topic of the article, and never directed toward the improvement of the article -– so that he can then use the talk pages or user talk pages as discussion forums for soapboxing on his favorite topics.

In these “contributions,” the editor quotes and writes approvingly of Hitler, adds links to Holocaust “revisionism” sites (, ,,,), and describes the SS as “knightly solders, a sort of modern day Teutonic knighthood valiently defending their country” -- none of which should really come as any surprise, considering that his username is presumably some combination of “Nazi” and some cognate of “race” (i.e. Naz(i) + rac(e/ial etc.) => Nazrac), which in itself is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy on offensive usernames which “promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view” or “refer or include allusions to racism.”

While his favourite topic is the distortions and predations of the “Holocaust Lobby” and the putative “hysterial shrieking of anti-semitism”, his other “contributions” include abusive soapboxing on racial topics, tedious disquisitions on homosexuality and psychology and yet more off-topic soapboxing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on an unrelated page -– none of which, let me stress again, are directed toward the improvement of any article, but merely to try to spark combative exchanges about the subject-matter of the article, contrary to WP:NOT#FORUM.

More recently, in spite of warnings (, ), this editor has begun adding violations of WP:CIVIL to his repertoire, accusing others of “arrogant blathering” and “snivelling”, describing their contributions as “mindless blather”, and falsely accusing admins of “viciously attack” users who raise questions about the Holocaust.

If this editor had any useful contribution to make to Misplaced Pages, one presumes that in a year he would have made at least one. As he doesn’t actually edit articles, but merely uses talk pages -– disruptively -- as discussion forums, I request that this trolling/soapbox-only account whose name violates WP:USERNAME be blocked indefinitely. --Rrburke 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support permanent block. Editor has clearly mistaken Misplaced Pages for the Stormfront message board. Jayjg 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Surprised he's lasted this long. — MichaelLinnear 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. If anyone has a problem, I'm open to hearing it. However, being a Jewish editor, I don't take too well to anti-semitism. ⇒ SWATJester 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is with this voting on here all of a sudden? PLease don't start your comments with bolded vote ;like supports or opposes. We do not vote, we discuss. Viridae 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good block -- Samir 06:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support, even though I'm not an admin. An obvious troll, or at the very least a single-purpose account. We don't need him. Am I assuming this is a community ban? Blueboy96 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yep - good call indeed. Just another troll and a particularly nasty one. I don't think we're going to miss this guy's "contributions" - Alison ☺ 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate return of Grazon

For background, please see RfC/Grazon, RfC/Devilmaycares, AN/I#Block evasion by Grazon, or AN/I#More block evasion by Grazon.

Grazon, who has been indefinitely blocked, has again crept back onto Misplaced Pages qua

• 132.241.245.132
• 132.241.245.245
• 132.241.246.111

His edits have generally been less problematic during this latest spell, but they have still been somewhat tenditious, and some of the summaries are the sort that would get a regular editor cautioned:

• “he jerked off a guy and he blew a guy”
• “rvv” inappropriately
• “dream on Chompbots”
• “Reverted Vandalism by BrianSmithson” inappropriately
• “For shits sake Donald was in 7 war time film and was in uniform in every one of them! WTF is wrong with you?”

Additionally, there are again many edits (some certainly not minor) for which he is not providing a summary. —75.5.175.229 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dewa Gede Maharda Putra

Can someone please do something about this user because basically, the editor seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a webhost. I left a suggestive message on his talk page, which he ignored. His userpage seems, at a quick glance, to be full of religious POVs and poetry. --Kzrulzuall 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User page deleted reduced to a stub, user - who has no edits other than to his user page - blocked until he indicates he wants to work on the encyclopedia. Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with this. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. OCD

0CDisorder you and wikipidea addiction (talk · contribs) - He's back, again, after being banned, I think, three times last night. Can someone banhammer? Will 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Viridae 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just User:SummerThunder up to his regular nonsense. Luna took care of it. — MichaelLinnear 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Postings of copyright violations after being warned

• Bravehartbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- After being warned in the past, recent postings of copyrighted material. At articles: Alan W Black, James A. Beckford, and Per-Arne Berglie. Smee 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Blocked indef, at least until he agrees not to copyvio any more. Sandstein 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Smee 09:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

List of Tetris variants

This article is currently in an older revision containing many spam links in violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT a web directory.

This is because an anonymous user (User talk:71.51.113.146 and User talk:65.186.91.97 has been repeatedly reverting since 9th April.

Myself and others have worked on a newer revision without the spam links. But I can't revert again without violating 3RR (although this anonymous user has).

Over the past month I have repeatedly asked this user to read WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:V/WP:ATT on both his talk pages and the edit history. He hasn't acknowledged this and continues to revert on the basis of "I'm not adding these links, they were there before".

WP:AIV have directed me here as it doesn't seem to be simple vandalism. Marasmusine 10:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT violated 3RR; I have not made more than 3 edits in the last 24 hours. 65.186.91.97 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you hadn't; that was my mistake, sorry (thought 3RR was '3 or more', not 'more than 3') Marasmusine 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. Please ask at WP:RFPP if this happens again. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Evan Dobelle

IP 12.149.132.3 (and several other IPs that I think are the same user) is determined to remove a paragraph from this biography. He comes and removes it at least once a day, sometimes twice. He refuses to use the talk page, communicating only through rather cryptic edit summaries. He ignores all warnings and pleas for discussion. He provides sources that do not say what he thinks they say. I hesitate to bring it to the simple vandalism board, because... well, he thinks he's having a content dispute. I'm requesting a 48-hour block, to give him time to consider the advantages of discussion and consensus. Does someone agree? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like WP:COI vandalism. No WP:BLP issues evident, contested content fully sourced. Blocked 31 h. Sandstein 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with User:Manchurian candidate

This user has repeatedly added a statement about global warming to the article Arctic, taken from a single dubious news story. I have reverted him 8 times now over the past 3 days, such as this .

(Note: Looking at the edit history, you will see that I also reverted another editor. This was because he mistakenly thought my removal was vandalism; once I explained he stopped.)

I have explained that this addition is out of context, and there are more appropriate articles that already discuss this. He has not responded to these criticisms. Instead, he has repeatedly made statements on various talk pages: that call my reverts 'vandalism', imply that I am not allowed to do that, or are personal attacks.

I am only reporting this here as he has (see the last 2 diffs) threatened to have me blocked. I would like to see this user blocked for disruption and incivility. The way, the truth, and the light 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some reference to global warming and the predicted changes that will come about in the region. This will not be easy, since there is a wide variation in the estimates of what is going to happen, and User:Manchurian candidate's contribution is, as you say, pretty insubstantial. However, it would be much better to cooperate with him/her and invite improvements rather than battling over the article. If push came to shove, the addition been sought is not un-encyclopaedic, and it's your reverting of his additions that might appear to be disruptive. PalestineRemembered 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - I have informed User:Manchurian candidate of his involvement in WP:AN/I. --24.136.230.38 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that global warming has been covered in another article. Why not just have a header saying "global warming" then have a "main article: article"? --24.136.230.38 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Arctic should have something about global warming. However User:Manchurian candidate has clearly been uncivil and does not appear to be capable of a reasonable discussion about it. The way, the truth, and the light 13:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

boohoo cry as much as you want.Check the Antarctica link and the creator of the article lists that global warming should be added in the antarctic page.You don't want me to add the link and you say it is fake.son wiki news has that article ] and you are editing it again and again,you don't want the truth to be known.what a hypocrite name you have.I have complained you to the admin,he would settle this out.I still believe that the global warming article should be added. manchurian candidate 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More of your incoherent ranting. The way, the truth, and the light 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Political colors on a wikiproject

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kurdistan (history) (difference between versions)

source Kurdish flag which in turn sources kdp.se

There is an ongoing revert war over the colors around the wikiproject. I and at least one other editor (Makalp) find the colors to be unnecessarily political. I feel the colors are a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX violation. The removal of the colors has been reverted back as "vandalism" or that with a rationale that the colors have no political or controversial value even though there is a source establishing the contrary.

A past attempt in discussion was mostly ignored

This is a wikiproject so a "content dispute" isn't the case. Measures should be taken to avoid controversies in wikiprojects. If you take a look at wikiprojects about other geographic regions or even wikiprojects on countries (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject France, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Central Asia) no such bordering is seen.

-- Cat 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These color are using the to give an image supporting the PKK (which is listed as terrorist) see flag colors of PKK;PKK flag].

one of the contributors declared in edit summary that there is a political agenda.Must. 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that. It only adds to the controversy. -- Cat 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are revert-warring over a 3 pixel wide boarder around a table? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You may say that, yes. There is more to this than 3px borders obviously... -- Cat 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support using those colors. They are the colors most commonly associated with Kurdistan - if that is for the aforementioned reasons, so be it. See "Celtic nations" and the templates if you want to see some real political POV. Kurdistan is nothing compared to that.Ploutarchos 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These colors just match the national flag. That makes them thematically relevant and otherwise no big deal. --Masamage ♫ 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by 24.58.150.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is aggressively edit warring across a large number of articles to delete all links to a certain website, and is falsely accusing the editors restoring the links of vandalism. He recently used 198.36.23.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to engage in similar activities. It may be necessary to place a block of an adequate length on this user to prevent similar disruption. If he were to return during the block with a new IP address, all of his edits could simply be rolled back. John254 13:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the user reported to WP:AIV first. Malcourno 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a report regarding this user was recently removed from WP:AIV. John254 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And we'll repeat the reasoning: This user has not been communicated with or warned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this matter has been discussed with this user (editing as 198.36.23.228) -- see Talk:Garrett_A._Morgan#Garret_A._Morgan_references_that_contradict_Brinkster. John254 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.brinkster.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0 The brinkster links appear to be linkspam and cleaning them up is the right thing to do. In particular see http://www33.brinkster.com/iiii/inventions/ to get a sense of what is being inserted into Misplaced Pages. Thanks but no thanks. 75.62.6.237 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brinkster.com is just a general website with users on it. Your link was dead, but brinkster.com/iiiii/ is run by Ian Taggert and appears to be a well researched website. Ex see: http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html What exactly do you find objectionable there. It has references, it has links to the U.S. patent site. I assume the objectionable portion is that he doesn't think Garrett Morgan should get credit for being the father of things that he wasn't the actual inventor -- an odd goal for one's life, but not necessarily evil. -- KelleyCook 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:User page violation

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

User:ProtectWomen have gay flags surrounded around Islam-project. Obviously I am not saying that he should not support gays but the presentation of it is very offensive for Muslims. He should not surround it with Islam in this way. In the past he had posted links to "prophetofdoom.com" on his user page and written things like "A 9 year old is still a child", "Who are these men trying to emulate?", a clear pointers to Muhammad married to Ayesha . It make really difficult to work with a person who use his user page in this way. Can someone please request him to change it because he had declined my requests User_talk:ProtectWomen? Thanks. --- A. L. M. 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I has become an attack on me. Like I am asking to ban a gay supporter. A supporter that never had a SINGLE edit in gay related articles. He had posted three flags surrounded by Islam-project just to make a point. You do not think so even in the exsitance of his old many similar violations of Misplaced Pages:User page. Then please leave me out of this mud. --- A. L. M. 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong. The user has in the past made numerous concessions to the requests of others to remove content from his page, including all of your above cites examples. This is YOUR interpretation. Looks to me like he's at most, a gay member of wikiproject Islam. Big deal. If that's your problem, I genuinely suggest that you leave wikipedia. You cannot stop gay members from joining Misplaced Pages, or Wikiprojects, and that you see 'WP:Islam' as the same as Islam itself, as regards homosexuality, suggest the problem lies with you. ThuranX 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read before your reply. I said "Obviously I am not saying that he should not support gays". --- A. L. M. 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So why can't he fly the gay pride flag? ≈ Maurauth 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Read my original message. --- A. L. M. 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's EXACTLY what you're saying. He's got gay pride flags around the WP:ISLAM userbox. He doesn't have gay pride flags around the Qu'ran, nor around a picture of Muhammed. This is quite simply you going after a guy for being gay and associated with an aspect of Islam. This is a user apparently saying He's gay, and a member of WP:ISLAM. At worst, he's playing it up a little bit for effect. Big deal. Beyond that, the only offense to Islam itself is in YOUR head, and in your own prejudices. ThuranX 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any issue with this whatsoever. As ThuranX states, it's a WIkiproject userbox. No big deal. Suggest you get over your homophobia - Alison ☺ 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The way he encircled the WP:Islam userbox with gay flags, and the three links the user added at the top, do make it look like he designed it with the goal of upsetting Muslims. I have no opinion on whether it is reasonable to take offense, or whether any action should be taken, but the motive seems clear. — CharlotteWebb 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Baloney. It's a Wikiproject icon, NOT a Muslim symbol. Any agitation is in the eye of the beholder; inference, not implication. The User's talk indicates that while he holds strong views, he can, does, and has removed anything offensive before. He continue to actively participate in his WP, and I see no reason to alienate him entirely. I think that some editors will only be happy when he leaves the project, cause they don't want to be near 'the gay'. such editors would be best of returning to their houses of worship, or their misanthropic caves, banging fishes to death. (gollum , not bin laden, references.) ThuranX 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The motive is perfectly clear; this user is a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam and also happens to support gay pride. That's all. Furthermore, the editor has shown every good faith by modifying his userpage in the past due to complaints. So where exactly is the problem here? From my perspective, this is looking like a campaign to force this guy into a very small closet indeed; harassment by a war of attrition upon his userpage - Alison ☺ 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

oh please - whatever the rights and wrongs - it seems pretty clear to me the intend is to cause aggro to various editors. --Fredrick day 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, this looks to be another manufactured controversy along the lines of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Muslims cannot control the public discourse just by being vocally outraged anytime something even slightly goes against their beliefs. --Cyde Weys 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit harsh. But either way, it's unfortunate one can find it hard to work when another's userpage is offensive to you, but you can ignore it, and that is the only solution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Ryulong is abusing Admin duties

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

Discussion over - there's no evidence of abuse of tools and I'm not about to let this descend into a free for all. If you've got any problems you raise them with the admin involved, if your still unhappy, take your complaint to Requests for Comments. -- Nick 15:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An adminstrator Ryulong seems to be abusing her/his adminstrator duties User:Ryulong/YGOPTL, User:Ryulong/PKMNPTL, User:Ryulong/PTL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.105.194 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't look like it. He's salting various images and articles who were casualties of the Great Fair Use Purge of 2007. Sean William 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in the Peloponnese

The following discussion is from my talk page and clearly needs a more timely response than I can give. Will someone please take a look at it and refer it to AFD or Mediation or take action themselves? - Mgm| 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hi how are you? i remember you were giving me advices about fixing the article but not to open a new thread on the issue, right? Then now i expect you to come and fix the vandalisms that started since the time Alexius opened a new article about the whole issue of massacres in that time..User hectorian by now already violated three revert rule--laertes d 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The only vandalism has been done by Laertes. He has already been banned several times for your nonsense vandalizing articles on issues pertaining to the Greek Revolution. Please read the discussion pages and it should be quite evident that Laertes has managed to contribute nothing of substance other than various vandalism. AlexiusComnenus 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius stiop this game of following me in every single place, you shoul understand that youre not convinvcing anybody but these same people dont want any mention of the massacres in Peloponnese in a decsent way and thats why people are doing nothing about you..

Magyver, as you know you and others previously voted for the deletion of the article claiming it to be POVfork and now alexius opened a new thread Massacres during the Greek Revolution in which he blatantly impose his national point of views assisted by a number of his greek nationalists and the ignorance of administrators he keep deleting well sourced informations. i personally think that you have a moral responsibility to fix the article, regards..--laertes d 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.183.9.210 wont stop adding unsourced claim to wikipedia

User:75.183.9.210 is peristently adding the unsourced claim that Donald Watkins is worth $2.5 billion:

No matter how many times he's been told that wikipedia requires everything to be cited, he defiantly persists on re-inserting the unsourced claim over and over again, without even bothering to justify it in his edit summary. While it’s true that a 2002 Washington Post article noted that by various accounts Watkin’s may be worth at $1.5 billion (a statement which itself violates Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words) while also reporting on those who dispute he is a billionaire at at all, the user persistenly fails to provide any source at all (even an unreliable source) for any $2.5 billion figure in violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Not only that but when even the $1.5 billion claim have been blanced by reliable sources like Forbes which dispute Watkin’s is a billionaire saying you won't find this man on the recent Forbes list of billionaires. We have reason to doubt the number and doubts raised in the Washington Post, the user removes these sources. To me this is also a violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Pacingcar 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with this user, beyond in the edit summaries of your reverts? Try writing a message on the user's talk page. You might find WP:DR helpful. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well to me this is a very clear cut case. You're not allowed on wikipedia to claim someone is worth $2.5 billion unless you have a source claiming they are, and even then you should state that it's only an estimate and list the source. I didn't bother going to his talk page because the user was so unresponsive to complaints in edit summaries and seems to not even care that his assertions are 100% uncited. I figured if he isn't responding to me in his edit summaries, why would he respond to me on his talk page. The only response I'm interested in is him providing a source. But I will leave a message on his talk page just on the small chance it makes a difference, but I think it would have more credibility coming from an admin. Pacingcar 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they didn't see the edit summaries, not everyone is familiar with how the mediawiki software works, edit summaries are never a substitute for constructive discussion. --pgk 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith: he might not see or understand your edit summaries, or know how to respond to them in his own edit summaries. The first step in dispute resolution is discussion; there's probably no need for admin tools at this point. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just didn't see many edit summaries asking him to stop adding unsourced content, and have left him a friendly comment on his talk page. But if he continues to add the unsourced content, what should I do? Pacingcar 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no deadline and it doesn't sound like he's adding negative information in violation of WP:BLP, so I'd ask myself how important is it that it gets removed/sourced immediately? If it'll wait a few days add a {{fact}} in the relevant place to show it's missing a source, note your concerns on the talk page and then revisit it and remove if needed in a few days. --pgk 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well according to Jimmy Wales everything on wikipedia that isn't sourced should be aggressively removed as this is essential for us to have any credibility. And it's a pretty extreme claim to say that someone who Forbes magazine refuses to list as a billionaire is in fact a billionaire two and a half times over and the person has now been informed that he needs to add sources and has demonstrated an ability to do so in the past. I would just prefer if we were a little stricter about facts on wikipedia Pacingcar 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

blocking sockpuppets

I am trying to figure out if there are any sockpuppets and sockpuppeteers in the Dokdo talk page. There has been much dispute going on in the talk page and I am suspicious that there are sockpuppets engaging in the discussion. I have not filed a complaint on WP:SSP because I don't think I have sufficient evidence. I am instead requesting that an admin check and/or monitor these users and help me if there is enough evidence to file a case or if there is a doubt and that these users should be monitered instead.

The below users are users who I believe are sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.

• User:MCASGT

I believe that this user is a straw man sockpuppet. This user also makes weak claims over the disputes that have no supporting references or facts. MCASGT also has poor spelling, which is also inconsistent. MCASGT states that he is mainly interested in the Dokdo dispute and he is only commenting on the Dokdo talk page, which shows that he may be a single purpose account.

• User:Macgruder

• User:Komdori

This user has not been active for the past several months. However, as the dispute in Dokdo became more heated, he has made numerous comments which are quite informed about the subject and the discussion. I doubt that he has simply been observing from the sidelines for several months then suddenly join the discussion. Komdori claims to be Korean, however his arguments are for the Japanese side of the discussion at the talk page, which is very strange, although that may be possible.

• User:LactoseTI

The account for MCASGT was made on May 6, 2007.

The account for Macgruder was made on May 4, 2007.

The account for Komdori was made around May 10, 2006.

The account for LactoseTI was made on May 11, 2006.

All the accounts have been created at similiar times. MCASGT was created on a later date. I believe his creation is simply to cause more heated discussion at the talk page and is a strategic move by the sockpuppeteer to make the Korean side look bad. I believe that I strongly believe that there is a sockpuppeteer among them and the rest sockpuppeteers. Thank you. Good friend100 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user editing from an IP

The banned user VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing from an IP (195.56.21.239). He has openly declared his identity and his edit contains a personal attack. Could you please block 195.56.21.239? Thank you in advance. Tankred 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --24.136.230.38 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Check that case, what Tankred linked in. I reported an impersonator of me I assume my opinion about Tankred, and I can give difflinks for that. --195.56.21.239 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Elin, moray

This article (Elgin, Moray) has been vandalised, just do a search for "HIV" on the article and you'll see.

Henricbl 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I have retitled this section because the old name was not that great. Picaroon (Talk) 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a WP:3RR violation. Before continuing to read this paragraph, please view the user's block log. My block was the SEVENTH one he had received for either disruptive editing, or 3RR violations on articles relating to Persian, Greek, or Ancient Greece war related topics.

I initially blocked for 24 hours thinking it was a simple 3RR violation. (There was a section on the 3RR noticeboard on it that contains all the 3RR diffs). However, after viewing the extensive block history, I extended the block to 1 month. My justification? After 6 prior blocks, the user should be PERFECTLY aware of 3RR policy, as well as WP:DE: he continues to ignore the policies. This is not a newbie editor, these blocks are over 2 years.

I was warned by email that the user has "admins in his back pocket" and he would be unblocked immediately. That apparently was the case, he was unblocked within 24 hours, and I received several angry comments on my user talk page about it.

So I'm requesting a further block review. I cannot justify allowing a clearly disruptive user to continuously revert war, REPEATEDLY violate the 3RR, disruptively edit, and continue to do so. How other admins can justify unblocking that, I do not know. ⇒ SWATJester 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That block log is really weird. Blocked -> unblocked, blocked -> unblocked with references to IRC chats, etc. Strange! - Alison ☺ 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the block log, I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

I'd love to hear the reason to unblock a user who has shown a continual inability to work with their fellow Wikipedians too. -- Nick 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom sounds like a good place to go from here. I'll help you write up a case if you need help; obviously it's not helping that this guy keeps "getting away" with his clearly wrong actions. --Cyde Weys 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Cyde here. Something's not right. While the user's been around a while, they've been persistent in their violation of 3RR and you'd think that having been around that long, they'd know better. Frankly, the initial one-month block was not unreasonable. - Alison ☺ 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or we could just skip ArbCom and give him a one week block right here right now, with a promise of further escalation if his behavior does not continue. Also, I want to applaud SwatJester for bringing this problem out into the open; it looks like this user was getting away with far too much for far too long. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I too agree, the one-month block was reasonable given his past blocking history as a repeated offender. This whole "admins in his back pocket" thing smells fishy. Krimpet (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the large numbers of personal attacks on the page (coming from admins who really should know better), I think it would be advisable for those passing judgment to become more familiar with the facts. The admin who changed the block explained why he did it on Swatjester's talkpage, however Swatjester did not mention his (maybe he forgot). I think Dbachmann makes some good points.--Ploutarchos 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management. You're not going to sweep Miskin's problems under the carpet again by relying on a strategy of, "But they said something mean!" --Cyde Weys 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• So I reviewed SJ's talk page beforehand, as is customary in such matters. My point still stands. This guy should know better. Re. Cyde's 1-week comment, I'll endorse that, with the note that the user sit THIS block out in its entirety this time. They've had more than enough prior warning here - Alison ☺ 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subjects this chap edits in, but his repeated appeals to "western scholarship" are a little worrying. Misplaced Pages shouldn't reject sources on geographical or cultural grounds. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit here. The reference to "seven prior blocks" is worrying, of course, but (even putting aside the reversal of several of the blocks since that has been questioned), I see no prior blocks in 2007 and only one 24-hour block in all of 2006. As such, the 3RR violation doesn't warrant more than the usual 24-48 hours. This appears to be a good-faith contributor, albeit with some rough edges, and reference to "his sorry ass" should be avoided. And suggesting ArbCom seems quite premature without even either getting the blocked user's comments or considering an RfC. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did anyone say "his sorry ass"? I'm not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Above in this thread (not by you, Cyde). Actually, a gender-neutral formulation was used. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we say "Enough already"? Apparently not after repeated blocks and persistent incivility, to judge by some. Suggest a one-month block at this point, with each subsequent block to be twice the length of the previous one. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No case has been made here for "persistent incivility." Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Newyorkbrad here. The fellow's block log isn't particularly relevant. I think Swatjester has encountered a worrying situation here. I do think this should go to arbitration, but not to look at Miskin's conduct alone but at the ongoing warfare on these articles. It looks like a battle of points of view, and that isn't the way we should edit Misplaced Pages. Perhaps an article probation of some kind might be in order here. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any prior attempt at dispute resolution? I see some references to suggestions for DR on the user's talkpage, but can't tell if any came to fruition. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's reference to "seven blocks" is disingenious to say the least. As I have argued on User talk:Swatjester, it is my considered opinion that his month's block of Miskin is untenable. His 24h block for 3RR is arguable, and I left that in place. If you take ten seconds to cast more than a passing glance at Miskin's blocklog, you will see that his last block lasted for 38 minutes, back in September, for "unilateral moves" (not 3RR). His last block before that was in December 2005. Some of you admins haven't even been around that long (Raymond calling "enough already" above has been with us since July, and thus at best preserves in living memory Miskin's 38 minute block for "unilateral moves"). Give us a break. Miskin was trolled (his opponent was since permabanned as a throwaway account). He was tricked into a 3RR vio. He is sitting out a 24h block for this now. I daresay this qualifies as "enough" for the case at hand, nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking at six blocks here as opposed to seven, so you're correct here. I have to say that Swatjester while far from being "disingenious" as you say, did exactly the right thing in bringing the matter to ANI in the interests of transparency. His 24hr block is far from arguable, frankly. - Alison ☺ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm having trouble seeing why the longer block was undone; one month seems reasonable. If it is to be shortened, it shouldn't be less than one week. Jayjg 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I came across this user yesterday. Aside from being aggressive and pushy in his editing, the level of rudeness shown by this user is more than I've ever seen. For one thing, most of his arguments are, quite frankly, ad hominem attacks and slanderous generalizations. --AlexanderPar 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine, the seventh block (and 8th) are mine. Six prior blocks are unacceptable still. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that this is my only contact with Miskin or these articles: I've had absolutely zero prior dealings with him before, nor have I ever edited any of those articles. Only reason that this came to my attention was because a user felt that there was some "shady adminning" going on, and emailed me to take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Blocks of Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 2005
  • 4 July, 3RR, 24h
  • 25 August, 3RR, unblocked after 80 minutes
  • 13 November, 3RR, 24h
  • 28 December, 3RR, unblocked after 6 hours
• 2006
  • 25 September, "unilateral moves", unblocked after 38 minutes.

Swatjester's block was for 3RR, and he argued that the user's block log aggravates the penalty. I argue that this is nonsense. I did not look into recent civility issues. If you want to block him for 3RR, block him for 24h and be done. If you see civility or disruption issues, properly warn the user, and issue blocks if he persists, but don't conflate it with the block log, or the troll-induced 3RR vio. Miskin has served a total of 56 hours blocking time in 22 months, the bulk of it when he was a very new user. I also object to the title of this section and to Swatjester's, I repeat, disingenious presentation of the case. This is not the way to do it. Miskin is a valuable and long-standing contributor. If he has civility issues, he deserves detached admonition and proper warning, not a kangaroo court on his "sorry ass". thank you, dab (𒁳) 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The block log here (regardless of the 6 or 7 whatevers) shows that the editor simply doesn't grasp the concept of 3RR. You'd think after this long that they would. I'd certainly endorse a 1-week long block at this point, and one which needs to go to term. This revert-war block + unblocking just has to stop. They are not immune to the rules any more than the rest of us and simply applying 24-hours blocks (which sometimes get undone) is obviously not working - Alison ☺ 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to be a valuable, long-standing contributor without being blocked once, let alone 7 times. Perhaps something else is at work here? ⇒ SWATJester 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also object to my presentation being referred to as disingenuous. I submitted this here for transparency. Would you mind refraining from such accusations? Or does good faith not apply to everyone anymore? ⇒ SWATJester 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) There is no such thing as a "troll-induced 3RR vio". If you're convinced someone who's edit-warring is wrong, you seek wider input. If you're right, other people will readily back you up, and there will be no 3RR. If you find people to agree with the "troll" instead, well, maybe you're not as right as you thought you were. There are exemptions to the 3RR for simple vandalism, BLP issues, etc. If what's happening doesn't meet one of those, "I'm convinced they're wrong" is not one. Unless said "troll" has somehow compromised your account, no one but you can choose to hit that revert button. Seraphimblade 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I support Swatjester's stance. Last time I checked, having 3RR violations spread over two years is not a valid excuse to have a short block. Rather, it is a valid reason for the direct opposite; to have the block lengthened since this user knows policy and is deliberately violating it. —physicq (c) 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • the blocks are spread over four months, followed by a 17 month period with no 3rrvios. Why do people keep harping on the 2005 episode? dab (𒁳) 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then that only makes his current behavior all the more suspect. He should have learned not to edit-war, yet he still does it, and gets blocked for it. It does not matter if it was done two years ago or two days ago. Your continuing defense of him is based on time, which is not a valid excuse. Does having blocks two years ago allow him to forget that he isn't suppose to violate 3RR? —physicq (c) 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - I'm going to be bold here and extend this editor's block to 1 week for repeated violation of WP:3RR. This is not a month, nor is it 24 hours. The message that revert-warring and 3RR has had enough time to have become understood, yet it has clearly not been. In light of previous offences, this is entirely justified. I am ignoring any comments re. emails and whatnot as they are simply hearsay at this point. I am focussing on this editors past history here re. 3RR. - Alison ☺ 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

look, it's easy to keep a clean block log if you don't descend into the swamp that are nationalist infested topics on Misplaced Pages (I might add that I've spent more than two years in this swamp and still have a clean block log, but tempers are varied, and it's not for lack of people trying to have be blocked). I repeat, the 2005 blocks should be left out of this. If you're going to block Miskin for disruption, do it, but not after fair warning. This has nothing to do with 3RR at this point. Incidencially, if anybody still thinks I am "in Miskin's back pocket", you may want to review the archives of Talk:Ancient Macedonian language where I was significantly involved in the "breaking in" of Miskin from a trollish newbie to a valuable Wikipedian in good standing. In my book, Miskin has been blocked without warning. The 3RR block didn't need a warning, this new block for disruption would have needed one. Look at his talkpage, he gets a kind note regarding the trolls on Battle of the Persian Gate, then a "tireless contributor" barnstar, and in the next section he is slapped with a one week block for disruption. That's not acceptable practice for me. If you like warn him that further incivility will result in a 1 week block. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm over 3 years here myself. I've been intensely involved in both vandal reversion and dealing with POV on Irish Republican/Nationalist articles for a long time now. So far, no blocks whatsover. I'm ignoring anything to do with admins/pockets/emails/whatever. The guy was out of line here and was being disruptive. He's done so repeatedly before. A 1-week block is entirely justified, IMO. A 1-month block is certainly not. - Alison ☺ 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• No one here gives batshit about whatever awards or honors he has if he violated policy. —physicq (c) 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• And another thing, referring to my efforts here as "patent bad judgement" on that user's talkpage, apart from being phenomenally rude and out of line, isn't helping matters at all. Further, if the editor has a problem with my block, they can just use {{unblock}} and state their case, just like anyone else. Another admin will review accordingly. I am so not impressed with this at all - Alison ☺ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The first 6 blocks weren't adequate warning? What about the 3RR vio noticebohttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48ard complaint?⇒ SWATJester 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This fellow definitely knows enough about the three revert rule: he has made comments about it recently on the relevant page: / --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people are being a bit too harsh on this user. I believe I have seen instances of greater leniency in more serious cases. I am especially wondering about the "repeated violation" argument: if someone violates the 3RR-rule a couple of times in 2005 and then once again almost one and a half year later, can it still be considered as part of one pattern of 3RR-violations (as I get the impression that this is the case in this discussion)? And does this also imply that a user could be permanently banned after, say, five or ten years on the base of one violation despite a clean record of several years? Iblardi 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on who ones enemies are. Apparently people are not allowed to improve on Misplaced Pages; their newbie mistakes stay with them forever. Reverting a troll running on open proxies (i.e. a likely sockpuppet) should not count towards the 3RR. It just rewards sockpuppetry. What do we have WP:IAR for?--Ploutarchos 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore the 3RR rules, after all they only apply to others and not to us ... right? It's quite possible to deal with sockery/vandalism/whatever wihout breaking the rules. I and so many others seem to manage just fine. Maybe we could keep a list here of editors who are allowed to break rules and those who are not. That way, we can avoid "patent bad judgement" in the future. Ugh! - Alison ☺ 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I now have a lisence to use untraceable sockpuppets running on open proxies to rv war? Should it be allowed? As it's impossible to trace them (unless the user "slips"), how else can they be dealt with? Also, misrepresenting another's position like you just did is such a lame tactic. I would have expecet better from an administrator.--Ploutarchos 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And with that comment you just misinterpreted all our arguments. Congratulations for calling the kettle black. Anyway, has anyone noticed that when admins crack down on such violations, they are heckled for the constantly frivolous charge of "admin abuse," but when we start cutting slack, we are accused of over-leniency? —physicq (c) 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another section break

Oh god, not IAR again. Inevitably it's always brought up to avoid policies. Here's the rub: I did EXACTLY what I was supposed to do per WP:3RR and WP:BP. Quoted relevant sections from Blocking Policy: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning."blocks for all types of disruptive behaviour are typically for 24 hours, longer for successive instances;,blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration;

and 3RR:

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations., Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. "If an editor violates the three-revert rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block."

Oh, and also, "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." and from WP:WW "Possible indications of wheel warring are:.....An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation."

Honestly, what the hell is going on here? There's clearly overwhelming support for the block, both from other admins, and by freakin policy. And yet, I'm told that I'm "not allowed to indefinitely block for the 3RR". Let alone that my block was only for 1 month, policy says otherwise. Then, I'm told by a non-admin to go read blocking policy, which supports my actions. I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on. ⇒ SWATJester 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I thought a one-month block for this editor was outlandish, and I'd never heard of him before this afternoon. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before we get to the point of painting Miskin as some kind of saint, I think you should look at his remarks on Battle of the Persian Gate dismissing opposing viewpoints with trollish comments like "you know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time" , "Don't make me laugh", "Don't let your imagination run wild", "What can I say, this is for laughs". From my limited experience with Miskin on this topic, he is as much of a nationalist as one can be. --AlexanderPar 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Swatjester and SouthernComfort. What I'm asserting is that edits made by open proxies are illicit as editing through open proxies is forbidden under WP:NOP. Such edits should be revertable and reverting them should be exempt from the 3RR (as the policy says such edits are "banned", so reverting them should be like reverting a banned user). As far as I can tell, this is the only was to enforce the NOP policy. If users see they cannot use them to revert war, they won't do it. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand; people rarely admit they're wrong. No one is perfect on that article (in fact people are worse), and I'd be very interested to find out who was behind the open proxy.--Ploutarchos 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dragging the topic of open proxies into this conversation? We're not even talking about them. Please get back on topic and not go off in tangents. —physicq (c) 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the topic. Miskin was reverting what proved to be an open proxy . Honestly, don't you read what I wrote?Ploutarchos 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently left out User:AlexanderPar, with whom Miskin (and you) was having a content dispute with, though 3RR was not breached in respect to AlexanderPar. —physicq (c) 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, however, did Miskin rv him (and/or another legitimate user) more than three times? No.Ploutarchos 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You just repeated what I said earlier. —physicq (c) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:3RR? Show me the part that says "reverting open proxies is an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE"? I'll wait. ⇒ SWATJester 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's where IAR comes into play? If you don't invoke it, you are rewarding a breach of WP:NOP.Ploutarchos 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"reverts to undo actions performed by banned users" is, in fact, in the list of exceptions enumerated in WP:3RR. WP:NOP states "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects". I'll let the wikilawyers figure out how to do the math, but the idea that 3RR doesn't apply to open proxy edits doesn't seem crazy given the above. 75.62.6.237 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again per, 3RR "Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly." If you ignore this rule, you are rewarding edit warring, which is FAR more dangerous than a proxy. ⇒ SWATJester 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite considering that the open proxy user was most likely a party to the existing edit war. So you are also rewarding a breach of WP:SOCK for rv warring purposes. In fact, your approach encourages edit warring by open proxy sockpuppets.--Ploutarchos 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that for sure? No. That's pure speculation. That also ignores the fact that we can simply block open proxies, problem solved. But Miskin made a conscious decision to edit war, instead of reporting to an admin to block the proxy. ⇒ SWATJester 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a realistic possibility. Open proxies are not allowed to edit, period. Allowing them to edit and treatign open proxy edits as legitimate just created more and more potential for edit warring. Miskin for example next time he wanted to rv war, could do it with an army of open proxy socks, his opponents do the same, and then there is ten times more edit warring. Do you want me to give you an example of that happening? See Republic of Macedonia on 3 April 2006 (that sticks out in my mind it was so blatant).--Ploutarchos 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following closely but I choose not to comment. For the example you were trying to find, check the recent history in Odorheiu Secuiesc where an anon user seems to be reverting himself! In fact, it was two editors who chose to pick the same open IP!! That was the funniest instance that comes to mind ("funniest" in the sense of "black humor" of course). NikoSilver 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also who is the Southern Comfort person you keep referring to.

Your justification is inadequate. Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting an "open proxy", and he CHOSE to violate the rule. --AlexanderPar 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sufficient ground to overturn a block though, don't you agree, SouthernComfort?Ploutarchos 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not SouthernComfort, but no, it is not. —physicq (c) 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bear that in mind. The problem with it though, it that by treating open proxy edits as legitimate, it'll encourage people to use them more for single purpose revert war socks.--Ploutarchos 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin did not indicate his knowledge that he was reverting an open proxy when he was edit warring. You are only using the hindsight bias. —physicq (c) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your approach rewards violating WP:NOP (and likely WP:SOCK), whereas mine rewards reverting "banned" edits.Ploutarchos 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which violation harms Misplaced Pages more: edit-warring, or using open proxies? Please get the priorities straight first. —physicq (c) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I say using open proxies for edit warring is worse that straightforward edit warring.Ploutarchos 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd say that edit warring, whether using open proxies or not, is equally harmful and should not be treated differently. --Iamunknown 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are harmful and neither is okay. If an open proxy edit wars, it will be blocked for being an open proxy and/or for edit warring. If a non-open proxy editor edit wars, he will be blocked for edit warring. I don't see any confusion here. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that open proxy reverting is a violation of the policy WP:NOP (and potentially in all cases, of WP:SOCK), whereas rv warring plain, merely violates a guideline? I didn't know that 1 + 1 offences = 1 offence. Interesting logicPloutarchos 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the funnniest of all is that the anon users with the same IP in Odorheiu Secuiesc technically did not violate 3RR because it appears like it was one who was reverting himself to avoid it! NikoSilver 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Blatantly violating policies and blatantly violating guidelines merit equal dealings. Creating a false dichotomy between policy and guideline in this manner is reprehensible. —physicq (c) 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to a straw man argument, misrepresenting my position. I say that violating a policy and a guideline (or two policies or two guidelines) is worse than violating one guideline.Ploutarchos 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my mistake. But you are still wrong, because violations are not necessarily compounded by additional violations. We don't work like the courts with mandatory sentencing rules here. —physicq (c) 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we work on what's practical and common sense. It's better to discourage edit warring through open proxies than to discourage normal edit warring (of course both should be discouraged). The reason for this is that normal revert warring can be regulated. Once an open proxy sock is blocked, the puppetmaster just creates another one, whose edits will still be treated like those of a legitimate user and reverting them is subject to the 3RR. Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such.Ploutarchos 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Miskin edit-warred, and therefore he was blocked. He has edit-warred in the past, and therefore the block is longer. The open proxy thing has nothing to do with this, since Miskin gave no indication that he knew he was reverting an open proxy. —physicq (c) 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such. Please read WP:NOP where it says that open proxies are "banned" and WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Oddly 3RR is disregarded when reverting a banned user (e.g. User:Bonaparte) even when there is no conclusive evidence (e.g. checkuser).--Ploutarchos 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that there is no indication that Miskin knew that he was reverting a user from an open proxy at the time. The fact that the user edited from such a proxy was only discovered after a checkuser was performed later. Therefore, Miskin was not intentionally reverting a banned user. The idea that, if a user's edits were later found to have come from an open proxy the person reverting them is then exonerated, is fallacious. Will (aka Wimt) 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference. Once it emerges that it is a banned edit, 3RR should not apply for reverts of that edits. Example:.Ploutarchos 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) That example which you have just given was a banned user. Unless I'm mistaken, this was not a banned user but merely a user editing from an open proxy. There is a marked difference between reverting edits by a user who is not banned (but is later found to have edited from an open proxy) and reverting edits which are (in many cases obviously) those made by the sockpuppet of a banned user. In the latter case, it is a fair assumption that the reverting user might realise this to be a banned sockpuppet. But in the former case, there is no reason why the the reverting user would suspect the edit to have been made from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To make things clearer, we block on intent and context, not after-the-fact apparitions of apparently exonerating facts. —physicq (c) 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case I mentioned, that didn't happen. Alaexis reverted the banned user's sock before it emerged that it was a banned user (you can see that for yourselves). Why the double standards?Ploutarchos 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user's sock? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this was the sock of a banned user; all I see is that this was a user editing from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the example. Back to the point: open proxies are "banned" per WP:NOP. They should be treated as banned.Ploutarchos 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Miskin had no idea that this user was editing from an open proxy and had no evidence that this user was banned (and indeed this user appears not to be banned). Therefore, Miskin intentionally edit warred. There is no evidence to suggest that had this user not been editing from an open proxy that Miskin wouldn't have edit warred. The exception to the 3RR is very specifically reverting the actions of banned users. And to do that you need to know that the actions were performed by a banned user. Will (aka Wimt) 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. In the example, Alaexis didn't know Tiraspolitan was a banned user. It conclusively emerged later after a checkuser. Nevertheless, his reverts of Tiraspolitan were not counted in determining a 3RR violation, even though they were made before it emerged.Ploutarchos 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've become entirely bored by this argument, but in my mind there's a very clear difference between a banned user and a user editing via a method that is banned. All I see here is that there was an obvious intent to edit war by Miskin and there are a few people who will do everything possible to find some loophole to get him unblocked. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that "loophole" has worked before (of course I consider it a very widely invoked exception). And as far as I know, a ban is a ban.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is "SouthernComfort"? --AlexanderPar 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A pleasing alcoholic drink? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mishkin has now posted a formal unblock request. I would reverse. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only reverse for pending arbitration. But it's not my call. ⇒ SWATJester 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support reversing the block. It has been proven that one of his reverts was reverting an edit made in defiance of the ban imposed by WP:NOP, so that revert shouldn't count.Ploutarchos 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've made clear above, I don't think that fact is relevant to any unblocking decision. Will (aka Wimt) 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been before. An admin chose not to count reverts of banned edits for the purpose of 3RR even though the user in question did not know they were banned at the time.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was entirely unrelated to WP:NOP. A banned user is likely banned because their edits are disruptive and so it follows that any of their future contributions can be reverted. The same is not true of a user who has edited via an open proxy. I have not seen any evidence that a user editing via an open proxy has ever been a reason for another user to have not violated the 3RR before. Will (aka Wimt) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A WP:BAN in a WP:BAN, as I said before.Ploutarchos 21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ploutarchos is not an admin. You do the crime, you do the time. I think unblocking will set a bad example for the community, punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter the violator from repeating the same violation again. --AlexanderPar 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex. Tell me, what do you think of evading ArbCom article bans through sockpuppets?Ploutarchos 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you be more specific as to what you are trying to say here. --AlexanderPar 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman ring any bells? Also, see WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy to make sure you know the implications of what you're doing.Ploutarchos 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't ring any bells. It seems to me that you're trolling to change the topic, but I'll give it a wack anyway. What are you accusing me of, exactly? And on what do you base your accusations? --AlexanderPar 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What does Ploutarchos's status have to do with anything? Non-admins are encouraged to contribute on the AN pages. I would weakly support a reduction to 48 hours, but I don't think there is sufficient support for a straight unblock, which, if executed, would be a slight to two administrators. There is no consensus yet that this was an unwarranted or bad block; that IMO is the only reason for a straight unblock. Anchoress 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought only administrators could vote to reverse the decision. --AlexanderPar 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but anyone can comment on it. Anchoress 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin hasn't been blocked for 3RR in over a year. He has repeatedly said that he didn't consider it a 3RR violation and the first admin to decide his case when he was reported to WP:AN3 said it was not a revert and he shouldn't be blocked. Swatjester then streched to rules as far as possible to interpret an edit as a revert and blocked him for a month. This seems more like an honest mistake on the part of Miskin to me than a deliberate persisten 3RR violation.Ploutarchos 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So? He broke the rule, he got blocked. He broke the rule before, he got blocked longer. Seriously, enough with the emotional pleading here. By the way, Alex, we don't punish. —physicq (c) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument again? It's also questionable that the rule was actually violated. Looking at the diffs, I don't see it. The first admin to look at his case thought so as well. Science fiction when deciding 3RR cases is a bad combination IMO.Ploutarchos 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man? Where? And it's always questionable if there is a cabal or not. —physicq (c) 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how exactly Miskin violatred 3RR? Also, see this .Ploutarchos 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring the now-blocked editor. And why do you ask for the obvious? —physicq (c) 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Just because one admin says so doesn't mean that I, and other admins, can't dispute it. —physicq (c) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with reversing the block. I've followed this chain but have not commented. The User's 3RR block log is one thing; his contentious editing and abrasive style don't merit leniency. There is short shrift given to civility on Misplaced Pages these days, and he needs to take some time away to learn how to communicate in an educated-setting, which is what Misplaced Pages aspires to be. I also think a group of admins should discuss with Miskin the tone he uses in what is meant to be the building of an encyclopedia, not a pissing contest. Besides, he doesn't even give reasons for why his block should be reversed, just repeats that they should be "reviewed" which, which is restating the request to have the block reviewed. I'd like to see Miskin stick around, but I'd also like to see him mature in his manner of discussion. --David Shankbone 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with reversing the block, he's been blocked 7(?) times before - he knows what he's doing and knows if he edit wars, he will get blocked. 1 week seems to sum up what he did fairly well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)`

• Hopefully Miskin learns his lesson and just creates a new account. There is no point in building up a history of good behavior on this one. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did the "electric fence" get knocked down? 3RR has always been a goal, not a right. Somebody who's been blocked and warned repeatedly about edit warring knows what the purpose of the 3RR rule is, and it isn't to give somebody the right to edit war three times in every 24 hours. Whether he's technically violated three reverts plus in 24 hours, he's edit warred, and has been warned and blocked before. He knows better. The block should stand. Corvus cornix 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The block should stand. If anything, we're too lenient on edit warring and incivility; we shouldn't be shy of using admin tools to deter such conduct. -- ChrisO 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The block rationale cites the 3RR violation and (ancient) history of same; civility issues aren't mentioned. I have counselled the user to change his editing behavior per the discussion on this thread, whatever happens to the block. As I mentioned in the sub-thread below, the initial reviewing admin didn't even believe there was a 3RR violation. A borderline situation might warrant 24-48 hours given a prior history, but I consider the one-week block here excessive (and the original one-month block truly outlandish). I find it difficult to believe that the events of today would not affect the editor's approach, and if problems continue, then a longer-term block could be considered with far less dissent than currently exists. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who has both edit-warred AND been incivil in the past, and been blocked for it, I found them highly effective tools for me to examine my behavior, and improve it. --David Shankbone 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts and disturbing behavior

The following statement by dbachmann concerns me "it would seem justified for you to begin editing under a new account (using only one at a time of course). That basically seems to me to be encouraging evading a block. Dbachmann, what is going on with you? You unblock without even consulting the blocking admin (a violation of blocking policy at

I must say, that is a popular opinion this day .Ploutarchos 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the implication was that the user should get another account to bypass the block. It was to get another account so that future edits won't be unfairly evaluated based on a "long history of prior blocks" most of which the editor characterizes as newbie mistakes from a year and a half ago. Personally, I would prefer to see the editor continue editing under his current account, but as indicated I have serious reservations about the current block. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then no issues. However, it doesn't read that way to me. ⇒ SWATJester 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one. However, because of humanity's basic instinct of never admitting error, we'll remain remedyless.Ploutarchos 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop with the glib comments? The vast majority of commentators here agree with the block. ⇒ SWATJester 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support block evasion; I suppose he can sit out a week, then create a new account, assuming this block is not overturned. But why keep a black mark on your account if it will be held against you forever? That's just foolish. I'm just saying that if we have a punitive, unforgiving system (and I think the block you gave was certainly punitive and unforgiving) then people will act to avoid being punished, and I don't really blame them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone is engouraging block evasion around here. Obviously those administrators were speaking for when after the block has expired.Ploutarchos 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann wasn't encouraging block evasion, he was suggesting that Miskin serve out the block and then start over so he wouldn't get blocks from 2005 held against him. Miskin's manner of editing is distinctive enough that he'd be recognized under a new name, though. At any rate, like Newyorkbrad, I have strong reservations about the length of this block, and think it should be no longer than 48 hours. It seems clear to me that the block is as long as it is because of Miskin's abrasive personality rather than the 3RR violation in and of itself. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's questionable whether there even was a 3RR violation. As Miskin has pointed out on his talkpage, the initial reviewer at AN3 found no violation. Granted that edit-warring can be sanctioned even without a 3RR violation, I don't find this situation sufficiently aggravated to warrant a block for that a certainly not a one-week block. My view is still in favor of reversing or reducing the block. Having said that, I have counselled the user that whatever happens with the block, he should address the perceived civility issues and moderate his style of editing to take into accounts the comments that have been made here today. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there was a 3RR violation. Miskin's third revert comes after Dharmender6767 was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. And as noted, the admin who initially reviewed the AN3 posting found that the fourth "revert", was in fact not a revert. Now, if you want to argue that Miskin was acting against the spirit of the 3RR rule, fine, but I don't think that justifies a 1-week block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The third revert came after Dharmender6767 was blocked for 3RR, he was was apparently indef blocked one day later. This is all besides the point though, Miskin made two partial revert after that. --AlexanderPar 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the timing of Dharmender's block, but I don't think those "partial reverts" qualify as 3RR violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 7 blocks, I know an admin who's been blocked also 7 times, but these 7 blocks weren't an obstacle to his easily and with a formidable amount of votes obtain adminship, and rightly so. I'm probably the admin that's more often interacted (and clashed) with Miskin, as it's almost two years I know him, and I can say that Miskin, while he remains often too confrontational on talk pages, has made enormous progresses, as from his block log should be blatantly evident, and has become a quality mainspace contributor; punish him for misbehaviour committed in 2005 - when only few of the presents here were active in wiki - seems to me incredibly cruel, and more imoprtant, of no help to the encyclopedia. I see that you're a very fresh admin: this may explain part of your passion, and what I read as an obvious misjudgement. I must admit that also your tone isn't perfect: comments like "I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on" would be nice to avoid, especially considering that you've readily warned (correctly) Ploutarchos to be less exhuberant. Sorry, but I have to stand with Newyorkbrad, it's not even clear Miskin violated the 3RR, and while I'm not against blocks when less than four reverts, I certainly find a week too much, and agree with Newyorkbrad and Akhilleus.--Aldux 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Aldux, I don't think you're honoring Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You were involved in this edit-war, and took sides with Miskin. --AlexanderPar 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If its for that, I should be recused for having a (very) long records of quarells and dispute, so I may be considered to have good reasons of resentment against Miskin, to a level that nobody has here. As for Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, maybe you should consider reading it, instead of giving the link.--Aldux 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you should be recused for having been involved in this edit-war in support of Miskin, using vandalism-fighting tools to revert edits that were not vandalism. I like you as an editor, but I don't think your involvement here is appropriate.--AlexanderPar 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally out of line. We're neither discussing Aldux's use of the tools here, nor the article content. We are discussing Miskin, and they are not exactly buddies as everyone knows here. As for the diff, I think you should know better. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice examples we are setting here:

1. defying original admin's reasoning
2. defying reviewing admin's reasoning (who btw has confronted Miskin in other subjects)
3. defying WP:NOP that explicitly states that open proxy edits are WP:BANned, and WP:3RR that states that reverts on banned don't count
4. defying that Miskin's block log has been clear of 3RR for 2 years, with a brief intervening block for "unilateral moves" that was later revoked (as old as 6 months ago)
5. defying that the 3rr itself is a borderline case regardless of the WP:NOP issue (see 3d rv vs 4th alleged rv and rationale)
6. defying precedent that such cases where rv's of WP:BANned edits are exempt
7. defying that 6(!!) esteemed admins here have questioned the block (Seraphimblade, Dbachmann, Newyorkbrad, Christopher Parham, Akhilleus, Aldux)
8. defying that all supporting admins accuse Miskin of irrelevant offenses (vague incivility insinuations in other venues), for which he hasn't been warned and for which no diffs have been brought forward (a.k.a. his block shouldn't stand)
9. and now for people consulting him to erase his past ( and Dbachman) because the rest cannot disregard it as they are supposed to...
10. if not to resort to open proxies himself since legitimate editors suffer the same consequences

...and punishing him for a week over all that! Congratulations ladies and gentlemen. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear something quack? —physicq (c) 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I look like an WP:DUCK? Thanks for the good faith. Or maybe we should also punish Miskin for avoiding his block now eh? And I don't get it, are you arguing that anon comments are illegitimate here? Should they be intimidated at sight? NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The tone of the (previously-anon) comments seemed strangely...blunt and combative. —physicq (c) 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages problem: Block logs in perpetuity

This discussion raises a valid problem: there is little reason why a block log should remain a "permanent record." Even though I think Miskin's abrasive editting style deserves a week-long block, I find it very problematic that block logs are never expunged. This is something that should be changed, lest the only way for a person who has "grown up" in how they edit forever have years' old blocks follow them around for the rest of their Misplaced Pages life. It's pretty ridiculous. I think block logs should be expunged every 365 days. I think dragging up two year old blocks is unfair to any editor. Are we going to bring up three, five, or six year old blocks as Misplaced Pages ages? These things will outlive bankruptcy filings? --David Shankbone 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins should do their work like they are supposed to. Historic blocks may be interesting for unrelated issues. I also think it is not technically feasible. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all understand that editors' habits change over time, so we don't hold very old blocks against people whose more recent editing is unproblematic. The question of expunging old blocks came up in the Giano arb case (the first of them, I think) and the result was that even a block that everyone agreed was incorrect didn't get expunged. 75.62.6.237 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was, in fact, eventually expunged, but you are correct that it was not immediate. Picaroon (Talk) 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sadly unsurprised at this point that Swatjester should attempt to squeeze as much "incriminating" evidence against me out of my comments in order to be able counter my "disturbance" at his attitude with "disturbance" on his part (metoo). My comment to Miskin, as anyone following the discussion will recognize, have nothing to do with recommending block evasion. In the unlikely event that this isn't self-evident to everyone except Jester: I was rather objecting that a long-standing contributor should be made to go through this sort of nonsense because he did show some disruptive behaviour, back in 2005 (I remember this case: I would have blocked Miskin myself then, but I was involved in the article). My comment reads: If our overworked admins these days cannot be expected intelligently read a block log, duly making a difference between a stale history of 16 months ago and more than redeemed with valuable contributions, and a history of permanent troublemaking, it may be better for a user with a log of historical blocks to start over with a clean slate. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the fact that we are discussing the possibility of such a valuable and long standing admin as Dbachmann resorting to idiotic (not to mention suicidal) gestures such as instructing a blocked user to evade their blocks, is a sign of utter deterioration. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The deterioration is also evident from the fact that we have come to the point of discussing expunging block-logs so as to forcefully make admins disregard them, as is their duty. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Few of these arguments make much sense, since a person only need go through the five-second process to expunge their block log themselves by creating a new User name. What it does is penalize stability in the User names; if a person wants to shed their former poor behavior, they can do it themselves. The "technically impossible" argument doesn't hold much water with Wiki, and in the technological age; absent any hard knowledge it is impossible, this is just musing. If a person changes their user name, then all the arguments above fall to pieces. Instead, we should look to reward improved behavior by not dragging out the past and using it against people all the time, and look at their present contributions. Using either light, Miskin's block would still hold without having to talk about what they did years ago. --David Shankbone 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional input from the blocked user

I have requested and received some additional input from the blocked user (see final thread on User talk:Miskin). The unblock request remains pending and at this point I am inclined to commute the block to time served (and keep a close eye on Mishkin's upcoming contributions). Newyorkbrad 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think the case for this being a 3RR violation is not strong, and I don't think that it's right to issue such a long block based on behavior that occurred over a year and a half ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'd be inclined to support that conditionally that if he violates again, it's indefinite block time. That allows him to continue editing, and if he wishes to be constructive he has one (and only one) last chance. Without that condition, I'd have to lean against unblocking. ⇒ SWATJester 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on this editor and telling him be careful, no problem. "If he ever makes a mistake again, indef" would be a bit much. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "make 'mistake' again, one month"? —physicq (c) 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends what kind of mistake. Prearranging these things in advance rarely works. There will certainly be enough eyes on this editor, without giving those (I don't mean admins) who don't care for him a target to shoot for. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mistake" I meant was another 3RR violation, if I wasn't clear. —Kyриx (什麽呢?) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The vast majority of the administrators here have endorsed the one-week block (19 administrators!). The reduction of the block would be against consensus, and in violation of WP:WHEEL if not implemented by Alison. --AlexanderPar 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I oppose a straight unblock, I am willing to tentatively support a block reduction. —physicq (c) 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against unblocking. I found him very rude and uncivil. Altough I had no previous conflict with this user when I started a discussion with him/her , He/She started atacking me personaly and accusing me of being nationalist instead of responding to my reasonable discussion. Because he got blocked for persian gates battle I want it to be clear that he had broken 3rr elsewhere too. He obvioulsy violated 3rr in Last stand but I was surprised when he was not blocked.(Arash the Archer 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd hazard a guess that Miskin understands the concerns brought up here and will be careful from now on, even if he is reverting open proxies. (Discussion above suggests that most do not view that as a 3RR exemption.) So I think we should unblock with, as Brad said, the time he has already been blocked as the extent of it. Blocking is not punitive, and I don't think there is anything to prevent; if it turns out there is something to prevent, he can be reblocked. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin does understand the concerns brought up here. Look at User_talk:Miskin#To_Swatjester, 2 3RR violations in 2 days, and he still refuses to acknowledge any fault or take any blame or make any promises to improve his behavior. I think he has to learn his lesson the hard way, Misplaced Pages shouldn't be rewarding such behavior.--AlexanderPar 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the person who reviewed the 3RR violation, he unambiguously and clearly violated the 3RR AGAIN after the report was filed (but before my block). See here. He clearly does NOT understand the 3RR rule, otherwise he wouldn't have broke it multiple times, and STILL complains that he "did not 3RR vio": while it's clear he unambiguously DID violate 3RR, without touching the fact that he STILL violated the spirit of 3RR. Remember you're not entitled to 4 reverts per day. Apparently, he thinks that. I have to agree with AlexanderPar. ⇒ SWATJester 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the block remaining in place. It has been shown clearly that he was in violation of 3RR after being fully aware of the rule. He has been blocked more than a handful of times before, and no good editor should ever break 3RR more than once, whereupon they are informed about it and never do it again. That it was an open proxy has no bearing on the block whether he knew about it or not (and there is strong evidence to say he did not) because even if someone is editing from an open proxy, that doesn't make reverting their edits exempt from 3RR - if they are using an open proxy, report it, have it blocked, then continue editing without that disruption. The arguments that his history of blocks some time ago is being held against him unfairly would only hold water if he was squeaky clean now - however he isn't, has not been shown to have learnt anything from any of those blocks and consequently an escalation in the length of the blocks is appropriate. I do not at this time support a indefinite block, or the threat of one as condition of unblocking. I don't believe he has reached that stage yet, but he is getting very close to that or an arbcom case. Viridae 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't learned anything? His behavior has been more or less acceptable for nearly 18 months during which he has thousands of constructive edits. Had he switched account names at that time he would have a track record of equal length and approximately equal quality as the original blocking admin. It troubles me that numerous admins are unwilling to put aside his early troubles, and are willing to dismiss thousands of constructive edits over the past year. The episode suggests our community has become unforgiving and incapable of accepting reform. I would say Miskin is an excellent example of someone who has learned something and has substantially reformed himself, which is not to say he is without error, but even arbitrators pick up a 3RR violation now and then. If we are incapable of forgiving and forgetting then there is no point in users attempting to reform; hence my point above about Miskin simply making a new account -- why try to reform yourself if the community rejects such efforts out of hand? Miskin's response to this whole situation has been unfortunate, but in my view unsurprising given Swatjester's initial action. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That the original month long block (although in my opinion excessive) was reduced with no consultation whatsoever with the blocking admin is serious in itself, but that the user has continuing support despite policy being clearly shown to be against him leads me to believe that a certain admin should not involve himself in any further blocks or unblocks of this user. There is quite obviously a conflict of interest here. In future I ask that they refer the matter to this board or another uninvolved admin. Viridae 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry Alison, I wasn't refering to you) Viridae 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* - as the current blocking admin, I'd like to say that while I would personally be opposed to lifting the block at this time for numerous reasons, I would certainly defer to community opinion here. Given that the matter was brought here in the first place by SJ for that very reason, that is the most appropriate response. Having said that, I have to say I am disappointed by the way this whole issue was handled here by numerous people on all sides of this heated debate; the assumption of bad-faith on behalf of others, the incivility, the making of grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of the blocked user in question, the email campaign that started up. And on it goes. While blocking for 3RR violation is not meant to be a punishment, I don't feel the user in question has learnt from this experience. My one-week re-block was done in good faith to prevent this whole issue getting out of hand, which ultimately it ended up doing anyway - Alison ☺ 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the tone of this discussion has been regrettable (to say nothing of an "e-mail campaign," which I know nothing about). My strong view remains to reduce the block to time served at this point with a stern warning and some monitoring, but I was waiting for your comments. At this point consensus appears to be that the block stands, and I will not unblock overtly against consensus. I say that with regret, in part because it appears we may wind up losing this editor permanently, and that would not be a good thing. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yet another section break

Honestly, I think the way the block was originally imposed is inappropriate. Miskin was reported to AN3, and the admin who originally reviewed the case said there was no 3RR violation . User:Mardavich then posted on SwatJester's talk page, requesting SwatJester review the case: . To echo some of the language used above, this may not be a technical violation of the forum shopping language in WP:CANVAS, but Mardavich certainly violated its spirit. The news that there's been an "email campaign" for the block doesn't make me comfortable either. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I appreciate your waiting. And yes - I can see from your perspective re. unblocking. However, I will defer to community opinion on this one. I note, though, that Mardavich's behaviour was inappropriate as it was ostensibly "admin shopping", and that kind of behaviour hurts everyone. Not impressed. It would be a pity if the blocked user chose to leave as a result of all this, but that is ultimately their decision - Alison ☺ 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "forum shopping", I did nothing out of the ordinary, the closing admin had made a mistake which he later recognized and regretted, I had asked him to review it, the admin wasn't available, so I asked another admin what step I should take next . That's not forum shopping. Akhilleus's got it all upside down! If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue (such as User:Akhilleus) is a clear indicator of that fact.--Mardavich 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine that, an admin showing up at the administrators' noticeboard, out of the blue. By the way, on what basis are you saying I'm pro-Greek? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworded my comment to avoid the ambiguity. --Mardavich 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to change that. However, you still seem to be claiming that I'm posting here because I've been urged to do so through email. What basis do you have for claiming that? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I said. I didn't single you out, I said a disproportionate number of the individuals coming here to support Miskin also happen to be involved in Greek-related topics which appears to be out of ordinary. That's a simple observation. --Mardavich 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, you didn't single me out. You said I was part of a group of "editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue", which is a "clear indicator" that there's an email campaign to get Miskin unblocked. I suggest you refactor that comment, or provide some justification for saying that an email campaign drew me (and whatever other editors you were thinking of) to this thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your brought up the topic of "email campaign", not me. I just made an observation based upon your statement. --Mardavich 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you'll note that the original admin who said "no violation" has since changed his opinion, he now states there was a clear unambiguous violation. See User Talk:Sam Blacketer. ⇒ SWATJester 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that post, but I'm confused by it, and I hope that Sam Blacketer will explain his comment further. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope so too, but it seems pretty clear to me: At the time of the inital 3RR request, Sam found no violation. By the time I saw the request, there had been a clear violation. Upon notifying Sam, and over night, he saw that after his initial decision there had been a clear violation, and he changed his opinion to "violation occured". That's how it reads to me, ⇒ SWATJester 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Miskin made another revert after Sam looked at the 3RR request? As far as I can tell, Miskin didn't make any edits to Battle of the Persian Gate after Sam decided there was no violation. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After I had filed that 3RR report, User:Miskin had made yet another revert within the 24-hour frame-work. --Mardavich 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, um sorry to jump in well into the conversation but I've got two things I feel I need to add. 1) I think that wen admins start debating whether one another are pro-whatever on an unblock request, the process has gone horribly awry. 3RR blocks are given out, not because of content disputes, but because of disruptive behavior during content disputes. Our discussion here, as to the appropriate duration of a block, should be about conduct not content. Therefore, this discussions' participants' POV should be totally irrelevant. 2) We seem to have lost that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. This thread is one of several examples going on right now. My final opinion on the matter? I think Miskin deserved a block, just not a 1 month block. I don't know what the right number of days is. I don't think there is a right answer. But, this user is not a "SO-AND-SO IS GAY" vandal. This is someone who has made positive contributions over several years. I think it is important not only to prevent him/her from edit waring now, but also to encourage him/her to continue making positive contributions in the future. --Selket 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love this to make positive contributions. Nobody's trying to scare him away. We're trying to get him to follow the rules, which he thusfar refuses to do unless it suits him. ⇒ SWATJester 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout. Sam Blacketer 08:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting something out of this issue

OK, there is a point of contention here, policy-wise, that has been generally unadressed. WP:NOP says that "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects." However, that page is a copy from the Meta page, Meta:No open proxies, which means that "banned" does not necessarily have the same connotations it has here. As far as I know, open proxies are not immediately reverted, so they cannot be exemptions from the 3RR. Does this need to be clarified somewhere? Titoxd 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is correct; open proxies are banned in the normal colloquial sense, and they are blocked as discovered because of the potential for damage. There is no reason to revert constructive or good faith edits from open proxies, though such edits may be few and far between. I don't think this needs to be clarified any more than it is; I think most of us can recognize that attempts to evade this issue on a purported technicality are a red herring. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant to this topic. As discussed before, Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting a registered user on an open proxy. If we make an exception in this case, edit-warriors will cite it and ask for an exception when excessively reverting newbie users that may—or may not— turn out to be using an open proxy. --AlexanderPar 09:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes Miskin should have properly served a 24h block, and I never did "unblock" him in spite of what Swatjester would have you believe. But seriously. Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs)? Does it really matter if this account was editing through an open proxy? This sort of new user joining an edit war triggers "sock attack, semiprotect" in anyone half familiar with nationalist trolling campaigns. Disclaimer: I do not endorse Miskins position in the edit war. I am saying it is obvious he was reverting a troll. And still deserved a 24h block for technical 3RRvio. As opposed to a one month block and a rude threat of permaban. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock for ArbCom

As a anrbitration request has now been filed, I think it is only fair that Miskin is unblocked to defend himself, that is not me questioning the 1 weeks block, but it seems to make sense in light of how things have moved forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered again

(Moved to WP:CSN#PalestineRemembered_again)Navou 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rat

The page Rat was moved by a vandal. The vandal has been blocked indefinitely, and the page moved back, but all of the content of the page has been removed. Can an administrator access the revision history? Cool Blue 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is just sitting at Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaat but needs an admin to move it back. Will (aka Wimt) 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've alerted an administrator that is logged on currently. Cool Blue 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

more keyspam

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Allpages/13256 There is a redirect there whose name is a big long decimal number. No prizes for figuring out the hexadecimal representation. See also the deletion log for the redirect; I don't understand why it didn't stay salted. 75.62.6.237 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted again. It's been speedied 4 times already - it's just another silly keyspam - Alison ☺ 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• And SALTed. Enough is enough - Alison ☺ 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwnz0r1377 (talk · contribs)

Any one want to comment on this users use of warning templates? Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - here is an old revision showing the personal attacks he made. --24.136.230.38 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not all that cool. Grandmasterka 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems to have agreed to stop, considering his/her apology. —physicq (c) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message to the user about being civil and so forth. I hope this user understands that I am trying to help. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Sorry to bring this up again, but it seems to be a continued problem. The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera have come to (what I and others view as a) consensus that infoboxes are not necessarily wanted on composer biography pages, and it is fine to remove them when you come across them. User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) strongly disagrees, and doesn't seem to think a WikiProject should come up with a style guideline to apply to articles which it tends. There have been slow-moving edit wars on a number of composers pages, and what I see as WP:POINT-driven editing and WP:3RR gaming of a number of pages by Andy Mabbett. Members of the WikiProject have not been perfect either. In view of previous arbitration regarding Mr Mabbett, including that he was limited to one revert per article per week I wonder what the appropriate action is. Can the previous arbitration be added to at this point? Note that Pigsonthewing recently came back from a yearlong enforced break and has returned to fractious editing. It is possible also that some articles need to be protected until this matter is resolved - see Michael Nyman, Steve Reich, and Philip Glass. Unfortunately, it is possible that if these articles are protected, the fight will move on to other classical composer articles. Obviously, as an involved admin, I cannot protect them myself. Mak (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been characterised by multiple breaches of WP:OWN, false accusations, and dishonest claims to have both consensus and policy support in cases where there is no such support (as I have made clear), from multiple members of the two projects concerned. I have raised these concerns on ANI and elsewhere (e.g. , previously. I have also suggested methods of compromise, which have, it seems, been dismissed out-of-hand. I have recently (but prior to the above) made appeals for third-party input in the hope of resolving these issues. The above also misrepresents my views, not for the first time in this matter. Andy Mabbett 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to ask the readers what they think. As a reader, I find the infoboxes to be very useful for "at a glance" details. Others will no doubt disagree.

Either way, I don't think this necessitates protection and as you say it will only move the battlefield elsewhere. It's probably going to take dispute resolution or blocks tbh, preferably the former. I've also observed WP:OWN issues with the two projects mentioned, it has to be said; I doubt very much whether it would be fair to paint this as a story of abuse on one side only. --kingboyk 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy for some form of dispute resolution - as I said, I've recently asked for third-party input (I made a point of doing so using very neutral language and look what the response has been). The following two comments show the unacceptable tone taken by some of the others involved perfectly; there have been no "POINT" edits, and my knowledge of classical music is neither something for others to guess at, nor relevant to whether or not consensus is achieved - raising it (not for the first time) is another facet of ownership. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop refactoring this discussion. If you're going to reply to my points, reply to them after my comments.--Folantin 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd second what Makemi said. Mabbett is an immensely unhelpful, uncooperative and often downright aggressive editor with a penchant for WP:POINT violations if he doesn't get his way. He appears to know very little about Classical music so I have no idea why he is so obsessed with composer bioboxes. After he didn't get his way at the last ANI here, he went out and made some particularly ludicrous edits on opera articles . Insisting opéra comique be merged with comic opera is like including Bombay duck in a List of birds of India and 60 seconds spent reading the articles would have told him as much - but obviously that wasn't his priority . The Composer and Opera projects aren't the only victims of his charm offensive either - check out these recent examples of his helpful attitude . --Folantin 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Mak's description of events. User:Pigsonthewing argued extensively on WikiProject pages that infoboxes should be used on composer pages. The communities (by a wide margin) decided they should not be used, and now he is edit warring over the issue on individual articles, claiming that the consensus needs to be restated on each talk page (and, after it is, he continues to revert anyways: e.g.) His uncivil language and pointed edits are consistent with one blocker's comment "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia." Fireplace 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Send it back to the Arbs then? --kingboyk 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did WikiProjects get ownership rights on articles? Corvus cornix 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did an individual editor who likes infoboxes get ownership rights on articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did editing an article be limited only to those who participate in the WikiProjects which have staked out the article as their territory? Corvus cornix 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that only those who participate in a WikiProject which has staked out an article as its territory may editing that article? This is about one editor insisting on his opinion overriding the consensus opinion reached by a group of interested editors. And ANI is not the place for this to be discussed, any more than it was last time. I suspect that this is going to end up in the ArbCom. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the transactional costs (time, blood pressure) of ArbCom can be avoided. The last ArbCom's enforcement option ("may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year") had no termination date, and a one-year block has already been used once since then. Fireplace 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse everything that Mak, Folantin and Fireplace have written (above). Mak initiated a wide-ranging discussion about infoboxes on the Composers Project on 11 April here. After exhaustive discussions she summarized on 28 April. The overwhelming majority agreed that infoboxes were not needed (and the Opera Project later unanimously agreed with this). One respected edtor made a reasoned argument in favour of infoboxes and it was agreed that if he wished to design a special infobox for composers, the project would consider it.

Unfortunately Pigsonthewing refused to accept Mak's summary and the weight of opinion behind it. Since 28 April he has tried to create the impression that (1) no agreement or concensus emerged from the discussion initated by Mak and (2) that there ia a substantial body of opinion, among contributors to classical music pages, in favour of infoboxes. Both are untrue.

The Composers and Opera projects are actively building a lot of worthwhile content and would like to be able to get on with this in peace without having to deal with disruptions, edit warring and WP:POINT attacks especially when caused by a single editor. --Kleinzach 23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with experience of ArbCom restrictions clarify Pigsonthewing's revert limitation? According to this he's limited to one revert per article per week for a year, and I'd assume the year must start from when his one year ban ended otherwise it's a bit pointless? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not that restriction is still active, he is indefinitely on probation and under a "no excessive reverting" enforcement rule, so in light of this (6 reverts), this (5 reverts), and this (4 reverts), I've added an entry at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Pigsonthewing. Fireplace 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who was (until recently) a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera, but not the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers, I would like to point out that the "consensus" cited by several above regarding infoboxes was reached entirely out of view of those who are not members in both Projects. Then it appears it was suddenly deemed to be the "consensus" of Opera Project as well. It also appears that two or three members of the Opera Project seem to feel they have "ownership" rights over articles once they've slapped a banner on the article talk page. The reasons cited on the Opera Project talk page for eliminating infoboxes was "inaccuracies" and that they weren't appropriate for "our" articles. As to the first point, no examples were provided with respect to Opera articles. As to the second point, it demonstrates the "ownership" problem that's apparent (to me at least - which is why I've dropped out of that Project). I continue to think (as others do) that infoboxes can be useful and that the primary (but rarely directly expressed) objection of others is essentially one of aesthetics. Nickbigd 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WMF-hotwax (talk · contribs) = Jabales (talk · contribs)

WMF-hotwax (talk · contribs), the account pretending to be WikiBlue, is the same person as the insane abusive troll account Jabales (talk · contribs), using an open proxy on a hosting company range. Which I've just blocked - David Gerard 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

File wrongfully deleted because of an apparent Misplaced Pages software bug

There seems to be a bug in Misplaced Pages's software whereby a page that tries to transclude a missing template is sometimes treated as being tagged for speedy delete. This happened to User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes. A case of it is described in this (transcribed) discussion between User:Anthony Appleyard and User:The Haunted Angel:-

(Please note: I am NOT complaining against User:(aeropagitica).)

One of the "two red entries" was User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes.

Likely before 15:40 on 13 May 2007 User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes tried to transclude another missing template file, and so by the effect of this bug appeared spuriously to be speedy-delete-tagged.

I have come across this bug before. It may be caused by the software, looking for the missing template file, finding an old work buffer that has a copy of a speedy-deleted file in it. Anthony Appleyard 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading and provocative edit

In the light of issues discussed at Talk:Sheffield Town Hall#Coordinates and his other recent reverts, this edit (with a hidden link to "Feces") would seem to be unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Step one in dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved. I couldn't find where you've done that yet, so I'd suggest you start there. Also, you might find your time on this page more fulfilling if you read through the bit at the top starting with "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Thanks, William Pietri 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit is also to his own userpage isn't it? Secretlondon 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It still seems rude and intended to provoke, but if somebody has a problem with it they should ask the user to play nice. William Pietri 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that; got no T-shirt; I did provide links to one of the relevant pages; and the user concerned insists that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil ) should not post on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you try speaking to him for a change Pigsontheing? L.J.Skinner 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your somewhat bemusing question lies in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Pigsonthewing, I meant have you taken the advice of those above and used the day which has passed since then to bring it up with the user concerned directly? L.J.Skinner 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your further, bizarre, question is also in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett. Your comment here is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some difficulty between you and this user, or at least there was a month ago. However, this is--as the header explains--not the Misplaced Pages Complaints Department. If you are actually offended by this user's page (rather than sustaining or inflaming some running foofaraw) then please proceed through the steps of dispute resolution, starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note asking him to change the link to something more appropriate. Thanks, William Pietri 02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note" - I repeat: the user concerned insists that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil ) should not post on his talk page. I believe that the misleading link I highlighted should be changed, but clearly it would not be sensible for me to do so. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia. I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal. I'm now done with this. Good luck. William Pietri 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia." On the contrary.

"I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal" - no, you have not. You have suggested I use an avenue which, I had already indicated, is not open to me.

Andy Mabbett 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Andy, but I thought you could connect the dots. Let me try again: A while back, he asked you to stop bothering him. I don't know whether or not you were bothering him. But for this, it doesn't matter. If you are actually offended, the place to contact a user is on their talk page. So either contact him or don't, but give it a rest here until you have worked your way through dispute resolution's clearly numbered steps. If this is still hard for you to understand, contact me on my talk page. Leave this page to its clearly stated purpose. Thanks, William Pietri 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, and for your kind offer, but I understand the situation, and the purpose of this page (not to mention the meaning of the word "final") very well. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been available throughout Pigsonthewing's presence on Misplaced Pages. There is little need to once again, go on a third party page to complain when you are unwilling to settle the issue. Getting third party to agree and impose your point of view is not the spirit of Misplaced Pages and I believe you are unable to justify your edits and so constantly require the aid of peers... Get your act together, follow William Pietri's guide to how to solve it and make your case to me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, now that you're aware of the problem, you could be bold and remove the snarky link. Neither of you is blameless in this. William Pietri 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Mona Lisa?

User:Madmedea tags reproductions of Renaissance paintings as "unsourced", floods the uploaders' talk pages with loud threats to delete them, etc. Here's an example. Does he/she really think that the heirs of Andrei Rublev or Leonardo da Vinci will launch a suit against Misplaced Pages? Please investigate what's going on. --Ghirla 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright has expired on the originals, and the photograph is ineligible for copyright, is that not so?Ploutarchos 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." --Ghirla 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then just revert Madmedea or ask him to revert himself. Has he seen this dicussion? I doubt he'll object. Do you want me to do it?Ploutarchos 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It so happens that he/she reverted me and restored her threat to delete the reproduction within two days. --Ghirla 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to provide source URLs, Madmedea's edits are not inappropriate. For more information, please see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --Iamunknown 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to remember "source URLs" for images uploaded in 2004 (see the diff above). Even if I provide URL, what's the use of it? How does the presence of a source URL effect the copyright status of a Mona Lisa reproduction? The commons essay you refer to was started less than two weeks ago and cannot be the basis for deleting images uploaded three years earlier. Furthermore, it does not mention the word "source" or otherwise sanction Madmedea's activities. --Ghirla 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec w/Nick) The Commons "essay" points out something that we have long neglected and need to now realize: that we cannot simply upload digital reproductions of two-dimensional works without attribution. If that means that it cannot be the basis for deleting images, then what can?

The copyright status of any work depends upon the country in which the work was produced; if the photograph were taken in the United Kingdom, for example, where the threshold of originality required for a copyright is much lower and is, in fact, based upon the "sweat of brow" doctrine, a slavish photograph of a painting would be copyrighted; in the United States it would not, as established by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. By knowing the source we can beging to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under. I personally do not generally tag PD-old or PD-art images with no source when they were created in 2004, but that does not preclude others from doing so. --Iamunknown 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that images should include a source, but for images that are clearly public domain such as these, a source isn't necessary and we're just being subjected to needless process wonkery. It's at this point we invoke WP:IAR, ignoring the blurb about needing to find a source for images uploaded 4 years ago - this nonsense will disrupt or prevent our ability to create and distribute our little encyclopedia, so we just ignore it. -- Nick 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These images are not clearly public domain. --Iamunknown 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What's not public domain about  ? -- Nick 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was the photograph taken? --Iamunknown 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Under US law if the image is proved to be a slavish copy of a PD work it is itself PD, no mattter where it was taken or who took it. it might possibly not be PD in the UK, but wikipedia follows US law on copyright. DES 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can copyrights in the United States expire (or, in this case, not exist) when they are still active in other countries? I was under the impression that they could not. I, however, am not a laywer. --Iamunknown 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, AFAIK Wikimedia operates servers in .us, .nl and .kr , and therefore probably needs to follow international law. Even if that wasn't the case, documents might still be protected under the berne convention. --Kim Bruning 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) IANAL, hence the caveats.

Maybe we can solve this by adjusting the server software so that images with this specific problem are hosted and served only from the US server. 75.62.6.237 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

US law is fairly clear on these points, and i can find sources for you if you like, IANAL either, but I have had a good deal to do with copyright for some years, including over on Distributed Proofreaders, where I am a content provider and project manager, tasks for which some copyright knowledge is required. The Berne convention requires that works of nationals of foreign counteries (that are members, but that is prectically everwhere these days) get the same protection in the US as do the works of US nationals. It also sets some minimum standards (Life plus 30 is the absolute floor for new copyrights, IIRC) and forbids requiring "formalities" of foreign copyright holders -- this was largely aimed at the former US rule that without a copyright notice, all rights were lost, and at former US registration requirements. But Berne does not in any way expand US copyright law, and there have indeed been cases where US courts have held works PD in the US that are in copyright elsewhere. And there have been cases of foreign works that are now PD in their countries of origin (including th UK) but are still in copyright here. As to the foreign serves, i can'r aay, but it was my strong impression that the Foundation considered that for legal purposes wikipedia was located in the US state of Florida, and must obey Florida and US federal law, and that particualrly on copyright it need not conform to the laws of other jurisdictions. DES 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding URLs for images uploaded years ago is impracticable, as URLs don't normally live that long. Would you delete a Titian reproduction just because you can't find an URL featuring a reproduction that matches it to a T? I don't see how an URL may give one food "to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under". If an URL points to a French website, it does not mean that the reproduction was created in France and should fall within the scope of French laws. Basically, this road leads us nowhere. So far there have been no legal threats involving PD-art images. Of course we can try to be holier than Christ, but then it's more reasonable to delete all "unsourced" PD-art images en masse, than to bother all the hard-working editors who may have uploaded thousands of PD-art images, especially ro Commons. It seems that now, when fair-use problems are more or less resolved, our copyright defenders are in search of a new field of boundless activity, which may keep them busy for months if not years, at the expense of time and energy of those wikipedians who prefer to contribute new articles, rather than browse for the so-called "source URLs". --Ghirla 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a source affects the copyright status one iota. Perhaps someone can explain. (I guess the argument is that adding a source helps us to verify copyright status, yes/no?)

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that it is pretty clear that a slavish copy of the Mona Lisa does not attract copyright in the US, following Bridgeman v. Corel (I believe there is also some debate about that conclusion). But are you saying now that we need to check the copyright status of all of our images in every jurisdiction in the world? ("This image is subject to copyright in X and Y, but available under fair use in Z; it is public domain in A and B"?) So we delete images that are copyright in Tuvalu or Andorra, even if they are public domain everywhere else? Are we proposing to delete user's photos of images of buildings in France because the architect has copyright in that jurisdiction?

Anyway, this indiscriminate spamming of long-term editors with aggressively-worded template messages is simply awful. Where is the Misplaced Pages (not Commons) policy (not essay) page which mandates the deletion of all images without a source? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the relevant Commons page was not an essay. Can you recommend otherwise? Regardless, you may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. --Iamunknown 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So who got asked to source the oldest image? I'll see your Mona Lisa and raise you the 14thC manuscript Prose Edda. Also uploaded in 2004. What do I win? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:0511.jpg Ancient Maya art c. 600 - 900 AD, also uploaded in 2004. Sorry you don't win; I don't expect this to either. Any Ancient Egpytian copyright violations spotted yet? -- Infrogmation 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, neither of those are clearly slavish reproductions. Then again, I am not familiar with case law surrounding copyrights of Rollout photography. --Iamunknown 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, get it? Ancient Egyptian? Slavish? --Masamage ♫ 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Image:0511.jpg is copyrighted by "Justin Kerr". See (even though the colors look somewhat differenet, see the bottom right corner of the images and you'll seethe Kerr number 0511 on both) ... perfect example illustrating why sourcing is important even though it is a pain in the neck. Abecedare 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, United States museums claim copyright on reproductions of now-public domain works, and they are wrong (per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). But I do not think that Bridgeman applies to this image; it does not appear to be a slavish reproduction in the manner described in Bridgeman. --Iamunknown 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Image:0511.jpg is claimed to be copyrighted, but that claim is not necessarily defensible under US law. I think it is only prudent that we don't delete such images from wikipedia till a consensus is reached as to how expansively Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is to be interpreted on wikipedia. Perhaps Village Pump will be a better venue for this debate than ANI. Abecedare 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the text of Bridgeman (but I should); I would imagine off-hand, however, that it does not specifically address rollout photography and, as such, we should consider such photography non-free (unless it is freely licensed) until case law concerns itself with such photography. I would hope that others would agree; in general, however, further discussion is definitely necessary at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights (with ads at the VP). --Iamunknown 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the noticeboard is low-traffic and suffers from bias. It is frequented by those who apriori consider all our image database as "suspect" and are seldom interested in the improvement of our articles. I would rather discuss the matter at a more sympathetic and high-traffic venue. --Ghirla 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Image:0511.jpg has a tag which states it is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Since it's a vase it is manifestly not a 2-d work of art and nor as it happens is the image a simple photograph of the item in question. The image is a two-dimensional representation of a painting on a three-dimensional surface and has been produced by some technique or other. No idea what this means for copyright in terms of Corel though! The Land 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Corel only applies to 2-d works of art not photos of 3-d... there are actually quite a few images that are currently tagged PD-art which are ineligible for this reason, I'm collecting them here Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images#May 14 - hopefully a less inflammatory tag than no sources! Loathe to add Image:0511.jpg myself after my debacle here...Madmedea 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Broader discussion: Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

Discussion needs to be broadened as it dealing with very much more than the Mona Lisa. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg notes it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519. I would consider that as mentioning a source. Madmedea list that as "no source". Such images of art have been tagged to be deleted withing 48 hours. Some of these artworks were created over a thousand years ago. Some have been illustrating articles here at Misplaced Pages for 3 or 4 years. Some were uploaded by users who are no longer regulars and are unlikely to reply to the notice within 48 hours. Clearly we need to decide if Madmedea's actions are the appropriate approach within less time than that. Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping useful images that very clearly are public domain and have no risk of causing any potential copyright problem. -- Infrogmation 23:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive URLs

If I uploaded the rare reproduction of an ancient icon and indicated the source URL, will the image be deleted after that URL is no longer working? Will the reproduction of a Titian painting pointing to a dead URL be considered "sourced" or "unsourced"? --Ghirla 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon who was viewing the image and upon some copyright questions that are currently unanswered. Hopefully they would first look at the Wayback Machine. --Iamunknown 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the analogy with the Unreferenced articles is valid. Sources for the images are important and simplify verification of the author of the image, that it was not altered to push editors POV etc. On the other hand we do not delete unreferenced articles of 2004, instead we source them. I think the same approach can go for the old PD-art images without URL. Put {{unreferenced}} on it and try to reference it. For the attributions of the reproductions of art we do not need the exact source. I think references to other reproductions of the same painting are sufficient. Alex Bakharev 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about the Rublev's Theotokas of Vladimir painting we have higher resolution on commons Image:Rublev3.jpg. Since the source of the commons' reproduction is given it can be used for validation of the image here Alex Bakharev 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Although, as Misplaced Pages is not a collection of images WP:NOT, if the image is available at the Commons then it could be used instead. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say - I am not an admin! I am not deleting anyone's photos, I am simply tagging them as lacking sources. An admin will review the image and decide if it needs deleting, not me. Even if the original source cannot be found, if the image is in the public domain a link to a current source would seem fine to me - or even noting which gallery/library the object is in, as it allows verification. Please this debate should be about sources not copyright. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you are an admin or no. There is no lack of admin volunteers to run a bot and delete all tagged images en masse, as was the case with Betacommand and PD-USSR images. Once the image is tagged, you may expect it to be arbitrarily deleted any minute (at least, in my experience). --Ghirla 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On close inspection Image:Rublev3.jpg and Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg are not two photographs of the same painting (not only are the colors and paint erosions different, but look at the virgins left eye and the fold of cloth under her right ear). So either Rublev drew the same subject more than once (very likely!), or Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg is a more recent "student copy" of the original - which would make its copyright status suspect. Abecedare 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I am sure it is the same icon just photographed at different times. Icons were objects of the religious ceremonies not an object of art. There were candles and oi lamps burning in inches from the paintwork. There were golden "icon-settings" (oklads) nailed to it. Thus every few years an artisan "bogomaz" would put a new layer of paint over the icon. They usually were trying to keep the painting the same but if you have 50-100 layers of paint over the original paint work it looks quite differently from the originals. In the 19th century people discover that you can "clear out" ancient icons: remove all the paint layers but the original one. They were astonished by the bright fresh look of the result. Still usually clearing out icons destroys part of the painting completely. The two images show just the difference. The icon as it was confiscated from the church (with tens of layers of paint over the original) and the cleared out original (with some damage due to the process). Alex Bakharev 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My response

• Now someone has had the courtesy to notify me of this debate I would like to comment. Images require source AND copyright tags. One or the other is not enough. This is clearly stated on the official wikipedia policy regarding images - WP:IUP#Rules of thumb. I know its a pain but without a source an image is basically like an unreferenced fact in an article - ok we all know what the Mona Lisa looks like but for other images without a source how can a user check its authenticity? The message left on user talk page is automatically generated from the {{nosource}} tag, I didn't write it. I did start leaving an extra message to try and make the purpose of the tagging in PD cases a little clearer. Please, Misplaced Pages has policies for a reason - tagging a problem for admin attention is not a crime and in line with everyone's rights as a Misplaced Pages editor. You may find it annoying but the policies exist for a reason. It will be up to an administrator to decide if any image gets deleted. Madmedea 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd actually suggest instead of just tagging images, you help try and find sources, if your so concerned about them, in saying that, sources aren't useful for these images, I've just confirmed a few points with a fellow admin and the source is actually useless, we actually need to know under which countries jurisdiction the images were uploaded, not the source for the image nor the actual jurisdiction under which the image was created. If your in England & Wales and upload a reproduction, you would likely be breaking the law, whereas if you upload the image in the USA, you would most likely be protected by the precedent set by the Bridgeman v Corel case. -- Nick 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly wasn't worried about copyright, just sources, hence the source tag! Without one it undermines WP as an encyclopaedia as everything should be referenced. I didn't mean to cause a row by just tagging some images for problems. Still miffed that my edits have been mass reverted though! Madmedea 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  Where have you seen an encyclopaedia where "everything is referenced"? Only monographs (i.e., original research publications) require thorough referencing. --Ghirla 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I spend a lot of my time finding sources, uploading things to Wikimedia Commons etc. Many of the uploaders of the images I've tagged have been able to provide their sources when reminded. I didn't think this would a problem! What is the point of policy if its not followed? Madmedea 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's easier for me to upload a new image of a well-known painting with a fresh URL than to browse all over the web to retrieve an URL from which it was downloaded years ago. But what's the point of these exercises in formal adherence to the rules? Last time I checked WP:POINT it said that "WP is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (These are arguably not defects.)" --Ghirla 07:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• What this problem reveals is a serious need to clarify what is acceptable on the English-language Misplaced Pages.
  1. Must all free content be able to be published under the GFDL? If so, we cannot use non-multilicensed CC works.
  2. Must we only obey United States copyright law? If so, I think (but really do not know, so don't take this a legal advice at all) United States citizens can upload slavish reproductions of anything out of copyright in the United States (while it may be in copyright in other countries)

     Surely the category in question would not be citizenship, but location. A non-American in the United States is subject to U.S. copyright law. A U.S. citizen in France is subject to French copyright law. Beyond that, the issue of location of uploader should only be important to the uploader. Perhaps it is a copyright violation (I have no idea) to upload a slavish reproduction of an old painting in France, and the person who does that would be violating the law. But that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages, by hosting that image, is violating the law, since, as I understand it, wikipedia is subject only to U.S. law. So any such image should be fine for wikipedia, although I suppose those outside the United States might want to be careful of uploading such images for their own sake. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  3. Do we accept works where the copyright holder (or former copyright holder) is not clear but are arguably in the public domain due to age?

     Of course we should. Who on earth cares who the former copyright holder of something which is clearly out of copyright is? john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't even mention serious GFDL-related issues surrounding merging (which I think are much more difficult to decide than image-related issues). --Iamunknown 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the current nosource tag sucks, why not change the text around a bit, or make a newer , usefuller tag? Everyone would use it for this kind of image then! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Madmedea 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder how useful the source is. If we know that an image is a slavish reproduction of a work currently out of copyright, then it's public domain. The source of it seems basically irrelevant if there's no actual possibility for it to be copyrighted. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that an image is a slavish reproduction if we don't know its provenance? If you uploaded an image of the Mona Lisa with subtly altered colours and composure, I am not at all confident that I would recognise it as a derivative work. Hence the need for provenance information. The problem here isn't that the demand for source is onerous, but that it is not onerous enough - we should be demanding a source, AND demanding that that source be a reputable library or archive that can be trusted to provide good-faith "slavish" reproductions. Hesperian 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered colors does not give something in the public domain a new copyright. Question is irrelevent. Something in the public domain is public domain regardless of source. Period. DreamGuy 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd want to be pretty darn sure of that. This is not something we can afford to get wrong. Everyone else on this page has been talking about the necessity of "slavish reproduction", and all of a sudden you are claiming that I can lighten and crop the image and it will still be PD. Where do you get that idea? Hesperian 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See derivative work: "Although a derivative work author usually has been authorized, through license, to incorporate the previous work into his derivation, he does not gain thereby a copyright in any preexisting material." ˉˉ╦╩ 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The key word there is "pre-existing". All that is saying is that I don't gain copyright of the Mona Lisa just because I produce a lightened and cropped version of it. But if there is any intellectual property in my lightening and cropping, then I retain copyright over my derivative work.

Bridgeman v Corel provides an extremely broad scope for photographic originality - "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved".

I still contend that we shouldn't be claiming photographs as PD per Bridgeman v Corel unless we have shown due diligence in checking that the images really are slavish copies. Hesperian 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a derivative work is not limited in scope by Bridgeman v Corel. Although you are correct that anyone may assert creative authorship in any trivial modification of the original work. For our purposes, I agree that we must verify the authenticity and integrity of the reproduction of the original work. However, if a lightly modified version (that is, cleaned up in Photoshop or some-such) is presented as the original in a publication with no claim of authorship for the modification, I think we're in the clear. The distinguishing feature between derivative and transformative use is intent: if it is the image editors intent simply to better present the original work by selectively cropping it or adjusting the color/contrast/etc., then the result is definitely a derivative work that is covered under the original copyright. Further, if such modifications are contributed by a Misplaced Pages user, then we don't really have to worry about licensing. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said. But the issue at hand is images with no source, for which we don't know whether it was presented as the original in a publication, and for which we do not know the author's intent. You make a valid point though: if someone uploads an image without specifying the source, and someone else goes to the trouble of checking that the uploaded image is a faithful reproduction of the original, then having a source for the image would not be necessary. I hope that the proposed {{PDnosource}} tag comes with clear instructions that a editor should tag an image with it only after they have carefully checked that the uploaded image really is a faithful reproduction of the original, and not a (subtly or otherwise) altered version. Hesperian 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as the {{PDnosource}} tag allows for a reasonable amount of time to verify the backlogs (months, not days), I agree with your stance. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "subtly altered colors", etc.

• Firstly, I have a habit of modifying colors in Photoshop before uploading reproductions of old paintings to Misplaced Pages. Could I claim copyright on those images?
• Secondly, most images of paintings by Old masters were uploaded to Commons by commons:User:File Upload Bot (Eloquence). They are properly sourced but differ enormously (as regards colors and contrast) from paintings that actually hang in art museums (or from reproductions of those paintings that may be found on museum websites). Should they be deleted?
• Secondly, museum version of paintings are also by no means "official" or definitive. Reproductions of the same painting from two museum websites may differ substantially. --Ghirla 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• See the newly created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}. DES 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions

It looks to me that Madmedea was working to apply procedures-- but those procedures were designed to protect Misplaced Pages from copyright violations. Applied in a context where this was not the specific concern, the result has been problematic. I would suggest:

1) Short term. Remove the "no source" tags from images for which there is no challenge to public domain status. An alternative template or text to the effect that "This public domain image should have better source information" and perhaps a related category would be good. However time is already ticking on useful public domain images used in articles to be deleted as "no source" images, so I suggest removing those tags be prioritized within the next day even if the final wording of a new template hasn't been decided on yet.

2) Intermediate term. I think we could use some policy for providing more information on public domain images, especially legacy images which may have been uploaded years ago by users who are no longer active. I'm thinking along the lines of a category added to the images requesting an expert second look, and that when the intermediate "source" of the digital copy of the public domain image cannot be identified it be acceptible for someone to add something, for example, confirming that it is indeed a 16th century work atttirbuted to Pieter Bruegel the Elder since it is listed on page so and so of a certain book.

Other thoughts and suggestions? -- Infrogmation 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. john k 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Ghirla 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Building off of Infrogmation's idea, we could create a template like {{PDnosource}} for instances like this. The current template applies to non-free images and doesn't really fit our use with sourcing PD images. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an elegant and practical solution. According to , any work of art created prior to 1887 is almost assuredly fair game. Of course there are possible complications that arise when dealing with derivative works, or with properly identifying the authenticity of public domain images. Tagging them with {{nosource}}, however, is a horrible idea based on a flawed and overly legalistic reading of policy. URLs fade, museums and private collectors often attempt to claim copyright when it is obviously expired, and many paintings are mistakenly attributed to artists based on circumstantial evidence. Still, whatever quirks we have to work out, paintings that are hundreds of years old are in the public domain regardless of flawed attribution, and Misplaced Pages sourcing policy is a means, not an end. {{PDnosource}} should take these considerations into account, and provide for several methods of verification. We should allow for citations that reference written scholarly works, museum catalogs, published biographies, and other content that might not appear on the internet. Until then, lets abide by common sense and not delete images that portray ancient works of art. (Although the 2d replication of a 3d vase is an interesting case and might be copyrighted.) ˉˉ╦╩ 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I propose it contain the text: "We're claiming this is PD per Bridgeman v Corel, but we haven't actually bothered to check whether it is a slavish reproduction. It might be a subtly altered version, and we wouldn't know, because we don't know where it came from." Hesperian 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered versions do not get new copyrights. Only significant changes get new copyrights... enough to be considered a new work of art completely. That's not going to apply to 99% of the images tagged as public domain. DreamGuy 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certain you're wrong; discussion continues in the subsection above. Hesperian 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this seems reasonable (except Hesperian's comment), but there should be some discussion of what constitutes a "source". If an image description clearly and fully identifies a work of art, and its current location, then I would argue that it has been sourced. Dsmdgold 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me - if it hasn't been done already I'll untag the images I tagged - and sorry for causing such a hoo hah. I would just like to say that source has importance far beyond any copyright claims - by referencing where an image came from it gives a way of checking whether the image is what it says it is. We all know what the Mona Lisa looks like (altered or not), but do you know that an ancient manuscript or unfamiliar painting is what the uploader says it is without a way of checking via a source - or if that really is the 4th duke of marlborough? Just as articles need to be referenced, so do images for the purpose of verifiability WP:V, which is what started me on this in the first place and I would presume this is one of the reasons why both WP and the Commons ask for sources! Madmedea 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All tags have been removed from images that are highly likely to be PD works of art. Madmedea 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} for use in cases where the art is clearly 2-D public domain, but the photo is uncreditied. Please consider using it in such cses in future. DES 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism to Let's Rock the House

This article is about a single by La Toya Jackson that was re-issued by 2007 under DEAD END! Records, a small record label owned by myself. However, copies have been sold, and continue to be sold and manufactured, and this classifies as an official release. Vandals who know me outside Misplaced Pages (and don't like me) continue to remove any reference to the 2007 release, simply because I'm associated with it. Also, they decided to change "DEAD END! Records" to "Robert is a Gay Twat" in the article, and at one point, even adding my photograph to the article. Not only should this page be fully protected against further vandalism, but administration should consider having the users involved, specifically User:HelenRail, 82.34.226.152, User:J9306, AND User:Vinylcollector82.

Rhythmnation2004 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem horrible right now (if kept in check). If it gets worse, go for WP:RFPP. --PaxEquilibrium 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not bad as far as I can tell too. I've added a unreferenced template to the article, though. There are no sources saying that this was re-released at all. Metros232 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation, but you can bet that the vandals will removed it again within a few days. These vandals need to be blocked. Look at this: Record label changed to "Robert is a Gay Twat", My photo is added to page This type of vandalism is completely inappropriate and unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, and this user is taking their personal dislikes towards me to vandalize Misplaced Pages. This can not be ignored. Rhythmnation2004 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sockpuppet

Flatspace20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sent a wrestling article to AfD, and checkuser has confirmed open proxy use. Can someone block and deal with the AfD closure as well please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Done - Alison ☺ 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious user talk page

What should be done about this? --Ideogram 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. It has been deleted. —physicq (c) 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting problem tagging

I've spent tonight starting to go through Category:Public domain art. Initially I was looking for images suitable for transfer to Wikimedia Commons but as more and more images were without sources I couldm't do this. So I tagged them with {{no source}} and notified the uploader that the image required a source for the digital image. Now my edits have been reverted en mass by User:MichaelLinnear. I have left a message on his userpage asking him why he has reverted my "good faith" edits which were simply tagging a problem in line with the Misplaced Pages policy on images (WP:IUP), which clearly states images should have a source. For me an image without a source is like a fact without a reference - and in line with WP policy, tagging it is legitimate - wether it is PD or not!. I feel so discouraged, but I didn't want to revert his edits and get into a war. Please help.Madmedea 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It is not clear legally that the sources are necessary. (They are, however, best practice.) There is a thread up the page aways about your actions. May I suggest that we currently keep the discussion confined there? --Iamunknown 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

would have been nice for someone to leave a message for me to tell me!Madmedea 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel for you, and it sucks that we don't have a source for some of these articles. However, if you look at it, the sourcing policy for digital images is chiefly to avoid copyright claims - it's secondly for encyclopedic merit. Perhaps we should make a {{pd-nosource}} tag which can be used on images like that, which clearly have no copyright claims, but which have not been properly attributed. It seems silly to delete images with no conceivable copyright violation because they haven't been sourced, but it's also silly to have no middle ground. --Haemo 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Madmedea has left notices at my talkpage about on-line sources for 16th-century engravings adequately covered by PD-old, for two-dimensional works of which the author is long-dead. One copy of an engraving or lithograph is pretty much like another, and I can't rediscover the on-line sources. Is this a prelude to mass deletioons of engravings? Is this genuinely intended to serve Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages reader?--Wetman 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, please see the Sources for Mona Lisa thread some ways above. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

As I've written above, I have obviously stumbled into something which has hit a sore spot whilst trying to do something I think is worthwhile - moving images to the Commons. But every digital image, taken from a 16th century original or 19th century original, will have a source - it could be a website, an non-online image database, or your scanner. We do, however, need a new "no sources" tag for PD images which doesn't threaten deletion (not that I'd be the one deleting as I'm not an admin). I have asked for help with one from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons page. Madmedea 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Article Tags

Many have avoided the naming issue on the Dokdo page since the article falls to edit wars particularly easily. There is, however, an earnest discussion on the talk page about whether or not the current name of the article is appropriate. The argument is not about article content, etc., just the name. To this end, several editors have attempted to put a tag on the article informing other editors of the discussion, both in the case where someone happens by and in the case where someone views the dispute categories.

At least four editors are (currently) posting that they believe the name is inappropriate and are open to discussion, but other editors seem very diligent in removing the tag, saying there is no dispute. I understand removing the tag if the dispute became stale/no more posts were being made there, but I believe that removing the tag like this is not good for either side. I do not see what can be gained by stifling the discussion.

Their only reason for removing the tags is that they dispute there is a dispute. I'm not sure if this is the place to post this or not, but what should be done? Just keep putting the tag back? (I don't like this idea, seems too easy to escalate into a full fledged edit war.) Or what? Komdori 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand where the editors are coming from who want the tag removing - it's very frustrating to reach a consensus, have four months pass, and then have a handful of new editors pounce on it and claim there's a dispute again. A good way to make sure this isn't going on is to read back through the archives - see how people argued before, and see how they reached a consensus. If you've got, numerically, as many editors disagreeing with the rationale for the previous consensus, as previously endorsed it, then I say you have a dispute - just as a rule of thumb. The same is true if you have substantially new arguments, which were not previously dealt with. If there's really a dispute, it should be either based on new material, or consist of a substantial number of editors disagreeing with the rationale for the previous concensus - not just starting the argument over again. This are just my 0.02$ about this topic - they're not rules or anything; just my feelings about what makes a dispute a real "dispute", and not just the inevitable turnover of editors refreshing an old argument. --Haemo 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The current "consensus" is based on the following (badly managed) poll:

• Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_4#Requested_move

The people who started the poll forgot to tell everyone there was a poll going on, resulting in a 100% "support" for the page move. The poll was hastily closed, once people started voting against it. But people continued voting.

Then apparently somebody solicited votes in an outside blog, resulting in over 100 or 200 "oppose" votes, and the polls had to be closed anyways.

When counting the votes of established editors, I found more "support" votes than "oppose" votes, and so I endorsed the result (although I didn't endorse the count).

Anyways, it's been almost 1 year since then. The previous voting was conducted improperly, and so you could probably lodge some kind of a complaint or start another poll based on those grounds.--Endroit 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer came into the picture sometime after this poll closed, and suggested that perhaps another poll may be done after 6 months. Be sure to ask him for his opinion.--Endroit 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page

User:Smee, a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing, just recreated a page that is the subject of page protection so as to evade the page protection and avoid resolving the pending issues. By the numbers:

1. Ongoing dispute at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports over what constitutes a "government report". Arguments going against Smee's inclusion of a cherry-picked 1979 document.
2. Smee renames to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) and then simply Groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) after reinserting the disputed document (diff).
3. I rename it back to (almost - my bad) the original, to Groups referred to as cults in government reports (diff) and restore the last version by User:Jossi as a last fairly undisputed starting point (diff} and then I ask to have the page protected () and it is.
4. User:Anynobody asks to have the page unprotected and the disputed document reinserted by the unprotecting admin then it be protected again with the disputed document included (diff). Declined, see discussion here.
5. Smee asks that the page be unprotected (diff).
6. About two hours later, Smee creates a new page for Groups referred to as cult in government documents, evading the dispute, the page protection, and the dispute resolution process (diff). The disputed document is prominently featured.

I am sorry to have to come before this board again but this is extremely serious WP:DE and I am seriously at a loss as to how to deal with an editor that disrespects the process to this degree. Smee is an extremely experienced editor and knows that disputes are resolved, not evaded. --Justanother 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother - disruptive to the project, previously blocked for violating three policies

1. Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has an ongoing history of violating policy, and disrupting the project to make a point, or purely to remove information, much in the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, and this striking and most troubling history of policy violation, most notably WP:TROLL, and WP:NPA, have been documented by users including myself by also other than myself, at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 in preparation for further action.
2. User:Justanother has been blocked for what the Administrator noted as: Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA .
3. As to my recent actions, they were obviously misperceived. I asked for feedback on a new version of the article in question, here. Then User:Milomedes asked for an example, and specifically referred to the model used at List of groups referred to as cults, here. The initial user who requested this example be provided, then commented that the example provided was sharp, with clean editing work, here. Thus, I was simply responding to this user's request that I provide an example as to the new model that I had suggested and asked for feedback on, on the talk page. Smee 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

okay, folks, Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while

If it was a demo, the proper place for something like that is in a sandbox, not in article space. I have speedy deleted the article as a WP:POVFORK. I do not see any glaring reason for Justanother or Smee to be blocked today. Please continue to use article talk pages in a civil manner and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. ··coelacan 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At Smee's request, I've moved the article to a temporary sandbox at User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents so it doesn't reside in article space as a POV fork. Hopefully that resolves the issue. ··coelacan 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that this could have been construed as a "fork", however, that was not my intention. My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page. After polite input from User:coelacan, I will make these sorts of examples in the future as subpages in userspace, instead. However, User:Justanother's actions were highly inappropriate in this matter, as is noted on his talk page. Smee 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Granted Smee should've tagged the proposal article as such to avoid confusion on the part of anyone who stumbled onto it through a search or some way other than the message on Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports#Feedback on new formatting idea as you did coelacan. However Justanother, unlike yourself, HAS been editing on the talk page both before and after Smee made the above linked request.before (diff) after diff after diff2 after dif 3.

I'm not saying you should have done anything different than you did, based on what the post says, and the lack of identifying itself as a proposal you'd of been wrong not to speedy delete the page. I am saying Justanother did (or should have) known the nature of the page. Anynobody 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing clarification. Smee 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This issue is far from resolved

I do not think that this issue is resolved. A user that creates a fork bypassing page protection on May 12 23:02 Diff (diff after page move) and three minutes later on May 12 23:05, replaces the protected article with the forked article in a template used by hundreds of pages. Diff with an edit summary "fix link" and without discussing this "swap" with anyone, and after doing that, which is an obvious violation of POV fork to avoid page protection, rather than show contrition and apologize, choses to defend his/her actions with a counterattack designed to poisoning the well. In his/her defense the user claims that "My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page.", when his/her actions show quite differently. This issue will be resolved when this user receives strong advise as to do not engage in that type of behavior in the future, do not respond to ANI notices with attacks on the filer, politely address the concerns expressed, and apologizes to his fellow editors for the offending behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That was not my intention. As stated above, I was responding to a request on the talk page to provide an example. I was advised about this, and acknowledged the advice, and the next time, I did provide an example in my user space, and am getting some positive feedback on it with amicable discussion on talk pages. As I have already stated, I will not create this type of example-page in main-space again, but rather in user space, and engage in discussion on talk pages, and that is exactly what I am currently doing. Smee 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Diff, taking into account advice that has been provided, and engaging in positive feedback/discussion progress on talk pages with similar issue in a subsequent situation. Smee 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Amicable discussion? Not your intention? Positive feedback? Can you explain then why you did saying that you were "fixing a link" to your fork, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I received a positive comment from Diff an editor that has not been heavily involved in that particular page, but was a long-time editor and expert on the past discussions at LOGRTAC. Smee 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

And that was enough for you to replace the article with your fork behind everybody's back, without informing anyone of that and despite the page protection that was approved on the basis editwarring? Do you really believe that that type of behavior is acceptable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the opinion of a relatively un-involved editor that was much more experienced than I with regard to the history of these type of list articles was important, and that we should begin to utilize the page. There was NO, "behind everybody's back", for it was discussed on the talk page, as can be seen from my previous statements, above. In any event, what's done is done, I will do my absolute best to avoid anything that looks like a "fork" in the future, without discussion on the article's talk page - and that is exactly what is going on now at the talk page for Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - positive feedback and discussion on a potential idea for a new page that I have used as an example in my user space. Smee 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every answer. You changed your forked article 3 minutes after you created the fork. Your discussion with that editor was five hours later as per your diff. Yes, what is done is done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I have correctly heeded the advice given to me by User:Coelacan, I will not create pages that could be construed as "forks", unless this has been heavily discussed on talk pages and agreed to by all as a page move, and I am now correctly having a polite discussion in a separate matter with other editors about a provided example in my userspace, at the talk page Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - which shows positive application of User:Coelacan's polite advice and correction. Smee 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

No, that is not the point. The point is that you attacked the editor that called you on that violation, and then lied in this noticeboard about the reasons for your actions. You should be strongly cautioned not only on your behavior on these articles, but your behaviour on this noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out the issues relating to the history of the "tendentious" editor that reported me, yes. I did not lie as to my intentions for creating the page. My intention was not to create a "fork", NO ONE said anything to me about this before this report, and if anyone had brought this up politely on a talk page, that would have been a different matter entirely. And the fact remains that User:Coelacan intervened politely, gave me some very good advice and counsel, and I have reformed my actions after the fact because of this advice. Smee 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I am not addressing the fork issue that could have been an honest mistake, I am discussing what you did after you created the fork, and your behavior in this noticeboard. You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have provided this as well: DIFF OF USER ASKING FOR EXAMPLE TO BE PROVIDED. This is where the user asked for an example to be provided, and that is what I was responding to. And please, use more polite language. Sarcastic language like: Was that another honest mistake, Smee?, is highly inappropriate and not conducive to a constructive and polite discussion. Smee 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

<<outdent>> You keep skirting the issue, but I have said enough already. Other admins will hopefully comment and provide further advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have acknowledged above that the page may have been misconstrued as a "fork".
2. I wish that someone had brought this politely to my attention on a talk page, and I would have moved the page accordingly to my user space and asked myself that the mainspace version be deleted.
3. I appreciate the polite advice provided by User:Coelacan.
4. I have begun to employ User:Coelacan's advice, with polite and positive feedback from others, at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media. I have also refined my actions a bit and received some other postive discussion and worked with a different editor since this issue, at Talk:Scientology in popular culture.

Smee 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

User evading ban

Boat-proof is a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde, who was banned last December for sockpuppetry, edit-warring and so forth. This is just a trolling account, but if someone could block it, that would be swell. Thanks! Dppowell 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about PalestineRemembered ban

Could I please request that other administrators review my comments here? CJCurrie 23:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments will be reviewed there. Or am I missing something in your request? —physicq (c) 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns that some aspects of this process present the appearance of unfairness. CJCurrie 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Like...? —physicq (c) 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very well written comment that should go on file in the arbitration case. nadav 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:physicq, please review the link above. CJCurrie 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RefDeskBot

Could somebody please block RefDeskBot (talk · contribs)? It's messing up pages it's archiving, partially deleting categories and page headers. Corvus cornix 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, though it doesn't seem to be operating now. I suppose it can't hurt though. Prodego 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Un-sourced statements

I removed a bunch of un-sourced material from Verio, per this discussion, but User:Ronz keeps adding it back without any sources except a "fact tag" at the top of the article that has been there for days. I don't want to edit war with him over it. Do I have the right to remove un-sourced material from Misplaced Pages? -- Stbalbach 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the wikipedia verifiability article: Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Pacingcar 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't know what to do, the user keeps reverting un-sourced material in direct violation of WP:V which I thought was one of the "non-negotiable" Misplaced Pages policies. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:CITE states: "if it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag ... and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time," I presume the source of contention between you is the definition of a reasonable time? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish they would ask, the user has not asked for time, they just revert and say "you don't personally like it" in the edit note. -- Stbalbach 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When you post on AN/I, you should probably give the entire background of the "incident". This is nothing more than another episode in a long-winded content dispute between you and Ronz. In fact, on Talk:Verio, you previously argued for the inclusion of material without sources. You seem to be using AN/I as a sneaky way to backdoor the numerous results of the third opinions and other suggestions made on the talk page. Furthermore, as an admitted previous employee of the company, you might have a possible conflict of interest (and indeed, it seems like your edits attempt to shine a positive light on Verio's actions). If you really must, take this to a request for comment. Content disputes do not belong here. Alsandair 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not really a content dispute since I wrote 90% article myself, as an ex-employee with an admitted grudge, and without any sources. You'd think yourself, Ronz and others would be arguing to remove it (or at least the stuff I wrote that is un-sourced), but instead your fighting to keep it. LOL. -- Stbalbach 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and notify Ronz that this discussion is taking place. MastCell 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no interest as to whether or not the information stays - I am just pointing out that you are inconsistent with your application of policy. Note that the bulk of Misplaced Pages is made up of uncited, uncontentious material (if we removed all of it, we'd probably be smaller than Britannica). That pretty much describes the information you took out. Finally, it doesn't matter how much of the article you wrote, this is still a content dispute, as defined by that term. Since numerous third opinions have failed to help, I suggest you file a request for comment. Alsandair 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. If it is uncontentious than you should have no trouble providing a source. There is no content dispute here Ronz despite what your trying to make of it. -- Stbalbach

I am not Ronz by the way, nor do I even know him. Alsandair 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy WP:V is very clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. I would like to remove the un-sourced material and need help from someone to do so. Can someone help me remove this un-sourced material? How far up the chain do I need to go to remove material that I wrote myself, as an admitted disgruntled ex-employee, that is un-sourced? -- Stbalbach 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote the material yourself has no bearing on anything - you seem to want to own the article. At least leave the uncontested information in to allow for somebody to come up with a source. I'm sure that after this lively discussion one will be happily forthcoming. Alsandair 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I said I wrote it because you framed this as a "content dispute", how can there be a content dispute over something I wrote? If someone adds citations I would be thrilled. If someone asked for time to provide citations I would be thrilled. None of that has happened. Unless it does happen this material can be removed per WP:V. There does not need to be RfC for removing un-sourced material, WP:V is non-negotiable. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I insulted you, I certainly did not intend to do so. Again, the fact that you wrote the content does not matter. You want to remove content, others (chiefly Ronz, I guess) want to keep it. That's a dispute over whether or not to include content. I don't know how else to say it. And look, I'd be thrilled if someone added citations to all the unsourced material on Misplaced Pages, but because they don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to delete it. If I did, I'd have to destroy ninety percent of the encyclopedia. This is basically the the largest application of ignore all rules. It's what keeps Misplaced Pages feasible. If you delete the information on Verio, please make sure you apply the same standard to all the other articles you edit. Since you were previously advocating ignoring verifiability policy on the very same page, I severely doubt you'd do that. Alsandair 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR, debate over. You win. Look, the burden is on Ronz to provide a source if he wants to keep it. It is not my burden to start an RfC to remove un-sourced material -- this has nothing to do with content, it is a policy violation issue. WP:V is very clear. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability may be very clear, but you are not clear in your application of it. Using a double-standard to your advantage is not something that is appropriate. You seem to be dissatisfied with the article (having had your pro-Verio edits removed, particularly those to the external links), and are now suddenly an ardent enforcer of a policy you previously disregarded. You know just as well as I do that unsourced material must remain in Misplaced Pages, otherwise there will be no Misplaced Pages. Alsandair 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

unsourced material must remain in Misplaced Pages - uh, no. Seems like you'll say anything to avoid providing a source. -- Stbalbach 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach are you disputing the truth of the material in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of it may be wrong - claims about being first, largest, dollar amounts, etc.. all hearsay "street talk" propaganda from Verio itself when it was going through an IPO and merger which has never been verified. Without a source it's questionable. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DJSEDISTICAL - A suspect sockpuppet for ORLRDVXL

I suspect User:DJSEDISTICAL is a sockpuppet for User:ORLRDVXL, a user banned due to a previous offense in a previous account for looking for child pornography.

1. Both accounts are in all capital letters.
2. The former was blocked on May 11. After being blocked, the user said he would change IP addresses and come back. Two days later, the new account is created.
3. Both claim to be workers at a local radio station in Orlando, Florida ( )
4. Both posted on the same talk page about a similar subject (regarding Subtropical Storm Andrea and how it affected wildfires in Florida). Both are/were also members of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject

There is probably more evidence, but I strongly suspect they are one in the same. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The original account is User:O-TOWN'S AT, also following the same naming pattern. — MichaelLinnear 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive87#User:ORLRDVXL_-_previously_indef_blocked_for_solicitation_of_child_porn. – Chacor 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest account also makes random edits to talk and user talk pages, like the original (O TOWN'S AT) did. – Chacor 09:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments

User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He lokks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

• Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names

• we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians

• the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism

• we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.

• I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture. I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE. You turned the discussion into ethnic politics by saying " Everyone know very clearly that it banned in Iran ...I heard once that people in Al-Ahwaz are abused for talking in Arabic, their mother tounge!...let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year, and neglect Ahwazi over-reactions for Iran policy... etc" And that's what instigated all the political mumbo jumbo from both sides.--Mardavich 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was a reply on the discussion which sources are more reliable Arabic or Iranian. It is directed against the governments not against the particular wiki editors. Well, there were wars in the regions not long time ago. There is almost Civil war-levelled sectarian violence in Iraq just now. There are violent clashes in Khuzestan. With all these taken into account we should expect the discussions on the relevant topics to be sometimes heated. It is unavoidable. User:Ali doostzadeh is a great Iranian editor that produces a lot of content, usually he is quite level headed, I like his work. Ahwaz brings much needed Iranian-Arab perspective to the discussions, Ralhazzaa is a very good editor too. We deal with very controversial topics and heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again. I do not think any administrative actions necessary at this stage. Alex Bakharev 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to report this, but since Ralhazzaa raised the issue it would have been good to at least warned alidoostzadeh about his extraordinary response to a simple comment I made that Ahwazi Arabs use the term "Arabian Gulf". This user made a series of offensive anti-Arab comments and personal attacks on me, including accusations that I am a Sunni extremist, a Ba'athist, a pan-Arabist, anti-Shi'ite, an Iraqi Saddam supporter, etc. He also said I had no right to have an opinion on the matter as I am not an elected official. His intention was to use various basless racial, political and religious accusations against me in order to refute my argument. It seems that admins like Alex Bakharev believe this is appropriate behaviour for Misplaced Pages and refuse to even warn editors when they engage in unprovoked racial and political smears. It proves to me that a main determining factor in enforcing Misplaced Pages rules is the ethnicity and religion of the users concerned.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went through that debate, and while I agree with Alex Bakharev that heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again, Misplaced Pages is not a forum, so both of you should have stopped. You know what they say, it takes two to tango. You're also exaggerating, alidoostzadeh said you're not a spokesman of Arabs, not that you don't a right to your opinion.--AlexanderPar 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not a neutral voice here. I want an admin to answer my points below, which have been backed up by diffs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like admins to tell me whether the following statements by Ali Doost Zadeh are acceptable:

Racial smears

• Unlike Arabs who are going around and making genocides (fortunately the pan-arabist dream ended with the beheading os Saddam but he comitted genocides against shi'ites,turkomens,kurds), making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilian (racist slurs intended to portray all Arabs as terrorists)
• don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians, given the horrendous record in the world and destruction of the name of Islam with sick ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism (again, a racist attack on Arabs claiming Arabs are all terrorists)
• fat and immoral Shaykhs of UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi, and etc (a racist attack on Arab tribal leaders)
• if you guys attack Iranians and play innocent infront of wiki community, I can go off topic as well and I believe the record of the other side is much more bleak with regards to outside issues. (Ali threatens to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for his anti-Arab opinions if users "attack" Iranians, although there has been no attack, only a point made about the Arabian Gulf)

Personal attacks

• Arab Shi'ites elected MP's in Iraq democratically and are the majority and for the most part do not share racist feelings towards Iranians. That is why Sunni Arabs like yourself call them :Majoos, Ajam and etc.. but they are technically Arabs and native Arab speakers. (an attempt to portray me as a racist, when I have not used these racial smears against Shi'ites)
• you are a sunni iraqi (I am not, but the idea is to invent an identity for me in order to rally people against me)
• you call the persecuted people by genocidal ba'athist as Ajams, not just khuzestani Arabs. And heck you are anti-Shi'ite (Again, I made no such racial smears. This is an attempt to portray me as a Ba'athist and an anti-Shi'ite)
• You made the racist attacks first (I made no racist attacks)
• you have been supporting pan-arabism in Iranian articles for a while and I called you by your political name (I have never supported any pan-Arabism in Iranian articles - this is a deliberate attempt to undermine me to win an argument)

I would like an admin to tell me why this is acceptable and why Ali is not even getting a warning, let alone a block for his racial smears and personal attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately misquoting alidoostzadeh, using diff links don't reflect the final comment. From what I see, alidoostzadeh edits and re-edits his comments over and over to make himself clear, perhaps because English is not his first language. For example, he changed "Arabs" to "Sunni Arabs political groups and governments" in a matter of seconds to clarify that by Arabs he meant Arab governments. But you're being dishonest and using the old diff links instead of his final comment which is visible on the page, in order to score a point against him. --AlexanderPar 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He initially referred to all Arabs and later chaned this to Sunni Arabs (not seconds, more like an hour or so), it is still a racial smear. If admins are interested in stopping these attacks - which are not the first I have faced - then they can judge the matter for themselves. I am asking for a proper review of attacks on me. I gave Ali opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations, but he refused. This matter has now been reported to this noticeboard by another user and I am unhappy with the dismissing of racial and personal smears by one admin. There is no defence to Ali's outbursts and diatribes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're still misquoting him. Criticizing "Sunni Arab political groups and governments" is not a "racial smear". You’re being too sensitive. You shouldn't have been discussing politics in the first place, it takes two to tango. --AlexanderPar 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Ali changed his wording after I told him to stop his unprovoked ad hominem attacks. Moreover, I was not the one launching into long political speeches - I simply made the remark that Ahwazi Arabs used the term Arabian Gulf, which resulted in a string of abuse against me, against Sunnis, against Arab tribal leaders, etc, which went on for about 3,000 words in the Persian Gulf talk page. There are also other personal attacks and racial smears that I want admins to address. I am sure that if I made such racial and personal on Iranians and Iranian Wikipedians, Ali would have no hesitation about going here to complain and I would be blocked. As it is, I offered him chances to withdraw his remarks and apologise. He refused and another editor decided to make a complaint. I don't see why I have to suffer these attacks every time I edit Misplaced Pages and am sick of the protection given to those who make these smears.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there was a call for warnings. I have given warnings to Ali and to Ahwaz. What else should be done before the situation can be marked as resolved? Alex Bakharev 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why am I warned when I am the victim of unprovoked racist attacks? Alex must provide reasons for warning me and where I have violated Misplaced Pages rules or retract his warning.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had some concern about doostzadeh as well. He seems to push POV and edit war. For example, keeping an article about a non-notable for POV reasons - "Never mind , such revisionists should be exposed." That article, by the way, has serious BLP issues as it is based on non-English apparent attack pages or non-English blogs, so I'll probably report it to the noticeboard. The guy isn't notable enough anyway, considering the lack of English sources and the lack of RS. But then again, this article was kept to "expose" him. The Behnam 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Blove 6969's Threats

User:Blove 6969 created Tyler Waespi, which I subsequently placed a db-bio tag on. He subsequently made the following statements on my talk page. and . He has not made proper use of Misplaced Pages. Laaabaseball 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Warned, blocked for one week, and now blocked indefinitely ˉˉ╦╩ 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations on Moses and Jonah

User Java 7837 added a lengthy amount of material to Moses , which I reverted, thinking it was original research. Java7837 re-added the material, , which on closer examination of their references, appears to be block copied from JewishEncyclopedia.com. Since I understand that to be a clear violation of copyright, I reverted a second time. At this point, UserJayjg reverted the article to Java 7837's version, claiming 'the copyright on the Jewish Encyclopedia expired long ago'. Obviously, one of us is wrong.

Similar things occured on the Jonah article,, only User Jayjg accused me of 'harassing this editor for no particular reason'.

I have reverted several edits of Java 7837's recently as they appear to be replacing all mentions of 'Jesus Christ' with 'Jesus of Nazareth', even where it is within articles about Christian beliefs. His edits claim he is eliminating POV, but he's changing information about actual Christian beliefs. The most extreme example of Java's editing is on the article List of athletes on Wheaties boxes, where he changes the obvious vandalism of 'Jesus Christ - Dodge ball' to 'Jesus - Dodge ball' , again saying he is removing POV. Since Jesus is not an athlete, he could not have been an athlete on a Wheaties box, so I removed him and several other non-athletes as well as athletes not notable enough to have their own pages. .

User Jayjg has since gone through and reverted several of my edits, then posted to my talk page, accusing me of stalking . , which I feel is an unfair and inaccurate description of my edits, based on the definition provided on and my actual intentions. Edward321 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I told Edward on his talk page that contents from the Jewish Encyclopedia are public domain due to age (last published in 1906, so it meets the pre-1923 deadline for works published in the United States). However, I do not blame Edward for some of the edits he made, since people cut and paste from other sources all the time and I assume that Edward had no idea about the copyright situation. As for the stalking issue, I would say he is not doing it, since it is normal for some admins to check the other contributions for copyright problems (I personally do this for image checking). User:Zscout370 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I look at the Terms of use of JE.com, You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes. , which is not compatible with the GFDL. So I think it all depends on whether or not the content was updated since 1906. If it was, I think you can't copy it there. -- lucasbfr 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia is a public domain text that is unedited. It says so on their main page: "This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain...This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia."

Ok, their terms of use implied the encyclopedia was updated by volunteers (there a part about not uploading copyrighted material). Since it seems to be their future plan, they probably are "a bit" in advance on this side of their website. Weird... -- lucasbfr 10:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right to be cautious, though - a source a century old may well not accurately reflect current scholarship, and including that kind of content can be a kind of POV-pushing by traditionalists kicking back against 20th Century interpretations. Large scale copy and paste is usually wrong at some level unless we have nothing better to start from (as with the original imports from the 1911 Britannica). Guy (Help!) 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User will not allow merge discussion to be closed.

On May 8 User:Heatedissuepuppet (a WP:SPA set-up to attack Metropolis pages) opened a discussion at Talk:Crisscross on whether to merge Crisscross and Metropolis (English magazine in Japan).

The only editor who was for the merge was the proposer, three other editors said "No merge". One of these editors edited the Crisscross page to remove repetition. According to policy I waited five days (13 May) to close and archive the discussion. I placed a tag on Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) to say that the result was "no merge".

Heatedissuepuppet insists on changing this box to say "This article was nominated to be merged with Crisscross on 8 May 2007. The result of the discussion at Talk:Crisscross was no consensus, due to it being closed prematurely." You can see the history here:

I have already informed the editor on Talk:Crisscross that there is no "no consensus" category for merging pages, and that if he has a problem with the "no merge" decision that he should take it to dispute resolution. He insists on reverting the text back again. Rather than indulge his edit war, I thought it would be best to get some advice on how to close the issue. Thank you for your comments Sparkzilla 07:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant sock, used solely for the purpose of disruption. I blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkzilla 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

odd page creations

here not sure what's going on with this user - he seems to be creating versions of the same pages over and over. --Fredrick day 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a SummerThunder sock, a banned user. Blocked, reverted, deleted. In future if you see this same user (username containing reference to OCD and similar page creations) report straight to WP:AIV (no warnings needed). Petros471 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

John Moyer

The article John Moyer (which is about a rock band's bassist) has repeatedly been replaced with a biography of a comedian log by Comtheo (talk · contribs). I tried to contact him, but my messages were removed from his talkpage by the user. Now, while i do think that the old, long existing article should remain in place i wanted to bring this up here to get some comments on wether i should try to take action against the repeating replacements, or accept the new article and create a new one for the bassist.

The bassist's article stands out because:

• It's been there for a long time.
• He is the bassist of a famous main-stream rock group, presumably more famous than the comedian.
• The article is wikified.

The comedian's article stands out because:

• It provides remarkably more information than the bassist's.
• While the bassist's article only has short information about who he is, the comedian's is "more complete", meaning it is an actual biography.

Some opinions and directions would be greatly appreciated.

PS: If this discussion was to bring up that the old article should be kept, what is the proper way of action to have the article be protected from the user? Thank you in advance. ~ | twsx | _cont | 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider disambiguation for the article - John Moyer (bassist) and John Moyer (comedian), linked from a disambiguation page John Moyer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, what i have forgot to mention, the comedian does not seem to qualify as notable enough for an article. It would seem that way, as the article John E. Moyer (which the user has created and re-created simultaneously to replacing John Moyer) has been deleted (and eventually protected from creation) multiple times. Given that situation, wouldn't keeping the bassist's article seem right? ~ | twsx | _cont | 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the John Moyer (comedian) page with user:Comtheo's content. Flyguy649_contribs 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to move the content to a new page, but user:Comtheo keeps changing back. I've reported to WP:AIV, but there's definitely a WP:3rr violation too. Flyguy649_contribs 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved John Moyer to John Moyer (bassist). User:Comtheo is now warring as ChrisPUT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Flyguy649_contribs 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for John Moyer as a redirect right now, since the article about comedian is likely a speedy candidate. Flyguy649_contribs 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the following redirect?

I Not Stupid has undergone two peer reviews, both of which have been archived. In my attempt to file a third, I successfully moved the first peer review from "Archive1" to "Archive2". However, because "Archive1" is now a redirect to "Archive2", I cannot move the second archived peer review to "Archive1". Could an admin please delete the redirect at "Archive1", move the second peer review to "Archive1" and delete the redirect that results from this move, so I can create the third peer review?

I apologise if ANI is the wrong place to post this request. However, as this request is non-controversial and an admin should take less than two minutes to fulfil this request, please fulfil it and then refer me to the place I should post such requests in future. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This will do in future or WP:RM, request fulfilled. Viridae 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IP Address Making Unconstructive Edits

68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs) - User constantly removes cited material from the Todd Fedoruk article without reason (diff: , ), User has also vandalized other user talk pages (diff: ). Final warnings have been issued, yet user persists. --Quartet 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a quicker response if you tell admins in WP:AIV (as noted at the very top of this page). --ElKevbo 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

We have a lot of links to famitsu.com, but the site appears to be in Japanese so of rather limited relevance to the English Misplaced Pages. Is this spam? Anyone speak Japanese? Guy (Help!) 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a commercial technology (especially gaming) news site. I doubt it's being linkspammed but because it's Japanese language-only, I would have thought links ought only to be made where there is no English language source. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu is the authoratative source on videogames in Japan. I wouldn't consider it spam. – Steel 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Iranian student leader: Ayatollahs will run if Iran attacked
3. Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.

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