Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 10 June 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:Point

Western Sahara articles I would like some assistance; this editor is disrupting Misplaced Pages by insisting that a particular issue is POV without resorting to talk or mediation. For instance, he insists on changing a flag template to include a map, thereby breaking its functionality. If you see his edits, he is doing a similar thing on several templates, breaking their functions and creating redundancies in articles. I would be happy to discuss the issue at the appropriate venue with this editor (i.e. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, and consider mediation/arbitration, but all these template edits are basically a proxy for this one dispute as best as I can tell. Please assist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon has done just the right thing. Western Sahara is a disputed territory that the UN is yet to solve the issue. Actually it is arranging for direct negotiations between the conflict parties: Morocco and the Polisario Front. What Koavf has been doing as a fervent militant activist for the Polisario, is to anticipate the result of the conflict and use the flag of one of the parties (guess which) to the conflict as the official Western Sahara flag, whereas WS has no flag as a disputed territory. Therefore, WS should not have a flag template, while the SADR, the government-in-exile of the Polisario has one, and can be used in the SADR articles, but not in Western Sahara articles. The French Misplaced Pages for example uses exactly the map outline that Juiced Lemon has been using here. So, Koavf's complains are baseless. Needless to remind that Koavf has been so disruptive about the Western Sahara articles that he was indefinitely blocked for more than a half year. He was allowed to edit again as a gesture of goodwill from the community, and here we are again after just one day from being unblocked.--A Jalil 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The changes I have made don't break any functionality. Western Sahara is a disputed territory. The so-called Flag of Western Sahara is in reality the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and it symbolizes the opposition to occcupation of Western Sahara by Morocco. Any use of this flag in association with Western Sahara have an obvious political meaning.

So, I replaced the flag by a map of Western Sahara. I go to post a request for comments in the village pump. --Juiced lemon 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this These arguments belong somewhere else (e.g. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara); the germane issue is the persistent blind reversion and template-breaking and controversial edits on articles with POV tags, etc. I tried to be conciliatory, but you didn't seem interested in listening or discussion, so I've asked for someone else's intervention to mediate, arbitrate, or whatever is needed. One thing that we can't continue doing is changing flag templates to maps so that we have abominations like this and this. Again, to reiterate: you're breaking the template's functionality. Lastly, could you please not use inflammatory language like "fervent militant activist," even if you think it's true? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not abomination. Let me have a different opinion.

Template talk:Country data Western Sahara#Request for Comment: Western Sahara and the SADR --Juiced lemon 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask you about one thing Justin? Do you know that the ANI is not the appropriate place to sort out edit conflicts? You are already discussing this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Stub sorting where many admins and the project contributors have explained to you why you are not correct. So what do you want exactly from admins to do for you? -- FayssalF - 15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Even if that is true, he's now definitely disrupting Misplaced Pages with unilateral and controversial moves that have no consensus or discussion. See Foreign relations of Western Sahara, which he has moved twice without any discussion. The talk of that page has an extensive discussion on the page name, and he apparently didn't even reference it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting? Who? Lemon? No. He has never set a foot on the article you are talking about. -- FayssalF - 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? He's moved it twice today. Did you even look at his logs? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, the government of Western Sahara has been broken up since 2002. So, this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore.

I have not yet read critical comments regarding my last edits. I wait for Justin (koavf) argumentation in the appropriate talk pages. --Juiced lemon 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh "Juiced" all "government of X" articles redirect to "politics of X" articles. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even understand what the comment "this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore" is even supposed to mean. Why should it be that you make the contentious moves (twice, once after it was moved *back* by me) and then expect me to justify myself on talk? Aren't you the one who is supposed to justify moves? And why did you move it to two separate names? And why did you leave behind double-redirects? And why did you chose "legal status of" instead of "political status of"? These are a few of a host of questions that should have been resolved before a unilateral and contentious move that, in my opinion, shouldn't have taken place (cf. with all previous attempts to move that article on its talk.) You either ignored prior consensus, didn't care about it, or both, and that's not exactly ideal editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, you'll find a lot of "government of X" articles which are not redirecting to "politics of X" articles. What I said means that Western Sahara have no government, therefore don't deal with foreing affairs, and a subject like Foreign relations of Western Sahara cannot exist. Such title in an Encyclopedia has not more sense than Foreign relations of the Statue of Liberty.

So, I had two options:

• either to request the deletion of Foreign relations of Western Sahara which dealt with an inexisting subject
• either to rename the article with a name matching an encyclopedic subject

I have choosed the second option. Now, if you can suggest a better name than Legal status of Western Sahara, do it! --Juiced lemon 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another option Or you could have posted on talk and requested comments. That would be the way you should work on a collaborative encyclopedia, and you know that. Consequently, you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was enough comments in the talk page, and no permissions are required to improve articles in Misplaced Pages. You didn't use the talk page for your argumentation neither: you prefer to complain in the ANI. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the contentiousness of this issue; frankly, if you ask me, it would be best if all interested parties developed a common way they can all agree on on how to deal with Western Sahara-related articles on Misplaced Pages, possibly by way of mediation or something like that. This issue comes up quite regularily, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to develop a neutral, objective and standardised way of treating the Western Sahara issue while fairly representing both Morocco's and the SADR's points of views. —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a general issue regarding numberous confusions between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Misplaced Pages. Example: In List of circulating currencies (Western Sahara), Moroccan dirham is associated with the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (due to ). Use of new templates have aggravated the situation. Such confusions are a godsend for Polisario supporters. I understand they work to keep them. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation I'd be all for mediation if it will stop this incessant template-breaking, reversion, and unilateral moving. This is ridiculous and it can't go on for long. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates koavf refers to were mostly done by him at the time none of us was around. With the problems risen by the naked POV that polluted the Western Sahara articles is becoming a problem for the community and causing tensions, the need for a neutral point of view is necessary as Nightstallion wrote above. How can the flag of one of the parties of the conflict be forced to be adopted in Misplaced Pages as representing the disputed territory which has no flag, and how come two completely different things as "Western Sahara" and "The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic" be used interchangibly?. The solution could look easy and there would not be a problem correcting the templates and neutralising the wording. Only if there were no stunch activists around. This is the problem that Juiced Lemon is rightly trying to correct, and which is discussed extensively elsewhere like in Dispute_about_the_wording_scope_of_a_stub.--A Jalil 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant The exact features of the dispute are irrelevant, Jalil: my statements still stand. These moves and edits are disrupting, confusing, and should not have taken place, regardless of your personal convictions about the subject matter. He should have discussed prior to make a contentious move, and that is true regardless of whether the contentious move is some propaganda that supports my or your or his or no one's political agendas; that is irresponsible editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks in edit summaries

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

Is this the right place to mention this? Scott 110 has a history of insulting other editors, his last three edit summaries were removing moronic statement again, thats the most idiot thing ive ever read, and removed moronic, uncited statements. He has been warned about his behavious several times but he continues. I just happened to notice one of his summaries in an article I was looking at and I haven't seen edit summaries abused in this way before. 172.215.48.198 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not particularly nice. Their edit history shows that to be their default setting. I've left a note on their talk page, so we'll see how it goes ... - Alison ☺ 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Such behaviour on the part of Scott_110 isn't appropriate all the time but isn't requiring of immidiate action. A note on the user's page is good. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care....but how is calling a statement, rather than the author of a statement, idiotic or moronic a personal attack on the author him/herself? Look up the word "criticism".Scott 110 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up the terms "courtesy" and "civility". "Ughh..you people are such nerds", etc, etc ... Plenty of examples out there. Like I said, focus on content and not on the person - Alison ☺ 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

stop de-valuing its importance, jerk. Yeah, that sounds like criticism of a statement. There are no "idiot statements", only idiot people. 172.188.21.78 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To find that out you really must have done some research...it must be nice to have that kind of time on your hands.Scott 110 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take that much 'research' - your edit history is replete with examples. Please - take the hint and stop the insults and personal attacks - Alison ☺ 04:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BassxForte (talk · contribs) / Vilerocks (talk · contribs) shares his password

User BassxForte, who is also user Vilerocks (as claimed on both user pages), admits he shares his account password with other people here , who apparently use it for occasional joke edits.--Atlan (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him go out onto the actual articles without my supervision, my userpage(s) are the only things I let them run wild at. BassxForte 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has a history of unproductive editing and behaviour going on since January, and he is on very, very thin ice at the moment. I have made unsuccessful attempts on ANI, RFC and CN already. I plan to take it to Arbitration very soon. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. I just accidentally stumbled upon his comment on that talk page. His history of unproductive editing is therefore not really an issue here.--Atlan (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying how it's relevant. The relevant part is that he is extremely unlikely to change any of his habits, so if you want to try to make him stop sharing his password, it won't work. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that, I, the correct user of this name, was in complete control of those edits when they were made. Vilerocks 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does one person have two user names? Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry? --myselfalso 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was probably due to this whole password thing, but he got his old account back. He probably doesn't know what Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry is. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the rule existed until just now, when you mentioned it. Furthermore, the rule you gave mentioned that it is "discouraged", not that it was against the rules. Vilerocks 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, on one userpage I provide a link to the other, making it bluntly obvious Vilerocks and BassxForte are one and the same, and I havn't attempted to use the Vilerocks name to bend the rules to my advantage. (In other words, I haven't voted twice on a poll, used them ti suggust that there are more people arguing in my favor in an argument, etc.) BassxForte 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have an issue if you have two user names. I just thought that Sock puppetry didn't allow this. Obviously there are cases that having an additional user name might be necessary. But the issue at hand isn't having two user names, the issue is that you've shared your password. --myselfalso 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him just run around wikipedia wth my password randomly, looking through my contribuations history( for both accounts) the only thing he ever edited without my supervision was my userpages. Vilerocks 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to engage a user in mediation who continues to make allegations about me

I need some advice on how to proceed with some allegations being made against me. Please see this user's contributions. Basically, I opened an informal mediation request here in March in order, to address this user's concerns and to provide evidence that I am not involved in a vendetta as the user alleges. I invited them to participate in the discussion here. The user has not participated, seems unwilling to consider my viewpoint, and is now calling me a vandal. The user openly admits to editing under another username and I suspect that they might be the user who wrote these allegations as Anniebelles. This statement seems to support that. I have tried to pursue mediation (I feel that I cannot remain objective about this person's statements) with a neutral 3rd party. The user seems unwilling to participate in any such endeavour. I'm reporting this because a kind fellow editor, who responded to a {{helpme}} request on my talk page here, recommended this as a next step. I have also notified her on her talk page here. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringess, this current complaint is regarding your overall stalking of people like Sardaka, whose "good faith discussion" you removed from your talk page:

Ganesham, why have you rejected dispute resolution? You clearly have a dispute with this editor that needs discussion in a more proper forum. Instead of warning the world about what you think of TheRingess, why don't you discuss your issues with him/her directly? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, in order to emphasize my need for mediation regarding these allegations, I contacted the editor mentioned in reference to the Bhagavad Gita page. I asked this user to comment on my specific edits. My intial question can be seen here and his response can be seen here. I have notified the aforemention editor of my statement here.TheRingess (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree to continue this conversation on the above mentioned mediation page. I'm hoping that we can address Ganesham's concerns that I am actively engaged in a destructive, hurtful, personal vendetta against the subject of a biographical article on Misplaced Pages (please see user's contributions for specifics, I don't wish to name the article here).TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I don't have time to pursue this matter. If no Misplaced Pages editors or administrators are interested in checking TheRingess's actions in following innocent editors and deleting their works or in deleting all links from many topics, then Misplaced Pages will be the worse for it, but it is not my job and no longer my interest to engage with someone who is half cry-baby and half dictator. I'm signing off and no longer participating in Misplaced Pages as a contributor. Please don't leave messages for me here or on my user page, because I won't be checking for them. Best to all. Ganesham 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was curious and looked to find that lo and behold, TheRingess and his thug buddy editor Buddhipriya went into Misplaced Pages today and removed every link they could find to the applicable free educational resources offered by the person that TheRingess is already on record as having a vendetta against -- he and Buddhipriya participate in a spiritual group (on and off Misplaced Pages) that has had a vendetta against the author because she wrote an unauthorized book about their path. This author, of whom I am a fan, is the one who created a website of completely free educational spiritual resources -- she's also the author of Spirituality For Dummies. TheRingess is on record as fighting to remove her wikipedia entry that was created by another fan from England, and which survived TheRingess's deletion attempts. I've added several appropriate links to her resources in appropriate topics, and other editors have apparently added others. Today, TheRingess even deleted two very useful links to her site without signing in, showing up with his isp# at: ], and for good measure, TheRingess deceptivly welcomed himself on his own isp's welcome page: ] (I've received email from TheRingess and know that this is his ISP#). Here is one example from Buddhipriya's rampage: ], where he removes a page with the completely free and very useful text and audio of Rudram, with a note saying, "commercial linkspam selling products" -- something he knows is false if he even looked at the page. Here are a couple more attacks from Buddhipriya just today, each with an insult to the resource: ], and ]. I'm back to retirement from contributing to Misplaced Pages. Go ahead and let these people ruin Misplaced Pages with personal vendettas if that is fine with you other editors and administrators. Ganesham

Just for the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (carrying out a personal vendetta against the subject of an article on Misplaced Pages) I have preferred to keep all communication with this user public. I will continue to do so.TheRingess (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that Ganesham does not agree regarding the removal of spam links. He has crossposted the same complaint . The web site spiritual-happiness.com is a commercial site that advertises books and audio products (see: ). For information on spam guidelines, please read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. As a member of Wikiproject SPAM, I routinely follow the procedures given there, which say that once spam is found, one should look for other occurances of the same spam site. Here are the recommended procedures: "Check for similar links: ... This step involves finding all of the articles that contain a link to a particular site. If a link to www.example.com were discovered and removed in steps one and two, the next step is to use the linksearch command to find all articles that contain such links." That search feature shows that there are probably more spam links to the same site that still need to be removed.

The spam link on the Bhagavad Gita article was removed after specifically getting agreement from another regular editor there that the site should go:

Regarding the claims that I and User:TheRingess are members of the same spiritual community, I am not aware of what that might be. In fact my first significant editing experience with that user had to do with fact-checking an article on Siddha Yoga which I had never heard of prior to reading that article (See: ). I subsequently found the editor to be a very balanced contributor. Please avoid making personal attacks in the future and try to comply with WP:CIVIL while assuming good faith on the part of others. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate undeletion of HHO gas?

Moved to related thread at WP:AN.

User:Amphitere

User:Amphitere appears to be impersonating User:Odst, here and here.

Also User:Orthodoxy, User:Ilha Youn, & User:Polleo all redirect to User:Amphitere. Now that's FIVE user accounts in one. Why did User:Amphitere take over the 4 other users? What's going on here? Are there any more others we don't know about?--Endroit 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at their talk page. I've asked them to give explanations here. -- FayssalF - 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the owner of all those accounts. The reason I made so many was because in order to make my user name the same throughout all Wikipedias, it was necessary for me to change it according to the user name that was not used in any Misplaced Pages. As you have already noticed, I am an international Wikipedian, so, sometimes, renaming is required. If this caused many trouble, I apologize greatly. (If you need proof that all those accounts are mine, you can check their IP Addresses , or you can check my email address for each of them). And also, according to the rules, one person can have as many accounts as they want, right? So, I am confused why I was depicted in this list.

I am not impersonating User: Odst. He is a good friend of mine, who lives quite far away. Currently, his computer is broken, so he told me to take care of his user page, and other articles that he used to contribute to. Because of this, it is my responsibility to be in his place while he is gone. I received permission from him, so this is not impersonation.

Again, if this caused trouble, I greatly apologize. I hope that this problem is all sorted out, and understood. Thank you very much. Amphitere 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, Younilha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made some racist edits to User:Dokdo as well, inserting anti-Japan slogans there. Do you "own" User:Dokdo as well? Or do you just know him?--Endroit 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the history carefully, it says that my account's ID and password was leaked out to my friends. It said that my account was used my multiple users. Therefore, when I am away, someone (most likely, my friend) will be under my username and start to vandalize the articles/userpages. The User:Dokdo is not mine, nor anyone's. It is just simply User:Dokdo. My friend vandalized his page under my name, which was a mistake by me to let my info leak out in the first place. So, I apologize again. If you would like to know more about what exactly happened and this multi account, false vandalizing, users under the same account, multiple accounts using the same IP, you may check the history of each of my (or "my") userpages. Thank you.

P.S. Don't be so worried about User:Odst. He is a good friend of mine, and we contact each other often. If no one still doesn't believe me, you can tell me to give you his phone number, and contact him yourself. Plus, why was I listed in this place anyways? Multiple accounts are allowed. "Adoptions" are allowed. Did I do something wrong? Amphitere 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Amphitere, if you didn't understand what I said, I'll reword it slightly: You were pretending to be (impersonating) User:Odst, here and here. Since you admit that you are not User:Odst, I advise you not to sign your edits under his User ID again. If you do it again, I will report you here again.

With respect to User:Orthodoxy, User:Ilha Youn, User:Polleo, & User:Younilha, you have admitted they all belong to you. Some of these accounts were involved in vandalism before, and according to your story, they have been compromised by your "friends". Rather than keeping these accounts open and risk further suspicions, I suggest that you follow the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Changing username to have those accounts formally closed/transferred.--Endroit 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check please

See further up the board (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:M.V.E.i.). I indefinitely blocked User:M.V.E.i., a Russian user, for hate speech and repeated severe racist comments (such as the following), directed variously towards the French, Israelis, Estonians, Germans and Balts. And this is just a selection:

• "Half French, which explains his sexual orientation"
• "No such nationality as Israeli"
• "Thats the baltic way, cheat, lie, and when they loose they run to Europe and NATO to complain they are being smashed. Those Balts here are nothing but trolls"
• "Germans are your Enemies yet you were their uniforms and also "worked hard" for the SS in their name".
• "You Balts try to represent lies as truth so you could lower your national shame, it will never happen, the history is against you".
• "Estonian "democracy""
• "Those Estonians who we argue with are eated with self-hate. They know that their grandfathers from the forest brothers and the ss were creeps"
• "He's a German, so I expected it"
• "the Estonians started the Holocaust in Estonia even before the Germans arrived their"
• "you have baltic blood offcourse you will try to denie the crimes of those to who some of your blood belonges to".
• Entire post, personal and racist attack
• "Say thankyou that we, as winners didn't delete you, allies of the Nazis, from this planet"
• "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people"
• "Stop this bullshit. The only reason that the baltics hate USSR, is because they are self-eated with hate. They baltic people feel little, useless".

He has been blocked before, with no effect. He has been asked to stop multiple times (see User talk:M.V.E.i. with no effect). He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets.

I thought this was a clear and obvious indefinite block. However, Alex Bakharev overturned my block and reduced it in length to a month. I've restored it and consulted with Alex, but he is still defending the user ("... if some edit can be interpreted as a racist hateful speech, might be it is worth to ask the author if the interpretation is correct? M.V.I.e. is not a native English speaker ...", "I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech"), and I am wondering if I am going mental, because as far as I can tell the racism and intent is obvious. Was this a valid indef block? Neil ╦ 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at his block log , I'd say some drastic action is needed. I'm not going to unblock, and if no-one does the ban is effective. Failing that, block him for a month, and warn him that next time it is three months, then he's out.--Doc 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have a separate noticeboard to discuss community blocks. The user is certainly problematic but I see no particular "racist" connotations in his comments. Estonians and Russians are supposed to belong to the same race, for a start. Perhaps he's mad about the Holocaust denial on the part of the Estonian government. A month-block was warranted, but indef block looks to have been motivated by off-wiki considerations. --Ghirla 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Describing the French as all gay isn't racist? Describing all Estonians as having SS members for grandparents isn't racist? Really? And I don't understand your comment about "off-wiki considerations". Neil ╦ 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is an extreme form of xenophobia and nationalism rather than racism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. Are you sure that the Russians and the French belong to two distinct races? --Ghirla 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're thinking of races too narrowly. The race taxonomy that was generally accepted in the heydays of racism (but most of which has become forgotten by now) is not a desk with Three Big Drawers. Instead, it was a tree, allowing the Nazis to hate the race of Gauls, even though both French and Germans (whom the Nazis generally didn't hate very much) are both of the Caucasian race as a 'main race'.

In general, any idea of ethnically comparative supremacy or inferiority is a manifestation of racism. That with the fall of racists from the power position, the more common categories used are bigotry or chauvinism does not nullify the racist aspect of these ideas. Digwuren 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is normal english usage to say "The Dutch Race" or "The Irish Race" - race is a very poorly defined word - see racism for the subtleties. WilyD 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Race: I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.

  In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.— Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition

  Then perhaps we should stop using vague, fuzzy terms in block summaries. Once upon a time, I was told on this very noticeboard that speaking about racism between Jews and Arabs is technically incorrect and so better avoided. --Ghirla 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now you're engaging in demagoguery. If you're unsure of what 'racism' means, you should read the article on racism. But a Wikipedian with your edit count would have known of this option already anyway, right? Digwuren 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This semantics discussion is pointless, there should be no real difference if person says "jews killed by nazis were subhumans" or "balts killed by soviets were subhumans".--Staberinde 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you refer me to a specific edit where M.V.E.i. referred to Balts as "subhumans"? If you can't, Digwuren's pontification indeed borders demagoguery. --Ghirla 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't said that he said exactly that, I just brought it as good and simple example. But in reality he said something very similar: "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people)". What would you think if someone said "Besides, Nazi Germany never killed Slavic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Slavic Stalinists killed, there not considered people)"--Staberinde 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are you arguing semantics? That's not at all the point here. His comments are clearly absolutely inappropriate, whether you want to call them racist, xenophobic or otherwise.--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Because "racist" is a stronger term than "nationalist" or "xenophobic". A person indulging in racist remarks should be blocked indefinitely, while a person who makes nationalist remarks is just that... a nationalist; we have plenty of them in the project. Nobody defends the guy's comments; they indeed deserve a month-long block, but he should be given the last chance to repent and reform. --Ghirla 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i don't make any distinction. Racist, xenophobic or my mamma name calling are all meant to make others feel like s**t. Calling someone a donkey, stupid arab, zionist israeli/jew or a supermacist american are all the same. I still don't fathom Misplaced Pages stance on this matter. All personal attacks of any nature should be treated w/ the same degree. -- FayssalF - 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All personal attacks are bad, but some of them are worse than others. In other words, not every PA deserves an indef block. --Ghirla 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both "nationalist" and "xenophobic" are self-relative terms. M.V.E.i has, in general, not displayed a consistent nationalist, or xenophobic attitude. However, he has repeatedly made racist claims, noting that racism does not require self-relativeness. In other words, if an Irishman believes that the Yukagirs are inferior to the Bantus, he's being racist but not a nationalist or a xenophobe. In order to be a nationalist, he would need to think that the Irish people are superior to either Yukagirs, Bantus or both. In order to be xenophobic, he would need to have a phobia regarding a foreign ethnicity. Your ideas of "stronger claim" are nothing but a social stigma, caused mostly by the aftermath of WWII; in reality, all of these three ideas are manifestations of the same ur-idea, and their absurdity stems from the same logic. Digwuren 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• One month was enough to see if he'd cool down. We won't lose anything if we test their behaviour change. -- FayssalF - 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Fayssal. Please restore the block to one month. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil's comment that "He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets" appears to have been overlooked in the above discussion. Is this editor currently evading this block? --ElKevbo 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Define "currently". See, for example, and . --jpgordon 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd define "currently" as "is this editor evading the current block". --ElKevbo 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is leaning toards reducing to one month being an appropriate time out, then I have no problem with this. I would be delighted if M.V.E.i. would spend a month away thinking about his actions, without violating this block through the use of sockpuppets (which would be a first), and return as a civil and valuable contributor, no longer engaging in harassment, racism and hate speech. I am cheered that so many admins believe this will be the case. I really hope it is, too. However, I wouldn't bet one penny on it. Happy for anyone to reduce User:M.V.E.i.'s block to a month if and when a clear consensus is arrived it. Neil ╦ 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And note that I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts for a little while longer yet (he's blocked either way for at least another 29 days, no need to rush here). Neil ╦ 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reducing it to a month w/in 15 minutes. Any objection guys? -- FayssalF - 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I just asked you to wait to ensure there's a good consensus (ie, not you, Alex and Nick). It will make no difference if you wait a few hours. Neil ╦ 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer me to a relevant passage in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN which leads you to discard my opinion as null and void. If you can't, I consider your action rather incivil and would welcome apologies. --Ghirla 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not incivil, just an oversight on my part. Apologies. Neil ╦ 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No rush. Let's wait. -- FayssalF - 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Has M.V.E.i anywhere appologized for his comments? I mean he has made quite a few edits after being blocked(mainly with block evasion), , , , , but I personally failed to see something where he would actualy understand that such comments are very wrong.--Staberinde 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. However, I once saw a comment of him that appears to have indicated that he at least understood wrongness of some of his comments. I can't find it right now, but this is the main reason I'm not objecting loudly to the "let's rediscuss in a month" plans offered above.

However, I'm still rather skeptical in M.V.E.i.'s reformation's possibility, and believe Alex Bakharev is overextending the benefit of doubt.

Considering that per WP:BLOCK, blocks are preventive, not punitive, my understanding is that it is desirable to have a block whose length would be comparable to M.V.E.i.'s estimated time of changing his ways. Without any remorse, such an estimate would obviously be very long. If M.V.E.i. repents and recants his evil ways, this would obviously directly factor into such an estimate.

The state of psychology research being what it is, any such estimate would be quite rough. My experience would suggest about 3 months as the roughly minimum time for a non-coercive reformation of this kind. Thus, I would suggest starting with a three-month block, and not counting upwards from it if he comes back after these three months reformed and then gets into troubles not related to continuous incivility. In a sense, this would be offering him a clean slate as long as he does not fall into old evils. Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So he is unrepentant? Jpgordon explained to him that his behaviour would not be tolerated. If he does not stop now, I would support banning this guy indefinitely. --Ghirla 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'now' any better cut-off point than, say, May 10 ( -- )? Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: I've seen this kind of double measure from the part of Russian admins on Moldova- and Transnistria-related articles. The party perceived as pro-Russian or pro-Soviet usually gets helped in front of the other. Support meaning that minor and some major offences are forgotten for the pro-Russian, whereas rules are strictly applied for the others. Dpotop 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My view: One month is way too short for this kind of hate speech and incivility , no matter what "ism" is appropriate , without any signs of regret. Indefinite block seems just about right, since user has been blocked before, but because there is opposition and given allowance for expression, i think that minimal length for reforming should be three months. However, I feel that there is a most likely unintentional bias in Alex Bakharevs judgment so the final decision on the fate of this block should be made by an unrelated admin. It is hard to pass unbiased judgment on your "comrades in arms". --Alexia Death 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that indefinite block is appropriate. MVEi behaivour is way over line, also repeated block evasions(, , , ) show inability to learn from mistakes. Finally he has had plenty of time to publicly appologize either here or on his talk page and I would find it really hard to advocate indefinite block if he had said "I am very sorry, it will not happen again.". But nothing like that has happened, on the contrary he seemed to think that shouting "LIAR" with full capital letters , accusing others in forming some kind of coalition aganist him , asking block of others and accusing others playing cowboy , is correct way of action.--Staberinde 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's appalling that we'd even consider allowing a person who repeatedly makes such remarks to keep the privilege of editing Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Estonian users' shouting "Kill him! Kill him!" is absolutely unproductive. Alex Bakharev has "comrades in arms"? Give facts. "asking block of others" is criminal? No. (BTW, do you, Staberinde, remember the case, when DLX, while avoiding WP:DR, cherry-picked Sandstein, who blocked me, new editor, without a warning?) As to LIAR, I'm not a judge, but looks like he wasn't far from truth. Beatle Fab Four 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your own slurs. Please don't put words into my mouth. As you see I'm willing to give the person benefit of the doubt that after three months he can contribute sensibly. My remark on "comrades in arms"(note quotes) was based on impression that he and the subject of this debate have shared a side in number of articles. I however assume good faith in Alex Bakharev actions. And I still believe that final decision should be made by an unrelated admin.--Alexia Death 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is moot to begin with. User Ghirla applies double standards, defending "people of the same blood", yet resenting racism, with a history of advocating indef. blocks for "nationalist trolls"- whether Romanian, Polish, Lithuanian, amend list here. Just the usual "Russian" way of "all hell breaks lose upon you if you disagree and make a big hissy fit if you dont anyway". Im sorry Ghirla, but your history of (ab)use totally discredits your campaign war for incivility based along racialist lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.209.162 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with the above statement. User Ghirla never misses a chance to advocate for Russian editors , no matter what they do. I haven't noticed him admonishing any Russian editors for anything either. People should be judged by their actions not by who they are or what nationality they are. This is the perceived bias that many people notice, when Russian editors get more advocats and always a second consideration that many others don't. --Hillock65 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, I'm glad that your 31-hour block has just expired. Would you put the blame on me again? Of course, there is a great Russian cabal, and Dmcdevit (who performed the block) is apparently part of it, right? User:Bonaparte knows that too well, but he did not miss his chance to join the latest trollfest above. Misplaced Pages is tolerant, but even its tolerance has its limits. I won't stoop to commenting to this thread again. --Ghirla 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte being a troll does not make the provided edits less factual. And the limits for tolerance should be the same for all users. Which reminds me of Bonaparte: (by your co-national User:Mikkalai) were not for having socks, but for ethnic and sexual slurs, and this is what motivated his swift ban following the discovery of socks. How about applying the same rules here to your co-national User:M.V.E.i.? Dpotop 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ghirla, please don't insult people's intelligence with the above comments. I have never claimed that my block was unjust or accused anyone in mistreating me, I pointed out your bias in regards to Russian editors. It is everywere. If you don't stoop to acknowledge it, then someone else will. You never miss a point to point out at transgressions of others but blatantly prefer to overlook the same actions by the Russian editors. I am talking about the ones with the picture of Stalin proudly displayed on the front page. The ones who recruit revenge squads on the Russian WP . You not only knew about it, you participated in that discussion thread yourself, and yet never said a word to stop it! And yet you have the nerve to admonish others? --Hillock65 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil has a picture of Hitler on his user page, and so what? Having a dictator's picture on one's user page is not a crime. User:Piotrus wheel warred about unblocking his compatriots User:Molobo and User:Halibutt, and so what? Probably he knows them better then non-Polish editors do. You maintain uk:Вікіпедія:Ксенофобії — НІ! and uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Допомога англійській Вікіпедії, two special pages which urge Ukrainian editors to go to English Misplaced Pages and support your anti-Semitic edits on History of the Jews in Ukraine, so what? Well, in the latter case I am at a loss for an explanation, since for this very reason the page has to be permanently semiprotected. --Ghirla 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, context. That picture is there as a joke - note the caption. This does not mean I am a Nazi (far, far from it). Neil ╦ 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, settle all your disagreements with other users the way you like it, the discussion is not about them. And if their actions are deemed improper by you, is that a reason to justify your own bias? In regards to several month old message boards on uk. wiki, I guess even you can see the difference between asking for attention on a particular article and calling to "help put the user X in his right place" which is the last line in the diff I cited above. I dln't see any diffs implicating me in directing someone to get you or someone else. Additionally, I was not taking "holier than thou" attitude and didn't even attempt to advocate for Ukrainian editors that got banned here. Whatever happens, people should get the same treatment be they Russian or not. Double standards if practiced by someone else do not give you the right to do the same. --Hillock65 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again and again and again, absolutely pointless speech. M.V.E.i is from Israel. Beatle Fab Four 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless, you say? Dpotop 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment the message above. I'm not a specialist in racial purity. Beatle Fab Four 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for outside admin review

I'd like to ask for another set of eyes on akathisia and related articles. Dr CareBear (talk · contribs) appeared recently and has been tendentiously reinserting unsourced and unencyclopedic material in this and many related articles. If you check his talk page, you'll see attempts to bring him around, which proved fruitless. After hitting 3 reverts, several new accounts sprung up to continue his crusade. These were identified as socks by checkuser and blocked, after which yet another sock, NetCafe (talk · contribs), popped up. I think this is a clear-cut case of disruption and abusive sockpuppetry, but at this point several of the admins who watch medical articles (myself, User:Davidruben) have gotten sucked in, and I'd like some outside scrutiny regarding the situation and the appropriateness of the actions taken. Thanks. MastCell 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A sensible and thoughtful request for comment, and I'ld be happy to help point to various specific action & responses, or to answer any queries on this episode. David Ruben 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support block of User:Netcafe, it's a confirmed meat puppet at the least, and is treated as a sock per WP:MEAT. I've extended the block of Dr CareBear (talk · contribs) to a week based on WP:EVADE and WP:MEAT. Steve block Talk 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in, Steve. MastCell 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I can't really comment too much on the articles, they're outside my scope of understanding, but the user is in clear breach of behavioural policy and I think you're on the money. Probably worth keeping an eye on any other users sprouting up, but I think regarding the sock puppetry and the evading bans it's all on strong ground. Steve block Talk 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain scarlet and microformats

With reference to this recent edit by the above user (Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)) where they say that "This user's contributions now solely consist on removing as many Microformats as posible to maintain quality on Misplaced Pages." Could this be considered an attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point? They have made their dislike for Microformats clear yet fail to justify the reasons for removing it on a large number of occasions as can be seen by looking at Special:Contributions/Captain_scarlet. Comments from this editor on this issue tend to be similar to this where they plainly dismiss the addition of microformats with other editors without considering the possible benefits of the change on the appearance of pages for our readers. It is clear that the user and the main editor behind microformats, User:Pigsonthewing have had numerous disagreements in the past and I feel that Captain scarlet's dislike for microformats and revert campaign against them may have more to do with this than actually writing an encyclopaedia.

Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page (diff) following his comment that "Whatever you tell me will be delete and ignored whatever its content". For this reason I will not be informing Captain scarlet of this. Adambro 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page" - likewise. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The particular edit on his userpage is just trolling, and you'd probably do well to ignore it, since he hasn't actually created any disruptive microformats. That said, diffs like this one seem like a more significant problem. -Hit bull, win steak 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rampant incivility is pretty much the norm whenever User:Captain scarlet and User:Pigsonthewing find there way to the same talkpage.--Isotope23 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And it's not from me. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<Cynical mode>Oh my god you're serious</cynical mode> No further comment. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one has suggested that he is creating microformats of any sort. far from it; he is repeatedly removing templates which happen to include microformats, without apparently any reason for doing so, or being willing to enter into reasoned discussion. Indeed, his last 50 edits alone include 13 such reverts, to just three articles: , , , , , , , , , , , and . Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you and Adambro didn't revert either...

These reverts were made after Pigsonthewing ignored any comments left on talk pages, other users suggestions and compromises; Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct, Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates, ]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have ignored no meaningful comments and have worked towards compromises. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't ignored anything, then I haven't either and this time consuming nonsense is nothing more than a comment on your own behaviour. Fact is you canot accuse me of doing anything more than what you do. Criticising me is nothing more than criticising yourself, if you're ready to talk, do so. You have done nothing of the sort except using vitriolous comments against me and anyone else who disagree with you, with a support of an administrator... If my edits now consist only on reverting the inclusion of Micrpoformats is because I view Microformats as nothing more than a useless gadget and because I have no desire to spend time adding valuable content thanks to you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"you canot (sic) accuse me of doing anything more than what you do" Quite clearly I - and others can; and do. Andy Mabbett 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Which supports my comments and show unwilling to cooperate with others you are. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain scarlet and microformats (outdent 1)

You try an RFC on whether to use Microformats on the pages in question yet? I took a quick look at the list and didn't see one, but I might've missed it. -Hit bull, win steak 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's this Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Microformats where no-one objected to their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, Captain Scarlet should probably add a brief and cogent summary of his concerns to that section, and then we can see whether his arguments are able to convince anybody else. The consensus on that page seems to be in favor of microformats, but the discussion isn't exactly extensive, so it wouldn't hurt to hash out the pros and cons in more detail. -Hit bull, win steak 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just have, taking care to put as much detail as Pigsonthewing. All in all, it seems Pigsonthewing is wasting his time and trying to implement something that has not yet been widely accept. That's just what's been said on the contested tlak pages like... So long Pigsonthewing doesn't shout concensus after two comments though. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HBWS on this. Until I saw this discussion, I had never heard of Microformats, let alone knew they existed; I doubt that am I the only one on Misplaced Pages. (Yes, I have followed the links, read the articles, & they seem to be mostly harmless.) Being intolerant about something the rest of us have never heard about does not build consensus; explaining why they are bad might. -- llywrch 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

your comment isn't really acceptable since you qualify my comments as intolerent. My history with Pigsonthewing is that Pigsonthewing makes intolerant and narrowminded comments, you are keen to forget that and believe Pigsonthewing's query by word alone. I don't particularly have to justify why I'm against, Pigsonthewing does however have to argue why they are such an asset to the plain reader. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit "intolerant" wasn't the best choice of words, but I'm not taking any one's side here (except perhaps HBWS). My point is that if you don't like them, if you explain why, you'll convince the rest of us that they are bad, & you might put an end to them. Staging a campaign against their existence without explaining yourself (beyond saying that they are an "unapproved" innovation) at best makes people think you are some kind of a kook. But if you don't care about how you come across to the rest of us -- well, continue on. Just don't do any of the usual stuff that you know will get you into trouble. -- llywrch 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"My history with Pigsonthewing is that Pigsonthewing makes intolerant and narrowminded comments" - that's a lie. Your exclamation "Die! Microformats" is quite reasonably described as "intolerant", as is your puerile habit of linking the word "microformats" to the article on feces.

"I don't particularly have to justify why I'm against" - er, you do if you wish your claims to be taken seriously, You've made a claim, it's up to you to substantiate it.

"Pigsonthewing does however have to argue why they are such an asset to the plain reader" My name is Andy Mabbett, and I have already explained, at length, the benefits of microformats, which are invisible to the "plain reader". In contrast, you appear to have advanced no arguements to suport yor - untenable - position.

Andy Mabbett 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: "My history with Pigsonthewing is that Pigsonthewing makes intolerant and narrowminded comments" - that's a lie. Your exclamation "Die! Microformats" is quite reasonably described as "intolerant", as is your puerile habit of linking the word "microformats" to the article on feces. Should I serve that to the incidents page and ask you to apologise for your comments or will you openly apologise for your outrageous comments?

Anyway, Pigsonthewing; I have in length offered you many arguments why quoting your own arguments but you chose to dismiss them, this morning once again was an example of dismissal . I have yet to see explainations the benefits of Microformats, which are in no way invisible in articles and involve lengthy work for an apparent identical result. In your explaination you may include uses of Microformat and explain how having a different and complicated code may benefit the plain reader by showing an apparent identical result? you have failed to follow the appropriate procedure to implement what you broadcast as a groundbreaking project and started implementation, including multiple reverts to impose this rather than face the music first and wait the weeks or months necessary to implement this. This enquery is not about this however but about the fact that I show my dislike for Microformats, an opinion hardly condemnable since the opossite isn't. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the comments you quote. You appear to remain unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims about microformats; but instead parade an real or feigned ignorance of their benefits and a refusal to read or acknowledge the references you have previously been provided with (once again: WP:UF). You say microformats "are in no way invisible in articles". In what way are they visible? Andy Mabbett 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further unjustified reverting

In , Captain Scarlet has just removed coordinates from an infobox (and in doing so removed a geo microformat from the page), with the one-word edit summary "fix". What was broken? Andy Mabbett 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I could ask the same about your edit immediately prior to that (), with an identical one-word edit summary of "fix". Andy, I would suggest taking this to the Village Pump for community discussion, as at present there's nothing that requires admin attention. State the facts, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of them, and perhaps discuss where they should and should not be implemented. There is also, I understand, a WikiProject for Microformats (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Microformats) Andy has started, which Captain Scarlet should consider participating in. This is an excellent idea. I would ask both sides to remain calm and wait for a community consensus on the issue of microformats (there's no rush) before implementing or not-implementing them. Neil ╦ 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What was being fixed in that edit, was the replacement of the coord template I'd mistakenly used, and which was not valid in that infobox, with the correct latitude and longitude parameters, I thought that was clear from the diffs, and the fact that it immediately followed my previous edit. Microformats have already been discussed at VP, and are currenty being discussed at WP:NOT's talk page. I didn't raise this here, Adambro did, and I think his comments indicate quite clearly why admin attention is needed. I fail to see why you are suggesting that an editor should join a project whose purpose he has publicly avowed to resist, to the point of declaring such action to be being his only reason to be here. So far as consensus goes, he is the only editor opposed to any use of Microformats; which are already used on hundreds of thousands of pages on Misplaced Pages. Andy Mabbett 20:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You know I am not the only person opposing Microformats and you bloody well know that if my sole contirbutions are to refrain your zele is because I don't wish to encounter your tirade. From our first enoucnter you have been unable to show the advantages of your edits, in fact you refused too: "it does a lot", "I'm impressed by the power of your crystal ball". Maybe I hsould follow your lead and report you everytime I encounter your unacceptable responses, you haven't shown much diplomatic capabilities since you've reported god knows how many times and thought it mature to ask for a life ban? I'm suppose to rpely to that by "sure go ahead" ? I've always told you what I disliked about Microformats but you persist on ignoring everycomment I have made by replying with the little straw men and the slippery slope. As Neil has poinyted out there's no rush, I'm patient, you could, Pigsonthewing, have waited before as you say "which are already used on hundreds of thousands of pages on Misplaced Pages" implemented by you, the cheak! Remember WP:OWN It's not because you've made those hundreds of changes that they're any beter, more important or more worthy than a newbie's single edit. I have taken time, as Neil suggested, to point out a few worries I have with your new system but you have chosen once more to ignore my comments. I don't know what to do really, you seem so unwilling to talk our exchanges look like a monologue, you copy pasting the same dismissive coments everytime ; you know what you said in the past so spare me the gullible, you haven't answered Paradismal and I await stil a reply to his concerns. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"So far as consensus goes, he is the only editor opposed to any use of Microformats" wrong. L.J.Skinner 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite? Andy Mabbett 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the conversations you've participated in and read the replies which inform you of the opposition. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He has also declared that he "hates Misplaced Pages and all of its contributors" and that "all my work will be taken away from you Adam and *all* the rest of you" (my asterisks). Andy Mabbett 09:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (upated 10:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Another brilliant misquote from Pigsonthewing, it is Pigsonthewing isn't it? You've got some cheak speaking here since you are the cause for me hating wikipedia and its contributors I don't see all in that sentence, there are some good people here willing to go make efforts to work with others, compromise, look information up if it's missing, then there's you. Yes some people are distastful but I have to live with them, hence I'm here trying to convince I don't participate in a cendetta but trying to convince you what you're doing is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs)

User:MONGO

User:MONGO is going on a rampage altering archived project and talk pages, etc., to "enforce" his interpretation of policy on linking to sites (in this case, regarding Wikitruth, a site that has a page on Misplaced Pages, and about which MONGO only very recently changed his mind about whether it was an "attack site"). It is my understanding that archived pages are not to be edited by anybody for any reason; they are there to preserve history. *Dan T.* 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the full record of that websites mirroring of deleted pages and other attacks. Once I was, I saw it as necessary to delink to that site as much as possible. Someone please tell Dtobias to stop wikistalking my edits. Archived pages are not exempt from being edited to remove attacks. The banner on the top of them is there only so people understand that if they have new comments to make, they should do so on the active discussion page since no one will likely be responding to them on an archived page. Dtobias, do not wikistalk my edits.--MONGO 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• While utterly pointless, removing links to attack pages out of archives isn't really inappropriate. In general, he should probably be leaving a template or such in their place, but whatever. WilyD 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that we routinely are removing fair use violations from archive pages. Archive pages are not inviolate. NoSeptember 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  He's indiscriminately removing all links to the sites in question, as usual. See my essay for some reasons why this is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unarchiving to comment. Please see instructions at the top of this page: Please don't try to stop other people from discussing by inserting the {{discussion top}} — {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions. WTF? My own talkpage archives keep popping up on my watchlist because some bot has had its mysterious way with them—"substituting user signatures" and whatever. Here's one at random. And as NoSeptember points out, FU violations are continually being whisked out of there. I've never seen a template left in place of the removed material. Should I start reverting the bots...? Please cut it out, DTobias. We don't do edits that have no other purpose than to annoy, no matter what the banner at the top of archive pages says. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

So once again MONGO gets off scot free, while the person who criticizes him gets slapped. There really does seem to be an "untouchable caste" here. *Dan T.* 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This racing through Misplaced Pages with a black censor's pen is just embarrassing to the entire project. The primness, the hysteria, the hypocrisy.--G-Dett 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the harassment and the offsite attacks. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could I have missed that?--G-Dett 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are attack sites whether or not the links exist on so called "archived" pages. Who cares if their links get deleted? --Tbeatty 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mongo's actions are clearly disruptive. This is an attempt to enforce a failed policy proposal via edit warring and must not be tolerated. *** Crotalus *** 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was an ArbCom ruling, as stated at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom dont create policy they interpret it, and in that sense we are a democracy, SqueakBox 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• It is an Arbcom ruling (in addition to common sense), that unneeded links to attack sites should be removed with extreme prejudice. That does not mean that someone can arbitrarily declare something an attack site and then remove all links to it. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• And Arbcom, as is its right, has chosen not to confirm that principle in subsequent decisions. Risker 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try again. The arbitrators who voted against that principle did so because they thought its language was too broad, not because they were against the principle per se. jpgordon made the point that the language should have said something like "sites that commonly include attacks". And the very next principle, which passed, illustrates this, because it is a ban against ED links - and ED is a site that most certainly "commonly includes attacks" and outings against Misplaced Pages editors, as does WikiTruth, as can be seen by a 5-second perusal of its front page. - Merzbow 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mongo actions: he is doing the right thing Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikitruth an attack site? Does there need to be some kind of clarification by ArbCom like what was asked for with WR? Can't a bot be written to remove the links that MONGO is removing? Is Miller lite less filling or does it taste great? daveh4h 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:BADSITES would be good as it would state clearly which ones should be removed. Right now say for Wikitruth and Misplaced Pages Review while obviously links to pages that contain personal attacks should be removed as personal attacks, links to their main page or parts of the site that don't have attacks are unclear. Without WP:BADSITES all we have is the spam blacklist and I think people are allowed to remove links to that. If anyone can get ahold of Kelly Martin who appears not to be on Misplaced Pages anymore but is on IRC maybe, she knows more about how Wikitruth is an attack site. SakotGrimshine 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. EITHER ArbCom's decision may be taken as a statement of policy, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong, OR policy is established by the community by individual bold actions, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong. No administrator action required. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help at RFCN

Can someone nip down to RFCN, I've closed a discussion as allow because non latin character usernames are allows - 2 users keep reverting me, my fingers edging closer to the block button - hence why I'm posting here. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking either one of us because you are in a content dispute with us is not proper. But don't worry, I won't revert any further your unfair speedy close of an ongoing discussion. Corvus cornix 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have my own opinions about what RFCN urgently needs but I doubt anything will be gained by reiterating them. — CharlotteWebb 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Charlotte, that now me and you can finally agree on something here. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should never threaten to block someone you are in dispute with. Often these cases bring up lack of community support for a policy - why does the English wikipedia allow usernames people can't type and many can't display? It's not clearcut that we want this. Secretlondon 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names#だってばよ

I posted a request for comment on the user name of User:だってばよ, which clearly violates policy at WP:UN which says be careful to avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users. User:Ryan Postlethwaite keeps closing the discussion, claiming the name is allowed by policy, but I see entirely the opposite, according to what I quoted above. And not only that, but Ryan Postlethwaite is accusing me of biting the newbie for having the audacity to make a respectful request that he change his name. Corvus cornix 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as they use the English transliteration in their signature, then the username (which is read as Dattebayo) is fine by policy as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, so if conrnux would like to stop being a dick and read policy before blind reverting me. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued amazement at people who think it's civil to call someone else a dick... /wangi 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if they revert my policy related closure - thats what they get. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The constant banding of WP:DICK really does piss me off... It's the assumption that it's not a "big deal" to badge someone as such... Well, lets look at it another way - I could say stop being a complete cunt. That's pretty much as acceptable where I come from :) Apologies for the off-topic rant. /wangi 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More of the same from Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to think that my repeated civil responses to the user were somehow biting him. Corvus cornix 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:DICK suggests that anyone invoking it is also one. Secretlondon 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I did read the policy, I've been quoting it to you. Alright, whatever, you want to allow people to have user names that only look like squares or question marks and can't be differentiated from anybody else'se user name with square or question marks, who am I to question an exalted one admin "we're admins, we don't work by consensus", indeed. Corvus cornix 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think we've all been saying. So what we should be doing is advising the user to change his signature, not telling him his username is just fine as it is. So the request should not have been closed as "allow," but as "allow on the proviso that the user change his signature to one that is readable by English users." Exploding Boy 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've told the user to do so on his userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(after much edit conflicting)The former prohibition on non-English names is not really enforced any more. At some point in the not-all-that-distant future, we are going to have m:Single User Login and we certainly aren't going to refuse to recognize users who register to other wikis then. If someone is going to be a regular participant (as opposed to just doing minor updates here while focusing on another language), as said above, they should be encouraged to add something English to their signature, but we can't really disallow these names any more. One thing that is really a good idea for everyone is to download some of the more common Asian font packs - that way, you can differentiate between nonsense (? marks and squares) vs international characters. --BigDT 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on en.wikipedia does not override consensus in the wider wikimedia community. This username is *permitted*. If this person edits often they may want to also include a latin signature, but that's for another day.

If you are seriously still having issues with squares and question marks, then please update your system. Software written this century typically has adequate UTF-8 support.

--Kim Bruning 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know what system they're using? How do you know it's not nine years old? How do UTF8 Japanese characters render on, say, a Braille display? Andy Mabbett 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They have their own braille system. See Japanese braille.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why would that be available to an English-language-Misplaced Pages user? Andy Mabbett 10:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ... there's no reason to be rude about it. Asian font packs are not automatically installed with 2000 and I could be wrong, but I don't think they were with all versions of XP. --BigDT 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And should you be on a public computer, you may not be able to install Asian font packs. Phony Saint 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Single user login has been in the not to distant future for well longer than I care to remember. --pgk 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In an MMO I play, such updates are called to be showing up Soon™.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the Duke_Nukem_Forever development team will get right on it as soon as they've finished the current project. --pgk 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the requirement of intelligible usernames from the nutshell of WP:UN to reflect current understanding of the policy. nadav (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is flexible - if the community wants usernames they can type and display then they can have it, surely? Policy is not law, set in stone. (The underlying argument is presumably about language imperialism, however as a user you function much better with a username people can read. Asking people to change their username to something that doesn't show up as blocks doesn't make you a nazi). Plenty of public computers don't have those fonts - and even with the fonts you can't type them. Secretlondon 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Prematurely. The policy clearly states that user names must not be confusing. We can't reasonably expect every user to have every character set installed on his or her computer. And even if we did, we can't expect every user of the English language Misplaced Pages to be able to read every character of every available language. Exploding Boy 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, my PC is less than two years old and runs on regularly updated Windows XP, and this username prints out as little squares on my monitor.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Smee wikistalking?

In the past 24hrs three of my valid changes (or reverts from destructive edits) have been reverted by Smee, here(RS showing that the before mentioned statements were later retracted was deleted), here (reference giving the context of earlier text deleted) and here (a local city administration is featured with own headline and lengthy text to "critisise" a European Court of Human Rights judgement against Russia), two times to delete a reference which is not in alignment with Smee's POV. Despite a warning of WP:COI violation Smee continues to delete valid references. This is not yet at a stage for high concern but Smee has provoked edits wars in the past if something did not go in alignment with her personal POV and just recently got blocked for 3RR, so can please someone watch this? Thanks, COFS 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Smee's edit's have been a major concern for a long time. This should be seriously looked at. ⇒ SWATJester 02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I might add in Smee's first WP:NPA violation of the day, here. COFS 02:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your WP:NPA complaint with your own use of very similar wording? Raymond Arritt 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to be in internal joke, me repeating Smee's argumentation against me ("valid", says Smee) on "her" ("invalid", says Smee). COFS 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you for pointing this out, Raymond Arritt. Smee 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

q.e.d. COFS 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How is calling someone a single purpose account and meatpuppet a personal attack? People get called that all the time on this forum. SakotGrimshine 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS calls another user a SPA COFS, given you almost exclusively edit articles related to Scientology, as a result it also dominates the underlying purpose of most edits to talk pages too. If that wasn't enough you're editing from a CoS server as shown by your checkuser case. How do you reconcile calling another editor, whether they are or not, a single purpose account? Anynobody 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response from Smee

Please, take a moment and read through Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. There is more to this than meets the eye, with regard to User:COFS' actions. As for myself, these pages had been on my watchlist for a while now. However, regardless of what COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is stating, I will remove these pages from my watchlist now. However, the "warnings" posted to TheWikiWiki (talk · contribs) talk page were not in good faith, and I called them out as such. When you check out TheWikiWiki (talk · contribs) edit summaries, you will see that they were good faith edits. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

For the full picture, whoever interested could check WP:OWN against this. Thanks. I am going to leave this discussion at this point as I find myself once more wasting time with nonsense and the correction of lies. Anyone interested in the real story of Smee and her fights, please put a note on my talk page, thanks. COFS 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Smee, irregardless, the first diff provided (your revert of the sourced information) is unacceptable. There's another one in there, either the second or the third, that was ok. ⇒ SWATJester 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• If that is how you feel, I apologize, and will avoid editing that article for a while, and take an extended break from it. Notice also how COFS (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) just now removed a comment from User:Raymond arritt. Most troubling. Smee 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Indeed! EC, sorry, and thanks for putting it back in. COFS 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you check the histories, you will note that I have edited these articles in the past. However, in the interest of avoiding future conflicts with COFS (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), I have now taken the articles Ronald DeWolf, John Sweeney (journalist), and Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia off of my watchlist. (Even though many of these recent edits by this user have very recently also been reverted by other editors. Thank you for your time. Smee 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Taking articles off your watchlist for a while is indeed a wise move. Not editwarring in the first place, is a much wiser approach. The result of not editwarring, would be that no more complains will be posted in this noticeboard, to your and everybody's benefit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Articles are off of my watchlist. Hopefully, COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) will show improved behaviour in the future as well. Thank you for your time. Smee 04:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

I am sure she will. COFS 04:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't support Smee's decision to remove sourced information as cited in the first two diffs, such info should be kept. Smee's concerns about COFS' WP:COI are well founded though, based on my understanding of what the WP:RFC/U case revealed. This editor is known to be using an IP from a CoS network, it was explained to me that the church does not allow open access to computers except for church business.

The first two diffs were an overreaction to these concerns on Smee's part, but looking at COFS recent edits as well as Diff 3. I support, Smee's edit because looking at the source it does say what was added. . Again I can't excuse the first two diffs, but shouldn't COFS be cautioned about WP:COI issues relating to complaints similar to what occurred in the third diff? Anynobody 06:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation?

Patricknoddy seems to have lost his password and is unable to log into his normal account (see ). It appears he created a new account , Patricknoddynewaccount. However, this can't be confirmed because the original account never confirmed it and nothing is in the creation log. Any admin want to look into this? Wikihermit 03:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Patricknoddyontheroad too. Prodego 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd enough. He was still editing with the original account during the dates the account (User:Patricknoddyontheroad) was created, and like the other he never confirmed it and it never showed up in the creation log either. --Wikihermit 04:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well not sure what you are asking anyway, since even if he could confirm to be the same person, we can't reset passwords either. --pgk 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?

I've just blocked The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for this. I'm getting ready to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message, but I'm wondering, has this user ever been constructive? Is there any reason not to just go to indef now? ··coelacan 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A no brainer, Coelacan. Indefblock indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is if we indef, this one might just sockpuppet, whereas this account is not hard to keep tabs on. I know this is hard to predict, though. =/ ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, has his account been compromised? Based on his edit histories, It is very unusual of him to go rogue. Indeed I agree with the indef block, but only as a temporary measure until things sort out.--PrestonH 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised. I don't think this is unusual; are we talking about the same "Anonymous One"? He's been planning this. I knew when that question showed up on the reference desk that there was trouble ahead. Other users warned him not to "make an ass of himself" but I'm honestly starting to wonder if he understands what that means. ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• What the--?! That behavior is unacceptable. Based on this diffs above, I support the indefblock. Again, that behavior is not tolerated.--PrestonH 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. There's absolutely no excuse for his actions tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reported him to Coelacan to begin with, I strongly support this block; however, there should be no problem allowing him back if and when he apologizes for his behavior and pledges not to repeat it, or anything remotely like it, again. Perhaps he should individually apologize to each and every user he harassed.

Though having looked further through his contribs, there seems to be a good deal of religion-related disruption; more than a matter of a simple apology would be needed, more like a very broad topical ban. Not sure.Proabivouac 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my…User talk:The Anonymous One#BlockProabivouac 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is persistently and perversely disruptive on topics of religion. He has form for this behaviour. His indignant responses to warnings and blocks show no sign of acceptance that his behaviour is unacceptable. Support indefblock. Worries about socks should play no part in the decision making on this issue. --Dweller 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past (the user)

Firstly, I am unsure why User:A Link to the Past is changing the proper assessments of "B-class" to "Start-class" or "Stub-class" to several of the Dragon Ball-related articles; it hints that he is doing that to most of them for no reason, see some links: , , , , , , , . It appears that he is disrupting Misplaced Pages for nothing and nearly personally attacks others, see some links: , , , , , , , ; he chills for a while, then makes a false statement concerning guidelines and then gets hot again. He really won't cool down, even after I notified him to do so; he edit wars, see this history, continuously replies in borderline uncivil tones, see some links: , , and this comment, and calls one of my comments a "blatant response to WP:ABF" and leaves such an uncalled message. I don't know what should be done about this user: he needs to stop acting in such a disruptive manner; it isn't hard to leave a civilized comments and discuss things normally. Lord Sesshomaru

...Wait, so you linked to my revert? You didn't link to me actually changing them in the first place, in which I gave my reason exactly as to why I changed them? Just what, exactly, was that little scheme supposed to do, make it seem like I was intentionally vandalizing the articles? Ironically, you are the one who began the edit war by reverting with absolutely no rationale whatsoever.

And it isn't hard to answer my questions. I became justly annoyed when you disrupted the discussion by refusing to answer my questions. I asked why Son Goku was more well-known to English readers, you never explained why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, you never asked me anything. I merely joined in on the discussion to show you two guidelines and due to your incivility, of course, I've had to correct you a couple of times for that. Lord Sesshomaru

My apologies. So what about the fact that you are actually the one that's keeping this debate heated by harassing me with accusations of trolling and vandalism in an unrelated subject? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in ALLTP's case, this isn't an isolated incident. ALTTP has an extensive history of bad behavior- spats, personal attacks, 3RR violations and more. Just look at this block page. And he's at it again, starting ANOTHER fight with yet ANOTHER user on here. Honestly, how many more incidents is ALTTP going to be allowed to cause? 67.94.201.2 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would enjoy assuming that this statement was not someone feeling vindictive over the fact that I turned Demasked into a redirect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Demasked is an entirely different affair, one that has no bearing, ALTTP, on your behavior. You are, for lack of a better word, argumentative. I chose not to engage you in a heated foof over Demasked because I have studied your prior history and decided to just wait and see whether or not more incidents would come up. And lo, here they are. 67.94.201.2 05:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get irritated for no reason. I hate regional bias, and I hate when people ignore rules, and I hate when people just ignore as much as they can until the person goes away. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And may I add that I have more or less calmed down, while you seem to be escalating by making accusations of me vandalizing and trolling? Take your own advice, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ALTTP's block log is irrelevant to this discussion. He hasn't been blocked in six months, and the last block was rather questionable, IMO. Half the entries are due to a really bad wheel war in which the blocking admin insisted on keeping a 48h block. hbdragon88 05:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if I do not regret making those statements. I am often without sleep, and being without sleep + having to go to the post office to pick up some games I missed + bringing in my job application is an unfortunate prelude to a very heated debate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion, hbdragon88, that a user's block log, especially one so extensive, is "irrelevant". The block log, as well as discussions for which no blocks were issued, is extremely concerning. ALTTP, at the very least you need to get a clear understanding of what it means to keep a cool head- telling people (as you have done in the past), to "go to hell", calling people a "fucking dredge of humanity", "retard", along with other things, is almost frightening. I mean, sure, you apologized for your remarks a few times after the fact, but stepping on a toe is still stepping on a toe, even in a metaphorical sense. 67.94.201.2 05:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew all remarks I made, but made them visible for a reason. A significant spoiler to a plot would garner a similar reaction with no indication that the spoiler was coming. I only apologize that I said what I was thinking - I do not apologize for getting angry. I had the right TO get angry with him. If I ruined the plot of your favorite series, would you be going "oh well"? No, you'd be mad. And I've had irresponsible people spoiling this game for me constantly. Fact of the matter is that he was just the one who posted the biggest unmarked spoiler I've had shown to me for the series, and that's why I got mad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this IS concerning. We all sometimes get heated, ALTTP. But that doesn't give us cause to attack people with insults and personal remarks! Yes, it is unfortunate that the user spoiled (either intentionally or unintentionally) a plotline for you, but there's no Misplaced Pages policy that says "Hey, if someone makes you mad, yell at em". To the contrary, Wiki cautions us all to keep a cool, calm demeanor and control ourselves. Even when mad. If someone else does something similar to you, is the community to expect the same sort of response in the future? 67.94.201.2 06:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I was upset, not angry. The fact that I apologized makes it irrelevant. I have not exploded at anyone in such a fashion since. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But will you again? That's the thousand-dollar question here. Tell you what- I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith- this time. But this needs to be the last time, ALTTP. In the future, no matter how much you may feel justified, no matter how upset or angry, just stay calm, adhere to Misplaced Pages's rules, and you'll be a much better editor for it. As long as this is the last of it, then I have no problem with considering the matter resolved. 67.94.201.2 06:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire conversation between A Link to the Past, another user and an ip user is unimportant. Is there any administrator that can solve this matter concerning the reported user's behaviour? Lord Sesshomaru

I disagree, Sesshomaru. Establishment of bad past behavior is something that plays into the establishment of future blocks. ALTTP's past behavioral history will come into play in whatever decision an admin makes. Just because I'm not pressing the issue doesn't mean that others won't. 67.94.201.2 06:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over, as far as I can see. The only one who seems to think that there's still anything to resolve is you. Read Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy - blocking is preventive, not punitive. And the fact that you want to get resolution for a resolved issue with administrative action shows that you need to calm down. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This matter does not require administrator intervention. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What should be done in this case? I didn't want you blocked, just an admin's second opinion. Lord Sesshomaru

Well here are my two cents, while I have seen the user acting uncivil and literally biting people on discussions, as well as being annoyed by having him posting fake 3RR warnings in my talk page when I only reveted potential vandalism three times without breaking the rule and was excluded of the rule by it being a vandalism revert, I don't think he deserves to get banned or blocked for a massive period of time, perhaps the sysop measures to be taken here can be somewhat lenient considering that he was acting out of inmaturity and not out of bad will. -凶 06:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – unblocked by User:Eagle 101 - Alison ☺ 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – article salted and protected

Resolved – user blocked for 48 hrs

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