Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 18 September 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?

User: Hopiakuta

Can anyone make any sense out of this user's page or talk page, signature, or the user's edits? Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I think the original block was probably not so far off base - this seems like a lot of gibberish to me. Tvoz |talk 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the user's signature - everything within and including the outside brackets:

] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]]

which comes out like this, including the brackets: ]

Tvoz |talk 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to his talk page, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Does anyone think he/she is copying a message someone left for them at one time? And what's with that warning at the top of the page? R. Baley 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to contradict his own rule about clear signatures.. — Moe ε 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful Moe, that little greek character there might be considered vandalism. Someguy1221 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just vandalism, but SPAM VANDALISM Better add "ε" to the list of bad words.. — Moe ε 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked back through his/her contribution history (which is a little scary) and he looks to have tried to get help with his sig back in November 2006. I'm sure there are other issues at play here, but is it possible that he changed his sig at some point and just never got it right (looks like his name didn't have traditional characters in it early on). I'm not sure she/he knows enough English to be helped. Btw, she added back the quotes to the Obama page, but it's still unclear what she wants. . .R. Baley 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this person is trying to recreate WP:BJAODN? Both user & talk pages are truly ... odd. -- llywrch 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page: "Please do respect my disability access need." Actually I think this user might be blind and is using some screen reading software. That would partly explain the copying of system- and error messages into the edit window. — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got that impression when I encountered him some time ago - is there any kind of support group here for that sort of thing that he could be put in contact with? --Random832 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would also explain the concern with others signing their comments. For the sighted, it is a simple thing to click on the history tab and see who made the edit. On the other hand, if you have to have it read to you, what an ordeal that must be. -- But|seriously|folks  01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm blind and use a screen reader - using Misplaced Pages effectively with a screen reader can be very difficult if one does not understand much about the technology. The closest thing to a support group for users like that is probably wikipedia talk:accessibility but I suspect English is not this user's native language. I've left a message at the talk page anyway and I'll see what I can do to help. Graham87 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the response. Make of it what you will. Graham87 12:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In trying to make sense of it, I managed to track down the "extremely racist, extremely handicappist, policy page, about vandalism." - he objected to the inclusion of this image to illustrate the concept of "doppleganger" - He considered it racist because the subjects are black (though, no comment on whether he would think the same if a picture where the subjects were white had been used instead), and handicappist because either he considers being a twin to be a disability, or because of the (by no means obvious from the picture itself) fact that one of the subjects suffers from Aplastic anemia (though it seems the motivation was not in fact racism, but simply because it was an available picture of twins, the use of a picture of living people to illustrate it was certainly in bad taste) - he had some difficulty communicating this objection, leading to accusations of vandalism etc which understandably left him with negative feelings about the wikipedia community --Random832 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a somewhat detailed look at his contribs, and it looks like apart from incoherent talk page comments, it's mostly redirects from dubious misspellings. --Random832 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to the user, it looks like neuro damage to me, like someone that's been in a really bad car accident at some point. Someone I knew at school went like this, one quirk which is similar to this person is repetition of similar or inverted forms, eg the "complex" bit in the diff. I could probably find emails from that person on one of my old hard drives to compare. Mostly they are still high-functioning but the bits related to communication, both inbound and outbound, are impaired. Orderinchaos 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DonFphrnqTaub Persina (apparently Hopiakuta's real name) is a founding member of a disability living centre in California. He probably has a cognitive disability of some sort, which would explain his incoherent talk page comments and copying of error messages. I don't think we should prevent such users from editing Misplaced Pages, it's obvious Hopiakuta is acting in good faith. —Crazytales talk/desk 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been following Hopiakuta in curiosity for some time, and came to the same conclusion about the nature of his disability. I'm honestly not sure what the right thing is to do about it. I agree that he's acting in good faith, but his work is disruptive nonetheless. I would like to do something to help him but I'm not sure what the best way to reach him is. It's a puzzler. Tim Pierce 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It has now become known that the user is unable to access this noticeboard (due to its length and his technical problems). We should continue this discussion on his talk page instead. --Random832 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of David Hicks by User:Prester John

User:Prester John is engaging in disruptive editing by massive non-consensual reverts of David Hicks page. Numerous editors have reverted his changes (up to 3 a day without substantive justification or talkpage discussion, using Edit Summaries that mispresent the edit and/or prior editors and are aggressively POV ):

• Mdhowe - "revert vandalism" by Prester John
• Bless sins - Undid revision 157511776 by Prester John
• Bless sins - "rv, mass removal of content; the article seems fine as it is"
• Brendan.lloyd - "Prester John, please refrain from DELETING references, use more detailed Edit Summaries & justify your reverts on the talkpage; please avoid 3RR"

Mastcell had protected the Hicks page earlier, stating a lower threshold for blocking would exist if edit-warring resumes. Less than thirty minutes after protection was lifted, Prester John resumed edit warring. --Brendan Lloyd 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I have blocked both Brendan.lloyd and Prester John for disruption of David Hicks. Both users have reverted very recently after the protection, and both know better then this. We all know at least some moderate English, and we should be mature enough to discuss matters on the talk pages. When both of your blocks expire I hope you two can resolve this dispute. There are options such as mediation. Please do not resort to silly reverting again, but instead discuss the changes, your change is not likely to stick unless you get others to agree anyway. Anyone else editing this article should keep this in mind, being disruptive is being blockable. There are better ways to resolve your editorial disputes. —— Eagle101 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After an unblock request I reviewd the BL block IMHO appeared unnecessary as he had only edited the article twice in the last two days, so I have unblocked him. Gnangarra 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra has re-instated the two blocks. (Gnangarra unblocked Prester John as well). —— Eagle101 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the block of both parties. I reviewed this report myself last night and thought both parties should be blocked given the gaming and the very clear warning they were given not to resume edit warring once the protection expired, but I didn't respond to the report myself because of my own recent disputes with both of them, but particularly Brendan Lloyd. Brendan and Prester are very disruptive, POV edit warriors and aside from the dispute at David Hicks, they have been revert warring on multiple articles for many weeks. Both parties have had plenty of warnings and they know this behaviour is not on, to give another warning would be meaningless. Brendan says in his complaint above that, "a lower threshold for blocking would exist if edit-warring resumes", so there's no excuse for then going off and doing just that, even if it was "only twice". Sarah 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any sense of proportion or reasonableness about the conduct and outcome of this decision. Mostly, though, I'm disappointed that my editorial character is being misrepresented (eg. equated with the arguably far worse actions of Prester John, and with some commenters making non-neutral emphatically negative generalisations about my edit activity that do not fit with an objective reading of my overall Misplaced Pages history).

The warning by MastCell did not state 1RR. It simply said that a "lower threshold" would be taken for repeat occurrences of edit warring. No clear parameters were established for how "low" that threshold was intended to be, nor for how long it was to endure, nor the circumstances within which it clearly should be invoked versus not, nor was any distinction made that any edit/revert whatsoever (without regard to its argued validity/substance) would constitute edit warring. Taken to its logical conclusion, the view that I should not have made a single revert on the Hicks page (even of something that was plainly POV and tautologist) would mean that I can't revert anything on the Hicks page ever again, for fear of being misconstrued as edit-warring. Anyone editor placed in that situation would find that unreasonable.

Moreover, the only person who has engaged in significant repeat occurrences, in clear breach of any reasonable threshold, is Prester John. The David Hicks edit history and the lack of commentary by PJ on the talkpage are evidence of this. If I had done something genuinely objectionable, why were there no other Hicks page editors complaining about my changes? Another admin said I didn't say much on the talkpage about my edits, but I didn't think I needed to. No other editor (apart from Prester John) objected to them. That strongly suggests my changes were consensus-sustaining.

A more rational and impartial process would be to look at the substance of my two isolated reverts (some 5 days apart!), read the Edit Summaries accompanying, see if there were any other editors who objected to them (there weren't), and then make a well informed judgement whether my block on the basis of 1RR was justified and reasonable. I maintain it was not --Brendan Lloyd 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR

Ethnic edit war brewing after disruptive edits by User:Figaro at article Graeme Garden:

• For nationality, he replaces United Kingdom (sovereign nation, U.N. member, passport) with Scotland (neither of them) every day . To me that's not content dispute, but unencyclopedic.
• Conceals all his changes under abuse of WP:MINOR tag.

Since those ethnic conflicts degenerate so quick, an external opinion is wished from someone who can enforces Misplaced Pages's rules about encyclopedic (i.e. sovereign nations, not provinces or sub-states). — Komusou  @ 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it is acceptable to use Scottish as a nationality; I also feel that that is preferable. Therefore it's more of a content dispute than unencyclopedic, IMO. I don't feel the abuse of the minor edit checkbox is deliberate, perhaps just contact him saying 1) instead of waring, it could be taken to the talk page, and 2) since the content is disputed, it is no longer apropriate to use the minor edit checkbox when changing it, with a guiding link to WP:MINOR would be more apropriate. Blood Red Sandman 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My opinion is that the above commentator should have either self-disclosed that he is from Scotland and a member of Wikiproject Scotland (cf. his user page), or abstained from a conflict of interest. And as far as I remember Misplaced Pages doesn't recognize or endorse non-sovereign nations, an encyclopedia is descriptive. Is there a new policy that says we now should use "Scot" or "Quebécois" or "Flemish" or "Texan" or "Basque" or "Breton" as nationalities? I would like to see the references or archive of the debate that legifered that. — Komusou  @ 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Possible POV pushing should not be labeled COI. Please don't use COI allegations to intimidate another editor. Thanks. - Jehochman 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

* WP:COI defines it as contributing "in order to promote the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" -- Scots are an ethnic group, and this user has identified as a Scot on his user page.

* WP:COI also defines it as " articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area", and he's a member of WikiProject Scotland.

So IMO both are conflict of interest, yet he didn't self-disclose it. Especially since he's advocating something that's never done in any dictionary or encyclopedia I've ever seen, that is replacing "British" with "Scottish" for the nationality field. How am I trying "to intimidate another editor" when I'm adding this information he concealed? And how come he gets a free pass on not disclosing this in the first place? — Komusou  @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple POV pushing should not be labeled COI. POV pushing is also wrong and can be dealt with by referring to WP:NPOV. COI requires some sort of duty that is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages. The goals of Misplaced Pages WikiProjects are always compatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages because WikiProjects are part of Misplaced Pages. Overstating your case may hurt the effectiveness of your arguments. - Jehochman 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Scotland as country of birth, etc., but the nationality of anyone born in the UK is British, and should be stated as such. ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. I think most people would describe Sean Connery as Scottish (and he self-identifies as such as well), for example, so that's why we have him described as such in the lead. Badagnani 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the fact that I am a member of the project makes any difference when I have disclsed the more important point, that I am biased because I belive that it should state he is Scottish (as apposed to the fact that my nationality/project affinity merely suggests this to be the case). Anyway, the fact that we have disagreement between us still points to a content dispute. My stance remains that this is mainly an unfortunate misunderstanding of good-faith edits, and that it can be sorted out on the talk page of the article in question. Blood Red Sandman 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sean Connery would give his nationality as Scottish, I'm sure. I don't believe Graeme Garden does. He is not prominently identified with nationalist causes, and is not strongly identified with Scottishness. I'd wager that a decent proportion of his fan base are not really aware he's a Scot, since his accent is not at all strong. Apart from the Hamish and Dougal bit, of course, but then Barry Cryer is from Yorkshire... Guy (Help!) 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Important additional note: I forgot to mention that in that sort of cases, I'm always careful to have both the infobox say "Nationality: British (Scottish)" and the lead section say "John Doe is a British something from Scotland", thus there is both the encyclopedic sovereign nation, and the accurate sub-nation. But this is never enough for ethnic warriors, that simply delete all instances of "British" or "UK", such as the case above -- to me this is unencyclopedic and not a content dispute. And it seems to be the same everywhere. Our article about Charlie Chaplin is a laughingstock because "British" and "United Kingdom" are systematically erased from it. Surely we have a policy about that in 2007? — Komusou  @ 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this at Talk:Graeme Garden. Scotland says it is a nation and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. RJFJR 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Scotland isn't a sovereign nation. Readers of an encyclopedia expect "Nationality" to give them the sovereign nation, the U.N. member, the passport -- which is UK/British. There is no Scotland at the U.N., and no Scot passport. This is unencyclopedic, and playing on words, the UK's internal affairs and diplomatic choice of words isn't Misplaced Pages's concern. And the original "Nationality: British (Scottish)" had it covered anyway for full information, so the reader is even free to decide. Doing otherwise would be as unencyclopedic as writing "Nationality: Texan". Not all readers are from the UK or the U.S.
• There is nothing on the talk page because the incriminated user first changed it without edit summary and concealed as a minor edit , then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale, thus displaying contempt for the point made and showing that he's not in for discussion but for ethnic warring. For centuries people have been ready to die for a piece of fabric, today they're ready to be banned for a word on Misplaced Pages, nihil nove sub sole.
• And sorry for asking another, but I would really like to know what are our policies or guidelines or arbitration cases about this topic? When I posted this, I only expected an admin to brandish a WP:SOMETHING that would lay down the law on the matter -- not a POV discussion about whether someone's fans would considerer him this or that. Is this an encyclopedia or a fanzine?

— Komusou  @ 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• We should go with their self-description. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Scotland is a nation (especially as far as international sports bodies are concerned) and a historical kingdom - the United Kingdom originally being those of England and Scotland. Also, there are sufficient cultural, legal and educational differences to establish separate identities. However, forget individuals and consider (for instance) cities. Are Coventry and Brechin simply cities in the United Kingdom, or are they areas of England and Scotland (and more to the point, does Scotland help fix the area in the readers mind)? LessHeard vanU 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly straightforward to me as there is clearly a British identify, all be it there are Scottish and Welsh etc. subcultural identies. But many Scottish/Irish/Welsh/English people identify primarily as British - in fact most probably do, and culture is largely shared.WikipedianProlific 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland maintains a distinct national identity. That it's part of a bigger thing doesn't negate that it's a nation. It's article says it's a nation. It calls itself a nation, and maintains a national archives distinct from that of the UK archives and distinct of English Archives. Demanding such changes would mean a massive overhaul of all Irish, Welsh and Scottish articles about people living in the last 300 years, and woud eliminate a lot of clear information by obscuring it behind the broad term 'United Kingdom'. The history of scotland is clear at its' article, and the ssame goes for UK. Readers want to know Connery's Scottish, not 'A citizen of the United Kingdom, being born in the subservient nation-state of Scotland' "Sean Connery is a scottish actor'. bam, done. Be CLEAR. Misplaced Pages is not censored for political correctness like that. Observing self-description in the text, and the British(Scottish) in the infobox is enough. ThuranX 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but not truly relevant. British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly, but I've never heard Garden identify himself as Scottish and the only time I met him his accent was barely discernible. (aside: TBT is much shorter than he looks on the radio). Guy (Help!) 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unimpressed that I have been specifically named here as causing an 'Ethnic war abuse incident' because I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!).

Scotland is still a country within its own right (Mary, Queen of Scots' son, James I of England was also James VI of Scotland). It was when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England that England and Scotland were united under a single monarchy (i.e. under the one crown). The other three countries which make up the United Kingdom are England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

To be honest, I can't really see what the problem is. After all, Ronnie Corbett and Billy Connolly both have their country listed as Scotland. In the same way, Terry Jones and Griff Rhys Jones have their country listed in their infoboxes as Wales — while Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Bill Oddie all have their country listed in their infoboxes as England. Figaro 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people's primary identification is with the UK, not with a constituent nation. You are wrong to presume that someone who was born in Scotland is Scottish. Billy Connolly is known as a Scottish comedian, Ronnie Corbett is not, nor is Graeme Garden. Putting people into an ethnic box is POV. Many editors could tell you this - I was born in England but I'm not English (but I am British). I know of others who were born in England but are strongly Welsh. Unless you know how people self-identify you cannot say. Secretlondon 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said - there are real issues over how to treat nationality in articles, but Misplaced Pages is riddled with "ethnic labelling" of very divisive kinds. It attracts race-haters and gives them far more of a platform than they have outside of the encyclopedia. We should not be providing any such platform, even in those cases where we think we're reflecting genuine differences. This is a problem that will get worse as en-WP attracts more and more members of minorities - some of their grievances will undoubtedly be genuine - but others will simply be malicious. Articles don't need it - objecting to "Lough Neagh is the biggest lake in the British Isles" is idiotic. Pandering to it in the encyclopedia encourages bitterness and violence. (On this last example I've had another look - consensus in Talk is for use of "British Isles" but nobody is prepared to confront the angry and stop them damaging articles). PalestineRemembered 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the following comment by Figaro, "I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!)." well, when someone accused Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington of being Irish because he was born in Ireland, he famously replied "Jesus was born in a stable, but it doesn't mean he was a horse!" Where someone is born does not identify their nationality. Scotland does definitely have a national identity within the UK, but many English people identify with Scottish national/cultural symbols like tartans, kilts and bagpipes etc, without themselves actually being Scottish, and vice versa many Scottish people identify with English cultural symbols. Its like calling George Bush a Connecticutur rather than an American. While its true he is both, the latter is more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. While Scotland is a nation, it is not a sovereign nation, there is a significant difference. Bottom line is someone born in the UK is British. Consider as well that many people born in Scotland/Ireland/Wales and England will at one time or another live part of their life in another constituent country of the UK, so what sub-nationality one identifies with is really down to their own personal choice. You could argue its not their choice and its determined by the location of their birth, but i'm sure General Wellington would have disagreed, ;) WikipedianProlific 09:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How the country of birth should be represented in an infobox should have been taken to the Misplaced Pages:Village pump for discussion there in a civilized manner, instead of being taken to this incidents section of the noticeboard on this page.

Also, it is supposed to be against Misplaced Pages policy to make personal attacks on another editor. Komusou has personally attacked me by his public discussion of me in both this forum and in his edit summary of his reversal of my edit on Graeme Garden's article.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a venue for nitpicking and slurs. Figaro 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, surely it is therefore a venue for nitpicking? Its being discussed here as this is where it has arisen for various reasons, there is no need to take it to the village pump because its really quite an open and shut case. Scotland is not a sovereign nation. While it may have its own national identity saying someone is scottish is ethnic not national. Scots are a race like aryans or kurds are a race. Likwise the english are a race, does living in england make someone english? of course not. Likewise for scotland. The nationality of the english, welsh, scots and n.irish is British, as it is for any other UK citizen. By all means add to the article he was born in scotland but its not his nationality. His nationality is british like every UK citizen.WikipedianProlific 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. I see some contentious editong during a content dispute, and an editor who brought the issue up for wider discussion, but at the wrong place. Not everything you don't like on here is a PA. ThuranX 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this has been brought up in the right place. The user who brought it to our attention skipped the usual process of actually getting an edit war underway by bringing the matter up before it got that far, but it would have ended up as an edit war without some kind of intervention (and consequently would have ended up here) eventually, one way or another. WikipedianProlific 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret to tell you that the earlier quotation from Wellington ("born in a stable doesn't make me a horse") is a favorite of race-haters - and appears to be false. It underlines what I commented earlier - race-hatred is a real problem, and Misplaced Pages will incite still more of it, unless we are ruthless about keeping it out. We'd never accept "The Jews are viewed with suspicion by XXXXX because of accusations of XXXXX" except in an article that makes clear how very nasty this stuff is. We should similarly steer well clear of allowing accusatory/discriminatory statements about other "groups" to appear. In fact, we should avoid labeling anyone as belonging a group. Or not belonging to a group, as we do when we allow the race-haters to imply that being Scottish is an alternative to being British. In this example, the "problem" is tiny - but it's still important to deny these race-haters a platform. And the principle of not labeling people (unless it is really, really necessary) holds good always. (Sorry if the above really belongs at some policy-discussing page, but reminding people is necessary at pages like this as well). PalestineRemembered 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Various comments and answers:

• First, I need to apologize for how this turned into a long debate: as explained above, I honestly believed that in 2007 we had a WP:SOMETHING policy or guideline or arbitration precedent about such a simple encyclopedic topic as nationality fields, and I thus believed that WP:ANI was a good place for asking quick enforcement of such a policy. So it looks like we have no actual policy or guideline after all... I'll try to propose one in RFC or Pump/Policy, Misplaced Pages is becoming a total mess and a laughingstock with respect to nationalities, apparently everybody is too scared of ethnic terrorists to move, but we need something on that topic. It's not just the British thing, have a look from the Categories to articles about Canadian people (lots of "Canadian" deleted in favor of just "Quebec" or "Quebecois"), or Belgian people (most of them have erased "Belgian" and replaced it with "Flemish" or "Walloon", the two subnations that hate each other). I haven't even looked into Basque, Breton, Corsican, and the like...
• To ThuranX: I think that having a lead section say that "Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland" is hardly the pejorative apocalypse you're writing about; the "clear information" you ask is precisely both terms, not a single one; the objective facts of British passport, U.N. representation, or UK embassies aren't addressed; and if you invoke Readers, the NPOV is to give them both "British" and "Scotland" and let them decide which piece or pieces of information is useful to them, since both are true.
• To JzG/Guy: about "British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly", I believe that no peace will come if we just try to impose the sovereign citizenship only, and also that it's often accurate and useful to mention subnationalities or local ethnies that have their own identity or a history of separatism. As long as it's sourced, I wouldn't be bothered by some infoboxes telling "British (Scottish)", "Canadian (Quebec)", "Belgian (Flemish)", or even "Spanish (Basque)". We just need to keep it to actual territories and forbid racial/ancestry things such as "German (Turkish)" or "French (Jewish)".
• To Figaro: you can't rewrite the article's edit history, you didn't "commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland", you deleted thrice the word British in "Nationality: British (Scottish)". And the fact that most Misplaced Pages articles are currently owned by ethnic warriors (such as our international laughingstock "Charlie Chaplin is an English actor" where they delete the word "British" on sight everytime it's inserted) doesn't make it right nor a point; for instance, if all our articles about Muslim subjects were dated using the Muslim calendar, that still wouldn't make it right or encyclopedic, just massively needed to be changed (and how far is it before such madness happens, if we let it slip?). It just means we need a policy so as to be able to clean the nationality fields of those unencyclopedic articles, and ban the ethnic warriors who'd revert again. Also, the difference between "Nationality: British" and "Nationality: Scottish" isn't what you call "nitpicking". No dictionary or encyclopedia use your "Nationality: Scottish"; this point, too, is never addressed.
• For the record, the edit war has continued after this discussion: Figaro reverted again so as to delete "British" (and also delete the infobox and replace it with a made-up table) – so I have restored the article, then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox, then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)" (assuming that the UK flag was a needless additional divisiveness with an ethnic warrior). I am however afraid that such compromises may be seen as weaknesses, as warriors are wont to do, so maybe it'll get worse...

— Komusou  @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind your view on this Komusou, I feel that the nationality is clearly British - certianly not scottish, I wouldn't even mention scottish in brackets myself but if it keeps people happy its an acceptable compromise I think. The problem is the scottish are (like the english, welsh and irish) an ethnic group not essentially a nationality. So its like saying Barrack Obama is American (African) and George W Bush is American (Northern European). Its true sort of, but not really appropriate for nationality, as being black/white doesn't affect their nationality. Saying British (Scottish) almost implies there is a multi-layered system within the UK where not all british people are the same, wbich isn't the case. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Indian or Klingon, it doesn't matter, - if you have a UK passport your British end of! WikipedianProlific 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP, your describing Scottish, Welsh or Irish as "an ethnic group and not a nationality" is both insulting and wrong. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are countries, making up one sovereign kingdom. Ireland is not even in the UK, which shows how poorly informed you are (the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation). It is entirely acceptable to describe nationality as "Scottish", "Northern Irish", etc. Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish people are all, also, British. Neil ム 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem could be resolved and clarified by changing the template for the info box to include separate lines for Citizenship, which is a legal relationship to a state, and one for Nationality which might include ethnic/cultural descent/preference. The latter is a little harder to define or label, and to do without causing offense, and should be based on how the individual thinks of themself. Derek Andrews 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel we should compromise on this as its very straight forward. Someones nationality is that of the sovereign nation which issues their passport. In this case British as scotland a region/constituant country of the UK. This is essentially an ethno-nationalist POV arguement with little ground. To put scottish becomes confussing to, say someone is born to two scottish parents in the USA and has a a US passport... are the scottish, or are they american? It becomes tough to decide because what your suggesting we do is make their ethnicity (scottish) into their nationality (american). Realistically they are an American of scottish descent. Lets keep it simple, nationality is the UK. I really don't see how one can come up with a solid argument otherwise. I think that for us to compromise on this is sacraficing ground to capitulate something just to avoid discussing it? Why change the template when its perfectly clear what nationality is. Its simple, someone from the UK is British regardless of their parents ancestory or their locale of birth. WikipedianProlific 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So your passport determines it? What about people without passports? They Have no nation, they have no home!!! Oh Crap!... come on. How about what nation issued their birth certificate? What about immigrants? Are they the nationality of birth, or of current Citizenship? And for holders of multiple citizenship, entitled to multiple passports? Passports is a lousy, unstable and 20th century-limited means of solving this. ThuranX 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

• To WikipedianProlific: but the problem, and one good reason to keep the "British (Scottish)" thing, is that Scotland and the others HAVE been nations, before being assimilated/merged into the UK. As for undesirable ethnicization, the examples I gave are based on territory and *local* sub-groups or sub-nations, such as Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada. Having "Barrack Obama is American (African)" was excluded from the start in my counter-examples because Africa isn't a subterritory of the U.S. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a big problem if editors of an article got a consensus for listing Obama as "U.S. (Hawaii)", or Bush as "U.S. (Connecticut)", even though is those cases it really looks silly or redundant with the Birth field.
• To Neil: It is not "entirely acceptable to describe nationality as 'Scottish'", at least not esxclusively, which is why no dictionary or encyclopedia does it. Misplaced Pages would actually be rather progressive in having "British (Scottish)" and "British from Scotland" instead of just "British" like every other reference.
• To Derek Andrews: I don't think that adding another field is useful or desirable, especially since the optional parenthesed addition fulfills the same goal with less effort or changes. And it wouldn't solve anything because ethnic warriors do not accept even "British (Scottish)" and want just "Scottish" so they would delete the field "citizenship=" and use only the field "nationality=", back to square one.
• To ThuranX: a few possible freak cases don't change the rule of thumb for 99.9% of biography subject, else it would be like removing stairs from every building because there exists a few people in wheelchair. All people have a citizenship (even when unaware of it, such as some tribes in the Amazon Forest who are "citizens" of the country their territory belongs to), it's an objective and sourceable fact. Whether they have a passport or not, people are citizen of the sovereign nation they were born in (and/or the sovereign nation of their parents for expat births), nationality laws define all this clearly -- whether actual or virtual, the passport is one good criterion to look at, because even if he doesn't have a passport, a UK citizen could get a British passport, but not a Scottish one which doesn't exist. Same for embassies, there are no Scottish embassies. Immigrants retain of course their original nationality, unless they get naturalized, then they get dual citizenship and two lines in the infobox, such as P. G. Wodehouse. That's basic and obvious stuff, the system is clear and written in laws, most dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world use it. On such basic things, Misplaced Pages isn't there for "solving this" but for using the same standards than regular encyclopedias and scholar papers do. The rest seems to me like trying to abuse Misplaced Pages's open nature for pushing an ethnic-POV/COI. IMO, the eventual backlash down the road will be the official banning of even "British (Scottish)" in favor of a mandatory "British", and you'll have had it coming.

— Komusou  @ 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat User:Real77

Contentious and difficult user is making legal threats. It's not clear from WP:Legal what I do now, tag it, what? KP Botany 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the template to tag the user, but other than that, what, if anything. Is there a notice board for this? "If Wikpedia is not going to play ball with 3rd aprty verifable issues then this shall be referred to lawyers as an individual has the right to control his or her reptutation and,name and likeness through themselves or third parties." KP Botany 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This be the place. There's no NLT noticeboard, thankfully! Keep us posted on his response. El_C 06:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely (or until they agree to not make any more legal threats). Someone should probably go over Anna Wilding and cleanup any unsourced statements, as this is the article the user appears to have a problem with (though from what I can tell, they want to add content, not remove). --- RockMFR 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes on the article could not hurt, however there are a group of excellent Misplaced Pages editors who are already attempting to clean up the article. Real77 claims to be working for Anna Wilding but is doing nothing but trashing the article's talk page and making the article as ugly as possible. My concern at this point is that because he claims to be working for Ms. Wilding, he is making her look awful with his edits, particularly his talk page ranting which is largely incomprehensible. This sounds reasonable, though, blocking until a user agrees to not make any more legal threats. Thanks. KP Botany 07:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no response from the user. However, another editor quit editing because of nasty and potentially threatening (legal) comments to him. Without Real77 around a small handful of those who have weathered the nastiness have removed the poofunery, the bad grammar, the horrid punctuation, the fluff, and the poor English, so the article looks halfway decent. In light of what has happened, most of the article has been tagged for fact checking and all sources will be individually verified. Thanks. KP Botany 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by Anna Wilding's representatives

It appears that Ms. Wilding has attempted to pressure others into publishing her resume and self-publicity. She filed some complaint against the New Zealand Press Council for failing to publish her photos and press release. At this point I ask that administrators consider reblocking both User:Real77 and User:Tonyx123 who are both working for Ms. Wilding, from editing Misplaced Pages. Real77 issued a legal threat, was blocked, agreed not to issue any more, so his block was removed--as seemed appropriate. However, in light of the fact that it appears Ms. Wilding filed a formal complaint against another entity for failing to do what she is attempting to manipulate Misplaced Pages into doing, namely publish her publicity materials and resume, I think blocking these users might be appropriate. Deleting the article about her might be appropriate also. KP Botany 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, In spite of saying he would not issue any more legal threats Real77 calls an editor's edits to the Anna Wilding article defamatory. I don't think that his behaviour is something ordinary Misplaced Pages editors should be dealing with. KP Botany 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, he wasn't unblocked, I forget he can edit his own user page while blocked. Sorry! I suggest he not be unblocked, then. KP Botany 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The legal threats have really gotten out of hand. I have also received numerous harassing e-mails and phone calls from Anna Wilding herself. I originally suggested to her that to shore up some of the lack of credible sources I do an interview with her for Wikinews; this offer to help her has suddenly become, in her mind that I am trying to "blackmail" (her words) an interview out of her. I have barely edited the article. I only came across it because I photographed her at the Spiderman 3 premiere. I have sent her my own "cease and desist" letter and copied her attorney on it. They are completely in the wrong here, both Misplaced Pages-wise and legally; I'm not sure how to proceed from here, but days ago I removed myself from assisting Anna Wilding and the article in any way. --David Shankbone 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do they realize they are more likely to get her article deleted as a not notable actress then to get her preferred version out there? --Rocksanddirt 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this sock puppet of Real77 blocked? User:66.65.119.19 I don't feel threatened, but it's boring. KP Botany 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Alvestrand 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And this one, please. 121.72.12.98 KP Botany 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Islands around Ireland dispute

Hy, I, Flamarande, hereby wish to report Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) who engaged himself in disruptive behaviour and now proceeded to insult me personally. The mentioned user sees himself as a kind of "national champion/avenger of the Irish" and unilaterally deleted several links leading to the British Isles article. After I sent him a post explaining my reasons for reverting his edits he took upon insulting me. Please take a good look at his edits and especially at his talkpage. I also believe that this user operated previously under an anonymous IP namely 81.99.82.237 although I'm currently unable to prove this. I hope for a quick resolution as the facts are quite evident. Thanks Flamarande 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved this here from AN. ornis (t) 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for two hours and directed him to the relevant policies. There weren't any really explicit warnings about it, and I'll unblock if he promises to behave. If anyone thinks I'm over the line, they can unblock if they like. WilyD 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, given this I would have made it longer. ELIMINATORJR 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How ever one feels about the term "british isles" Saoirsegodeohf (whose name translates from Irish as something like "freedom forever") is povpushing and being incivil. I concur with Eliminator - they deserve a longer block--Cailil 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, but he hasn't been given any warnings so I was a little reluctant to block at all. Two hours should give him enough time to read NPA. If he doesn't shape up after the first block, longer ones can always be applied. WilyD 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that wikipedia proclaims itself to be neutral, well this certainly is not neutral, I see that other Irish people seem to feel the ssame way I do on this issue and the term British isles is not neutrel hence the British isles naming dispute. If it were neutrel the Irish government would accept it and the British government would use it in media but the fact of the matter is this doesn't happen. And as for the majority of people using it I doubt this is true, even if it was you can call a sheep as cow all you want but it doesn't make it so. I will ask you to do something about this situation as you can see i feel very strongly on the issue as do many of my countrymen and it is highly unjust for a so called neurel encyclopedia to give people the wrong information to contribute to them myth the Ireland it part of the British isles. The uncivil behaviour i deemed necessary by what I can only describe as a tremendous insult towards me on the part of flamengo who not living in Britain or Ireland and cannot really comment on what we call the isles around us.

Go raibh maith agat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Ireland happens to be the second largest of the British Isles. That is a simple fact that you can find in nearly any general reference book or geography text that covers the topic, or at our own article British Isles. This is just a geographic name, not a claim of ownership, and its use is certainly not a reason for going ballistic. --Stephan Schulz 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AM I ABUSED OR JUST RECTIFIED?

”Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks
Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content”

I am New. I have made no direct contributions to Misplaced Pages articles. But I am interested in the general welfare of humanity, all categories, as also many other humans are. And I, as everybody else, have questions, ideas, and opinions. We all know this part.

On the talk page No Original Research, I have recently made a submission to the ongoing debate, illuminating details with referring examples. It ends with a question. ”What say you?”. Following this, a Wikipedian takes no notice of the quest at hand in my submission, but instead begins like this:

”I say this: BellMJ, in the month or two you have been here you have not contributed to any articles. I suggest you get some actual expeience researching and making contributions to articles that stand the test of time, and have more experience collaborating with editors working on aticles, before you try to comment on our core policies. SLrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)”

I find no connection in this contribution to my submission, nor any part or detail in it, in concern of the factual content.

It, hence, just seems to me, that this Wikipedian SLrubenstein either
1. DO HAVE A MOTIF in rejecting my presence on the talk page JUST, exactly as he/she claims, BECAUSE ”you have not contributed to any articles”, or
2. that the Wikipedian SLrubenstein points to my person as an INTRUDER, type ”Get out of here!”, ”We don’t want you here!”.
I do not accept a provocation, if that is the intention.

I have never before had any interference with this SLrubenstein or any other Wikipedian, it just popped up recently as described. And I have neither made any approach to talk to this Wikipedian SLrubenstein as he/she already has made his point clear. Besides that, I don’t know more than you.

So. How is it?
FIRST contribute, THEN you can join Misplaced Pages talk page No Original Research?
Is that so? Or is the Wikipedian SLrubenstein prominently talking for Misplaced Pages?

I very much would like Misplaced Pages administration to have a clear answer to the question.
Show me. Please. BMJ 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

some people are here for months and still don't Get It. Some people arrive here and become outstanding editors from day one. I suppose this is a matter of differences in intelligence, of experience, and of common sense. Hence, there are no fixed rules of "first do this for n days, then that". SLrubenstein gave you well-meant advice, and you should consider it, that's all. For your questions, ideas, and opinions, be aware of WP:VP and WP:RD, where they will receive due attention. --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence: rectified. Not abused. I thank you for taking your time in giving me an honest answer.

wkg/BMJ 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, but not "in the name of the Establishment". We all speak in our own names, and the policy pages condense out of Misplaced Pages:Consensus. It's complicated, because it doesn't work in theory, just in practice :) --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

dab. Thank you for still showing patience. All right then. You mention ”differences in intelligence” and ”Misplaced Pages consensus”. IF in Misplaced Pages consensus also is included an active, practical, recognition of the Declaration from 1948 (WIKIPEDIA HAS NO PRONOUNCED SUCH RECOGNITION, as far as here known), the type ”differences in intelligence” should have no representation in Misplaced Pages, in accord with the Declaration (Article 1) ”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights …”. Equal. Consensus. With respect to THIS, hence: There is no ”differences in intelligence” in humanity, except as stated from profound everyday Nazi ideology quarters. One human being is not ”better” or ”higher” or ”more intelligent” than any other, even if it SEEMS so. We all have EQUAL basic properties of mind, but see the landscape from different views, and no one of us is more valuable than the other, even if it SEEMS so. I don’t mean to be rude on reminding on that, but the type ”differences in intelligence” definitely does not belong to Misplaced Pages, on the recently made provisions. Compare THEN ”the guidelines” to ANY talk page in concern of ”consensus” (Meaning: in practice Misplaced Pages is a MESS). However, dab, feel free to object!

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Equal in dignity and rights" does not mean equal in ability. And, while the 'Nazi ideology' that one race or ethnicity is as a group less intelligent than another is manifestly false, that does not mean two individual people cannot be of different intelligence, that is to say, I can be smarter (or less smart) than my brother or sister, or my neighbor, without any reference to what race, gender, ethnicity, either are. --Random832 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Random. I think I know what you mean. We are getting out of the main focus here, but OK then if that is OK with you to. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is YOUR point, right?: IN COMPARISON between all the mathematical aces on planet Earth, that is all the professors and doctors of academia, with those in the classes who did NOT pass the examination, the latter are LESS intelligible, LESS smart, because the former make the gauges to the IQ portals and tests. Right? --85.89.80.140 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see time lingers, so I will try to finish this thread and return focus to Misplaced Pages policy in the end, which was how this started:

My point is this: 1. ”intelligence” is (mostly) associated with Mathematical Merits (MM) and which I assume dab and Random agree with, 2. these smart aces (MM) are in minority in humanity. Not in majority. Meaning: IF the Math Aces REALLY would be (so) smart, they also would be able to EXPLAIN to the rest of humanity, their class mates, the fancy Idea of Intelligence they merited on, and so even out the difference between the two camps. But as we know, this is NOT the case. SO, there is a proof here, sort of: The majority of humanity is the proof that the minority of so called mathematical aces NOT are profoundly intelligible, not any more than any other. Meaning: The idea of ”intelligence” and ”smart” is only relative to opinion, not to ability. Please object if you can. (former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Wait - when did I say I agreed with whatever wacky definition of "intelligence" you are accusing others of using? --Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The ABILITY of APPREHENSION — to conclude a stream of concepts leading to a denser form, such as one which is normally occurring in mathematics, because that is, as I know, the simplest example to show — IS EQUAL FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS (we omit, of course, medical defects and assume a biologically normally developed being). This apprehensibility, THE ability OF being INTELLIGIBLE as such, has no differentiation, no scale from higher to lower. It is equal for all human beings, but it seems you do not agree. I can, and will, continue on this, but first: Am I reading this correct, or do you have objections? Please feel free to object.

Then, my friend, the idea of being ”SMART” is just relative to OPINION, not ability. That is, whether you are tuned to ACCEPT and ACCOMMODATE one philosophy or another, one idea or another. It is NOT, as I mean, a matter of INTELLIGENCE. Because, NATURE, not us, IS the intelligible part. We only have to open our eyes to see it. Original Research. Primary sources. Misplaced Pages policy debate. Consensus.

The conclusion is hence, Random, in contradiction to your statement: Equal in dignity and rights DO MEAN equal in ability — your contribution, Random and dab. Of course not ability to surrender to different ideologies, or show loyalty to a particularly declared policy, but ability to apprehend what nature presents to the human in all its dimensions and variations. There is no difference. We only see that landscape from different point of views. (But this is all elementary and we SHOULD be familiar with it BEFORE we enter a discussion on the editorial level of cosensus: human rights).

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If "equal in dignity and rights" really did mean "equal in ability", then you would say it's impossible to say one person can jump higher than another, or lift more weight, or run faster, or write a better novel, or paint a better picture. How is intelligence any different? To take your idea about the meaning of equality to its full conclusion, why not say everyone is of equal height, equal weight, equal age?--Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you?

If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here.

BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAN CAN HAVE SEX THE WAY A WOMAN CAN.

It neither means that a small child can jump as high as a full trained sportsman can. These are both examples of different CAPABILITIES. A one legged man is not capable of running. But nothing of this makes distinction to INTELLIGENCE. Do you, really, have a problem with that?

Please repeat again then, to make sure you are observed.

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you: this is not a discussion for the admin noticeboard (I even doubt it belongs on Misplaced Pages at all...) so please either drop it or continue it on user talk pages, if necessary. If there is something here that does require admin attention, please let us know in a concise and clear way. Fram 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. I will end this here and try to contact Random on his talk page.

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake admin???

The user AlanJohns has been causing vandalism on the following article, firstly he used a source that didn`t actually say what he wrote in the article, when I reverted his edit, he put it back the way he wanted saying he was an adminisrator so dont delete, (I have my suspicions this is a lie), when I reverted it again he vandalised the article by deleting a page worth of sourced material with no explanation. I also checked out his user page and he seems to be causing trouble elsewhere. ]. Realist2 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

diff. blanking diff. user might need a warning. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by User:Ryanpostlethwaite. (He's lucky Ryan got to him before me...) Raymond Arritt 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked longer for trying to impersonate an admin? JACO, Jéské 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't accept users claiming to be admins to win content disputes - next time he disrupts the block will be for much longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside: His userpage looks like a personal record store. — Edokter • Talk • 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, it put me in an bad position because even though I felt his edit was wrong I was scared to revert it. Realist2 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that administrators have no special authority in content disputes, so pretending to be an admin to win a content dispute is doubly incorrect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, I was always under the impression at what ever an admin says simply goes, ill keep this in mind, as for his user page, hello he`s clearly lying through his teeth like he did about being an admin. Realist2 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish. :) See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CHECK OUT THIS USERS PAGE AGAIN, HE`S JUST RECIEVED ANOTHER WARNING FOR HIS EDITS. I THINK A LONGER BLOCK IS REQUIRED ITS CLEAR HE IS INTENT ON BEING A TROUBLESOME EDITOR. Realist2 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's (obviously) made no edits since the block. The warning that he received was for something he did prior to the block. No further action is in order at this time, but trust that I'll keep an eye on him when his block expires. - Philippe | Talk 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AlanJohns has at least one Fair Use image on his User page which someone should remove. I don't want to do it for fear of starting an edit war, but somebody needs to do it. The other images have suspicious copyrights, as well. Corvus cornix 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the one with no copyright status, but someone with more image experience should investigate whether or not the copyrights on the other images are legit, as you pointed out Corvus. The Hybrid 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

His userpage is fake, as far as I can tell. He is not associated with any of the albums on that page, the sales records are false, and I doubt he played a main character in a GTA film that has no information on IMDB. I'd say speedy as vanity nonsense while one is at it. MSJapan 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why don't we just like... treat someone who claims to be an admin as if they are one? O:-) --Kim Bruning 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) If an Admin were to actually threaten to use their tools in a content dispute in which they themselves were involved.... hoooooo boooooooy...

Blocked troll

I blocked Hexadecimale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am sure this is an alternate account being used for trolling - if not a banned user then an inappropriate sock. I don't think it's a coincidence that his edits consist largely of asking what the problem could possibly be with antisocialmedia.net Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Alarm bells, quacking, etc as Guy suggests. Not Good. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto Concerniokw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More eyes on that arbitration case, please, it's clearly always going to be a troll magnet. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um. Placing indefinite blocks prior to either account doing anything significantly wrong doesn't seem quite kosher to me. Do they look vaguely 'sockish'? Sure. And? We don't block all alternate accounts indefinitely. Only those of users who are banned or which are being used in disruptive ways. Asking questions you don't like is not disruptive. The Concerniokw account, quite frankly, made a good point about the fact that we have an article on Misplaced Pages Watch which links to that site despite it clearly falling under any of the definitions of unlinkable 'attack site' being pushed. Your removal of that point from the ArbCom case and indefinite blocking of him hardly seems equitable given your obvious partisanship on the subject. As an involved party you should have gotten someone else to place the blocks - if any justification for such could be found in the WP:BLOCK policy. --CBD 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with CBD. Removing comments and blocking users for "trolling" when they simply raise valid points in a debate seems like an improper thing to do, particularly when the admin who does it is one involved in the same debate in a partisan manner. However, those accounts do look suspicious, given that they came out of nowhere to comment in a contentious RFAr case; this, however, is not automatically wrongdoing. Given that at least one person has already suggested that I be banned for my comments in that debate, I could easily understand why an active, non-banned editor might want to contribute to that discussion using a hard-to-trace sockpuppet account rather than his/her main Misplaced Pages identity. *Dan T.* 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So can I. And if I were to do so I would either email the arbs or make a note that it's an alternate account on the user page. Which neither of these did. As it happens they turn out to be parts of a sock farm - which is hardly a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Checks out to be the same person as several other previous sockpuppets, probably by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised, thanks for checking, though. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, under these circumstances I think the block was clearly appropriate. We don't need these particular waters muddied further by obvious socks with axes to grind. – Quadell 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Concur with Matthew Brown on this one. User is definitely sockpuppeteer. Cary Bass 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Agree with sockpuppeteer finding. I have replied to CBD's comments on user_talk:Concerniokw to say that no admin should unblock this account without consulting with a CU first (preferably Morven, Cary, or myself since we investigated). CBD, I'd suggest you consider removing your comments completely at this point, unless you already have. It would help the situation and I'd greatly appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll add a comment based on the new information, but I'm not sure why you ask me to remove the previous statements. I said it, I'll stand by it rather than hide it away... nor do I think I was wrong. As I said above, it always seemed plausible that these were sockpuppets... but in the absence of any actual wrongdoing or checkuser to confirm past disruption the blocks were (at that time) inappropriate. We should never be indefinitely blocking people on suspicion alone. Also, I note that all of the above refer to 'the user' (singular) and 'Concerniokw'. Has the 'Hexadecimale' account also been found to have engaged in past disruption by checkuser? He claims to be an innocent new user who is willing to just leave the discussion - and you haven't posted the same warning to admins on his page as you did the Concerniokw page. This may just be an oversight and there is certainly reason to suspect sockpuppetry there as well, but again... without checkuser confirmation it is just suspicion and no reason to block. --CBD 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Genuinely new users do not make their first edits to contentious arbitration casdesm, and certainly not in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"...in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief." See... that's what sets my bias meter going. Other than Concerniokw that 'assertion', that Misplaced Pages Watch contains a link to the site, has been made in the arbitration case by AnonEMouse, Alecmconroy, and Dtobias. I see no reason to believe that any of them did so "to create mischief". They did so because it is a highly significant point. We link to a relevant web page, despite it clearly being an 'attack site', because we're an encyclopedia... not the morality police. There has been an over-abundance of assumption of bad faith, as in your statement above, against those who oppose the BADSITES philosophy... which further illustrates why blocks based on suspicion are bad practice. Wait for the evidence and then block with that as the stated grounds. --CBD 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New overly-aggressive copyright bot "OsamaK" flagging valid logos

There's a new bot, User talk:OsamaK, which is flagging several hundred valid logo images per day because it doesn't like the format of their {{non-free logo}} logo templates. This goes beyond the policy in Misplaced Pages:Logos. The bot threatens to delete the images, and it's not clear how to make the 'bot happy, or even if that's possible. Complaints are building up on the talk page, but the bot's owner won't shut it off. This isn't the "fair use rationale" 'bot; it's something else. For an example of the bot's actions, see Image:Cafairslogo.png, the logo of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Fairs and Expositions. Suggest 'bot be disabled pending investigation. --John Nagle 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing its job correctly. The example image you listed has no source and no rationale. Videmus Omnia 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And the source you just added is totally inadequate; you actually have to tell us where you got it from, not just nebulously name an organization. Is it a scan from one of their press-releases? Did you download it from their website? Did someone in organization email it to you? What's the source? --Haemo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example where the image had both a source and a fair-use rationale: Image:Canterbury tales.gif. The bot wasn't smart enough to recognize them. Bear in mind that policy doesn't require such info to be expressed in a standard format. --John Nagle 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a source for that image anywhere. --Haemo 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and delete the logos. --John Nagle 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot is far too aggressive. If a picture is missing a Fair Use Rationale, the usual is to allow 7 days before deletion, not simply 48 hours. What happens if this is done during a weekend away? There are ways to do things properly and this is not one of them. --Asterion 06:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the WP:BRFA process, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like this particular bot account is running a number of robots, and the one in question was approved for a trial of 50 edits. As of now, a quick analysis of the bot history shows that it has made some ~5,000 edits in the past 10 days or so (that's just this particular automated procedure; not including other automated procedures from the same bot account). Furthermore, the bot was approved for this function: "Find the images without source and telling the uploader". I would say that tagging thousands of images for deletion falls outside "telling the uploader." The bot is making mistakes all over the place, since it expects sources to be in a specific format which is not required by any image policy. Moreover, as User:Yandman pointed out, the interpretation of policy which the bot's work is premised on seems inconsistent with our image use policy ("Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" -- the bot ignores the former completely), and is at best contentious. I would strongly suggest that an admin hit the shutoff button until these matters are resolved. — xDanielx /_C 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed only approved for a 50 edit trial with the procedure detailed in Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/OsamaKBOT_5, and it went way, way over that. Given the feedback above, and as I don't see anything relating to it being released to do any more than that, I've blocked the bot til this is resolved. Neil ム 10:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern about potential ageism

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) removed the word "feelings" on the Child sexuality article, stating that "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I reverted it, asking how he knows this (as he is not a child himself). He then reverted me and while I don't have a problem with someone reverting an edit I made that for example violated Misplaced Pages policy, I don't think it is right when he says "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept" . The word "feelings" does not need a reference, and I said so, and to say that children cannot feel sexual feelings is ageistic. I don't want to add my own POV to this, but I should say that as a person, I know this, because it has not even been so much as three years since I have been legally a child. I don't want to pit my POV against his; all I want is a solution that makes as many people happy as possible. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a content issue that can be addressed in the ordinary editing process. Detail your views and concerns on the talkpage and look for input from other editors to achieve consensus on agreeable NPOV language. I don't see anything requiring admin action at this time (although you've certainly drawn attention to the issue), and I don't think a question of ageism really is involved. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the talk page sounds good enough, except that he used it in the only way I don't like to see it used, that is, as a substitute for talking to me on my page. Also, I would agree with you about ageism being or not being involved, but it seems that by persisting SqueakBox has come across as that way. I'm not saying he is, but he has seemed to be. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The tips in WP:DR might be helpful as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you'd like an admin to do, specifically? El_C 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that SqueakBox can be a difficult editor to work with. He is convinced that he is fighting the good fight on Misplaced Pages by carefully monitoring pedophilia-related articles. Undoubtedly, that monitoring has to be done and it certainly isn't an easy task. SB is very passionate about it. That being said, he frequently fails to assume good faith, escalates conflict into edit wars, routinely reverts with unnecessary "rv trolling" edit summaries, is prone, as in the present case, to impose his point of view on an article. More troubling, he's very quick to label people disagreeing with him as supporters of pro-pedophile activists (see or User_talk:SqueakBox/history for an extensive list of examples). He has been warned (and blocked) repeatedly for personal attacks and revert warring without much change in his behavior. Of course, he's been here for a while and has done a lot of good work but there's an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed and probably would have been addressed a long time ago were admins less wary of getting the "oh so you are against protecting the wiki from pedophiles?". Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually to claim children are capable of sexual maturity is simply (a) not true and (b) has nothing to do with ageism, not quite sure what Pascal's outbusrt is about but there si nothing wrong with this eduit summary whereas it was Springer's insistence on re-adding unosurced material that was the problem here, and anyway alleged ageism isnt like rascism etc esp with young people as they just have to be patient. And assuming good faith in articles plagued by months of proven sock-pupopetry actually is not required by our policies ansd perhaps admins would do better to attend to that rathert han the god faith activities of myself. What needs addressing is a pro-pedophile clique,. not my behaviour in battling them though that has nothing to do with this case either. I gave a reasonable edit summary, Sproiinger didnt like being told he had to source so came here and Pascal, for reasons that are baffling, decided to attack me here. Nothing for admins to see here, SqueakBox 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in fact demonstrating what I'm concerned about. First of all, you should stay cool and assume good faith even when dealing with articles that are plagued by problems. Yes, there are many socks on these articles but Springeragh is not one of them as far as I know and he deserves respect. Secondly, your edit summary was "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings" which, ironically, indicates classical POV editing. Clearly, child sexuality as a scholarly subject tries to understand sexuality in children in the widest possible sense and the study of sexual feelings in children is part of that subject though I am sure there's debate as to what should be considered sexual feeling in children. But here you are saying: "children are capable of sexual maturity is simply not true". This is a) your point of view and b) has nothing to do whatsoever with the inclusion of the word "feelings". You are once again rewriting the article so that it fits your views on child sexuality and, in the face of criticism, deflecting the discussion to a purported pro-pedophile clique. Your fight against that clique does not give you special rights here. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Squeakbox overreacted but this is a simple editing dispute. WilyD 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When I made the comment Springer wasnt involved and what I did was to remove unsourced material which is clearly allowed by policy and then expressed my opinion as to why, which is exactly what I should have done. Springer then created a spurious ageism complaint. I never made any statements about Springer being a sock nor implied them. You may disagree with me, Pascal, but do not criticise me for removing disputed, unsourced material, your implication that that is wrong shows a poor understanding of policy and policy implementation for an admin, SqueakBox 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Pascal.Tesson, I appreciate it. SqueakBox—I know that you never said I was a sock; why do you bring that up? Also it is not exactly, um, good faith (sorry) to say that Pascal.Tesson has or shows a poor understanding of policy. It could border on a personal attack depending on who reads it although I do not consider it one myself. J.smith, I'm sorry I worded it so as to sound like a request for dispute resolution; I did not intend for it to not fit here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt me who brought up the sock issue. I wasnt commenting on Pascal but on his comments re our policies and his apparent thinking you cant remove unsourced material (a belief of his I have come up against before when he opposed my removal of unourced living people from the now deleted rape category). We are duty bounmd to remove unsourced material wherever we find it in the main psace and policy backs that so its odd to see an admin here saying exactly the opposite. If there is dispute resolution needed I would guess it would be between Pascal and I, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do you even believe what you're writing? You know full well what I told you about that category and it has nothing to do with the removal of unsourced material. Stop dragging me through the mud and maybe just maybe consider that you may be wrong to claim that the lead sentence of the article Child sexuality which was "Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children" has to be sourced. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage deletion

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

Can some uninvolved admin please look at User:TMLutas/WMC and take the appropriate steps? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this page as meeting the WP:CSD#G10 criterion. Any admin is welcome to undelete if I have applied this criterion too liberally in this case. Regards, Navou 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea about the issues with this dispute, but I've seen many user subpages like this one; in my opinion, just ends up escalating a conflict as opposed to improving the situation. Good deletion call -- Samir 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good call. It seems to have effectively constituted an attack page. El_C 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to frustrate the collection of evidence against a rouge Admin will not work. We keep backups off the system. Nice try, but no cigar. --Britcom 06:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to keep anything you want on your own hard drive. But as to what may be kept here, there are some rules to that, including that pages may not be intended as an attack on a specific person. If you have a dispute with someone and can't talk it out with them, we have dispute resolution for exactly that reason. (And if not obvious, I entirely endorse Navou's action.) Seraphimblade 06:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Seraph, the above are attempting to interfere with evidence gathering and compilation that will be used to lodge a complaint against an Admin who has a wide pattern of abuse of his authority. This Admin has a posse of devotees (mainly his own students) who will run interference for him and often try to gang up on anyone who won't tolerate his bad behaviour and abuse of Admin tools. So lets not pretend its about something else. --Britcom 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One would think that for as long as people have been attempting to gather "evidence" against WMC, something would have stuck by now, but it hasn't. . . despite the so-called "wide pattern" of abuse. BTW, how long do we let the personal attacks continue?

Signed,

not now or ever a student of WMC,

also not a "devotee",

just an average editor who thinks this was a good delete,

R. Baley 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfft! We all know WC has been sanctioned for misconduct before and it will happen again because he doesn't seem to be able control his temper and foolishly leaves behind a permanent record of his abuse on the server. It's highly entertaining reading, it is so entertaining in fact that I am considering writing a book about this guy. I haven't chosen a title yet but someone suggested that I pattern it after the "Idiot's Guide" series. In fact this latest thread will probably end up somewhere in chapter 3. --Britcom 15:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfft! We all know that you talk piffle. Just for laughs, can you point out a single one of William's students editing here? --Stephan Schulz 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(psst... it's a trick question...) Raymond Arritt 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you are commenting on Britcom's commentary and ignoring the guy who got his subpage deleted without notice? I'm trying to be civil, constructive and follow the rules. I'm looking for a way to go forward with what I feel are legitimate issues but if raising issues within the guidelines proves impossible, I might as well salvage what I've got and go elsewhere. So what's it to be? TMLutas 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Several uninvolved admins have endorsed the deletion. (I haven't commented on the deletion as I'm indirectly involved.) It may not be the answer you like, but you can't say the matter has been ignored. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast your eyes to my edit stamped 13:17, 17 September 2007 and you'll see that I'm asking what the proper alternative should have been and it's the lack of answer to that which has prompted me to make these last comments. I'm not particularly married to the sub-page. I'm mostly going for an undelete so I don't have to go through WMC's talk page history to find the diff where he deleted the britcom stuff. In a classy move, WMC has offered to email me the page. What I'm asking for is some sort of guidance to clarify the WP:User exception to the "attack pages" rule (though "attack page" is something of a misnomer in this case, "minor personal negative commentary with lots of quotes" is more accurate). Is this exception a dead letter or is there some sort of formula that would keep a page designed to use the exception from getting deleted? I think it would be a lot of waste of time to dig mediate and mediate again.

Take it out of the context of WMC. The behavior pattern I assert does exist at the very least *could* exist and it would be a significant negative influence on Misplaced Pages and thus should be sanctioned where it does exist. So how would somebody go about proving the existence of the pattern without getting speedy deleted? It is quite likely that a lot of people would have tried to go head on for sanctions based on individual incidents and failed prior to the pattern being detected which might lead to admins being desensitized to the possibility that something legitimately wrong is going on (nth repetition section headings are a clue but not the only clue possible). TMLutas 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, is there any instance where WMC was "sanctioned for misconduct" aside from the revert parole that the ArbCom later withdrew as unnecessary? Aside from that (rather old) business, I don't see anything, and it seems like Britcom is just blowing smoke here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like it would be difficult to maintain a list of such sanctions. You might find your page speedy deleted without notice. Britcom seems to be a favorite bone of yours to chew on. That's fine (everybody needs a hobby) but when you don't address substantive issues that I raised prior to your response and *only* Britcom's emotional (and frankly easily slapped down) posts, I do wonder what you're doing. Is what is going on now a problem of rules violations or a tribal thing? Britcom looks tribal to me. I'm not. I'd like a distinction between us kept and not one that he gets responded to while I get ignored. TMLutas 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um...may I suggest a piece of paper, a pen, and a proper encoding system, e.g. English written in the Latin alphabet? While that indeed was a major acomplishment in human development, by now it's fairly standard in most parts of the world. As the section heading suggests, this is not the first such case, and they have all come to the same conclusion. If you have a problem, either discuss it with the user in question, or go to WP:DR. --Stephan Schulz 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... so why is there an exception to the no attack pages rule in WP:USER? I don't mind a consensus ruling that this should be kept off wikipedia with a change in WP:USER to keep things consistent but I do mind it if the guideline says I can do it but any attempts to actually follow guidelines lead to speedy deletes. Guidelines should not be dead letters or contain dead letter sections. Surely at least a clarification of the rule is in order if you seriously mean what you said. TMLutas 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is that comment directed at me? You don't need to maintain a list of "sanctions"; they should show up on things like block logs, arbitration pages, ANI threads, etc. WMC gets brought up on ANI (and COIN, AN3, and other noticeboards) on a regular basis, and in every instance I'm aware of it turns out that the complaint is frivolous. So it's deceptive to imply that he's been sanctioned on many occasions, as Britcom did.

  As for your subpage, I concur with the deletion. Your note just below indicates that you were using the page as a prod to encourage WMC to "amend his behavior", i.e. you were using the page as a threat of mediation/arbitration. Not cool. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a pattern of conduct charge (and I've resigned myself to taking a different tack with WMC long ago so this is a policy discussion for me at this point) is that the evidence for it is scattered all across wikipedia in archives, logs, etc. To make a charge like that stick, you have to gather it all up in one place so that the pattern is clear. There's a guideline in WP:User that lets you do that. Based on some commentary above, it's not exactly clear whether that's a real guideline or a dead letter section that should be pruned. So which is it in your opinion? TMLutas 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're allowed to have a page that collects evidence for an imminent mediation, request for arbitration, or other dispute resolution process. Your now-deleted subpage, however, was going to "eventually" lead to a mediation, and you encouraged other editors to contribute. This suggests that you intended the page as an open-ended forum for complaints about WMC, rather than a rough draft for a dispute resolution process that was to begin within a short timeframe. You even called it an "anti-fan page". This is not what WP:USER allows. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had pages put up for speedy deletion before but I've never had them insta-deleted without a chance to challenge ahead of deletion time. The justification for the page is in WP:User, specifically "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." I was engaged in a reasonably civil discussion with the offending admin (if you have access to the history, you can see where WMC tried to add to the page), there were notices all over the thing that this is a prelude to formal mediation/arbitration and that I hoped that the page would cause him to amend his behavior so that he limited his opposition to my edits in ways that conform to policy and guidelines. That's all I want, not to strip him of his adminship. You all have now added to my list of wants.

I want to know what alternative I have to individually bringing up all the pissant issues until the actual underlying problem is sufficiently exposed, that WMC seems to have a pattern of pushing things beyond the limits of what an admin should do. He's too often living in the grey area where he's getting the "benefit of the doubt" that a well known expert in his field and an admin will naturally get. So he wins on the individual cases (and no doubt deserves to win some of them) but connecting the dots to expose a pattern of behavior isn't allowed because quoting and commenting for the purpose of bringing up a pattern of behavior isn't acceptable to some admins and just gets a G10 speedy delete without adequate notice. So the issue of WMC making up his own private standards on reliable sources needs to go to mediation right away, his pissy comment to me on britcom's scribble on my user page needs to go to mediation, etc., etc. Is this what you're really recommending? TMLutas 13:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This page is to gather up all the "annoying, probably violates the rules, but not worth fighting over" incidents involving William M. Connolley. Per ArbCom ruling, user space may not be used for laundry lists of grudges. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• For transparency, there is a deletion review here so we are not decentralizing discussion. Navou 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Need intervention for User:Skatewalk's disruption of RFCU

I need administrative intervention again with User:Skatewalk. He just came back from a block and started disrupting a CheckUser report I filed. In this link , he is deleting critical information which shows that he is very likely the same person as User:Serenesoulnyc. Please keep en eye on the page. — Zerida 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock, blocked. Neil ム 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it was obvious enough with or without an RFCU. Now let's see how long it takes before he creates his next sock. — Zerida 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

I'm having a little difficulty in getting this user to abide by the fair use policy, concerning image resizing. After I resized Image:LTGC Vol.4.jpg (which is now deleted) from a 1030x1365 pixel image to 220×289 pixel image, the user confronted me with . He also appealed to Jimbo for my desysopping, and called me an "asshole" for following the "stupid little rule". He then re-uploaded many of the previously deleted images in high resolution.. Could someone have a talk with him, as any further interactions I have with him will likely end in a bloodbath. --D_arkF_alls 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked. This seems harsh. I've reduced it to a week and given him a final warning. Neil ム 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass edit warring by User:Digby Tantrum‎

User:Digby Tantrum‎ is engaging in a mass edit war to revert the edits I have made to several images. I have nominated the images for WP:IFD and listed them. However the user is persistent to revert my edits and remove the template repeatedly. I put a warning on his talk page to stop removing the templates however he is repeatedly removing that too. 217.43.58.131 10:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Resolved. This frivolous complaint comes from the permanently-banned troll/vandal Learntruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sam Blacketer 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Salpetersyra

The account User:Salpetersyra has been used exclusively for frivolous page moves to North Korea and United Kingdom. No discussion, no other edits at all. It seems likely this account is a sock puppet. --Reuben 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It might help to mention any possible sockpuppets and any evidence for it. Thanks. Tbo (talk) (review) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user knows a sockpuppet - just that it might be the case, possibly because those are the first edits of the user. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I suggested it might be a sock puppet account for three very general reasons: first, a new user might not be expected to jump directly into page moves while avoiding discussion or other edits; second, a new account can't do page moves, so the user presumably knew the rules well enough to know what the requirement is; and third, these are pages that have had substantial dispute over titles in the past, with some users arguing for full formal country names as titles. I can't suggest any particular other users that might be involved, but someone editing United Kingdom might have a better idea. There don't seem to have been arguments over the title of North Korea recently. --Reuben 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, hello, people? This guy is obviously a vandal. Northern Iceland, indeed...that part of the world is not controlled by the UK! "per new Misplaced Pages policy"...come off it. Blocked indef. Moreschi 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the user isn't a vandal. Its just that the reporting user mentioned sockpuppets. :) Tbo (talk) (review) 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Reuben 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mithraist

Would someone please take a look at the edits of Mithraist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Purportedly new user, no article edits, just trolling.

Is he WP:GAMEing and/or attempting to foment discord?

Thanks for the assistance. -- Fullstop 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... although it is too early to make that assessment. If you have doubts, you can ask him directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out his user page. :) -- Fullstop 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather clear that this user is (1) not new, and (2) has only signed on to try reviving a minor conflict between Fullstop and Warlordjohncarter that occurred months ago.

I suspect that this is a reincarnation of User:ParthianShot, who not only had many conflicts with Fullstop but even once created an "investigative" account such as Mithraist to act against Fullstop. The account I refer to is MedianLady (talk · contribs). Both Mithraist and MedianLady seem alike in this devotion to investigative trolling over non-issues to harass Fullstop. ParthianShot was also known to use a now-blacklisted website to launder copyvios onto Misplaced Pages and to source fringe claims that often exaggerated the supposed role of Mithra in Zoroastrianism. All this is probably not coincidental.

While we could file a checkuser (but the available data may be too old), it shouldn't be necessary anyway since this Mithraist account merits a block for behavior reasons alone. Can an admin help us out with this? Thanks, The Behnam 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is Ashkani (talk · contribs), who is probably Artaxiad (talk · contribs). Ashkani advocated for ParthianShot/MedianLady in that dispute awhile back.

Despite these possibilities, it is quite clearly someone who dug up one of Fullstop's past disputes to harass him about it. Troll SPAs should be blocked, no doubt about that. The Behnam 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 is exhibiting troll like behaviour

user:Hoponpop69 has vandalized the glam punk page claiming that it doesn't have correct citations. Meaning that because he thinks that the citations are not right that the article should be deleted. He has deleted the majority of the article several times without any discussion on the glam punk talk page.

Also, user:Hoponpop69 has put over SIXTY citation notices in the deathrock page, claiming that he can delete the article if he wants if people don't cite everything he wants cited. This has also been done without discussion on his part in the talk section of that page. If he had discussed why he put the citation notices on the page then I wouldn't have a problem, however he has not. He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited. I edited the citations because he put the requests up to SIX times in one sentence, which was over-kill to say the least. Now he tells me that if I don't like the way that he has done things that I should report him, which is why I am posting all of this here.

He has been suspended several times in the past for the same behaviour, and he should not be allowed to behave in such a manner. I thought that Wiki was all about discussing changes in articles, not about wholesale deletion of them.Crescentia 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, he's not an admin so has no power to delete articles altogether — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• "He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited."

I never said I could delete articles that don't conform to what I think. I said that I can delete content that is unsourced. Which I have the right to do per . Hoponpop69 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You said QUOTE:'I could just remove all this content if I wanted to, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and giving a chance for people to find sources.' . You are basically stating that you could remove the entire article if you wish, which you do not have the right to do.Crescentia 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, but he actually can delete any unsourced information per WP:CS, as mentioned above. All users have the right to remove unsourced comment and nominate poorly-sourced articles for deletion. There's no violation here on that part. Now, looking at the page, it is apparent that he was excessive. Hoponpop69, just because you have the right to doesn't mean that you should agonize everyone about it. True, the article needs sourcing, but putting a citation needed message after every other phrase is disruptive at the very least. Are you perhaps trying to make a point about something? You Can't Review Me!!! 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any point, I'm doing this because a.) I don't want false information or original research on wikipedia, and b.) I have seen other articles get cleaned up this way. This is the post-hardcore article before I deleted what became unsourced content. Compare that to the current state of the article in which every single fact is sourced.

Hoponpop69 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That article has a factual dispute tag so that is not a very good example.Crescentia 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I still think that your citation messages were a bit excessive on Deathrock, however. They don't need to go after every word if nearby facts lacking citations are related in some way. For example:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

...can probably be simplified to:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Perhaps that amount of citation tags can be reduced further; to be honest, I've never seen more than two citation tags in a single sentence before. This becomes especially noteworthy when you come to sentences such as:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

...which can be simplified to:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

That one flag should make it obvious to editors that the entire list of things need citations and also makes it possible for an editor to cite all of them with a single reference if necessary. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant exactly what I said, that I could remove all the uncited content if I wanted to (which is backed up by a wikipolicy). You are making huge inferences by stating that I said I could delete the article. Hoponpop69 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally people discuss the removal of unsourced material. Why are you refusing to do this, and why are you being hostile towards compromising? Before you started this deathrock page 'cite' war you had even edited the article, so I don't understand why you are so wrapped up in it.Crescentia 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never seen a discusion over the removal of unsourced material, as far as I know it's fair game ot remove (again I'm basing this on wikipolicy). I'm wrapped up in this because I like articles that don't have original research or false information. Hoponpop69 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha has now made THREE of the same edits to the deathrock page in a 24 hour period. One more time and he should be suspended.Crescentia 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to convert the citation tags to the end of the sentence. Hoponpop, please feel free to list areas on the talk page you wish to have cited. 3+ citation tags for each sentence is a bit much, however I see why you felt the need to do it. I cleaned up alot of the tagging. Someone please point Hoponpop to how to use sectional requests for citations. I know there is a tempalte that requests tags for entire sections, that would prevent the over tagging.--SevenOfDiamonds 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated below, Hoponpop69 is trolling several articles in this manner; before he blanked 9/10ths of articles (including ones which 7+ sources as shown below) without instead adding citation tags, now hes overkilling citation tags for non contentious material on the deathrock article (such as putting around ten tags in each sentence) because he is bored and can't think of anything useful to contribute. He just seems to be antagonising Crescentia without any reason at all. - The Daddy 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I previously cleaned up the tagging but he reverted all of it back again. Hopefully he will listen to you.Crescentia 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crescentia refuses to follow policies, continues to delete citation requests, and restore uncited information

User:Crescentia is refusing to follow wikipedia policies. When I remove uncited information, this user just adds it back up. I point out that Misplaced Pages:Citing sources states: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." But he ignores this. When I add citation requests this user removes them. He then states an unwritten law that I can't have more than one request per sentence, but when asked to prove such a thing can not. I tell him that according to Misplaced Pages:When to cite, any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it, and he ignores this. All I have been doing is following wikipedia policies, while he is blatantly ignoring them. Hoponpop69 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also based on the section he filled out above this, you can add false accusation of vandalism to the charges.Hoponpop69 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you find yourself adding literally dozens of tags to a given section, it's time to consider a {{sources}} tag instead. --Haemo 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources tag says "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." so that would just bring it back to square one of challenging the material. Hoponpop69 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when you remove content, and, someone else puts it back, that's a STRONG hint, that you need to discuss it. WP:CS is not a license to edit war. SQL 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So he's not even getting a slap on the wrist for restoring uncited content? Give me a break. Hoponpop69 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I could complain about you not getting in trouble also, but I am more adult than that. Hopefully you have learned something after all of this.Crescentia 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 has been on a trolling spree, blanking 9/10ths of numerous articles, including parts which have sources. Look at this article for example, (he removed most of the article and 7 sources) its not the only one either. He seems to think Misplaced Pages is a toy or something. - The Daddy 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• What credence do you have? You've been blocked 26 times. I'm getting sick and tired of you calling me a troll when based on Misplaced Pages:What is a troll? that is not a case. In fact if anyone is at fault here is is you for stalking me.Hoponpop69 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is he stalking you? He has run into the same problem with you as I have so he feels the need to speak up about it.Crescentia 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, I'm pretty angry about you taking edits out of content to make it look like I am a vandal. If you look at the glam punk articles history page, you can see in my edit summaries that any sources that are removed are because they did not relate to what was in the article. Hoponpop69 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed sections that had citations, and you didn't explain on the talk page why you did so. That is vandalism. If you would actually take the time to talk to people on talk pages then most of the problems that you are having at the moment wouldn't be occuring.Crescentia 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I just said, I explained the edit in the edit summary, you can find the reasoning there. In the future I will use both the talk page and edit summary since it seems most people just read one or the other. Hoponpop69 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll man up and apologize for the give me a break comment. Hoponpop69 02:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some words of wisdom:

"In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Misplaced Pages. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone."
        -- Jimmy Wales

Or just source it. Seems like trivial info which can be easily sourced.

-- Cat 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Saoirsegodeohf

Hy, I hereby wish to report again (see above) Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) for POVPUSHING, 3RR and disruptive editing and pushing against consensus (?). Basically this User sees himself as a champion/avenger of the Irish and objects to the use of British Isles in several articles. A compromise offered by a neutral party was simply ignored by Saoirsegodeohf. Genuine edits by this user are non-existing. This user is a repeat offender who has been has been blocked yesterday, and was recently warned of the consequences of his behavior. I also want to add that he changed this very same page into implying that I have Anti-Irish feelings; a notion that is beyond my ability to understand and completely false. I think that this case is crystal-clear as one only needs to look at his edits Thanks Flamarande 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR in the last 24 hours on Western Europe, in addition to being patently incivil. As he's clearly aware of how things work on Misplaced Pages and has already been blocked, I'm going to give him a 48-hour block. Walton 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of incivility: "yes you are a ballbag". Walton 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact that diff is the one that got Saoirsegodeohf blocked yesterday. I've advised Flamarande to RFC the dispute to establish consensus. Saoirsegodeohf hasn't actually pushed against consensus yet. I'm now going to recommend that Flamarande follow the next step in dispute resolution - disengage for a while - give it a day or two (in this case maybe a week since Saoirsegodeohf is 48 hour blocked) and look at the situation afresh. If the problem continues follow WP:DR--Cailil 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IP-user 168.103.242.198 blanking that IP's talkpage, etc.

The anonymous-IP user of 168.103.242.198 has been causing trouble, and has been warned about this many times at User talk:168.103.242.198. The user of that IP has now begun blanking said talkpage, eliminating the warnings from its face, and has even given a "vandalism" warning" to one user who has restored the page.
It seems to me that IP pages must be "public", not "private" space in WP, so that there is no right to delete warnings and other material from IP-user pages, as there ordinarily is for registered users within their own user-space. It would follow that the talkpage blankings are vandalism.
In any case, the edit-history of this IP shows that it has generally been a source of no more than silly vandalism. Perhaps this report belongs on the vandal-reports page, then, but I am not sure whether the talkpage blankings, which are the foremost concern at present, exactly qualify as vandalism, so I'm putting the here.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped yesterday. I'll keep an eye on it, but, once an IP has stopped, there's not usually very much that can be done. SQL 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors can blank their own user talk space. This also indicates that the warnings have been seen. Durova 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have always interpreted WP:USER, IP talk pages are different because there is no automatic acknowledgment of the message upon removal, as the IP can be used by many, many editors. -- Avi 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a common area of misunderstanding, and I think some clarification is in order. The question is, though, where and how can it be done? Many editors don't know where to look for guidelines and information on this sort of thing, which implies that somewhere on the Edit page might be best. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Borderline BLP question at Talk:Mousepad

• 68.164.150.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.234.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.237.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.3.133.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a long-running dispute on who invented the Mousepad. An IP editor (who may be Fernandez) claims credit for it, citing a document dated years after the fact. He accuses the currently-credited inventor Kelley (three sources, not very reliable) of plagiarising his invention, and provides no sources to back that claim.

The article itself is semi-protected after a recent ANI incident (edit-warring over this same issue) so the only problem is what's on the Talk page.

I don't know if this is strong enough to be a BLP issue but having raised the issue I thought it was better to play it safe and remove the material. With this revert, the anon editor restores multiple accusations of plagiarism. I have reverted once, but don't want to edit war. Admin advice or assistance would be appreciated.

Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a borderline WP:BLP violation, it is a definate WP:BLP violation. The anonymous 'contributor' was given more than enough time and chances to come up with reliable sources for the accusations in question, and the only results amounted to abuse and further (or rehashed) unfounded accusations. I closed the RFC as soon as I had full confirmation that the editor wasn't attempting to address the issue - either he had trouble understanding what was asked or he was trolling, and the unacceptable material doesn't belong in either case. --Sigma 7 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not trolling; but he really does believe that the proof he has provided (the link to the Xerox Disclosure Journal) is all the proof that we could possibly need to know that he invented the mousepad (and yes, that is Armando 'Manny' Fernandez; he has said as much in the last year of IP edits, has had a username with Manny in it, and almost any place on the web that states Kelley invented it soon gets a visit from someone with the username Manny telling them they are incorrect). I've been watching the page for 6 months now - I found it on RC patrol, and Dicklyon, who has been watching it for a year at this point, was getting so visibly burnt out that I stayed. From time to time editors pop up on the page and think this is a temporary issue, or just an IP problem, but this is an ongoing problem with a tireless and obsessed editor on a ADSL line with an IP that changes daily. I'm not even going to address the ongoing personal attacks; the ones against me, at least, don't bother me much, because anyone who sees the context will realize that in fact, I'm doing a good job.

I have said it repeatedly; the only way this perisistent issue will be ended is with a long-term semi-protect on that page. 3 to 6 months would not be out of line when you consider this IP editor has spent over a year trying to push his POV into this article, more than daily, with almost no other IP edits happening (some, I know, but very, very few. I won't argue that this is the ideal solution; the ideal solution would be the IP editor in question getting a clue or a cite). --Thespian 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the suggestion to report him to his ISP, here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Mousepad_vandalism. I don't know how to go about that. GDallimore (Talk) 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages

Can someone look into this? User:Gnanapiti is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX

here and here in Sethusamudram page and

here and here in M. Karunanidhi page

here and here and here in Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham page Anwar 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, everything I have seen looks legit. This is clearly a removal of POV. This definitely looks like removal of soapboxing/POV. I did not further investigate the allegations of "fake references" mentioned in some edit summaries, but nothing I have seen would make me assume they are anything but good faith constructive editing. Sometimes the best and fastest way to fix an article is just wholesale removal of policy violating content. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Z-man. This appears to be a case of a user stringently following/enforcing the rules. I really don't see a problem with that. If proper sources can be found for some of the claims, the removed material is easily found in the edit history of the page for reference. Vassyana 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first appears to be fairly legit; putting in a giant disclaimer that says "your religion is wrong" seems a bit wrongheaded. The second, I'm not so sure - unless it really was a faux reference. The third is too long for me to care about - that's your issue. I would say this is no more than an edit war, though, at the moment. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also Anwar saadat/TMMK section on this page. — Athaenara ✉ 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hack job?

WikiSpaceboy was recently idnef. blocked for page move vandalism. However, looking back into his contribs, he made good edits before today. He was apparently inactive for quite a bit. I suspect a hacker in the works. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could contact them at this Eragon wiki? Appears to be the same user, check the history of User:WikiSpaceboy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, this could be a wiki-suicide. Not terribly uncommon, these days, I am afraid.... -- Anonymous Dissident 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Something odd"

A couple of days ago, I was contacted by Acalamari regarding some questionable edits by AntiFairyBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), starting with the likely username violation and ending with the creation of a vandalism-only account, The Disco Times (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this charming note. Both were quickly indefblocked, but Acalamari called my attention to some peculiar behavior from Squilliam Fancyson (talk · contribs), the creator of AntiFairyBot. Shortly before creating the account, Squilliam added an empty self-nom to WP:RFA, which was followed by a malformed flag request. AntiFairyBot then created and RfA for itself, which was subsequently deleted by Acalamari. Squilliam then made some seemingly normal edits (although bordering 3RR) and hasn't been active since.

If anyone's still following me, my gut says Squilliam Fancyson's account has been compromised or, worse, is simply being used for vandalism; I cannot but find this an odd first edit. Anyway, I've left them a note and have foregone a block at the moment. I'd appreciate further opinions, or a firm readjustment if necessary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone start handing out blocks...

The edit warring is starting to get to me: within about 2 minutes after The eXile was unprotected, these two started right back up. To be honest, the IP's claim that there is a BLP violation is pretty flimsy IMHO (it is well sourced), but I'm not going to get in the muck with these guys anymore, at least at this level. This has been going on for almost a month. The Evil Spartan 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the issue but at least for now I've protected the article for another 48 hours. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and warned the other editor. Marking the thread as resolved though I fear the issue will come up again... Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole

Under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker User: Daddy Kindsoul was limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. In the past week (September 10-17) he has reverted the NOFX page three times. Hoponpop69 02:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The three reverts above are just over one week. However, it appears that if you look at the 8th to the 11th, there's three clear reverts. That he is still reverting on the 17th shows that this is an ongoing problem. He's well past his fifth block so I am blocking for one year. --Yamla 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not 100% sure about this. The user certainly has a very troubling record, but some of these reverts seem to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced information, so I can understand why the user might have thought they were acceptable (see also the discussion of Hoponpop's editing higher on this page). I'd also be interested in whether this user's edits in areas other than rock music have been problematic; if not, a topic ban might be better for the encyclopedia than a full-fledged one-year block (although I recognize the arbitration enforcement provision is not formulated that way). Newyorkbrad 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The reverts that appear to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced content, was either reverts to what had already been sourced, or were sources that had nothing to do with what they were supposed to compliment. Here's an example:

The band is known as one of the most popular in the skate punk genre and has influenced much of the Warped Tour Californian pop punk scene of the 1990s and early 2000s.

If you follow that source it links to a page which makes no mention of the Warped Tour or the Californian pop punk scene. Hoponpop69 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) claims that his revert patrol was for one year only. I can find no reference to any such limit and he has previously been informed of that. He also repeatedly violated his restrictions during the year and has received numerous prior blocks under his earlier account name. However, if ARBCOM did intend for this to be one year and if that has now expired, my one year block would clearly be excessive and should be lifted. I can find no evidence that this is true. Apart from that, I have nothing really to add to what Hoponpop69 wrote above. --Yamla 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker has previously used the "it was only for one year" argument, which is without foundation. He gets into these disputes over subjective characterization of bands; is one band "mallcore" or "heavy metal", is another band "punk" or "skate punk." He seems incapable of using even rudimentary forms of content dispute resolution such as RFC or third opinion, and reverts to his own opinion of the band's subgenre, sometimes replacing someone else's sources with his own, sometimes replacing sources with assertions. There are additional reports about him in the archives of WP:AE. He can sometimes go for a long time without breaking parole and he does not seem to be rude or uncivil about it, so I'm not sure he should be driven off entirely. Thatcher131 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a persistent habit of calling content disputes "vandalism." Thatcher131 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

user:ElinorD reverting on SlimVirgin's talk page

I'm done with this before I get into trouble. Can someone take a look at this? user:ElinorD reverted, I restored, three times each, with not the nicest edit summaries. Seem's to me user:ElinorD is out of bounds, but I'll leave it to you. Jd2718 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ElinorD is removing a comment because she thinks SV would want it that way. I ask - why not just let SV do it? It doesn't appear to be blatant trolling, so maybe we should just let it be and SV can take care of it herself. The Behnam 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let it be. There's no need to keep that sort of aggressive talk page edit. It's clearly meant to be hurtful and it's not like Nathan has ever made a big secret of what he thought of SV. No good can come out of that message or revert wars about it. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be blunt, I believe you are the one out of line, in this instance. You are enabling harassment (that is, unwanted contact), in my opinion. SlimVirgin specifically and clearly indicated she did not want that user to post on her talk page. At the least, it would be simply polite to respect her wishes, and those enforcing them, in this regard. Vassyana 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deus ex machina :-) Tintin 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I personally thought your message was quite trollish given the circumstances and I think it would be best if you simply left Slim Virgin alone. Your edit warring over restoring the message only adds to the appearance of trolling. Please just leave Slim Virgin alone. I'm sure if she's interested in your (or Nathan's) opinions about her, she will contact you herself. Sarah 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, by restoring someone's message 3 times, you're effectively engaging in 3RR by proxy. Slim Virgin has made is clear that she doesn't want that person posting on her talk page, please accept that. Your edit warring is really inappropriate behaviour and unnecessary disruption. Sarah 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she removed it herself, but for more general trends, should it be possible to 'ban' a user from a talk page like that? As talk pages are important to communication between users, and oftentimes communication such as concerns and constructive criticism is the most important type of communication (since it seeks to address a perceived problem), I don't think that there should be any semi-formal 'ban' such as the type ElinorD was acting upon. Sure, SV can plug her ears and scream so as to not hear criticism, but let's not make talk page censorship a legitimate and justified duty of other editors. The Behnam 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD is not out of bounds. Sometimes people need to separate their Misplaced Pages lives from their real ones--SV is not a currently active editor, provoking her to force her to have to edit unappreciated trolls on her talk page is not necessary. If ElinorD thinks she is being forced to do this out of duty, I'm sure she can complain for herself. In fact, I know she can. KP Botany 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If a person is posting trollish, taunting and unnecessary messages, I have no problems with an editor asking that person not to post on their talk page unless it is relating to article content. I myself have asked an editor not to post on my talk page under similar circumstances and I know of someone else who has as well. I have no problems whatsoever with what Elinor has been doing given the circumstances. Further, I know Elinor very well and I am certain she would not be doing that if she were not certain that she was abiding by Slim's wishes. Sarah 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about this 'banning' becoming a legitimate practice. I know that recently I was attempting to contact an editor constructively about problems I was seeing with his conduct, and every message (all different ones, mind you) were removed. Of course, he is free to do that, but he had also declared that I 'no longer contact him', but I could see no other way of attempting to address the issues without attempting to discuss with him. There are higher DR processes, but they aren't designed to be the 'next step up' when a user just doesn't want to address his misconduct. Yet, if I am not 'allowed' to contact at the talk page (meaning that I am treated like a wrong-doer for trying after he declares a 'ban'), it becomes impossible for me to address the misconduct further, effectively killing any path of action that would resolve the conduct issues (as I don't consider ignoring the problem to be a solution when it comes to misconduct). The Behnam 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We cannot "force" users to listen to you. If they're intent on removing talk page messages, as is their due, without any response and tell you to desist, then you should respect their wishes. Edit warring over someone's talk page is pointless, especially since they've made it clear they don't want your comments, and will remove them when they see it. Continuing to edit pages under such circumstances accomplishes nothing, and it simply provocative. --Haemo 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'edit warring', as in restoring the same message or warning over again. Rather, different messages. The other guy should be free to remove whatever, but the declaration of a 'ban' should not be made to affect the poster. The Behnam 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user reacts badly to you and you see genuine problems with their behaviour, perhaps you should ask someone else to intervene? Perhaps an admin? Sometimes people just react badly to someone for no obviously apparent reason and it is more constructive to leave the intervention to someone otherwise uninvolved. Sarah 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but what I am trying to address is whether declared user page 'bans' can be treated as legitimate (as in 'actionable') such that any further attempt to communicate is actually seen as misconduct on the poster's part. Note that I don't refer to edit warring the same message - that's well-established obnoxiousness. What I don't see is why an editor should be made immune from communication because he doesn't like it, so he declares a 'ban' and whines if the other user doesn't consider the 'ban' legitimate or reasonable at all. Should it be required that such a 'ban' be respected? If so, then there should be a more accessible DR process to move to if the problem is indeed legitimate, so as to prevent such a 'ban' from effectively silencing any attempt to address the misconduct. The Behnam 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would generally say use some sense and address it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's a controversial notion that if someone asks you to leave them alone, you should. What good is going to be achieved by continuing to post to a user who has expressed the desire to be left alone by you? Regardless of whether your posts on their talk page have merit or not, continuing to post will only serve to rile them up and inflame the situation. If a user is behaving in a problematic fashion, it's not very difficult to ask another editor or a sysop to have a word with them. I think you're blowing the possibilities way out of proportion here. Vassyana 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Benham, I don't think the self-declared "bans" are legitimate in terms of policy, I just think that if a person gets upset and asks a specific editor to stop posting on their talk page, we should simply be nice people and respect that. I cannot think of any circumstances where one particular editor is the only editor on this project who can address an issue with an editor and surely if the editor reacts unfavorably to someone they've had bad interaction with, someone else, possibly an administrator, should be asked to take over. I don't think this should be a big deal. Obviously, if the person begins declaring every person who posts on their talk page is unwelcome, we shouldn't have to abide by it but that's where common sense comes in. In terms of the original message, Slim has asked that person not to comment on her talk page, he ignores this and continues, his messages are repeatedly restored while Slim is busy off-project and ElinorD, who is in regular contact with Slim and fully aware of her wishes, steps in and removes them. I don't a see a problem with this. The OP refused to accept this and revert warred to the point of 3RR, forcing Slim to return to remove the messages herself. This I see a problem with. There's nothing wrong with being nice to each other and showing some basic respect for people's wishes. Sarah 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...sure would be nice if people who have a beef with someone wouldn't post snide commentary on talkpages, especially after they have been asked to not do so.--MONGO 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I often throw temper tantrums and request users to stay the fuck away from my talk page. It's the one thing no administrator has yet had a beef with me about. SlimVirgin should be accorded at least the same courtesy as I have been accorded. KP Botany 05:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Elinor's reverts of the provocative and taunting comments. It is deplorable that my good-natured edit on Slim's talk page precipitated the crapfest. If I had been able to foresee these developments, I would have probably expressed my sympathy with Slim's predicament by e-mail rather than drawing unwelcome attention to her talk page. --Ghirla 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it can be against policy, if you keep it up; if someone asks you to stop bothering them, and you continue to do so, you are harassing them - and that is against policy, as is edit warring. Find something to do besides bother SV. Category:All pages needing cleanup could probably keep you busy and get your mind off of whatever you want to pester Slim with. KillerChihuahua 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In these sorts of situations, many people repeat statement like "No one owns their talk page" or "No one has a right to prevent a certain person from commenting on their talk page". And that's true, so far as it goes -- but it's beside the point. If someone asks me not to comment on their talk page, I don't do it, simply because I don't want to violate WP:DICK. Nobody owns Slim's talk page -- not Elinor, not Jd, not Nathan, and not even Slim -- but Elinor was being kind, Nathan was being trollish, and Jd was, well, mistaken. Think: if you're going to revert someone, do you really want it to be to reinsert rudeness? Lets use our edits to make this a more friendly and welcoming place. All the best, – Quadell 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help undoing the move Niall -> This page needs to be deleted._This_page_needs_to_be_deleted.-2007-09-18T05:32:00.000Z">

A new user moved the disambig page Niall to This page needs to be deleted. and then redirected Niall somewhere else. I think the disambig page should be reinstated. This requires an Admin to look into and undo the move to preserve the edit history. Thanks, --CapitalR 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)_This_page_needs_to_be_deleted."> _This_page_needs_to_be_deleted.">

Page up for speedy. User warned. Problem fixed. M. 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I've repasted the contents of This page... onto Niall. It's effectively the same; the only difference is now the page history. You Can't Review Me!!! 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was the version of the page he wanted deleted. Someguy1221 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)_This_page_needs_to_be_deleted."> _This_page_needs_to_be_deleted.">

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the tmmk website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of tmmk ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen tmmk ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

White Cat (talk · contribs)

I appologise in advance because this is petty, but

So she's basically link her sig to the userpage, through a redirection? Weird... --D_arkF_alls 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he's doing it to be disruptive in my opinion, there's no need whatsoever to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think it's a "she" according to IRC conversation.... Well, I've asked for an explanation so there isn't much that can be done till then... --D_arkF_alls 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From your description, it seems that you are having issues with White Cat's perfectly acceptable signature. It appears that he wants Whatlinkshere's to his userpage to be sorted in a per-year fashion, a completely understandable and useful practice. There is no issue to be resolved here unless somebody starts doing something disruptive (like deleting the redirect or blocking White Cat). Kusma (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, White Cat's doing this to make a point, not so he can sort out his contributions. White Cat likes people kicking up a fuss over his signatures. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you think, you should ignore him. That he has a redirect in his signature is essentially harmless. The issue seems to be more "White Cat has a long history of being annoying", but that is a poor reason to block him over an acceptable signature. Kusma (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm afraid that WhiteCat is seeking attention (as usual). The less discussion of his harmless antics on this noticeboard, the better for him and the community in general. --Ghirla 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Regardless of whether WhiteCat is engaging in a "completely understandable and useful practice" for link sorting or hoping to see "people kicking up a fuss" over a harmless triviality... the proper response is to say, 'oh, ok... that's different' and move on. --CBD 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Cute, really cute... I have been signing with a "redirect" for months now. It didn't bother you until now, why did it start bothering you suddenly? Talk about lag...
Many other people sign in a same way, but when I do it bothers people (as I am doing it). <sarcasm>There should be no rest for me, people should always complain about the most trivial thing I do and seek all avenues just to bother me. I should not be given 10 seconds of peace and quiet because I must always be plotting something with each edit.</sarcasm>
On the contrary my dear people, I find this whole thing disruptive, unproductive, and annoying. I neither enjoy nor like attention. It is indeed a very interesting misconception that I like/enjoy/want seeking attention as I have been complaining against "special attention" from some users all along. One such user was blocked indefinitely by the community sanction board after undergoing two arbitration hearings. The amount of time this had taken (nearly 2 freaking years) was simply jawdropping. No one else was given a fraction of that courtesy on wikipedia to date. So please... At the very least get your grasp over facts a bit more carefully.
Even when I am doing nothing (aside from signing?) I am not given most basic courtesies and thats all there is to it. Please stop blaming me for things that are neither disruptive nor controversial. I am not making a point, you are. What the heck is the point I am trying to illustrate? Oh and where is the actual disruption?
...Next thing you know people would complain that I am signing with UTC time rather than local time!
-- Cat 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UTC time? You evil bastard! UTC time is also known as Zulu time. This is all some afro-centric conspiracy! Admit it! :] --CBD 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Itabise! Itabise! (only zulu word I recall meaning celebrate :P) -- Cat 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A user has every right to have any internal link in the signature. (The only obljectionable link, off the top of my head, would be a deceptive link to another user's page.) A link to own user page, even via redirect, is perfectly acceptable. Conscious 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that the signature needs to be changed, as it's throwing SineBot off, and we don't need all of White Cat's edits double-signed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would not fixing the bot be a better alternative? You can't expect people to change their behaviour just so it suits a bots code. And I want to be very careful with this statement. I like SineBot. I really do. It is doing wikipedia a great service and it's code merely needs some minor adjustments as this is a minor bug.
Seriously why is it that people do not want to give me the basic courtesy they are even willing to give bots?
-- Cat 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SineBot already has an opt-out feature that should work to prevent further confusion. White Cat, could you please follow instructions at User:SineBot#Opting_out to prevent SineBot from annoying the hell out of people whenever it double-signs your edits? Kusma (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The signature is fine. It is the bots problem if it does not know how to handle it, and DarkFalls is not truly effected by this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Revocation

Something to keep an eye on. Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. Navou 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained to Navou - I'm happy to have the article userfied if he prefers - the article is overlong, verbose, still missing various sections and diagrams, contains errors and I won't be around to maintain it for the forseable future. I don't want to revoke GFDL, but I don't want to leave it in mainspace in its current condition. --Joopercoopers 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't revoke the GFDL, by editing here, you agree that all your contributions will be released under the GFDL, so once you release something, then that is that I am affraid. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is notable, verifiable, and does not merit deletion in the CSD criteria. If you are worried about the article, remember other editors can help and no article is perfect. GFDL makes the article free to everyone. --D_arkF_alls 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Joopercoopers for a 3RR violation on the page for continuously readding the speedy tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopercoopers promised to cease revert warring and engage in productive discussion. I'm all for giving him a chance to explain his position. --Ghirla 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot revert a user and then block him for 3RR violation. Please do not use your administrative powers in a manner that drives people away from the project. From what I see on the article, Joopercoopers did a great job. Please unblock him immediately. Trying to reason with him would have been a better course of action. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted his edit that broke the 3RR!!! He was acting disruptively so I blocked, he's promised not to revert again, so I unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(editconf) Calm down. Administrators are not supposed to use admin tools while being involve in disputes. Reverting another user amounts to getting oneself "involved". Joopers seemed easy to convince, didn't he? This is exactly how new and established users get disenchanted with the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I commented above, for that I appologise. Still, the revert was based on the 3RR being broken, nothing to do with the substance of Joopers edit. As DF says below, it's all sorted now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done, so let's not fret over past actions please? --D_arkF_alls 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks Ryan, I'd lost count, hands up, no hard feelings, a warning might have been nice though I'm no troll etc. I was in the middle of trying to get an explanation here, I just wanted a few questions answering. I'm not trying to revoke GFDL or anything of the sort

1. If I can't have the page deleted because, as ryan contends, this means I'm not the sole author, why can't I move it to userspace?
2. What is the purpose of CSD7, if not to empower me to make this kind of decision?
3. I had a number of pages deleted yesterday, in userspace and also in the userspace of my legit sock mcginnly, with no problems; they were all in various states of completion, but nobody batted an eyelid - this article is admittedly a little more complete, but where's the line, is there a line, isn't GFDL applicable to articles in all states of completion and namespaces?--Joopercoopers 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Joopers appealed to me to delete the article under criterion G7, so I did. WP:SPEEDY is official policy, and I just reread it. Check. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please read the policy. G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. Nowhere does it say he has to be the "sole author" of the article. We must respect the author's wish here. I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read it again. The speedy criterion G7 does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references. Once author posts content on a page, he releases his text into GFDL, which is irrevocable. Please undo your deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's always been my impression that G7 allowed deletion on user request, not that it made it mandatory. If other editors find a page useful, it will typically be kept. Following a user's request on G7, unless in cases where a page is obvious crap anyway, is entirely a matter on courtesy. Whenever editors who wanted to leave the project have tried to get their work deleted, we've always told them they can't, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have undeleted the page. Glory to GFDL! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY and G7 says nothing about encyclopedic content or extensive references. Please quote where exactly the page says that. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck when the inaccuracies break out like a rash in the "Times of India", I was thinking about the credibility of the project. I'll leave it in admin hands for a decision. --Joopercoopers 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Retaining good editors seems to be an increasing problem. I know that Joopercoopers is annoyed with the bickering that goes on here. Sorry to say, but this incident exemplifies that. WP:COMMON should apply here and being courteous to each other. G7 is a courtesy, which we should respect. --Aude (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wheel warring me, are you, Nick? :-( Criterion G7 for speedy deletion reads in full: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." What is it you're asking me to read besides that? Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read the policy. This is not an author leaving the project in dudgeon and trying to take back his contribution. His request is in good faith because he's aware of inaccuracies and other problems in the article. Sure it looks good; but he's in a position to know it's not (or not yet). Nick, you shouldn't have done that without discussing it with me first (just how urgent was it?) in the sense of giving me a realistic chance to respond and explain before you threw an inappropriate application of GFDL in my face and ignored the speedy policy. Undo your undeletion, please. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

• Nick - please quote where exactly on WP:SPEEDY it says G7 "does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references." Bishonen is correct here. The page needs to be deleted. G7 is official policy and must be respected here. --Aude (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I believe that we have a serious precedent here, and two apparently conflicting policies. I do acknowledge that CSD G7, as stated, does give Bishonen the mandate to delete the page, but it's quite arguable whether an admin is obliged to obey G7, and further arguable that it was the intended spirit of the rule. I don't recall that we had an encyclopedic and valuable contents deleted under G7. As a compromise, can we have this discussion moved elsewhere, possibly to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review (in which case, {{drv}} can be placed on the page to preserve the underlying history, at least temporarily), and/or further to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Duja► 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And, to wikilawyer a bit, WP:CSD states that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'd certainly count good-faith concerns of Nick, Fut. Perf, Ryan and myself under "reasonable doubt". Duja► 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was out of line when I deleted the page History of Banff National Park, which I had worked on. It was a subarticle of a topic/article I was working on, had references. But, I felt it no longer fit, wouldn't take care of it, didn't want to work on it further at the time, etc. I stuck a prod tag on it, no one objected, and then it was deleted. Nonetheless, it was encyclopedic and had references. I suppose, I could have just speedied it or put a speedy tag on it. It's important to be able to delete stuff like that. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's his article, not mine. If the author is unsatisfied and wishes to later repost the article after having improved it in userspace, there is no problem with this. Joopercoopers is fine editor, and I'm a great fan of editorial discretion. Moreschi 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the issue to deletion review. Regards, Navou 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Except that he stated that he's leaving, and probably will not work on it anymore. We normaly userfy substandard articles to let them reach the the minimum, not generally good articles which have flaws. If it becomes userfied in that manner, no one will ever improve it. There is an ethical and political question indeed, but so far we did not allow anyone who left to revoke and undo his contributions; this case is different only because it conflicts with G7. Duja► 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen was following G7 to the letter. The policy does not draw a line between userspace and mainspace deletions. If people are unhappy about this, they are welcome to suggest changes to the policy, but, until there is consensus to adjust the wording, the page needs to be deleted. --Ghirla 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy may not be able to draw these lines, but folks coupled with ignore all rules can most definitely draw the line where policy fails to make the distinction. Regards, Navou 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR is there to improve the encyclopedia. Will it really harm us to have the improved version after a (hopefully brief) wait, as Joopercoopers has promised? On the contrary, I view this as a benefit. Moreschi 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR allows use to be flexible with rules, so as to be courteous to our fellow editors. In this case, WP:SPEEDY is clear, and IAR is not needed. --Aude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article under G7 when the text is good is somewhat futile, because any other person can use the same text (with attribution) to start the article again. The text is GFDL whether or not the article is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The wording of G7 used to state, "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author."

This is likely the reason for the beliefs stated by some that it was meant to apply only to things with a "single author" and only to things which were "mistakenly created". That said... way too much focus on the letter of the 'rules'. In terms of general principles it would seem courteous to accept Joopercoopers' desire that his incomplete work not be displayed... but equally it would seem that anyone who wished to continue that work should be allowed to do so. GFDL does apply... even to the deleted content. If Joopercoopers returns and wants to continue his work or if anyone else wishes to do so it should be undeleted and go on its merry way. G7 exists as an easy way of getting rid of material which no one wants to keep. If that isn't the case then undeletion and further edits are perfectly appropriate. --CBD 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Future Perfect that just because we can speedily delete a page does not mean that we should delete it. As near as I can tell, the encyclopedia has a lot worse articles than this one; while it's incomplete, it will be fixed eventually. I'd say it's a loss for wikipedia to remove it, and I'd suggest that if the article in question were taken to AFD, it would result in a strong consensus to "keep". >Radiant< 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good luck on your FAC thing at the mo Radiant, I fully endorse any attempt to improve content over 'style'. Similarly, I'd appreciate a decision in favour of 'editor' over 'content'. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day etc......--Joopercoopers 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed, valid CSD G7. ^demon 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a bad move, ^demon, because there is an ongoing discussion and it is far from clear that policy requires deletion as opposed to merely allowing it. I hope we can avoid a wheel war on this page. Sam Blacketer 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not extend wheel wars by cutting discussion short. The DRV had been started after several rounds of deletions and undeletions, and clearly was the appropriate venue for the discussion. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pitythafoo - disruptive and insulting

I am not sure if I am reporting this to the right place - please tell me if I am. A most unforunate incident has occurred between User:Pitythafoo and myself. Pity began their editing career at The Age of Reason by removing some material on Michael Moore. As I spend most of my time at this article reverting removals of this material by vandals, I assumed Pitythafoo was a vandal as well. I may have been in error. Pitythafoo kept on editing. When I realized they might not be a vandal, I left a message on their talk page, asking them to cease making substantial edits to the page so that we could agree on the changes needed. When this did not deter them and I saw some very questionable edits being made - edits that dramatically changed the meaning of sentences to their opposites and edits that would render the citations meaningless - I started posting warnings on Pitythafoo's user page. I also posted a message on the article's talk page. I also requested semi-protection for the page until the problem could be resolved (it has been granted). Pitythafoo has finally started engaging in conversation (after the final block warning was left on their talk page - it was inexplicably deleted by a later editor). However, they do not seem interested in editing the article productively and keep attacking myself (the primary editor of the article) and accusing the article of being POV. They have not provided any specifics on this front, however. Moreover, they have changed editors' comments on the talk page, even the GA review, even after being told that we don't do that at wikipedia. Please temporarily ban Pitythafoo - I think that is what is appropriate, right? (Pitythafoo also seems to have started contributing under the IP address 68.2.198.128). I am not faultless in this mess, but I do feel that Pitythafoo is not attempting to learn the ways of wikipedia or consensus-building. (I have never done anything like this before. Please inform me of any beaucratic lapses.) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's a simple content dispute. The article is protected, and conversation is ongoing on the talk page. A block now would seem punitive. --Onorem♠Dil 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no real content dispute going on. Pitythafoo is not providing any constructive criticism or examples of problems with the article. Awadewit | talk 11:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig Cheffins

Negative rumors from facebook are being repeatedly input into the Craig Cheffins article by single-purpose-editor User:Policepowers. He has been warned that he will be blocked, but has ignored those warnings to do it again. --Rob 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr Ankur Sinha

Not sure where to put this but here we go.

On New Page patrol, this one came across the wire. A quick google showed this to be a cut and paste job from . User:Dr Ankur sinha has tried to pass this off as his own. I can't even find a reference to him at all anywehre. I am pretty stunned that someone would cut and paste someone elses resume/cv and try to pass it off as their own. I am not sure if it is actionable or not but it definitely is copyvio. I guess I should not be stunned as I am seeing what people try to put on Misplaced Pages but this one moved me enough to post here. Spryde 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Rhapsody.com - Top Skate Punk Bands

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards