Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 15 March 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(restored the title of this incident, the archiving bot copied it here without the rest of the incident - slicing it in two - because Editor5435 accidentally added a section to the top, cutting the top off from the rest of the discussion. Attempting to repair manually.) - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I gave Editor5435 a 24 hour timeout, but he is right on one point: Spot (aka Scott Draves) has been editing articles on himself and his own endeavours, and many of them do not actually have external sources do demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I would like to point out another inappropriate Wiki entry that appears to be self promotion. In the Wiki article Spot there is an entry under the heading Other meanings - *Scott Draves, digital artist and VJ. Based upon the contents of the list I feel this in an inappropriate example of self promotion and should be removed.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting your comments into the top of discussions, that's not polite. I am google hit #6 for "spot" so I think it's entirely appropriate for me to be in a any list of "spots". Any errors I have made editing other pages in no way justify what you have done to the Fractal Compression page. I also invite you to reveal your true identity so we can assess your conflict of interest. Spot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again serving your own self interest by shamelessly advocating and editing articles/discussions about yourself. Its a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's COI and self promotion/vanity. As for the fractal compression page you might want to check out the discussion page, finally someone agrees with what I have been trying to say. Again, I believe it is you who have an agenda to spread misinformation about fractal compression for some unknown reason.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for bringing this to the attention of the admins, and Guy for stepping in. I don't know if I have time today to redo the article, but I'll get to it asap. Frankly I am really sick of dealing with this and if someone else who knows fractal compression would step up, that would be great. Perhaps if the text came from someone other than me, Editor5435 would be less incensed. If you don't really know about fractal compression and the history of deception surrounding it, please do not just assume the truth lies halfway between his claims and mine. Read the FAQ for starters, including the "Reader Beware" section. I think the Misplaced Pages article should have a similar warning.

As for the notability and sourcing for the articles about me and my work, this probably isn't the right place to address them in full but note that I didn't create these articles and they they have survived for a long time and been edited by a lot of people. I have made some edits to them under my own name without any deception, but I believe I am allowed to correct basic factual errors. If I have overstepped the rules then I apologize and invite an audit and the chance to provide references. Re notability, have been covered in Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. See my bio. Spot (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused by Ronz of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. This was not an act of vandalism, my intention was to end this ridiculous controversy. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The below brought here from Ronz's page who asked us to continue the discussion elsewhere and suggested here. Spot (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Misplaced Pages's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Misplaced Pages administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that my statement "TMMI has a history of fraud" (iirc) has been confirmed by Editor5435 saying: "Fraud was committed against the company and its shareholders by a scam artist." on his talk page. Rather than respond there I will try to bring the conversation here since he objects when I respond on his talk page, calling it harassment. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot, you were insinuating that the company was committing fraud, quite a different thing than being a victim of fraud. Also you said "pump and dump fraud" which is libelous, Misplaced Pages could be sued that have such things displayed on its website. You should be more careful about the accusations you make--Editor5435 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release says that the perpetrator was a Director of the company at the time. Regardless of who the victim was, illegal shares were apparently issued and entered the market. As for your accusation of libel, iirc I only said the possibility or appearance of a pump and dump (please point me at the exact quote, you seem to have deleted it). Merely stating my opinion is not libel, and neither is a statement in good faith. There are various people on the stock discussion boards saying the same thing, and in stronger language. Your threats will not intimidate me. Spot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing OFF TOPIC irrelevant discussion to fractal compression, none of the above has anything to do with the subject of fractal compression technology. Your obvious attempts to discredit this technology have failed.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You introduced the topic of libel. If you can't back it up, then I'll consider the case closed. I do, however think it's rather interesting that you interpreted a statement about TMMI as "libelous attacks against me". This is more evidence that you are part of TMMI or have some conflict of interest with them. I would appreciate it if you would directly answer this question directly: do you have a CoI with TMMI? Spot (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You insinuated I was involved in a pump and dump fraud, stop trying to squirm your way out of this, and stop trying to obfuscate your attempts to discredit fractal compression by constantly trying to bring OFF TOPIC TMMI into the discussion, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the fractal compression article, just STOP this NONSENSE! Fortunately there are others who support my views on fractal compression and disagree with your false and misleading information you have attempted to spread.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editor5435 has nominated the page about me Scott Draves for deletion in retribution for our edit war. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retaliation? Or because he saw it as shameless self-promotion? We do seem to have rather more articles on you and your endeavours than the limited sources would seem to justify. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of sources to the talk page on the article. I didn't create any of these articles. Spot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sources? I saw more self-promotion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sources listed here: Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? are neutral third parties and established print periodicals writing about me and my work. Spot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Scott Draves article has external links to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com which is gross abuse of Misplaced Pages, honestly, who makes web sites about themselves and uses Misplaced Pages as an advertising service?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. The article about Draves contains nothing that can be construed as POV and notability is established by multiple reliable sources per WP:N. The problem here is that two people are involved in a content dispute on the fractal compression article and it has escalated to personal attacks, accusations of COI and libel and people AFDing articles. I recommend both of you step away for a few days to cool off. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My Defense

Spot's unscrupulous methods to bring my contributions into question and to discredit fractal compression are obvious and transparent. If you read the fractal discussion board pay close attention the comments made by. Kevin Baast who is obviously well versed on the subject.

"After having read much discussion on this page, I have come to the conclusion that Editor5435's arguments are among the most rational and logically-sound of those made here. It's a pity to see so much of it fall upon deaf ears. I applaud and encourage his efforts, and ask other editors to consider his arguments more carefully. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Spot isn't being honest here and is acting in bad faith.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School?

Someone posted at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Plano Senior High School about this edit. Thought I should repost here for some advice. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern was dealt with by Bongwarrior, who was also posted by the same party, earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deliberate hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should notify the police in Plano,Texas. With all the school shootings VA Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine High School.The world isnt some happy place anymore.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just phone Mike Godwin. Right now. ASAP , about this. What happends something happens. Any you guys are left thinking , feeling guilty about. And , what happends if it a real threat. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy that posted this threat has broken USA law ; they posted a teroristic threat. A felony. So, its some serious bs . Rio de oro (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to notify the police in Plano,Texas, and the WM foundation.--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this: Would I send my kid to this school tomorrow morning with a good feeling? No. Do we Wikipedians have sufficient background knowledge to make a final judgement about the seriousness of such a threat? No. So maybe it's better to notify the police. Of course, we are in the danger to turn a mouse into an elephant (that's a German saying). On the other hand: What if...? And finally, if it was a hoax: Maybe it's a good idea to send a message to bored kids: Don't fool around with threats like this. --Abrech (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: School is in Texas, IP that made the threat is from Pennsylvania. However, this is a major offense of US law, and does need to be dealt with seriously. ---CWY2190 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's today's featured article just increases the likelihood that this is a poor taste of a bad joke. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. Metros (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we always do contact the autorities. Anyone in texas?Geni 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a joke... and has anyone notified the police yet? Sethie (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some shit you absolutely do not joke about. This is an example. HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the phone number of the Plano police; I'd be willing to call, but I'm not sure they'd take the words of a 16-year-old Misplaced Pages admin from Canada too seriously. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a licensed EMT and public safety professional, I'll volunteer to make the call. Bstone (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call has been made. I have informed them of the threat, time and location. Bstone (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BStone; I wish I'd spotted this thread earlier. I've now lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has arisen, and how it has not been dealt with seriously and expeditiously. Jimbo Wales' & Mike Godwin's positions has always been (to me, at least) that we are not qualified to judge the cogency of these incidents, the law enforcement agencies are, and they should always be reported for them to make the appropriate decisions. There was an addition to WP:SUICIDE to deal with this sort of thing, and every admin, at least, should be aware of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The second you even attempt to make a 'joke' like that, you deserve exactly what happens to you. HalfShadow (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone; the last thing this site needs is a real version of the Benoit incident. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got a call back from the Plano Police Dept in which I spoke to an officer. I sent him the diff with the offending post and a screenshot. I walked him through how to read it and he took down all the information and said they will investigate. The officer gave me a reference number, which is 08-43705. In case this ever needs to be brought up again this reference number can be used. Bstone (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon used a proxy to make that threat. Not much that can be done.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Cary Bass; the foundation is dealing with it, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this gets sorted out quickly. --Sharkface217 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we let this slip by, what happens if people actually got hurt then it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS.--Rio de oro (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We didn't "let this slip by". The authorities have been informed, as clearly discussed above. Good job, Bstone and MoP. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get the original IP address that did this. The proxy IP resolves to two CGI proxy websites- one of them says that all activity is logged, and anything against their TOS will result in a ban from the proxy. I'm betting that if we e-mailed them, we could get the IP address from them that made the threat. Especially if it was from a wikimedia.org e-mail address. There's two domains that I believe I found (I'm behind a filter right now, so I can't check)- enjoylearning.com and clanzhost.com (or clanzhosting.com, not sure). I'll be able to tell for sure once I get home. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you figure it out please post it here. I have an email address for the police dept and can forward them any info. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bstone, for making the call! and h2g2bob for reporting this. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anything happend or was there a report , or did anything unusal happend at the school. Rio de oro (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the domain registrants for the proxies behind the IP. So now, we wait and see. And for those interested, the domains I found behind the IP are enjoylearning.info and clanzhost.com, so if you find any more, please let me know, so I can contact them as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did anyone contact the school? They should investigate on their end, in case someone made the threat from inside the school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for a moment that the police informed them, but I can't WP:V that. Bstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news! I got the logs for one of the proxies, and I'm looking at them right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, from the logs, there's an IP address I'm currently investigating. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your email just now and am logging in on Lyn's laptop! Checkuser says that's a direct match for user agent, tho' it's a reasonably popular one - Alison 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's a new proposal at Misplaced Pages:ThreatsOfViolence - intended to avoid having to cover similar ground repeatedly at noticeboards - take a look if you're interested - thoughts welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I got a call from Det. McClendon from the Plano Police Dept today. We went over the fact of the case, the threat, etc. He has stated his interest in working with us in order to get him and his department information which would lead to the identity of whomever issued this threat, but indicated he is not the most technical. I said we're a bunch of geeks who would likely want to help and I see above that Nwwaew and perhaps others have begun to work on this. I am waiting for a call back from him as we got disconnected (my phone died), but I thought I'd update you all. Bstone (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mailed Bstone with what I have so far. It's not much, but it's worth taking a look. I haven't heard from the other proxy yet; I'll probably re-email them later on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded it to the email I have for the Plano Police Dept. Thanks for the digging, tho the country where it seems to have come from (Netherlands) is a bit out of the jurisdiction of the TX police. Are we sure it's from Amsterdam? Bstone (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the only IP that accessed the edit page for the high school. From that proxy, at least- theres another proxy that I'm still waiting for a reply from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talked to the detective again. Sent him all of the information you sent me and also included a link to this discussion. He thanked us for our hard work and said to always report incidents such as this as the police will always been interested in investigation a threat of violence. He asked that we do our best with the logs and investigate where this came from if it seems Amsterdam is not the location. Something in the US would be better, of course, as the NL is a tad bit outside the jurisdiction of the Plano police. In any case, he thanked us very much for our assistance. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the guy that posted the threat lives in Holland(aka Netherlands) do we need to phone The Hague , or INTERPOL. My opinion we need to phone interpol because its an international incident. PLANO PD cant just cross international boundaries like that. So, we need to file an Internet Crime form. Its on some web site called IC3 or something like that I'm sure of. Also, someone needs to send a email to the FBI , or if anyone can type in DUTCH alert the Dutch Police(or their own FBI ASAP) if the this guy is from the Netherlands.--Rio de oro (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will email Det McClendon and ask if he would like us to fill out the complaint form here. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragging INTERPOL into this strikes me as a bit of an overreaction at this point. It was pretty obviously not a credible threat. All you're doing now is trying to teach this guy a lesson. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A lesson's one thing though... all it takes is one vandalism edit saying "I'm so excited to kill them all on 3/20/2008" etc. that actually does happen for all the shit to hit the fan. Jmlk17 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was some INTERPOL thing ; because it crosed COUNTIRES borders.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors, and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with. I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess.(link removed) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

removed link above (that was added in good faith) per WP:PROBLEMLINKS -- Jim Butler (t) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell  22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has added these to the spam blacklist. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag; Natalie Erin has made a lot of progress at Amanda Baggs, but the situation continues at Donna Williams (author) and doesn't show any signs of letting up. BLP, COI, NPA, Civil, AGF; you name it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will an admin please help with the ongoing disruption from Appto (talk · contribs), who is removing talk page posts, removing warnings from his/her talk page, and all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm back from lunch now and can probably work on this. I'm not sure is Appto really gets it, but if this continues s/he should probably be blocked, although I would appreciate some other opinions about this. Natalie (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him/her for more than a day now, explaining policy and guidelines to no avail. Time consuming just to keep the BLP violations off the talk pages, and reinstated deleted text from talk. Either s/he can't understand, or won't understand. Unclear yet if Appto and Bettwice are the same editor. S/he has posted one reliable source to Donna Williams, which I would incorporate into the article if I could ever get a break from the disruptive editing. Timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've warned and have their contribs page in my background. Next violation is a block. MBisanz 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Appto and Bettwice are the same person. Bettwice has self identified as John Best, a rather aggressive figure in the anti-vaccination community and the writer of the Hating Autism blog. That user's writing style up until the self identification were also consistent with Best. Appto, on the other hand, writes in a very different style and in my experience, Best has a hard time moderating his own choice of words, so I find it doubtful that Appto is Best, yet somehow remaining mostly calm through this entire thing. The post linked above, where Best identifies himself, is a pretty typical example of his conversational style. Honestly, we could probably block the Bettwice account now, as I sincerely doubt it won't be disruptive, but I'm more than happy to give people enough rope to hand themselves, as the saying goes. Appto, on the other hand, seems somewhat reasonable, just laboring under a misimpression of how Misplaced Pages works. The conversation is continuing on the talk page, so perhaps it will be fruitful in some way. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because somewhere in all the mess of the last 24 hours, I thought Seidel accused Appto of being John Best. Well, the 12-hour break is welcome so I can get something done around here. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he did, because both accounts were linking to Best's blog. John West has also identified himself as Bettwice on his blog, so I think that ID, at least, is pretty airtight. Natalie (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I identified Best when he posted under an IP address, which I recognized from another (non-WP) context. I apologize for the rules violation and will not do it again. - DaveSeidel (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block for Appto for Disruptive editing → , a continuation of yesterdays removals and alteringof comments--Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Bettwice33 (talk · contribs) for this, which is a copy-paste from his blog and contains various personal attacks, following several stern warnings. I have also removed the blog post from the talk page, as it is either a copy of discussion here or personal attacks. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Appto being John Best; he has a history of being capable of writing in a number of different styles. He has even acted as a female on a forum at one time. The man is obsessed with the issue of Amanda Baggs and anyone who supports her - including Dave Seidel - and is capable of anything. The only way to be certain is to do a checkuser between Appto and Bettwice33. If there isn't a match, there may at least be some evidence to meat puppetry if not sock puppetry. GetDumb 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Dumb is right. He must be reading Wrong Planet, because the subject was indeed mentioned that User:Bettwice33 was playing a woman on a forum (it was Autism Speaks by the way) and further even used it to threaten someone privately. I myself have been the victim of this man's erratic and psychotic behaviour. It is not beyond reason that User:Appto is a sock puppet of User:Bettwice33. He has been irrationally unhinged by the publicity Amanda has received because he is convinced that she is not Autistic. His so called "million sources" do not exist beyond information from two people who claim to know her and do not. User:Bettwice33 is trying to involve WP in his personal war against Autistic Spectrum Disorders - all because he has been driven to meglomania by the fact that his son is Autistic and he can't handle it. Banning him is the best course of action against this person, and his IP should be blocked as well if it hasn't already. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read two posts up, Fenric - the account has been blocked indefinitely. My experience with John Best online has been quite different - although he may claim whatever he wants about his identity, I've found that anything he's typing deteriorates into the same spiel after about three posts or so, and thus it seems unlikely that Appto is John Best keeping up a charade for an extended period of time. It wouldn't surprise me at all, however, if the two were confederates.Natalie (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see that. Sorry if I confused you. I was pushing for the check user and the IP block. With respect, my experience with Best goes a long way back, and he can (if he wants to) maintain such a charade. I've seen it. But it is also possible that User:Appto is a meat puppet rather than a sock puppet I agree. Either way - a check user would certainly resolve that matter once and for all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ay. I didn't realize what all I had walked in to; before I add it, can I get some extra eyes on the proposed text I've added to the talk page of Donna Williams (author), based on the one reliable source that came out of all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, and given that I understand that Donna has disputed the content of the interview and the context of it, it's reliability is questionable. The fact that it's more than ten years old also doesn't help. I think the source needs back up. By itself it may be okay but because it's being disputed places a cloud over even using the thing. GetDumb 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're questioning the reliability of an Australian Broadcasting Interview of Fred Volkmar, the leading autism authority in the United States? I agree that it needs to be used very conservatively because of its age, but I'm unclear on what basis in policy the source can be ignored ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning if it's his current opinion, or his opinion from 1996. If it's current (and this should be mentioned) then it's not a problem. But if the opinion is as old as the interview then the rejection of the opinion by Donna Williams take precedence. Volkmar should be pursued for a current opinion that being the case. I wouldn't be surprised if it is different. GetDumb 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note on Bettwice33, he has made a number of what I would consider slanderous remarks against Misplaced Pages on his blog in relation to this issue. FYI guys and girls. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of user using his User space to CANVASS for AfD warring

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has apparently heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept, even going so far as to say that policy should not be followed () and saying that "policy is not binding" (). He's created User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight and linked to it from his User page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We really need to have a word with Kmweber. The RFA opposes are in good faith, but now it looks like he's picking a fight. Will 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did this administrator put out a call for on-wiki disruption? Link? Lawrence § t/e 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called for "disruption" and its on WikiEn-l. I don't think there is a problem with putting a list of AfDs you're interested in on a user subpage, and if this wasn't Kurt with his history at RfAs there wouldn't be an AN/I thread about it. Avruch 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw Corvus write, "heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept", and that did not sound good. But thats why I asked. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been actively discussed on Wikien-L for a couple of days now. This is entirely appropriate - canvassing for a particular AFD issue is questionable, but calling attention to process issues writ wider is completely legitimate community activity. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: Kmweber is pretty much exactly the wrong person to be encouraging to use Misplaced Pages as a personal battleground regarding deletion policy, given that he -- literally -- believes everything, without except, belongs on Misplaced Pages. Witness this and his arguments here (like this claim, this claim, and this claim. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I claim no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Kurt reads wikien-l and will use it as a launching point to go off and be Kurt - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Whats wrong here? It looks like he may be taking WP:IAR a bit far, but policy is not the end all solution to everything here, and if it gets in the way of a constructive project then go around it. And as for the links to AfD's, I know a ton of users who have those, just a list to watch, and it is not canvasing if it is in his own userspace. Tiptoety 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's call for AfD warring is at and following discussions on that thread name. This has nothing to do with Kurt Weber's history on AfDs, I don't even know what his history is on the matter. It wouldn't have been an issue if David Gerard hadn't begunt his campaing and Kurt hadn't followed along. What would you call Kurt's vote to keep articles on non-notable bands which violate a LONG-standing guideline at WP:BAND except trying to turn AfD into a battlefield to keep garbage? Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"AFD warring"? This is a perfect example of the problem with AFD: it's hopelessly inbred and inward-focused, with active hostility (which has even been noted in Third-Party Reliable Sources) to anyone perceived as an "outsider." AFD can not seriously be claimed to represent community opinion if its regulars are "reporting" people to ANI for pointing this out and asking people to participate in it, which I did indeed do, so help me Dawkins - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David, this is the fifth or sixth time you've referred to "Third-Party Reliable Sources" without bothering to elaborate. Which Third-Party Reliable Sources? Could it be that you're getting a bit worked up about an article in The Economist? Aecis 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an article in Slate about AfD at one point? I remember it not being particularly well-written, but also not particularly flattering to WP. I think I've seen others as well, though I can't remember off the top of my head where. In any event I think it's fair to say that third party sources have criticized the deletion process on Misplaced Pages -- whether that criticism is valid or not is of course a different matter. --TheOtherBob 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The song remains the same: if they rightly criticize us over AFD, we should fix it, but only because there's a problem to fix; if they wrongly criticize us over AFD there's nothing to fix. This isn't the first time we've been covered, and it won't be the last time. The "public relations" issue is irrelevant since we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. There's no immediate urgency justifying the way David Gerard and others are going about things. Aecis 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can chalk this up to "don't ask a question if you don't want an answer." The question may be irrelevant -- but, hey, since you asked it...

To answer your point, though, no one has said that we should change the AfD process to enhance Misplaced Pages's public image. Rather, the point (as I understand it) is that we're (in David's view, apparently) receiving a fair amount of outside criticism, and that we should consider the possibility that this criticism indicates that our processes aren't working as well as they might. If David is right and AfD has become so hostile to outsiders that it's become notorious...well, then it may not be working properly. That's not PR -- that's hearing criticism and taking a long, hard look at ourselves. And maybe that long, hard look will tell us that all is well (I hope it will -- I've never considered AfD to be as broken as it's made out to be here).

Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with encouraging participation in AfD, particularly with an eye towards improving things there -- so this seems much ado about nothing. --TheOtherBob 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not a call for AFD warring - if the community is concerned about the way AFD has been going of late (and I for one am, and was long before this Wikien-L thread) and we're motivated to get involved, this is entirely legitimate community process. Corvus, you may not like what we think about things right now, but please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets WP:AGF here, no policies have been broken, and no damage done to the project (not yet at least). Tiptoety 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. That an AFD regular can react like this at the prospect of the community they claim to represent actually showing up fails to demonstrate that AFD is fine and dandy and non-pathological - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no claims of representing anyone but myself. I do feel a bit of dismay when you, or anybody else for that matter, start posting calls for war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that what I actually said was (to quote the message in its entirety): "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?", I am completely at a loss to make sense of your bizarre characterisation as other than seeing yourself as defending AFD against invading forces. That the invading forces would be the community that AFD claims its mandate from seems to have completely escaped you - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing a different side or something, but as of late, AfD seems to be improving. Whenever I've nominated a questionable article, it's either accepted to be deleted due to no sources after a couple people looked, or kept after being vastly improved. Doesn't sound so bad. After reading the mailing list I don't see anything about it making it a battleground. In fact, I'm not positive what they want. To quote David: "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there." Now, what attitude he means I'd like to know, this way I'll knwo whether I'm for or against this. Wizardman 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to the general AfD attitude of deletionism that has been turning into a battleground against "outsiders" interested in real discussion. I haven't seen what Wiz has sen in an improvement, personally, in fact I think it's getting worse. ANI threads like this only add to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WEll, whether circumstances are betting better or worse, I have no idea what Kurt is trying to prove with his edits other than a point. Wizardman 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to that, closing admins are encouraged to use their best judgment. AFD is allegedly not a vote, so if Kurt is proposing things that don't have consensus, what's wrong with that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, our deletion processes suffer from a lack of sufficient participation and are often dominated by two groups; AFD regulars and the authors of particular articles. Neither are a good gauge of wider consensus, I feel, and David's attempts to encourage AFD participation are praiseworthy. Note that he has explicitly encouraged those who disagree with him to also go to AFD and participate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, getting different users to look at different AfDs is a good idea. Hopefully this will continue, since I do tend to see the same editors pop up every so often, though I do see occasional new afd users. Wizardman 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there even are "AFD regulars" shows something is seriously wrong around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is barring you from participating. Corvus cornix_talk 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If only everyone was an AfD regular. Tiptoety 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an admitted "AfD regular", as nominator, participator, and now more recently as closer, I would be more than thrilled to see wider participation. I probably relist for consensus more than I close as either keep or delete because nobody (at least whilst looking through the older debates, seems to be chiming in. Just an observatin. Every editor, regardless of how they arrived there short of being a SPA or canvassed, IMHO, is welcome. Also, IMO, Kmweber was not canvassed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a secret that I consider the general atmosphere on AFD severely problematic and damaging to the project's internal workings, let alone its public relations. (When you get written up in The Economist, you've, ah, arrived. The people on WT:AFD who dismiss the article as merely a pissed-off deletee are just ... rather too highly focused on AFD itself.) The best possible way I can think of to get it fixed is more community involvement - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think things have settled a little but this is where I get a problem with consensus WRT deletion-minded people predominating there while others of us are making content. I sometimes wonder whatever happened to AGF, where editors have to hide stuff on their sandbox so it doesn't get speedy-deleted. Just seems to be the wrong way about it all some how (flower power, man...that's where we should be at..) ] (] · ]) 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on "public relations" is grating. It has soured at least one editor and possibly more on the whole article deletion process, which is ironic given the calls for wider participation. Aren't we were supposed to be neutral and objective? Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wishing that people would participate more in AfD's is hardly "a call for AfD warring". (that was to address the David point.) As to AfD, it really does just need more people to chip in, and more people to close the debates too. I've been starting to do non-admin closures but I don't think I'd have much luck doing that to something with only one or two responses. And are AfD regulars really 'abnormal'? :):) As to Kmweber, I disagree with his position on keeping all articles, but he's allowed to list some AfDs in his userspace. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But David didn't just "wish that people would participate", he wished that people would participate and make sure that iffy articles get kept. He was requesting that like-minded individuals to participate. Corvus cornix_talk 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

At least once he stated that he also wants those who disagree with him to also edit there. I suspect David would agree with me that one of its flaws is such minimal participation that many deletion debates aren't properly representative. Additionally, he stated all these things in a neutral forum (wikien-l) frequented by those with pretty much the whole spectrum of opinions on AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of AfD, there are three kinds of articles: ones that are clearly keeps, ones that are clearly deletes, and ones that could be kept if improved. I don't see the problem with keeping an article and improving it, instead of discarding the whole thing. I've recently been involved in a contentious no-consensus deletion of an article on the grounds of its POV. The button to press to address POV isn't delete, it's the one at the top of this screen that says edit this page. If we would do more creation and editing and less destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia. The article rescue squad has the right idea.

For articles "on the bubble," could we give them a suspended sentence to allow time for improvement? And for all deletion discussions, could we emphasize the discussion over the voting? Based on deletion policy, it seems to me that the strength of the reasoning for deletion is what matters, rather than the strength of numbers. --SSBohio 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage and I encourage others to do so as well. Fight the power! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Fight the power!"? That my friend is seriously the wrong attitude to have for this place. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But look here he is "fighting the power" here, here, here, here and here. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Disruption much? Guy (Help!) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We didn't start the fire. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but you seem to be stoking it quite a bit. At any rate, XfDs are based off of consensus. It's not a majority vote, since Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy, so copying-and-pasting the same argument to multiple AfDs doesn't really help your case. It just seems to be making a point. --clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Grand Moff Tarkin in Episode IV, or Emperor Palpatine in Episode VI, I felt the need to demonstrate the power of our new weapon. I'm afraid the Death Star has cleared the planet, and your cruisers can't repel firepower of this magnitude. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Can we sedate this guy? I know where he's coming from, and in that space, what he's doing is colossally funny. He pulls these pranks, he pulled one in the middle of my second RfA. Based on what I've seen before, there is indeed a point, and there is very little actual disruption, unless somebody tries to "take him out." The point I see here is that using the tool of a special notice file abusively -- and many immediately think of this, instead of the actual and legitimate use -- is still visible as abuse, and will be rapidly detected. However, it's also been proven that this audience doesn't think it funny, generally. Do we have one of those long poles with a shepherd's crook on the end? I've asked him to stop. I think he will. If he doesn't, well, I've done what I can. For those who may not realize it, Mbstpo is a long-term, experienced Wikipedian with a very good knowledge of policy and politics, and some sense of where Misplaced Pages needs to go to survive. He's an excellent writer, and I recommend his essays in general. He's also impulsive, which I don't see in the essays.--Abd (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I take it we've got some kind of plot happening? ;-) How about putting some kind of auto-delay in deletion of good-faith-content. (A bot could help?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Special circumstances? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII article, AFD, and sock puppets

Hello. A short while back I started work on an article for a Famicom pirate cartridge, based off the original article User:FightingStreet had started, and another user, User:Wiki22445 nominated it for deletion. That in itself wasn't unusual. However the account holder nominated several articles in his short time here and did nothing else, and additionally as his contributions will show he vandalized the page, breaking the tags for several citations.

Additionally another account, User:Foxit22, appeared and placed a vote on the page. However the poster was completely new and hasn't posted any changes with the account since. Additionally the username of it seems to imply "fox it", a term for copyright holders to hand copyright infringing projects a cease and desists kill.

And then there's User IP:68.209.235.149, who oddly fired accusations of sock puppets under my control as the only possibility of anyone voting Keep for the article, and I'm led to suspect he might have set up some for himself. After speaking with one admin regarding what could count as notable online sources and validating those cited in the article, I posted that, and a short while afterward a user posted another comment, 68.209.235.149 claimed he was a sock puppet I was using, and then in rapid succession 4 IP only posts shouting delete appeared...the strange part about which being though is that all 4 either had no prior posts or the ones they did were entirely vandalism. Yet they suddenly speak in the same tone. There are additional factors as well, such as the user using a shield of "good faith" and posting such on the talk pages of myself and User:FightingStreet, but not practicing such as his attitude clearly shows on his own talk page.

Lastly, User:Ham Pastrami stepped in on the discussion page and pointed out he'd learned of it from someone "bemoaning its existence", which shows someone is attempting to play this situation unfairly.

I'm certain there is something going on regarding the deletion discussion for the article and disruption of said discussion, and would ask that it be investigated by an admin. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also take a look at the evidence regarding User:Kung Fu Man, as outlined in the AfD discussion. Several proxies and single-purpose accounts have appeared for both sides of the issue, as well as obvious meatpuppets by Kung Fu Man. (see AfD discussion for clear admission of this) I would call this a bad faith nomination, but then again, it looks like something everyone was in on. The majority of the discussion (not considering the sockpuppetry that took place later on) was in favor of removing the article due to issues with verifiability and notability, as outlined. As you can see, several suspicious IPs appear immediately afterwards, first following with "keep" votes, and then some single-purpose accounts opposing them with "delete" votes. The consensus before suspected sockpuppetry became involved seemed to be in favor of deleting the article, which aside from administrative action against the suspected sockpuppeteers involved, would likely be a good idea considering the dispute in following. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Following up on User:Kung Fu Man's edit, it would be a good idea to investigate some of the submissions of the suspected proxies of Kung Fu Man, namely Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) User_talk:Robert the Small (blatant single-purpose account) User_talk:Krator(blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/98.26.120.149 (blatant proxy / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/Zsabreuser (blatant single-purpose account / sockpuppet) Special:Contributions/206.162.204.6 (possibility of proxy)
  • Excuse me? I think if you look at my (Special:Contributions/72.234.254.153)edit history, I have little to do with the topics Kung Fu Man talks about except for a few in the Mugen article. If you look closely, I'm practically fighting with him in the M.U.G.E.N article on some of the stuff he has in that article. By the way, I do have an account, I just rarely log in with it. EvilThouther (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these accounts / IPs have edits outside of the AfD nomination. While Kung Fu Man is pleading a bad faith nomination, his side of the issue currently hosts the most suspicious accounts. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so blatantly false that I question the judgement of the submitting editor. I'd encourage someone to strike up a conversation in Dutch with Kung Fu Man, too. User:Krator (t c) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I edit a lot of the same articles as Kung Fu Man. Guess that makes me a sockpuppet, too? Don't be ridiculous, anony. Your bad faith accusations really make it all the more obvious that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User reported and is pending further investigation. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kung_Fu_Man Nori198 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:JuJube followed up with a threat on my talk page ]. I thought this might be of interest to the case. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And this just gets more and more ridiculous. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, looking at my talk page will show KFM asking me for help. Which can only mean it's a carefully orchestrated plot to make this sockpuppet account look valid! lulz. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the entire posting history of User:Nori198 seems based around just making the report page XD Yeah this should be a hoot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving an outsider's point of view, the amount of anonymous and new users who came for that AFD was pretty interesting. I don't think they are sockpuppets, but meatpuppet, asked to come here in some forum. I suggest putting it for deletion review to get it back to AFD. The blogs are not reliable at all (had IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy or any other consumer site posted about this? No, because it is not even worth a mention). Keeping the article here is why people think video games only bloat Misplaced Pages. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure IGN and GameSpot will get around to covering it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a tracert on some of the IPs to verify whether or not any proxies were involved. We can procede with blocking if anything comes up. In the meantime, I'll be sure to put in a request for the AfD review. Nori198 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kung Fu Man has proceeded to vandalize my talk page ], ] and ], and is likely to continue to do so as long as I revert him. Suggest temporary block if disruption continues. Nori198 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight, King Dedede et al now that the TV 2 case is closed

Meta Knight and King Dedede have already been resurrected without discussion now that the TV 2 case is closed; I have restored the redirects. So, what's the plan to keep throw-away accounts users like User:Yair rand from running amok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how his is a throw-away account given he's been doing some contributor work here (and I do have to add that it wouldn't be difficult to make either character's pages into proper articles rather than condensed sections on a character list). Just my thoughts on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted that bit. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 for context. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed the arbitrators and stop edit-warring on these articles then "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." Catchpole (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, IPs and established editors (sans TTN) are continuing the edit-warring. The problem is, the IPs and newbies restoring the articles cannot effectively be punished, even with the arbcom prohibition. – sgeureka 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that new discussions need to take place on Talk:Meta Knight, Talk:King Dedede, and Talk:List of Kirby characters, rather than revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Colonel Warden has resurrected the articles again without discussion. So the difference that the RfAR has made is .... once again, fuck all. Black Kite 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Unresurrected per Black Kite — although I had not checked back here when I did it. Such resurrections need to be discussed prior to their performance; this the spirit of the case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  And the articles are again on the verge to "edit-wars". Jack and me reverted twice to the redirects with the words "restoring redirect again per prior concensus on talk page; take it to talk, people", but an IP is already openly declaring "I heard you. I'm just ignoring it." – sgeureka 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd revert, based on the lovely nuggets of conversation such as "I heard you, I'm just ignoring it." and "TTN has been punished by Arbcom for his actions and now we undo the havoc that he wrought." As the AC have found, all sides in the conflict have been uncivil, but what I've seen is that the deletionists and the mergists are the lesser of the two evils. What I suggest is a unified discussion on the character list, stating what is disputed (notability and plot guideline compliance) and what is desired (real-world content creation, or merging into the list). Will 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I realise a discussion may have taken place, but I'm finding it hard to find it, let alone a consensus to merge. Will 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherine de Burgh redux

If you are lacking in sources of amusement you might want to glance at this page since it was restored a day or so ago. She seems to be having some sort of argument with her sisters. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. No disruption, no abuse, nothing administrators can act upon. Just a humorous userpage. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it at least be identified per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you like your bureaucracy to cross every t and dot every i then yes. But if no foul == no harm, then there's no problem and we can do other things. Drink cocoa or write an encyclopedia or clear a backlog or something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is there really no policy about a satirical userpage masquerading as an article? Avruch 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now some horrid, nasty person wants to delete the heirloom photographs I have uploaded for posterity I despair, I am undone. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Satire is a sort of glass wherein everyone sees every face but their own," or the reverse. What's the problem? Are people really stupid or really humourless? Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, sometimes people take things WAY too seriously. It's satire, not insulting anyone, not disruptive, not trying to prove a point. It's in USERSPACE for crying out loud. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there websites out there for bad jokes and other nonsense of the deleted persuasion? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 21:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for another indef-blocked editor harassing me and SchuminWeb

I now ask the community to look at Mickylynch101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Markanthony101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as confirmed by CheckUser.

Besides the accounts, he continually comes back using anonymous IP addresses, despite rangeblocks, such as these recent attacks here, here, and even in his unblock request.

I'm tired of putting up with this user, and I feel he's exhausted our patience. Would the Community please take a look, and consider a ban? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

endorsed- This user has promised further disruption, has been an absolute pest on WP and has already resulted in numerous time-wasting checkuser requests - Alison 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nwwaew, It may be helpful for you to read the essay on Friday's user page. It gives some very valuable tips on how to due with these types of users. If I was in your position, I would just leave the vandal alone, as he will soon become board and leave you alone. Also, if I may add, posting messages here is just showing the vandal that he can get to you and will keep it up. I suggest emailing an admin instead. Let them take care of the issue for you. Hope this helps. Blessings Thright (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

However, Nnwaew is asking for a community ban, which would allow us to block him on sight, thus balancing out the necessary post here. -Jéské 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup - WP:RBI is the order of the day - Alison 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ostracision Ugh. and I thought BlackStarRock was bad... -Jéské 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent one, just confirmed by Alison: . Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obnoxious and persistent, a bad combination. Therefore, ban. Jehochman 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of him and all his nefarious socks — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possible one here, I'm waiting for confirmation from a CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mackan79 apparently WordBomb sockpuppet

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 discussion.

this edit by Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) states that he sent me an email with concerns about my comments about User:WordBomb being abusive or incindiary and asking that I retract them.

I can confirm and attest that the only email I ever recall receiving or Gmail-search can find on that topic was from Judd Bagley himself.

An earlier checkuser was run in private on the possibility that Mackan79 was either Judd or Byrne following these two edits

The results on that were a presumptive negative (summary details without any ID info were shown to me, as I'm not a checkuser I didn't see the detailed results). However, the combination of those edits and the email trail now establishes a presumption of sockpuppetry, and I have indefinitely blocked the account.

This is obviously a somewhat sensitive time and place to do something of that nature, however, I believe that WordBomb's previous actions justify this. In a sense this posting is a block review, however I ask that admins be very very careful about reversing the block.

If Mackan79 can provide an innocent explanation and identify himself to Arbcom or the Foundation and proves not to be Judd I will apologize.

I am emailing Arbcom as an additional review / check. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I noted on George's page I'm a bit shocked by this. I sort of wish we did not have to rely on George's gmail-search to rely on this block. Perhaps some checkusers can weigh in, but I do not see a whole lot of reasoning for this block, aside from George's analysis of his emails. daveh4h 05:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been around since June 2006 and doesn't seem to have anything in common with the usual suspects history wise. Mackan79 replied at User_talk:Mackan79#Block and said he mailed you on December 7, 2007 to george.herbert@gmail.com. When was this email from Bagley sent to you? Seems a bit thin for the basis of banning a 2+ year account with lots of productive edits and a negative checkuser result. He should be unblocked unless there is demonstrative evidence that the community can support. As an aside, are we checkusering privately people now that say things in defense of Judd Bagley? Lawrence § t/e 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And a block log of: "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb" based on a negative checkuser hit by one person's opinion is just inappropriate to do to an established user without getting positive or valid confirmation. If this is proven wrong, the unblock should reflect that. Lawrence § t/e 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan has posted this and this on his talk page, presumably trying to clear this up with George. I gotta admit, this block gives me the feeling of "who is next".  :-/ daveh4h 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This strikes me as a bit flimsy, especially considering the rigorous amount of work GWH wanted to prove a DUCK elsewhere. George, I strongly suggest that unblocking now would be in your best interest and having someone else reblock if it's needed, because this is really troublesome to me. SirFozzie (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is another concern with this block, yes. Why was the threshold of evidence this admin wanted for the Mantanmoreland situation so high, but so low here? Policy enforcement needs to be handled with uniformity, especially in any high profile matters. Lawrence § t/e 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you note, Mackan has, on his talk page, referenced a Dec 7 email which he did send me, which does turn out to (without having triggered a keyword search) have briefly asked about the topic, but not in strong language. The specific language that Judd used in email, and which Mackan79 echoed in the referenced diff above, was very different, though it did touch on the subject. I have asked Mackan79 if he'll post the email, or if he'll permit me to, for others to review... It's remotely possible that he just happened across very similar phrasing as emails Judd sent me and that this therefore was a false positive - I hope to put more info for reviewers.

I have been funneling sock concerns related to this case through checkusers rather than acting myself on some rather strong coincidencial evidence, for this and other accounts. The phraseology matchup with Bagley emails here is rather strong. However, it's potentially coincidental, though it sure didn't look like it to me. Hopefully he'll ok me posting the email or he will. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This really should go to the AC or Checkusers to decide, to be honest. Can you explain why your threshold for DUCK blocking here is so low compared to the standards you advocate in other cases (Mantanmoreland)? Lawrence § t/e 06:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to that, I have taken a look at the CheckUser data. While WordBomb has likely used proxies or the like in the past, there is no indication based on IP evidence alone that there is a connection. Mackan79's IPs are geographically distinct from WordBomb's, and do not appear to be proxies of any kind, as far as I can tell right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dmcdevit. So we know now there is no technical evidence to support this block, and only GWH's beliefs at this time. Lawrence § t/e 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved checkuser, I have also run the data here, and endorse Dmcdevit's findings here. I'm calling this  Unlikely - Alison 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, George's comment appears to be based on an email I sent him that he had forgotten about, and has now confirmed receiving. You're free (of course) to look at whatever you need to look at, but the concern other than appears to be his saying a comment I made sounded like something WordBomb once said. I'll await some further comment if anything else is happening here. Mackan79 (talk)

I'm sorry for posting so much on this. Why also does GWH insist that Mackan79 disclose his real identity to the Arbcom or WMF as a condition of unblocking? No one here has the authority to ask for such a thing. It's a gross privacy policy violation. Lawrence § t/e 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GWH, you are completely, utterly and totally in the wrong here. WordBomb's account was created 7/6/06, and is undoubtedly new to Misplaced Pages at the time. But, somehow, Mackan79's account was created prior (his earliest edit is 6/23/06) So you are going by gut feeling (That Mackan sounds like WordBomb in an email he sent you). Unbelieveable. This is not even irony, it is pure, bald-faced chutzpah. I will undo the block, and quickly, if you do not. Your choice. SirFozzie (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the claims are unlikely, a confrontational attitude, threatening to unblock, is not likely to help the situation. Let someone uninvolved do it if needed. Dmcdevit·t 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see editors issuing ultimatums (ultimata?), but this doesn't look like a good block. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now this is looking like more fallout from an arbcom that failed to make tough decisions. daveh4h 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. Undo the block immediately - and I think the issue of 'private checkusers' might need revisiting with some urgency also.

Geogre, I don't know you, but you seem to me to advocate high standards of certainty in some cases, and you are coming across to me as a hypocrite by applying a laughably low standard here. Privatemusings (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit! you mean that wordbomb created the sock account first? What an evil genius! He is more powerful than I ever imagined. Oh well, when you comment on the wrong side of an Arbcom case, you take your chances. . .what does the CU say about me? Am I allowed to ask? R. Baley (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked for very obvious reasons. Viridae 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Privatemusings (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so where are we? In regard to the email, there's absolutely nothing to be seen. As I said on my talk page, I sent GWH an email saying exactly what I said on AN. The email was polite in tone, as among other reasons I hadn't ever spoken with GWH before. He didn't respond, and has continued to make similar comments on Misplaced Pages. I addressed this again twice on the Workshop page, in language that I consider strong.. I see now I left another similar comment on the proposed decision page. I take it George hasn't been reading my comments, but the tone is, I think, pretty consistent. If we're talking about something else, please let me know. Incidentally, CU should be seen as more than unlikely, as I can clarify to Alison if she's interested. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the technical evidence, there is extremely little to connect your account to WordBomb - hence the "unlikely". I don't want to go into details in deference to the privacy of both individuals. But I'll reiterate that there is no checkuser evidence to sustain a block here, or anything like it - Alison 07:21, 13 March 2008 (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 discussion.

For the record, Mackan79 has chosen to do what no editor should have to do - that is, to prove his innocence. Alison has confirmed Mackan's real life identity, and can now categorically state that Mackan79 is not Judd Bagley, and thus is also not a sock of WordBomb. Since GWH has not edited in a couple of hours, it is likely he has yet to see Alison's post, and he will hopefully come to his senses and post the necessary (and hopefully fulsome and contrite) apology. However, I see no reason that Mackan79 should have to wait to have his innocence recorded publicly here, where he was falsely accused of being Judd Bagley. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is as clear-cut a case as any of the "Express the 'wrong' opinion, get blocked as a sock" problem that has plagued this case. —Random832 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received private assurances from Alison and an arbcom member that the evidence they have is pretty complete and unambiguous on the point of Mackan79 being another and unrelated person. I goofed, and have apologized on Mackan79's talk page.

On the issue of "express wrong opinion, get blocked" - There have been probably thirty or forty editors (possibly more, I'm not counting) I have seen comment or contribute similar opinions on the arbcom case or community block. Several have criticized me in some way or another. I have never had any reason to believe that any of those people were sockpuppets of anyone, with two exceptions, which I had been running by checkusers and arbcom for followup. I don't see how one could try to change the outcome of a massive community consensus by any action against one of forty people, nor did I particularly object to the wording Mackan79 used in arguing with me. Had it not apparently completely coincidentally closely matched language Judd used I would not have taken any action whatsoever. I see how it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, but it really wasn't. If I had tried malignly to deflect the debate bluntly in that manner it would have been totally ineffective, in addition to an abuse of power. If anything, and I was aware of this before I acted, the incident was likely to upset and embolden the anti-MM coalition.

It clearly would in retrospect have been better to hand this evidence to Arbcom and let them sort out what was going on. I have done so with other concerns - this one at the time seemed unambiguous, though that was looking back on it an error in judgement. But I couldn't have changed the overall debate through this action, and I didn't intend to or try to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested

Can someone please unblock User:Christopher Mann McKay with an unblock summary of "user has agreed not to repeat tendentious behaviour"? I have agreed the conditions with him, and posted to his page, but for some reason the webfilter here at college won't let me load Special:Ipblocklist. Thanks. Black Kite 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd normally say we should wait for input from the blocking admin, but it appears there's a pretty strong consensus to unblock given such an agreement. Went ahead and fulfilled the request on your behalf, pending any new developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin also did say "If some other admin wants to stick their neck out for you, on their head be it." So on my head be it :) Edit: Ah, I now see that this was the declining admin, not the blocking one, so I have contacted the blocking admin as well. Black Kite 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really object to this unblocking. Perhaps indef was too long but it seemed to me that having reached an impasse on WP:ANI over the use of that image, he was then upping the stakes by not only taunting User:Prester John (for whose stance I have equally little tolerance), but also adding an even more offensive caption to the original image. However, CMM seems to have realised that this sort of behaviour is not going to go down too well. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

how big is the risk? I suggest unblocking the user and watching their actions. Next offence place a time block of 6 months.Thright (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits

The title says it. This is a recurring pattern with this user. One example can be found at Mary Stalcup Markward. The discussion, such as it was, can be found at Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward#census image. I asked a question, and got a single response. When I followed up on the response and corrected a misimpression on his part, Richard Arthur Norton had no more to say. I saw that he was doing extensive editing on other articles, so I posted a notice on his Talk page asking for him to respond on Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward. Still nothing, so I edited the article. The next day, I see this edit to the article -- he reverted my edit "per talk page", despite the fact that he never responded to my follow-up on the Talk page.

A similar pattern of behavior can be found at Annie Lee Moss, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless and Talk:Annie Lee Moss#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits. He rarely responds at all, and when he does his comments are usually off the point or meaningless.

I've heard from another user that this pattern has been repeated by Richard Arthur Norton elsewhere. RedSpruce (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Do you "have here in your hand a list of names made known to Wikipedians as those who have accused Richard Norton of 'repeated patterns'" or "hold in my hand the names of 57 card-carrying Wikipedians who have abetted Richard Norton". Its amusingly ironic that you edit articles on Joseph McCarthy and then use his same tactics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1) What do you want an admin to do? 2)Your Mary Stalcup example isn't great - he seems to have added a verifiable reliable accurate source to some information in the article. Why do you feel that's wrong and needs to be removed? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that refusing to discuss disputed edits is something that undermines the whole principle on which Misplaced Pages is based. It ought to be a blockable offense. If it isn't, I'm open to advice on how to proceed. What you personally think of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He added a reference to an unreferenced statement...and you took issue with it...and now you say he should be blocked? Am I the only one utterly confused? Why are you disputing him adding a reference? --Smashville 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: What anyone here personally thinks of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: mentioned this thread on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s talk page. I think that ought to have been done by this point... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As for your question of how to resolve the conflict, I don't think "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you." is the most constructive thing you could have done. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but it was no less productive than my many and various previous attempts at more-rational discussion. And it made me feel a little better. RedSpruce (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait...you attacked him because it made you feel better? How is that reasonable? --Smashville 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"it made me feel better" was an effect, not a cause. And I didn't say it was reasonable, I said it was a mistake. RedSpruce (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence? --Smashville 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ever see you apologize for calling him an idiot and a moron. I saw that you called the comments deserved and then you brought this to ANI. Why would he have continued discussing something with you when you continued to make personal attacks? --Smashville 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that your only response now? It absolutely does apply. Your complaint is that he would not continue communicating with you after you made unapologetic personal attacks at him. --Smashville 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

←No, my complaint is that he never communicated in a meaningful manner. If you'd read more carefully, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. RedSpruce (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And being uncivil and making personal attacks is a "meaningful manner"? --Smashville 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, the answer to "Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence?" is 'yes' (and I've done so many times). This is the practice recommended by NPA#Responding to personal attacks. RedSpruce (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks? The one where the very first sentence is "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all"? --Smashville 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being sophistic, Smashville. RedSpruce (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not. I quoted the first sentence of the policy. And it's beside the point. You're now complaining that he wouldn't respond to your personal attack (while acknowledging it was a personal attack). Do you not see how backwards that is? --Smashville 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that you honestly believe that the meaning of the first sentence of WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks is "stop all discussion with the person who attacks you; make no further attempts to discuss anything at all with that person ever again."? If that's what you believe, then no, you aren't being sophistic; I withdraw the comment. RedSpruce (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God...you are seriously not arguing this, are you? You made a personal attack...and you are complaining to ANI that he is not responding to your personal attack. --Smashville 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. RedSpruce you have zero case. Please stop posting here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in with your constructive, carefully reasoned and well-thought out comment, Theresa Knott. RedSpruce (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I have responded on the talk page of both articles, and using Misplaced Pages policy I asked for a third party to look over the sources used in the articles at the Misplaced Pages:Biography page. This was to help decide if we should have both references, or just the Spruce references. I reverted the deletions of my references, so that the third party could see the version with both his and my sources in place, and left a message on the talk page of why I reverted to the version with both references. I tend to use contemporaneous newspaper accounts because I have a paid subscription to the New York Times and Washington Post archives. Spruce favors books. I like both his and mine in the article. Most readers don't look at the references except for the more research oriented reader, and that reader may want references from both newspapers and books. I can't predict what references will be helpful to people, so if I find a new fact, I add the reference. You can always ignore the reference section, but if you really need to know the source, it is there. The New York Times articles and the book references look great side by side. I have never deleted Spruce references in favor of mine, only him deleting mine in favor of his. I stopped engaging Spruce after the threats and name calling left on my page. Thats when I asked the third party to look at the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that Richard Arthur Norton did right was to ask for outside comments. Unfortunately none have been forthcoming. Here, as always before, he persists in misunderstanding my point. I was not deleting newspaper references in favor of book references. I was deleting footnotes that were incorrectly placed, irrelevant to the text that they were attached to, included meaningless and irrelevant quotations, included links to images of illegible and irrelevant documents, showed a misunderstanding of what they were supposed to document, and were, at their very, very best, unnecessary. I did not delete links to sources that were available online. (Most of RAN's footnotes, as he notes above, were links to subscriber-only newspaper websites). I've made all of these points before, but as you see above, RAN persists in not understanding them or responding to them. The difference between what the two of us want is not large, but with no true discussion, we couldn't come to a compromise. RedSpruce (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless he clearly doesn't need to be banned, no action needs to be taken by an admin, this is a content dispute, and since he clearly is responding you still have zero case. So this discussion can now stop here on an admin noticeboard. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since RAN is now engaging in something resembling real discussion on two articles (yay!), it appears this ANI has served spme purpose. Unfortunately, as I noted above, this is a pattern of behavior with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and I'm sure other editors will have similar conflicts with him in the future. RedSpruce (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Its not quite stopped, his last action was to delete all my additions to the articles then ask that they be protected, so his changes could be locked into place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Page protections expire. In the mean time third parties can have their say. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my "last acts" (to date) have been to leave questions for RAN to answer, so that discussion could move forward: , Talk:G. David Schine#Restoration, Talk:G. David Schine#Consensus, Talk:G. David Schine#Ownership issues, and . All of these are still waiting for responses. But, like it says in the heading: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits. RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• You don't "leave questions". You make whatever changes you want then you filibuster, then ask for protection of the article, to lock in your deletions of my material, as you did here:
• here at Annie Lee Moss. Where you reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again *And here at Mary Stalcup Markward. Where you deleted every edit I have made to the article, back to where you contributed.

Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce

Please note there is another ANI on User:RedSpruce here

A disturbing pattern of disruptive edits has been made by User:RedSpruce to a series of articles related to Joseph McCarthy, including Annie Lee Moss, Mary Stalcup Markward and G. David Schine. RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of these articles, repeatedly reverting edits made by myself and other editors that primarily focused on adding sources to the articles, starting off with this revert and this revert, moving up the abuse scale to "rv undiscussed edits", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", again, "rv to compromise version", and the warm and fuzzy "rm stupid and useless quote" and "rv, you are being an idiot". There are numerous WP:3RR violations mixed in here, but the far more troubling issue is gross incivility, such as the edit summaries cited previously, and topped off by the WP:NPA violation "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you", which was reverted by an edit stating "rm personal abuse, albeit deserved". Unfortunately, User:RedSpruce's pattern of refusal to work on a consensus basis is only aggravated by his egregious incivility. Alansohn (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a revenge-post, in response to the incident posted immediately above. User:Alansohn has a history of backing up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) when editing disputes occur. I've seen this in Annie Lee Moss and another editor reports to me that it's a pattern. User:Alansohn doesn't engage in any discussion, he just blindly backs up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), often with blatantly dishonest edit summary comments like this one.

It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton. It's also true that he deserved it. It's rather frustrating, to say the least, when you put a lot of work into improving an article and another edit starts "dis-improving" it, and then utterly refuses to engage in meaningful discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He deserves uncivility for adding sources? How is removing sources improving Misplaced Pages? And how is saying that consensus is that we don't remove sources "dishonest"? --Smashville 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to discuss the value of the edits in question with you, Smashville, but that is not the issue here. The Talk pages for the articles in question are open to all comers. RedSpruce (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can't bring something up...and then when someone responds, tell them to discuss it somewhere else. No offense, but this complaint is about you - you don't get to pick the forum. --Smashville 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When sentence one in a statement about claims of incivility reads "It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton", one would hope that sentence two states "I understand the issue and will do everything I can to work in a constructive and polite manner". It's rather disturbing to read the actual follow up, "It's also true that he deserved it." The first step to solving this problem needs to be a genuine recognition by User:RedSpruce that there is a major incivility problem here, which only compounds the refusal to work by consensus in editing and improving the articles in question. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is one issue; claiming that I "refuse to work by consensus" is a separate issue, and is also both incorrect and ironic. The source of the frustration that lead to my incivility was the fact that both User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:Alansohn refused to discuss the edits in dispute. RedSpruce (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...he answered you right here 32 minutes after you asked. This is after - in your very first contact with him - you called him unintelligent, you threatened to block him for adding sources and "an idiot and a moron" on his talk page. You then responded to his comment 5 times. All because he added sources to unsourced statements. --Smashville 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce, what is your definition of consensus? It appears to be you disagreeing with two other people that agree with each other. I don't see how one out of three represents the consensus position. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here aren't very informed, Smashville. Your first link above is incorrect, for one thing. RAN answered me a few times, but never in a meaningful manner, leading to my comments: 1, 2, 3. Interspersed with this fruitless attempt at dialog, RAN continually re-added his edits without any discussion. I would ask a question and he would make several article edits that ignored my question, and then go back to the Talk page and make some meaningless comment. Whether through willful deception or a communication disability, his responses were always off-target and never addressed my points.

It is incorrect to say that RAN only "added sources to unsourced statements", and this shows that you haven't read the existing discussion on the article's Talk page, but I'm not going to discuss that any further here. If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I have read the discussions. All of your issues are with him adding sources. You realize if he is constantly reverting your edits then you are also constantly reverting his edits...it seems as if you are trying to assert ownership over these articles. --Smashville 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page.RedSpruce (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't bring something to ANI and then tell someone to go to the talk page. That's not how this works. --Smashville 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The heading here is that I have a "pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing". If you're saying that my edits to the article were, in your opinion, deliberately disruptive, then I'll respond. Otherwise the quality of my article edits is off-topic. RedSpruce (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You made a claim that he constantly reverts you...I said that in turn you constantly revert him. It's a two-way street. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. None of this excuses incivility and personal attacks. --Smashville 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You said that I was removing sources (by implication sources that were valid and appropriate) from the article. That is a quality-of-my-edits issue. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. I claimed he never answered me in a meaningful manner or answered my questions. If you disagree with this, please point to a question that I asked or a point that I raised and then point to his response and explain how it addressed my question or point. RedSpruce (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you have discuss all the surrounding facts. That's how a discussion works. And again - the fact that you didn't find his responses "meaningful" doesn't give you free reign to be uncivil and make personal attacks. --Smashville 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Loren.wilton, your comment doesn't make any sense. I never claimed that there was a consensus. Alansohn incorrectly made that claim, even though a) he had contributed nothing to the article discussion, and b) the discussion, such as it was, was a disagreement between two people. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a "pattern" you're looking for, I have some diffs I'll be digging up. This discussion was the final act of a series of edits that culminated in RedSpruce accusing me of being homophobic. When asked to apologize for his personal attack, he bizarrely apologized "to Misplaced Pages." Diffs of said discussion will follow upon request, if you don't believe me. Bellwether _C 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one diff where he calls me homophobic. I'm haven't yet tried to find the bizarre apology "to Misplaced Pages", but if it's necessary, I will. I don't think I've touched the OSC article since his attacks. Bellwether _C 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article since his edit, including the source for the name of her parents. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• here in G. David Schine he is removing the quote parameter from each reference. Can someone take a look and decide? Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual." Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article placed in the reference using the "quote=" parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person reread the entire article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. You cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a matter of developing consensus, its a matter of deleting everything I add to the article, no matter how well sourced it is. The only reason for deleting it appears to be that RedSpruce didn't add it to the article. He keeps adding to the edit summary that my additions are "irrelevant". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what is most telling is the above discussion...where he says that WP:NPA says that he should respond to his personal attack...kind of like, "Officer, I just punched that guy in the face and now he won't talk to me..." Not only is he admitting the personal attack, but he is finding something wrong with someone not responding...to the point of taking it to ANI...which is very, very, very bassackwards...He also said in this thread that Richard "deserved" it...--Smashville 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are fond of repetition, aren't you Smashville? You'll have to continue it without me from here on, Im afraid. And I apologize for calling you a sophist. A sophist, roughly speaking, is someone who pretends to be obtuse for the sake of argument. I no longer think that description fits you at all. RedSpruce (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is a certain irony in your basically calling someone stupid in a thread about your incivility. Bellwether _C 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but at what point was any of this about me? You are being called out on this thread for incivility. The only interaction I've ever had with you has been in this thread and in the above thread. --Smashville 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are three ironic moments: 1) above as you point out 2) telling Smash that he will not converse anymore inside a discussion about RedSpruce complaining that I don't talk to him. 3) using a McCarthy like threat in the previous ANI that he know of others with the same complaints about me, like McCarthy's "I hold in my hand a piece of paper with the names of ...." It is deliciously ironic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum 4) He left this comment on a talk page after being told by me he is showing ownership tendencies: "Your point of view about 'ownership' is incorrect, and your persistence in making this accusation is a personal attack." (my emphasis added) He has called me a "moron", and me saying he is showing ownership tendencies as "personal attack" is perfect irony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the sources added by RAN have *no* mention of the article subject - which is a bit odd, no? Also, many of them were added to odd places in the articles. RedSpruce did attempt discussion, was met with RAN's normal dismissive attitude. Both editors have "interesting" discussion styles, so combining them is probably going to lead to problems. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I will lend modest support to the claim of uncivil editing based on my knowledge of his footnote defrocking at G. David Shine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks and public computer

Hi, I continually get autoblocked and people vandalising using my account (one happened just today) because I use a public computer. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Littleteddy (roar!) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could create an account for yourself. WP:ACCOUNT. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my own account. I will log out in future, but I still get autoblocked occasionally. I'll just add the template ASAP when I do I guess. Littleteddy (roar!) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, I misread - Yeah you need to make sure that you don't have the "keep me logged in" checked off - so that when you end your session you don't remain logged in. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The autoblocker doesn't (or isn't supposed to anyhow) block logged in users on IP users. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Used to happen to me in 2006 when I was on a large ISP that channeled its entire traffic through one proxy filter. Orderinchaos 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP is autoblocked (due to another logged-in user), my understanding is that it will prevent logged-in users from editing from that IP. —Random832 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding, it will block any users who try to edit through the blocked IP. Woody (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But not if the IP was blocked independently of a user? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks can either block logged in users or not, although the default is obviously to not block logged in users. My understanding of autoblock is that it is supposed to catch other logged in users, and I guess I do find this to be a useful way to ID sockpuppets. Not infallible, obviously, but useful. Natalie (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Logged in users used to get caught by the autoblocker but not for ages now. I suppose we'd better ask someone in the know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The original block could have been set to autoblock. It is just a tickbox that needs unticking Agathoclea (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point in autoblocks, it enables blocking of an IP and all users on that IP without knowing what the IP, as is the case for all non-checkusers blocking signed in accounts. This stops someone using strings of abusive accounts from the same IP. This causes problems with those whose ISPs used proxies which either don't send x-forwarded headers or the software hasn't been configured to use (ask the SAs to add them). This used to be a huge problem for AOL with their superproxy system but that was resolved sometime ago by them adding x-foward info, it was also a problem with google accelerator (don't know if it still is), where adding WP to the sites not to accelerate eases the problem. Perhaps unsuprisingly WP:AUTOBLOCK gives some info on this --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I'll just add the unblock template when it does happen. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alloacab 213.123.175.151

I tracked this ip address (213.123.175.151) to the Alloa Citizens Advice Bureau! I have absolutly no idea why somone there would hurl abuse at my talk page, it was deleted but i reverted it so you can see it at my talk page. Terrasidius (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How strange, have you left any warnings? If not, do so, if you have, hang tight, I'm sure someone will be around to help. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a recurrent event, then I'd bring it forward here, or continue with this notice. If it's a one time offense, goodness knows whose behind the terminal, even at the Advice Bureau. Vandalism is pervasive. Just revert and ignore for now. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tagging of French commune stubs

User:JonHarder is adding unreferenced tags in the French commune stubs. However I think as there are thousands of French communes, so tagging all of them is not needed, or quite impractical. The French communes are inherently notable, so no one will challenge their notability. I have removed the tags from the stubs which this user added. Another user User:Gene Nygaard supporting addition of tags saying "it is entirely proper to tag them all—and highly improper to remove those tags without discussion". The tagging generally looks bad, and in uncontroversial articles like the French commune stubs is not much important. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite impractical to tag more than 30,000 French communes with unreferenced tags. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So if they are all getting tagged as unref (sorry I don't have any diffs to check), then is there a single reference, somewhere, that can be added to the French commune articles? Where is the information about them coming from? An atlas? Add a ref, that's all that seems to be needed. Adding a tag draws attention to the article and maybe someone will do a driveby ref for each. Without looking at a single article, it doesn't seem harmful to have the tags if the articles, like any other, are truly unreferenced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They likely all came from an unreliable source in the first place (i.e., Misplaced Pages). But yes, somebody probably could find reliable sources for them. Until they do, those tags are quite proper. The fact that others which could have the tags do not is completely irrelevant. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Unreferenced tags are not the same as notability tags. If the articles they are tagging do not have any references, what reason do you have for removing them? --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags are often not used in uncontroversial articles because these make the appearance of the article bad. The article United States is too long. But a too long tag is not allowed in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a reference then. Problem solved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are unreferenced, "looking bad" is the least of their problems. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will work? Seems reliable and independent of Misplaced Pages. Verifies the existence. Add it to unref articles and remove the tag. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, its a pay for service. Still looking....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And fix the sort keys so the articles appear in the proper place in their categories while you are there. Like this one at Chalé. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have done that while tagging them, or indeed, instead of tagging them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nygaard's been complaining about that as long as I can remember, and he's never very pleasant in going about it either. In the two years and more that he's been spreading misery, he could have submitted Bugzilla reports - it is a bug, English ignores accents when sorting - or even tweaked {{DEFAULTSORT}}, but apparently he prefers being curmudgeonly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly he should not be going round telling other editors what to do. He should shut up or do it himself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We expect stubs to be unreferenced in many cases; the unreferenced tag isn't needed if there is also a stub tag on the article. That is, the stub tag isn't a compliment, it's a cleanup tag that indicates the article needs significant work before it will be of high quality. I often remove unreferenced tags from stubs for that reason, if I am looking at the stub for some other reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The time spent tagging stubs as unreferenced is wasted. It could have been spent fixing them up. Basic info for French communes: INSEE - census data, INSEE - "Inventaire communal", IGN - very basic geographical data. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several aspects to consider with respect to this discussion:

• What policies or guidelines address articles that are unreferenced and how does this apply to the {{unreferenced}} tag?
• To what extent are stub article exempt from WIkipedia policy?
• When is it appropriate to revert dozens of good faith edits without notify the editor that there is a problem, in the process carelessly discarding many other edits not related to the tag in question?
• When is it appropriate to use an automated tool, Twinkle in this case, to undo work that clearly is not vandalism?

I recently have increased my new page patrol activity, and this edit is probably what set off this particular thread. Six days later, on March 9, Otolemur crassicaudatus used Twinkle over a period of half an hour reverting my edits and then more again. When I asked what was up, it was suggested they go to AfD instead. With some amicable back and forth, I declined bringing them to AfD and since no evidence was presented that a guideline was violated, I suggested that the tags be restored, which I did some time later. I thought the matter was settled until a new wave of reversions on different articles started. It is quite frustrating to have my edits reverted as if they were vandalism, having to ask what the problem is and receiving no solid response. It became clear there was disagreement over the unreferenced tags, but I still don't understand why article improvements not related to the tags are also being removed. Apparently other editors are experiencing the same thing.

The policy behind tagging articles as unreferenced is obviously the core policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which states if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. Whenever I create a new article my screen always presents me with as you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. I see no reason to exempt stub articles from this policy; Misplaced Pages:Stub specifically says … Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub… With these as a basis, when I patrol new articles, I will continue to add the unreferenced tags as needed and object to their removal without providing the requested sources.

Currently many geographical location stubs are being added and the majority are referenced. The outstanding editors in this process include Cxz111 (talk · contribs), Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs), Afil (talk · contribs), M-le-mot-dit (talk · contribs) and Sadalmelik (talk · contribs). I'm sure I've missed some. It is quite effective to add the tag: the references soon appear (and who better to know where the material came from than the person creating the article), or the tag prompts the editor to include sources from that day onward. Apologies for this whole thread spilling onto the noticeboard. It belongs with the guideline and policy discussions. ✤ JonHarder 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment from probable RichSatan sockpuppets

• RichSatan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Byaahahaha (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 91.84.95.68 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.179.208 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.177.104 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.153.198.246 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.178.70 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

WP:HARASS states that "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

User:RichSatan and these IPs (which all resolve to the same company on the same street, in the same town, in the same county in the UK) has been making ad hominem and generally harassing trolling comments on Talk:Games Workshop. The purpose of these remarks is to remove User:Cailil from the discussion.

RichSatan (a confirmed Sockpuppeteer and a user with a history of ad hominem attacks) blames me for the policy based removal of unsourced and unsourcable "comments and Criticism" from the Games Workshop article. A number of IPs from Exeter, in Devon (UK), have over a period of nearly a year made the same trolling remarks a) about me and b)insisting on the reinclusion of unsourced original research. If RichSatan had not used sock puppets this would be a content dispute but it is now a behavioural issue and in my view a case of harrassment.

Both RichSatan and these IPs claim I am on a "one man crusade" to remove criticism from this page for reasons other than site policy. This is not the case. The material is OR and unsourced. Also consensus has been reached a number of times. An RFC was opened specifically in the matter and previous to that Sir Fozzie was ask for a sysop review of my behaviour. On both occasions the community has pointed out to RichSatan and these Exeter IPs that my behaviour is proper and defined by site policy. (For those wishing to verify the content issue see here This is also a direct link to the unsourced comments and criticism these IPs and RichSatan demand be reinstated into the article)

On Feb 21st User:RichSatan began blanking all references to him on talk pages and in XFDs. He was not only removing comments of his that had been replied to by a number of editors but was altering other users (mainly mine) talk page comments. When this was reverted User:Byaahahaha began engaging in the same behaviour . When this was reverted by Sir Fozzie (whom I contacted) Byaahahaha blanked Sir Fozzie's page. That account was then blocked for vandalism and as a probable RichSatan sockpuppet.

Yesterday IP 91.84.95.68 (from Exter) made the same RichSatan comments to Talk:Games Workshop. I opened an RFCU case to identify whether RichSatan was a sockpuppeteer or note. It confirmed that Byaahahaha is a RichSatan sock-puppet, but made no comment on the IPs (see here). As far as I can see this is a case of WP:DUCK - all these IPs are making RichSatan's comments. All the IPs come from the same ISP in the same location. The problem is that 91.84.95.68 claims that it has never read the page before. Yet like all the other IPs it has made no other contributions to WP. RichSatan and these IPs have engaged in the same behaviour - trying to discredit, intimidate and undermine my editing, demanding that I do not edit the page and stop my "constant involvement". For the record I have not edited Games Workshop in 2008. In fact in the period August 2007 - March 2008 I have made 2 edits to the page. 1 removing link spam (September 2007) the other (on December 10th) in accordance with the findings of the RFC.

RichSatan's behaviour replicated by the IPs

Insistence on the inclusion of unsourced criticism at Talk:Games Workshop
by RichSatan
by 91.84.95.68
by 82.152.179.208
by 82.152.177.104
by 82.153.198.246
by 82.152.178.70

Current situation

User:Byaahahaha was blocked indef blocked (on Feb 21st) as a vandalism only account and a probable sock of RichSatan. The User:RichSatan is dormant but as yet unblocked for disruption or sockpuppetry (his last edit was Feb 21st). The current Exeter IP is active (User:91.84.95.68) and engaging in the same ad hominem attacks on me and claims of no consensus on Talk:Games Workshop]. I'm requesting uninvolved sysop overview and intervention as I think this is a simple case of WP:DUCK - these IPs are probable RichSatan socks and are engaged in a campaign of harassment against me.

Apologies for the length of this post.--Cailil 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it wasn't already, I've added a link to this section to Talk:Games Workshop Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for placing that link Darkson.

Also it might help if a sysop examined whether the main sockpuppeteer account (User:RichSatan) should be blocked and to generally keep an extra pair (or pairs) of uninvolved eyes on the page--Cailil 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on from 91.84.95.68 yesterday (I may still be, for that matter). I am not RichSatan. I am based just outside northeast London. Probably my IP looks up to Exeter because that's where Eclipse Internet, my ISP, are based. I wish to repeat and reinforce my objections to Cailil's content edits - there are sourced comments in the referenced section. Notice that my objections are to his edits, not to him personally, and I object to the characterisation of this as ad-hominem. I consider that Cailil is using the ad-hominem rules to defend questionable edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The same user starts a section called "Cailil's constant involvement here" - which claims I'm on a "one-man" crusade" and now they describe it as not being an ad hominem attack? This ANI posting is not about the content - its about the fact that one user - always from the same ISP and same ISP location has been making these same claims and demands since February-March 2007. Using multiple IPs is discouraged. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is also against site policy. This person has claimed that they only read the page days ago, yet their dynamic IP range (91.84.95.68, 82.152.17x.xx and 82.152.1xx.xx) has made the exact same contributions - attacks on me, demands I don't edit the page, and insistence on the reinsertion of unsourced and improperly sourced material. A carbon copy of User:RichSatan's (again a confirmed sock puppeteer) contributions to the page. This is about sock-puppetry (or perhaps meat-puppetry) not content--Cailil 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not a "sock puppet", it is not about sock-puppetry - more than one person is questioning you, and you are attempting to dismiss criticism by claiming they're all the same. Again you are attempting to change the subject and attack me until the point where I cannot ignore it. I will ignore it again in the interests of amity but I say again: you cannot expect to continue to act in bad faith and attack me, then make counterclaims in defence. From where I sit, you are making ad-hominem attacks, you are using admin involvement as a threat, you are making questionable edits and you are acting in bad faith. If you continue to do this, I will suggest that you are investigated on suspicion of breaking the rules - not me. Let's make this extremely crystal clear: your abysmal behaviour is being indulged in the interests of amity. I am not under scrutiny here because I have made no edits to the article in question. You are under scruitiny and it is for you to justify your edits. I am the plaintiff here, not the suspect. I will make further comments on the edits in question on the relevant talk page, but I will not be made a victim here. For the record, I have no control over the IP I'm assigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Having been involved with this from the start, I have this to say. I find it likely that the IP's are RichSatan who has been caught sock-puppeting previously, especially with your first edits to the talk page being an attack on the editor who has edited their only a few times in the last six months, and hadn't edited the article at all since December. However without checkuser level proof, I have to Assume Good Faith and leave off things unless there's a a problem. However, I suggest that you leave off attacking Calil, who has been more then fair with regards to the situation. He has correctly applied Misplaced Pages's core policies (of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and Notability especially), and asked for WP:DR via 3rd Opinion and RfC when others would have edit-warred. Please consider yourself warned as to the consequences of your attacks. Discuss the content, not the contributor. SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

During the time that I've worked with Cailil (over a year now), his conduct has consistently met all of Misplaced Pages's conduct and content standards. Indeed, he is so scrupulously patient and courteous when dealing with incorrigible POV-pushers and sockpuppeteers that I wish he would let me nominate him for adminship. I have checked into the IP editor's very serious allegations, and in my opinion they are spurious. Based upon RFCU results and the IP conduct, I recommend a block. Durova 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kendobs1 (talk · contribs)

Kendobs1 (talk · contribs), more than likely the same person as Kendobs (talk · contribs), is making personal attacks at several editors' talk pages. The editors he's attacking are of Serbian origin and the attacks he's making are nationalistically oriented and, I believe, are a result of an ongoing dispute in some Kosovo related articles. Kendobs is currently blocked for disruptive edits (although he also made the same kind of attacks under that username) so he's using a likely sockpuppet name Kendobs1 to circumvent his block. These are some of the attacks in question: and are by Kendobs1 and , , , , , by Kendobs. Since not many people here understand the Serbian language, here is an english translation of some of those words:

• jebem - I fuck
• majku - (your) mother
• srpsku - Serbian

I didn't bring this to WP:AIV nor to WP:SSP because, even if Kendobs1 gets indef blocked and Kendobs gets a block extension, I suspect that by the end of the day today or tommorrow Kendobs2 will rear his ugly head and start this all over again. This needs to be dealt with thoroughly so I thought I'd ask for advice on how to stop these attacks effectively.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked indef, please monitor for further sockpuppets, which will now be blocked on sight.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed several admins know this guy on sight. If he returns under another Kendobs name, or any random name, and starts again, drop me a note on my talk page. I will personally handle it ASAP... Or just post a thread here, and someone will deal with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks gents and/or ladies. SWik78 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) The Serbian/Kosovar problem appears to be perennial, two groups of people very upset over land. This sounds like NIMBYism and the hunt for lebensraum and irredentism all rolled into one phenomenon. And now it's spilled over into trolling and sockpuppetry. Yuck! — Rickyrab | Talk 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Osroene article incivil editing

Can you please, check the anon IP revert war and incivil language in this article (see revert comment slang), and address the issue:

Please, also, see this recent relevant exchange at ANI , as well as checkuser identified and banned sock accounts: Azad chai (talk · contribs), Azerbaboon (talk · contribs).

Also, please, again note that the reverts by anon IP were made to the version by User:TigranTheGreat, who is himself engaged in reverts on that article, but is limited by 1RR parole. Also User:TigranTheGreat earlier used the "baboon" slang , very similar to the comment used by anon IP here. Atabek (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Baboon is not a slang. It's an animal which I currently study in my anthropology class and which I happen to find a disgusting creature. You can't assume that everything is about you and prevent people from using ordinary terms.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If Americans Knew article is being attacked by malicious, uncivil editors

Extremely uncivil, inaccurate, and defamatory comments about living people were put on the discussion page ("If only Americans Knew that the entire board of this group has a Jew-hating skeleton in their closet...") These need to be removed and the poster needs to apologize or be blocked from further posts. In addition, the continued malicious reversions need to stop. The information I posted about If Americans Knew was sourced, verifiable, and accurate. It needs to be protected against group vandalism. "Editorforaccuracy (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"

The above editor appears to be a spa and possibly the same user as Factualizer. IrishGuy 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - the sources seem to very weak in that article - I suggest it needs more eyes and lots of work. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

give a strong warning and see if this user does it again. Thright (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

legal threats and personal attacks by EBDCM (talk · contribs) (review of indefinite block)

Here is some background information in respect to EBDCM's behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=prev&oldid=197732974 EBCDM has been indefinetly blocked but MastCell is considering to unblock him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=196575226 EBDCM has responded to the attacks he has made initially at MastCell's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197584542 EBDCM had been warned about making attacks. His initial response is below.

Disagree, Jayron. I'm not using Eubulides affiliations against him. I'm merely stating a fact. His edits are not good are are severely biased AGAINST chiropractic including unilaterally deciding what is an acceptable reference and how it is to be used. Just like how you've unilaterally blocked me without proper discussion especially with the points raised on MastCell's talk page. Regardless, all the points I raised above are valid and one needs only to look at the talk history to see how Eubulides and Quack Guru have seized the day and implement their agenda of fear mongering edits and having a double standard with respect to the chiropractic article. If I can make a formal complaint I'd love to do it because I had been intending to do so until Eubulides sneak attack to admin MastCell (whom I owe an apology).

After being indefinetly blocked he posted more comments on his Misplaced Pages talk page. EBDCM explains that he has a lawyer friend and if necessary will take legal action. Read the comment below.

I am not making personal attacks, I am commenting on Eubulides' edits. Your SUBJECTIVE interpretation is reprehensible. You have also failed to discuss my rebuttal on MastCell's page; and if this block does not expire on the original date (which was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too long considering other precedents in similar circumstances) it will result, if necessary, in legal action. My good friend is a lawyer and owes me a favour. Please remove the indefinite block which was not justified or I will be forced to take remedial actions against yourself and the entire Misplaced Pages project if necessary. I expect a response ASAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=197889014 EBDCM claims his attacks are not personal attacks but a "play-by-play of what is happening on chiropractic Talk."

EBDCM is very combative at the chiropractic talk page, has made legal threats, and personal attacks. I would like the community to decide whether EBDCM should stay indefinetely blocked or unblocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are not acceptable. This one has been withdrawn (). EBDCM is in a hole and I think the blocks placed by Jehochman were appropriate. I also think there is the potential to make some headway here; I would ask that Jehochman (the blocking admin) and I be allowed to work this out in as calm and rational an atmosphere as possible. Neither Jehochman or I are going to facilitate abuse of Misplaced Pages or legal threats, and I'm not going to unblock unless Jehochman is fully on board and a clear set of behavioral expectations are in place. In any case, I've asked EBDCM to take a few days away from Misplaced Pages and think about things before we make any sort of decision. Feedback is of course welcome. MastCell  19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Canvassing

This page Template:Canvassing is worrisome because it encourages violation of our canvassing policy. The editor who created it, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) was recently involved in the highly problematic Misplaced Pages:Delegable proxy proposal under a former username, and was blocked for sock puppetry. I am concerned that we have an editor who is engaged in creative disruption. These serious-looking proposals appear to be wasting time and aggravating the community. See also Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Opting in to canvassing. Accounts that don't write articles and only put forth disruptive proposals eventually need to be restricted. Misplaced Pages is not a game; it's not a laboratory; it's an encyclopedia. What shall we do about this situation? Jehochman 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the template under WP:CSD T2 ("blatant misrepresentation of established policies"). A template encouraging canvassing seems inappropriate - I'm not really looking forward to hearing "...but they said they wanted to be canvassed to vote in this AfD!" Appropriate notification of discussion does not, and has never, required a template, so it's hard to see any utility here. No comment on the larger issues. MastCell  20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this userbox? — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel these proposals are a waste of time, it may help to remember that it is not mandatory for you or any other editor to involve yourself in them; you are free to leave it to others. Incidentally, delegable proxy was designed for just that purpose; so that one user could express the views of many and thus save time, while still allowing each user's opinion to be represented. That particular proposal may not have been the best vehicle for doing so, but there's nothing wrong with throwing out ideas. However, this community seems to be pretty harsh and conservative about that kind of stuff. Granted, the methods used to promote WP:PRX weren't all that great. Anyway, it is clear that you can crush these ideas in a lot less time than it takes me to create them. Moreover, I have little to gain by stirring up trouble for trouble's sake.

Creative disruption usually involves trying to find loopholes in rules in order to cause a negative kind of disturbance. But opt-in canvassing seeks to close a loophole, which is that users can presently communicate on IRC, email, and other off-wiki channels that they have established with informal caucuses, and it goes under the radar. Those who have not had time or inclination to set up effective off-wiki caucuses are at a potential disadvantage, which opt-in canvassing seeks to, at least partially, fix.

In the wake of the likely (and misguided) rejection of that, then it becomes necessary to think of another creative solution. Am I supposed to read people's minds and know what they will object to? I have yet to understand what exactly motivates the community to do what it does in these cases, as the logic I'm seeing does not seem entirely consistent. Abd would say that the motivation is a desire to cling to power, although, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm more inclined to apply WP:AGF. The phenomenon I'm seeing here is somewhat familiar to what I've read about in Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People.

The standard process for dealing with proposals on a wiki is WP:BRD (see diagram at WP:CCC. Someone makes a bold edit, and if it's not reverted, it becomes policy. Otherwise, we discuss it. There has to be leeway for creative solutions or we stagnate. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about Misplaced Pages before suggesting further changes to policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a chat room for exploring novel policy ideas, nor is it an experiment in unlimited free speech. Perhaps you want to obtain a dump of the Misplaced Pages database and download free MediaWiki software so you can build your own version of the encyclopedia with your own rules. It is disruptive to continuously propose large, unsupported changes in many policies. Jehochman 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the template under CSD T2. This should start out as a policy proposal, not a template creation. It's not clear what problem this template is solving. People understand the present canvassing rules, and it's a troublesome topic. There is no reason to revisit that entire area without an urgent cause. The memory of WP:Delegable proxy is not pleasant, and per User:Jehochman's comment about 'disruptive proposals', editors who we associate with that topic should perhaps avoid the subject of policy reform for a little while. Working in safe areas might be a way to regain their reputation and earn general respect for their work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this editor. Obuibo Mbstpo seems to like playing devil's advocate and seems to also be an avid WikiTruth enthusiast. See these edits, where he actually used them as refs: . He's also posting this canvassing proposal at many different talk pages and making policy changes in the interest of getting the proposal passed more easily. No offense intended -- but I've already reverted him a couple of times and I don't want to be accused of stalking, so I just want to bring this to others' attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:24, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

:::Am I really that drunk? Or are there actually double edits above...? _GB 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Turns out neither... _GB 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There were, that was my mistake :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the idea Obuibo Mbstpo is the new User:Radiant... except has more trouble keeping his nose clean. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) A possible hypothesis is that he's simply not dutch enough ;-)

Just to note that following the deletion of this template under CSD T2, the user simply went over to WP:CSD and deleted T2, marking it a depracated (without discussion). It is certainly a novel way to go... "If what you are doing falls foul of a policy, unilaterally revise that policy to allow you to do what you want. Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On Village pump, this same user, Obuipo, proposes a similarly bizarre pro-Myspace class system. See here (subsection). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm no one that anyone has ever heard of to the extent of someone like Radiant. Anyway, I don't mind people watching my contribs; to paraphrase Barney the Dinosaur, "I stalk you, you stalk me, we're a wiki-family. With a quick revert, we're back to status quo; AfD the rest and make it snow!" (Actually, most of my AfDs don't end that way, but I was having trouble thinking of a rhyme.)

Anyhoo, if you want to settle this once and for all, might as well force the issue and take it to RfC, and see what the wider community thinks. I'm going to continue coming up with creative ideas and being bold about implementing them, or at least throwing them out there to get the creative juices going. And the reason I think that's okay is that while it's an encyclopedia, it's also a wiki, and we're screwing it up by compromising the wiki aspect in ways that aren't necessary to preserve the encyclopedic aspect of it. Moreover, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, you have to go through proper channels to do stuff; here, you are free to make good faith edits without asking permission, as long as the change you make is easily reversible.

I'm pretty well-versed in Misplaced Pages's policy, although there's always something more to learn. Then again, You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Ah, Misplaced Pages. So many paradoxes. Enough that you can claim policy is on your side no matter what you do; or conversely, that you can accuse anyone of breaking it if you don't like what they're doing. As long as the mob's on your side, you're OK. Unfortunately, the mob does not appear to be on my side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with WIARM and IAR and BOLD, I do not particularly like being called part of a mob. But thanks anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All well and good. However keep in mind that if we think you're just throwing out ideas for the sake of experimenting, there are things that can be done to put a stop to it, despite you feeling that it's beneficial. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And Obuibo, if you spent as much time making sure your "contributions" to policy discussions were valid, novel, and appropriate as you did to making sure your "barney quote" that you revised a couple of times, was appropriate, you might get a better response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to get it juuuuuuuuust perfect. However, you are welcome to be bold and improve it. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: You need to realize these people have a point. You're very energetic, but your ideas are missing the mark badly, probably because you don't really understand Misplaced Pages. The best way to gain that understanding is to participate more in it without trying to change it. You know the basics, I think, but you don't really have a sense of the place. Mangojuice 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: Dude, I figure you have the right idea. You just need to go slower early on, so that you can pick up feedback and respond to it before you get into too much trouble. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a couple problems (in addition to my approach): (1) People don't give ideas a chance to be tried, and (2) They take my ideas as immutable proposals that needs to be shut down rather than as something that maybe we can tweak, build off of, maybe take a few aspects of the concept and work with, etc. Obviously most of the stuff I propose isn't ready for prime-time, but I put it out there to get feedback, and people feel the need to MfD it. If you conceal it from view, how will it be improved upon?

But in most cases, people say the basic ideas are flawed. That is pretty much the most common problem I encounter when I try to reform anything, whether IRL or here – people saying, "What we have now is fine." If it's working so well, why are we going downhill? By the way, some people find it objectionable that I quote from Wikitruth but I feel pretty much the same way they do: "Make no mistake, we wouldn't be bitching this much about Misplaced Pages and Wikipedian failings if we didn't, at the core, love the whole concept." (Right on, brothers!) By the way, I hope I don't come off as shooting the messenger here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most of your knowledge of Misplaced Pages comes from WikiTruth (you even created a userbox denoting that, I believe), and their information will obviously be slanted towards the viewpoint that Misplaced Pages is broken and needs to be changed. So it makes perfect sense that you're immediately trying to make such sweeping changes. As everyone else here has already advised, I too suggest you gain more knowledge from experience first. Wait a while before you decide things need changing. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Users with less experience here than Mbstpo seem to think this. He has the experience. He also has ideas. There are serious problems we have; there is a project Mbstpo started to collect "exit interviews." We can already see, in the parting comments of many ex-administrators (on and off-wiki), that something has drastically shifted. Sweep it under the carpet if you like, but don't complain if the carpet starts to get lumpy. What worked some years ago isn't working so well any more. Edit patterns are shifting, and more and more editor time is wasted in just maintaining articles from vandalism and POV-pushers. It's a losing battle, in fact. Vandalism, easy. Long-term dedicated and cautious POV-pushing, well, from my observations, we're a push-over. All it takes is patience. We have substantial effort going into AfD, and the argument for AfD is based on improving the reputation of the encyclopedia for reliability, but deleting non-notable articles does not improve the reliability of the encyclopedia (particularly as long as they meet WP:V). The reliability problems that harm our reputation are with more substantial articles. And we are not addressing the problem, we haven't even begun to address it. To do so will take structural changes (not, by the way, changes in policy, which is generally quite good; the problem isn't policy, but how policy is applied -- and misapplied). I follow Mbstpo's Talk page, and I'm not seeing warnings of substance. There is no pattern of tendentious editing, no incivility beyond some occasional sarcasm, quite mild by Misplaced Pages standards. Abd --23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially by the standards of Talk:IRV. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, MfDs aren't started in order to conceal things from view. If something doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, it's simply deleted. We don't keep things around on the basis of experimentation. Also: No one finds it objectionable that you quote from WikiTruth. But they aren't a reliable source so you can't use them as refs in articles. Plus, this edit in particular is of course not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, as the only point of it seems to be to criticize use of the word, and offers no actual information. It may even constitute intentional disruption, ie. vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The intent may not be to conceal stuff from view, but that's the end result. Also, I didn't get most of my knowledge of Misplaced Pages from Wikitruth; I just happened to stumble across that site a few days ago and was like, "Whoa, this is awesome." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The point applies nonetheless. We don't keep things around just so that people will see it. If it's not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, it gets MfDd. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

break

I figured this template didn't actually endorse canvassing, and tried to clarify the matter on the talk page, but since it's deleted no one can see those comments, nor do I know if I ever got a response. I wonder if the deleting admin even took the time to read those comments. In a nutshell, this seemed to be a poorly named template that should be used when someone wants to indicate they're not bothered by receiving lots of notices, which is one small reason we discourage canvassing. Besides the name itself, I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc.

So I have to ask, are all of you just responding to the name and what you thought would happen, or did you look and see what it actually was? -- Ned Scott 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding based on the VPP discussion so yes I know what the proposal and template were about. Your comment confuses me though Ned -- "...I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc." -- If it wasn't trying to discourage those negative aspects of canvassing, isn't that a bad thing? Equazcion •✗/C • 09:33, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion knows or should know about the template. But others don't, and will comment here based on the report. What could Ned have possibly meant? From context, it's pretty obvious that he meant to write "encourage" and simply slipped and wrote "discourage." The template did not encourage any prohibited form of canvassing. My opinion was, from the beginning, that the template was a bad idea, not because it would create policy violations, but because it was essentially useless. However, "useless" is a judgment, and judgments can be wrong, and we should give new ideas their day in the sun. If the template was misleading, the wiki way would be to fix it. So I'm getting tempted to DRV this.... I dislike that, because it wastes even more time.--Abd (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. What could we fix about it? As the deleting admin more or less noted, its fundamental purpose is to attempt to violate a policy. Canvassing is just not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Whether or not the template specifically said canvassing was okay or told people to do it, it's still not appropriate. Canvassing is not allowed even if someone states they don't mind being canvassed. People don't have a choice, to be canvassed or not. It's simply not allowed, at least with the current policies. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

...which you don't agree with changing, either, as noted in your Village Pump comments. The closed-mindedness of this community toward even giving a new idea a try amazes me. I think that despite the problems which are becoming more statistically evident, Misplaced Pages can coast awhile on its current momentum. But the situation is pretty ripe for a paradigm shift. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to call people closed-minded. The other possibility is that your ideas are just not good. Don't be so quick to judge people -- especially so many of them who all disagree with you. It's not all that likely that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And trust me, I myself am not inclined to agree with everyone else just because I'm part of the community. Take a look at my block log. When I feel it's necessary, I do take a stand, but your ideas just aren't good. Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:34, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they're bad ideas? The community won't allow (e.g. in the case of Template:Prob) enough slack for it to be determined whether it works in practice. So it's basically repeated iterations "will not!" "will too!" You just happen to have more people on your side. So be it. You win – kinda. But I think in the end, all this stuff is likely to become irrelevant, perhaps with the application of interwiki subversion branching, so it's kind of a moot point. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little puzzled why an admitted sock of an already indef banned editor is not shown the same door. --jpgordon 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• The block was lifted, OM has agreed to restrict himself to one account. See his talk page and the note from Jehochman. Mangojuice 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

82.19.153.51

• 82.19.153.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Serious and unprovoked personal attack Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be related to this ip 90.209.209.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Have warned both users (final and only warning for the first one)--Jac16888 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You (Gordonofcartoon) reverted their earlier vandalism. Doing that brings the risk of this type of pointless and groundless attack. Death and legal threats are also not unknown. Or at least I've often had both. Also a lot of stuff about how big a gay I am (true) and how much of a cocksucker I am (also true). WP:RBI is the only way to deal with this childishness. And a deep breath. Taking the higher ground, that's what I call it... as I curse their parents :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I use pots. :) -Jéské 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs), ban evasion, and enabling

Davkal (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked/banned prolific sockpuppeteer. He's currently socking and evading his ban fairly actively to advance his view on the SPOV/expert withdrawal issue. A representatively constructive comment describes opposing editors as "sucking <James> Randi's cock each night before bed" and boasts of a much larger sockdrawer. Most recently he's evading his ban to lob inflammatory "questions" at the proposed Martinphi-ScienceApologist interview.

The problem with revert, block, ignore is that he's receiving encouragement from Martinphi. Example: one of Davkal's socks inserted the same comment (targeting an old antagonist) 4 times in rapid succession (, , , ). He was reverted each time, as a banned user. After the 4th incident, Martinphi adopted the questions as his own . He was well aware at the time that this was a sock of a banned user (). Martinphi defends Davkal's comments as "useful" and "helpful", despite objections from the moderator, among others, that they are simply argumentative. I raised the issue on Martinphi's talk page here; Martin's response was that Davkal is "behaving well" and "deserves to be heard" ().

Davkal is, quite properly, banned. Banned users are not welcome to contribute. If the input truly was helpful for the encyclopedia, that might be one thing, but it's simply argumentation and pursuance of one of Davkal's old grudges. He's not "behaving well" at all. While Martinphi may find Davkal's input "useful", I think Martin has crossed a line in terms of enabling and encouraging Davkal to continue to evade his ban and pursue his old grudges, which is inappropriate behavior for an established user.

Martinphi is already under ArbCom sanction for "a variety of disruptive behavior". I'm not asking for any administrative action at this point other than some feedback about this issue. We should be reverting Davkal on sight as a banned sockpuppeteer. Martin isn't obligated to revert him and enforce the ban personally, but he can at least resist the temptation to enable and support Davkal's abuse. MastCell  21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi should be warned for disruption with specific diffs and citation to the relevant policy and arbitration case. If the behavior continues, then report to WP:AE or block, as appropriate. Proxy editing for a banned use is not allowed. Jehochman 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you, or any other outside admins, be willing to oversee this? I have enough involvement with Martinphi that it would be inappropriate for me to block him or use the tools under pretty much any circumstances. Also, his ArbCom remedy allows for banning him from pages he disrupts - it wouldn't make much sense to ban him from his interview page, so if any remedies are appropriate they would be outside the letter of the ArbCom decision. MastCell  21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, the problem has already been solved. I re-inserted some of the stuff Davkal contributed because I thought the content was good, and because I personally was willing to take responsibility for that content. I wasn't enabling a specific editor. Since then, I agreed not to do that, but merely -if the occasion arises- to take his ideas and insert them as my own. Thus, the appearance of my "enabling" him would be eliminated. Though, why his good edits shouldn't be enabled, I'm not completely sure.

In other words, I said I'd do as MastCell asked, except that I don't want good ideas to be rejected merely because of the source. So, if it comes up again, I'll take the source's ideas and insert them in my own words, without reference to the source. There isn't anything wrong with that. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Interview? Is this an encyclopedia or it is Crossfire (TV series)? If a deliberately dramatic clash of POVs is stage-managed then what do you expect but drama? <shakes head>. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at colonel Warden. Anyway, tThey're not really inflammatory questions. The first one asks about ScienceApologist's dismissal and misrepresentation of a central tenet of scientific skepticism (according to CSI); and the second asks for some explanation of the fact that a professor of biological sciences (Curtis Clark) recently referred to ScienceApologist and others as "fundamentalists" and only took consolation in the fact that while his edits could be edit warred out by the "fundies" at least he would know that he had acted as a scholar. In the context of the interview at hand these are highly pertinent questions and it is little wonder than martin would feel they should be addressed.

Colonel Warden, (-: Well, quite so, and actually in this case drama is actually somewhat constructive (entertaining, and also instructive). Anyway, I don't know why MastCell reported this, when I already said I was going to do things differently. I don't happen to know the rules as apply to banned users, never came up against this before. I thought it would be just fine as long as I took the responsibility for the content. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, people can be blocked for proxying for a banned user. Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly dare say it, but Davkal is right that they weren't really inflammatory questions. See what I mean about his having good ideas? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're not doing things differently but continuing to encourage him. If Davkal wants to fix errors in the Wittgenstein article, I doubt anyone would notice or care. The objection is to continuing to pursue a pet grudge which led, in part, to Davkal's banning. Anyone else? MastCell  22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly unusual case, and from a moral POV, one could argue Davkal has a right to be in on it, since as you say he was banned partly through contact with SA. But I'm not making that argument. Since I already said I wasn't going to do what you asked me not to (encourage Davkal by putting his material back into the interview page), I don't understand why you continue to persue this? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I pursue it because when I addressed the issue directly with you on your talk page, you repeatedly asserted that you would continue encouraging Davkal's input if you found it "useful" and "helpful". I appreciate that he often echoes your arguments, but I don't see that as an acceptable approach to handling a disruptive banned user. So I came here. For outside input. MastCell  22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I really said was that I'd use his ideas as my own if I wanted to (if they were good), but not insert his own edits, nor give him credit. You already had what you wanted. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds almost as if you are saying that you intend to continue proxying for Davkal, but that in the future you will be careful not to get caught at it. If that isn't what you mean, what do you mean? Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So if we get a good idea from someone blocked or banned, we should repress it? Frankly, I find this rather scary. I think I might need to set some watches, it's almost midnight. I don't think that some understand the principle that we are responsible for what we write here, regardless of where we got it. And we can report what a banned user has said elsewhere, if this benefits the project; we are responsible for making that decision. So if a banned user says that so-and-so, a user here, is a total jerk, that wouldn't be proper to report. But if the banned user makes a possibly useful suggestion, that can be reported and attributed, and if there is policy otherwise, I'd like to see it. That is not "proxying," which is passing on without filtering. --Abd (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, Davkal has no right to be in it, either personally or by proxy, because he is banned. If he wants to ask ArbCom for a temporary lifting of the ban then he can do so, but while he is banned he is not welcome. Editing on behalf of a banned user is forbidden. Don't do it. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, the policy is more nuanced than your take on it. If an editor believes that the contributions of a banned editor have merit, they may inlcude them. Thus, the rule for editing on behalf of banned users says "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." Similarly, after such edits are reverted the policy says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." In other words, there are times when it is acceptable to reinstate edits made by a banned user. Once someone has done so, they are no longer the contribution of the banned user. For interview questions, verifiability is only relevant to whether the assumptions underlying the questions are correct. (I.e. in a question "why did you X", what should be verified is that X was done by the questionee..) The interview exists because SA and Martinphi are perceived to be leading representatives of two battling points of view, and thus we all know that Martinphi has adequate reasons for wanting the best possible questions posed to SA. Martinphi is completely correct in being supported by policy on this. (I happen to think the whole interview is a poor idea, but that is another issue entirely, and certainly not Martinphi's fault.) GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is this complaint being forum shopped? Forum shopping is not appropriate behavior. GRBerry 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In what other forum(s) has this complaint been made? I just had a look, and couldn't find any. Cardamon (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I raised the issue directly with Martinphi on his talk page. Finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought it here for outside input. Could you clarify what you mean by "forum-shopping"? Thanks. MastCell  21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was probably confused then; I knew I'd seen it somewhere else, but didn't realize it was only on Martinphi's talk. Sorry about that. GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti - Infobox and Talkpage

I'm not certain if this is quite an admin issue, but I was very troubled by a recent post from an editor regarding the addition of an infobox by an anon editor. (see this section )I have replied extensively but would like some more input on whether I'm correct in my assertions in response to what I saw as an attempt to use a wikiproject to stifle dissent. Exxolon (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still not clear whether there is any legitimate dissent being stifled. But Fram has blocked Warbler123 (talk · contribs · logs) indef as a sock of WJH1992 (talk · contribs · logs), and 88.111.201.28 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week, for the same reason. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy (User:WJH1992) edits mostly UK television-related articles and now seems to have branched out. He is relentless to the point of pestilence. He has a sock-drawer that can only be described as overflowing, and seems not to be getting the message that his edits are unwelcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since WJH1992's original block in December, I have blocked 13 socks (IP adresses and usernames), and other admins have blocked a lot more (the category Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of WJH1992 is far from complete). The original block was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115#Block review of User:WJH1992, and nothing has changed since then. It is very annoying to have to check hundreds of edits (and he makes many, many, very minor edits) to see if they are useful or not, and things like this are not really helping (although it made me smile the first time he did it, by the third time it became rather stale). Fram (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the idea of removing infoboxes in all operatic singers are based on consensus from all the members of WikiProject Opera for standardization and also to avoid repeated / wrong data. I am putting this link at WikiProject Opera talkpage for members attention if you guys have further queries - Jay (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (A member of WikiProject Opera)

What's going on?

Can someone explain why Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg is showing up in the documentation section of a number of templates? Example: Template:Navigation with collapsible groups. — Scientizzle 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've just felt my way here to report the same: looks like something called via one or other of the documentation templates, but, taking a quick look at {{documentation}}, I can't see anything obvious. Someone's prank, I guess. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just traced it to Template:Documentation/docname‎, which seems to be transcluded through several levels. I've reverted it, but it may take a while for the change to filter through. Possibly semi-protection in order? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to figuring it out. I semi-protected the template. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection would make more sense. How often would this be edited by any user, including admins? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing/protecting. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn (return of GSNGuy, or his "dad", or whoever...)

From my talk page (and Mrschimpf's, as well): http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gladys_j_cortez#A_Speech_of_Apology Allegedly from banned user GSNGuy's "dad", User:Mr.GSNII. Could we run a checkuser and clear out the sock drawer again, or does that count as "fishing"? Gladys J Cortez 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Mr.GSNII has been blocked indefinitely. --clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. Tiptoety 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediate semi needed, please help!

Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal & Eliot Spitzer. Please semi these for a few weeks; look at the history on the scandal page in particular. The BLP vios are like machine guns here. Help! I can't protect, I'm not an admin. Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have semi'd the former for a month; the latter was already protected. Black Kite 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New account User:Basegirlball posting lots of AfDs

Would someone take a look at this, please. This is a new account, began editing just two days ago, and the person is posting AfDs left and right. The one that alerted me is for Dance Theater Workshop, one of the premiere dance presenters in New York, and an organization that easily fulfills notability requirements. There's absolutely no justification for an AfD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is significant, but the first edit for this user has the edit summary "Created page with 'importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');')". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD in question as I agree, and you beat me to posting here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And I closed the AfD for Independence Air. A couple of these AfDs may have some merit for discussion, but this account's limited history is rather interesting. Resolute 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have removed Twinkle from this user until she convinces an admin that she understands deletion policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we get the AfD removed after the resultant KEEP? referring to Heart of Brooklyn EraserGirl (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If its clear cut, then speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin will remove the AFD tag when they close it. Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is weird actually, though disruptive, some of the AfDs have merit (i.e.Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Salamat_Ali though not exactly phrased well). Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It only appears to hold merit. Observe the reasonfor deletion. Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC). SynergeticMaggot (talk)

No - my point is that it'd be considered a reasonable AfD if posted by a user in good standing. The others are fairly obvious Keeps. Black Kite 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this, as I had noticed the other nominations warranted deletion. Which is why I didnt close the rest myself. It hasnt been established that the editor is a sock, or just really, really confused. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a scintilla of confusion there - this person hit the ground running. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Though they may not be a confirmed sock, their editing style sure looks like it. How does a new account know to cite COI and WP:N in their AfD noms? Tiptoety 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they've edited as an IP for years, and only logged in editors can AfD stuff? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I only meant that I wont close the other afd's since they aren't as clear cut as the other ones. I'll leave that up to an admin for them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent - e/c*4) Well, I think that the user’s first edit should dispel any thinking that she is a new user. —Travis 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new user, first edit twinkle, second edit AFD. Most new users are trying to figure out how the buttons work, not mass AFD nominations. The only serious AFD is Mohammed Salamat Ali. KnightLago (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heart of Brooklyn as speedy keep. Tiptoety 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And I did the same as well with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bitforms gallery. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should we do a RFCU to find out if this user is a sock of someone? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that knowing how things work isn't a blockable offense. While it may be unlikely in this case, legitimate reasons exist for a user with experience to operate under a new account. Speedy close what needs to be speedy closed. Let run what should be let run. The user has been warned, and hasn't made an edit since. Unless this is the MO of a known sock, I'm not sure how a checkuser wouldn't be a fishing trip here. --Onorem♠Dil 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also User:Bananaqueen, who has also been on a deletion spree today with similarly mundane rationales. Bananaqueen has been around since 20 February 2008, but today imported Twinkle to their monobook.js from the same account as Baseballgirl (User:AzaToth/twinkle.js). --Canley (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, everyone gets Twinkle from there, sorry. --Canley (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, turns out your gut reaction was correct, Canley; Basegirlball and Bananaqueen are the same user, confirmed by Checkuser. I'll leave it to someone else to tag these up and block if not done yet; there are more, too, investigating it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're all socks of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs) etc. So blocked and tagged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

I'm going to shamelessly steal from GWH here:"We have another spurt of IP and sleeper account vandals hitting ANI. I have boosted the protection to semi-edit / full-move from unprotected / full-move, with indef expiry to avoid the expiry wiping out the full-move. In a few hours someone should turn down the semi-edit manually, retaining the move protection". He's moved from AN to ANI,so keep an eye on other boards for this crap. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the same vandal, I think. Different MO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted wikifollowing

User:Ns tyrantk keeps following me around and keeps trying to talk to me on my user talk page with pointless things, like saying that today's featured article looked interesting. I want him to stop, but he isn't. I also suspect him as a sock of User:Durzatwink, since he had a very similar record of tracking me. Can someone help me? STYROFOAM1994Review me! 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Such behavior can be sanctioned with a block. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It told me to come here. STYROFOAM1994Review me! 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know - an admin will have to look into it. For now, I dropped a message/note on the user's talk page as an advisement/warning of the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you check my sockpuppet suspicions of the user and Durzatwink et al. ?--STYROFOAM1994Review me! 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to fill out a suspected sockpuppet report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But can you help me gather some evidence? I suspect that the user changes his IP repeatedly by resetting his router, so I don't think Checkuser would be very effective. (should we try anyway?) STYROFOAM1994Review me! 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is in fact quite revealing. I haven't finished going through it yet, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked them all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Death threats

*sighs* ... looks like vandalism, but consensus is to treat them seriously, so I'm bringing it to everyone's attention. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that random on-wiki threats such as this merit any special attention - WP:AIV is still fine for those I think. I believe the emphasis is on actionable, real-world threats - e.g. bomb threat at a school. Ronnotel (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppy girl 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef. blocked as being a vandalism-only account as a result of a submission at AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2)I don't think this one falls under the new WP:Threats Of Violence, since its not actually a threat against a specific person/group/organisation/institute, its just a general rant, all this needs is a block i think. As has happened--Jac16888 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a threat, then I have come across hundreds of those while doing recent change patrolling. Just revert and warn like normal. (The user has been blocked anyways) Tiptoety 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, saying you're gonna hunt down and kill wikibastards (I guess that's us) sounds like a threat of violence to me. In any event, WP:RBI seems like the right way to go. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard as trolling, I doubt its even possible to kill ClueBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Without an identifiable target, there's probably not much any authorities could do about it anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends how you want to play it. Sure it'd be nice to block, revert, ignore. That's step one. But this is a threat of violence and it should be taken seriously. Local police would be very interested to see that this person has threatened murder. True, a specific target hasn't been identified. It's likely a hoax. It's a registered user so a checkuser would have to get the IP info and relay it to someone trustworthy of the info and reporting it. So, what's the threshold? I'd say we take it seriously and inform the local cops. Bstone (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And tell them what? And anyways, we dont know who the "local cops" are, we dont have an IP. Tiptoety 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell them that this person has threatened murder. That's more than enough to start an investigation and to get the cops very, very interested. As far as the IP info, as you can see in my previous post I mentioned we'd have to get a Checkuser involved who would then relay the IP info to a trusted party. Bstone (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are welcome to. Tiptoety 04:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. I would just need someone to furnish me with the IP info. Bstone (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is someone going to really contact the police? what will be told? "excuse me officer, I am calling to report a death threat against a semi-automated bot account" doesn't sounds logical, why aren't we applying WP:DENY here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The police are always, always interested when there has been a threat of murder. And this was not against a bot. It was against Wikipedians. Bstone (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks serious to me, why should be have to take this kind of Crap? "just because its the internet" is not good enough anymore, so many editors have left this project because of this stuff. One admin had death threats at home, this has to be stopped. 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it need be said that there is a significant difference between particularized threats of harm credibly leveled at specific individuals and generalized threats that don't reasonably trouble anyone; this is of the latter variety, especially because, pace Bstone, it was emphatically against a bot, to-wit, "wikibastardbot" (sic) (to be sure, the precedent phrase "wikibastards" might be understood as relating to individuals, but who those individuals might be is entirely unclear, and I cannot imagine that anyone is actually concerned or need actually be concerned). If someone wishes to report the "threat" to law enforcement, he/she, in his/her individual capacity as a citizen, may (even as it as it might strike some as utterly bizarre that anyone should be so inclined), but we need not, IMHO, trifle with it here further. Joe 07:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious the threat itself is against "wikibastardbot", its pretty safe to assume it was directed against ClueBot who had left the user a revert notice a few minutes before this rant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, this should be investigated.... she might not have been aware that the bot was not a human editor... — Rickyrab | Talk 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with wicked bizz-ah autoblock behav-yah

Could someone look into this: User talk:ShirleyPartridge. I lifted the autoblock earlier today, and the user says it didn't work, and she is still blocked. So she reposted the unblock-auto template, and it seems she still can't edit. I tried to lift the autoblock, but it says she isn't blocked. I am megaconfused... Can someone PLEASE help out with this. Mooch ass Grassy ass... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Partyhard2008

Partyhard2008 (talk · contribs) is creating several attack articles I've deleted that reference 4chan. I know that is related to some other issue. And reading their userpage, I suspect there are more new accounts. I've blocked for 12 hours, but please extend if this is part of a larger issue. MBisanz 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 4chan is a larger issue right now, and i feel that an indef block is suitable here. Tiptoety 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I'll be bold and extend it; they've been harassing users as of late and as such I have adopted a one-strike-one-week policy in re the IPs threatening and harassing users. -Jéské 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd seen 4chan mentioned in a bad way, but couldn't find a discussion quick enough and figured a fast block + extension review would be best. MBisanz 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. I'm just sitting here waiting for the next scratch monkeys from there. -Jéské 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to block?

{{Resolved}}Dealt with by FP@S; Coll blocked indef for socking. -Jéské 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}

Not yet resolved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}}

I recently filed a CheckUser on User:TharkunColl which unturned numerous sockpuppet accounts being used to distrupt wikipedia through racist editing and vandalism. The checkuser can be found here, I believe an indef block is needed on this account. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the CU: ll the above accounts have been blocked. FP@S took care of it already. Misread the first time; blocked Coll indef for sockpuppetry. -Jéské 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And an unblock. I declined the first one, would another admin care to give it a shot? -Jéské 07:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I blocked only the obvious throwaway accounts I listed at the bottom of the checkuser. I did not claim TharkunColl was himself the sockpuppeter. Haven't got time to deal with this right now, will be back later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A question about this - the block on TharkunColl says that he's been blocked because checkuser says he is SheildDane. However, the checkuser is just a request at the moment - it doesn't say that they have the same ip address. Has someone jumped the gun here? --Bazzargh (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked based on what Joseph said and what FP@S said at the CU; it's a behavioral sockblock and can be rescinded should CU come back "Unrelated". -Jéské 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly convinced of the TharkunColl block (ShieldDane is a different matter, he's clearly a disruptive troll). Note also that User:Joshuarooney, the initiator of the CU, has been playing a rather disruptive role himself. Very over-eager at pushing for blocks, making posts that appear as if he was assuming checkuser and/or admin powers to himself, very aggressive. This account too might require some more looking into, given the fact that it's a very recently returned user with a disruption/trolling past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And now User:Sacharin comes along and baits TharkunColl. This is a whole circus of funny troll accounts from all sides. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that TharkunColl has been unblocked by User:Chris G and the checkuser request is still outstanding. This is not resolved yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Stunningly, Joshuarooney and Sacharin are sockpuppets, or at least taking turns editing from the same terminal at school. Indef blocked pending further investigation and discussion. There are two alternate explanations that can not be ruled out by checkuser: that they go to the same school but live in different homes, or that they are a single person. The problem is that Sacharin largely stopped editing when Joshuarooney was unblocked (which is suggestive in itself) but it means there are no overlapping home edits to confirm one of these alternatives. And all the accounts listed at RFCU/Tharkuncoll are unrelated by IP. Thatcher 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to indefinite ban per . Thatcher 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no difference btw an indef block and an indef ban, is there? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure there is, look at the block logs and the messages I left on the talk pages. Thatcher 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will admit that I royally fucked up on this one, and have already issued an apology to Tharkun and declined both of Joshua's unblock requests (and he's started to attack me, even after I blindly followed his request last night...). I apologize here for jumping the gun (and ultimately getting a bullet in the side for it). -Jéské 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please fix Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horadric Cube

I think this is the 2nd nomination of the same article so I think this should be a separate nom. I think the nominator overwritten the last Afd. By the way the repost has to go. Judging by the popularity of Diablo II and its recent incarnation, I strongly suggest a protected redirect to the Game Play section --Lenticel 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the repost and simply reverted and unlisted the AfD. Feel free to create the redirect and contact me or WP:RfP in case it actually needs protection.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still nobody

There is still a 3-day-old request at the AWB checkpage. See WP:AN for more. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone at home? Littleteddy (roar!) 11:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the software approval processes tend to take a while. I waited a month to get approved for VandalProof. This isn't really the place to complain about that. You could try the AWB help pages/talk pages, or simply contact one of the regular approvers and kindly ask that they address the current requests. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:08, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

According to this requests page you should ask on the admin's noticeboard for approval if there are outstanding requests. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that. My mistake then. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:25, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WOW anyone?

I need new tires. Franamax (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Not resolved, taken to arbitration enforcement. El_C 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou

This is something that's been bugging me for a while, I was going to bring it up last week but thought better of it, however, I feel something needs to said.

On 2nd March, User:Tiamut, who I believe is a Palestinian, placed a notice on her talk page stating that she is "in mourning" regarding the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza in which 100 people were reported killed over a number of days. She amended the notice a couple of days later. Normally a prolific contributor, Tiamut did not start editing again until the last couple of days.

A couple of days after Tiamut placed her message, I happened to notice that User:Jaakobou placed a message on his talk page stating that he is "in mourning" over "upcoming exams". He used exactly the same template as Tiamut and the same format. Where Tiamut embedded a photo of "Gazans in better days", Jaakobou embedded a photo of Native Americans "in better days". It is clear this comment is intended as a parody of Tiamut's notice. To make sure that no-one missed the joke, he placed the notice at the top of his user page as well.

Now there's a lot one could say about this. For example, the fact that Tiamut may well have been concerned about the fate of friends or relatives living in Gaza. Jaakobou of course could not possibly know whether this was the case or not, but he apparently thought he would have his little joke at Tiamut's expense in any case.

But basically, I just consider this to be gratuitous disparagement of another user - a user, moreover, who is noted for her civility and courtesy in dealing with political opponents. I asked Jaakobou to take the notice down but he responded by removing my request whilst accusing me of "trolling".

I was hoping he'd see sense and take it down himself but after more than a week, I think enough is enough. Which is why I've brought my concerns here today. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't think of asking him yourself? What is an admin supposed to do? Just tell him, or stay out of iot, if Tiamut is offended he will say something-Phoenix-wiki 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did ask him myself, I said that. Tiamut may not have seen it, or may not want to confront him about it. And what I expect an admin to do is tell him to stop harassing another user and take those notices down. Last time I looked we had policies concerning civility, taunting your opposition is not acceptable in my view, particularly in such a problematic and divisive area as the Israeli-Palestinian pages.

I was originally going to take this up at AE under the newly established general restrictions, and perhaps that's where it should have gone in the first place, because I believe Jaakobou's actions are a clear breach of those guidelines, but I thought it could probably be handled with a minimum of fuss here. I didn't particularly want to escalate it to that level, but if no-one here is going to take action, then I guess it will have to go to AE after all. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see East.17 has removed the notices from Jaakobou's page. So as far as I am concerned this matter is now resolved. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Mathews

Disappearance of Shannon Matthews this article is going to light up like a xmas tree very shortly, no problem at the moment but some admin eyes would be helpful as it's likely that all sorts of BLP material might start appearing. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Have also removed the "crime" cats as there is no evidence of this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good on her, I'm glad this story has a happy ending, such as it is. I've added the stock header to the talk page, as it'll probably get busy before long. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR on Prem Rawat

User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: )

• 1RR probation regarding Articles in category:Prem Rawat violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 8 February 2008 (this version does not contain "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse," in the lead section)
• 1st revert: 14:03, 14 March 2008 (removes the abovementioned sentence from the lead section)
• 2nd revert: 14:13, 14 March 2008 (removes the abovementioned sentence from the lead section)

• Diff of individual notification of 1RR probation: 22:04, 4 March 2008

For an explanation of the probation conditions see template on top of Talk:Prem Rawat. Note that there 1RR is defined as: "one revert per editor per day" (some confusing language was written about that recently by an involved admin). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First "revert" is not a revert; cherry-picking a version from weeks earlier that happens to not contain the sentence being removed does not make it so. —Random832 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Though if you can find the diff where the sentence in question is first inserted it might be possible to look at this as a reversion depending on the timing. —Random832 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, timing is irrelevant. Similar sentences were removed by Momento before, more than once in less than a month time, for which s/he had two 3RR blocks, and which led ultimately to the 1RR probation on the Prem Rawat related articles. There are over 750 edits since the beginning of last month, please find the requested edits yourself if you think they have any bearing here (I don't). I can refer you to a previous WP:AN thread documenting Momento's behaviour about a month ago. The *exact* phrasing of the phrase (lacking any possible remote BLP infraction) was barely 5 minutes old, as announced at Talk:Prem Rawat#Lead section (continued), when Momento removed it the first time . Momento was aware of the announcement at Talk:Prem Rawat as s/he commented on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like not to have to revert Francis but when he inserts material that even he admits is unsourced, BLP policy says that editors have to remove it and such removals are exempt from the revert rule.Momento (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarify please. How do those sources = unsourced? Lawrence § t/e 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel doesn't say it and nor does Kent.Momento (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also, Francis Schonken:

• 15:37, March 13, 2008 1st revert
• 15:49, March 13, 2008 2nd revert

• Diff of 1RR probation notice

The 1RR was implemented for a reason. Per WP:1RR: one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note: "For an explanation of the probation conditions see template on top of Talk:Prem Rawat. Note that there 1RR is defined as: "one revert per editor per day" (some confusing language was written about that recently by an involved admin)." - I already wrote this above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As the BLP status is disputed of these reversions and at the absolute minimum unclear, I recommend blocking both for 24 hours. There's no excuse for this on either side. Lawrence § t/e 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? This was unneeded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi is trying to confuse again, as he was when I had reported Momento for 3RR, leading to a block on Momento. The blocking admin commented: "absurd that this was delayed by an involved admin" (by which Jossi was intended) . See also User talk:Francis Schonken#3rr report: "I consider the interference by an involved admin on that report to be inexcusable", by which again Jossi was meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the Lede/Lead of a BLP. You can't just claim Schnabel says something that he doesn't. Nor can you claim Kent says one thing when he says another. Francis has tried to mend the gap by saying that both Schnabel and Kent are talking about a "public discourse", but they are not.Momento (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We can do without the drama. Why not slow way down and negotiate a compromise in talk? 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no compromise. You can't just cite a source that doesn't support the claim. And in a BLP editors are asked to remove then immediately.Momento (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, timing is irrelevant. Similar sentences were removed by Momento before, then you can find a diff of him doing so rather than a version that's nowhere near an insertion or reversion of the sentence. As someone who is uninvolved and intends to remain so, I'm not going to spend hours trawling through the history to find out whether your claim is accurate. —Random832 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Random, for the time you already put in to this. That is already more than anyone could expect. But I'm not into wikilawyering. I provided the diffs for a solid 1RR parole breach case. That cost me some time. If you're asking something that is irrelevant to the case, but involves going through 750 edits, I'd propose another uninvolved admin takes over here. Nobody urges you to do anything. Again, thanks for your efforts thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, at 0743 on March 12 I wrote that the sentence we're discussing "isn't right. Schnabel describes Rawat as "the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji". On March 14 at 0813 I again pointed out "that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent. Unless someone provides proper sources I will have to remove the sentence". To which Francis Schonken replied at 1258 "true, neither of them necessarily includes possible teachings to a private audience. Schnabel and Kent probably rather referred to what Rawat said in public, and/or otherwise published for the public at large". Having got Francis's agreement that material was not properly sourced, I removed it. Within one minute Francis reverted back to the "poorly sourced, contentious material. . Now we come to an important aspect of BLP policy, whilst "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately", before any material so removed can be re-inserted "The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". Francis re-inserted the material without fixing the lack of sources or providing any evidence for his revert. At that point I had no choice, Francis was restoring poorly sourced contentious material so I had to use my one revert according to BLP policy.Momento (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, stop your lies and deformations. It is time you are taken out of this system, you're thoroughly dishonest. I explained you why, yet you keep repeating the lies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

IP avoiding warnings/block

There have been several IPs vandalizing Fort Jennings, Ohio coming from the range 66.114.0.0, currently only two have popped up User_Talk:66.114.9.1 and User_Talk:66.114.17.22. They seemed to have stopped vandalizing, but if it is the same person running the IPs they have gone past the final warning. Basically, I do not know what to do. Rgoodermote  15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are only meant to prevent further disruption, so just wait til they do it again, then worry about it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:07, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I know that, at the time they were vandalizing but as I was writing it seemed they either stopped or moved to another IP. Rgoodermote  15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat in Edit Summary Comments

207.235.188.1 is threatening to hack Misplaced Pages and send viruses if we keep reverting his vandalism. (I hope this is the correct place to report this.) Dawn bard (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Reporting to W:AIV will usually get a faster response. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we call the police or Jimbo. This person is threating Misplaced Pages so we need to call the police.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a kid. Empty threat. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we (an administrator) add a link?... the page is protected.

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Can we add a link?. Or can we make this article semi-protected? --CyclePat (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Blnguyen

Hello this user User:Blnguyen is not allowing others to edit in article Sreesanth and further more the User:Blnguyen had Blocked user User:Police187 without giving a Warning or Notice and had Blocked the User for 20 Days. User is abusing authority and unfair, atlease user could have gave Warning. (see ) and 2nd user the only two who contributed to article Sreesanth. See the User never provided any Notice, Warning or Talk nothing. Just blocked for 20 days without notice. user Blnguyen is abusing authority. Please resolve. --Wikiston (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets do not need warnings. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. User making this report was obviously another sock, so blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Inspiron6m possible sockpuppet to Inspiron600m and Iloveaustria87

This user is a clear sockpuppet to User:Inspiron600m but it is also a possible sockpuppet to User:Iloveaustria87, but Inspiron6m says it is not a sockpuppet and tells me someone else used that account. I had a discussion with this user about this issue at my talk page Here. Apparently he/she doesn't understand what a sockpuppet is, and she also said that the account was "comprimised" in some way. What should be done here? Momusufan (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that talking or quacking? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. but please see the edit history for Inspiron600m, you'll see all the evidence you all want. Momusufan (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inspiron6m (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef by Jayron32. Tiptoety 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lesson: How to tell if one account is a sockpuppet of another:

1. Account 1 is blocked
2. Account 2 is created, and their first edit is to claim that they are not account 1
3. Account 2 is lying. Go ahead and block it...

That is your lesson today. Further lessons in how to translate duck language into English will be presented later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:D I think the question was more in regards to the comment about the account being compromised (though in the long run it really does not matter) Tiptoety 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user editing Homeopathy

User:Dr.Jhingaadey, previously indef blocked as a sockpuppeteer and spammer is editing the talk page as an IP, addresses include User:122.167.21.159, User:61.2.70.167 and User:61.2.70.140. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at Talk:Homeopathy#Read_this_Dr._Jhingad.C3.A9, Scientizzle has decided to give Dr. Jhingadey another chance on a new account: Ramaanand (talk · contribs). Given that he's created this on the advice of the admin, I don't think he should be further blocked for sockpuppetry here. I'd trust Scientizzle to handle him if his behavior otherwise causes a problem, thoough. --Infophile 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged User:Ramaanand as an alternative account of the main account. I'm puzzled as to why Scientizzle didn't simply unblock the main account if he thought the user had reformed, but we'll see what happens. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, Tim...but I think this works a bit better: a "fresh start" with all the relevant info clearly laid out (see the talk page). I'm not so sure that the user has "reformed", but more likely was an overzealous, ignorant-of-policy newbie that quickly irritated us all; a restart, if you will, may produce a productive editor...I'm watching this closely, hoping I haven't wasted my (& everyone's) time. Thanks for doing the tags. — Scientizzle 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Office Open XML

Can an admin (or anyone else) please take a very brief look at this article's history and tell me who should be blocked for edit warring? I'm pretty sure there are a good 2 or 3 users whom have violated WP:3RR. I'm so tired I can't even see straight anymore. Thanks in advance. Scarian 18:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw, User:WalterGR should either get another 3RR warning, or more probably, a short block. Enigma 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VilaWolf

• User:VilaWolf

Was considering nominating the userpage for MfD, due to WP:CHILD (the user identifies as 14 years of age): "Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate.". And there is quite a bit of such information listed.

Looking for insight as to what should be the next appropriate step. - jc37 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The user says they were 14 when the picture of them was taken. Looks like it says they're 23 now. --Onorem♠Dil 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm 2008 - 1984 = 14 is quite an indication of a.) poor math or b.) lack of sleep. (the latter is more likely : )

Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I'd pursue this myself but I'm pretty busy right now... but I strongly suspect that a user I had to block a few days ago, User:Connortt9, is evading the block by editing under the name User:Gia Primo. Gia Primo started editing the day after Connortt9 was blocked, is making very similar edits (details about European wrestlers, creating several articles that are being speedied), and even uploaded the same image. Compare this deleted wrestling image from Connortt9, added to Rape vs. the same wrestling image Gio Primo used in his/her article Manraping. Gia Primo has deleted and restored the comments on Connortt9's talk page, and Connortt9 also had a sub-page titled User:Connortt9/Gia Primo. (The case seems pretty solid - I just don't have a lot of time today to finish it, so if anyone else can double-check I'd appreciate it.) Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

quack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been contacted by another editor with the same suspicion. The last thing they did before you blocked was creating European Fight Club and some of theri memebr, which I tagged for CSD. ---Tikiwont (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quack, indeed. Sorry for the delay in posting here... I did a quick check of the sub-page; turns out that Connortt9 created it and Gia Primo recreated identical text. User has been blocked for a month for now; does this warrant an indefinite? --Ckatz_spy 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest an extension. I don't really know the history but I would suggest a tariff (from todays date - not post dated) of either 3 or 6 months. Indef doesn't mean infinite, so I prefer time expired tariffs for violations while blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Obuibo Mbstpo

I know there is already a thread above, but taking a glance at the user page of this user, he/she admits to being a sock of several indefinitely blocked socks of User:Ron Duvall. Obuibo's first contrib to create his/her own userpage uses the edit summary ban has apparently been lifted. linking to previous accounts. Was there a ban, and has it been lifted, or should we be blocking this latest reincarnation of a disruptive user? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

However, Jehochman (talk · contribs) has agreed to unblock them, so long as they agree only to use this account. The issues with the previous account was poor serial account identification, so this account stating all prior accounts is a step in the right direction. MBisanz 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo#New_account gives the history of the matter. Don't see a need to block this new account unless there are SSP issues I'm not aware of.MBisanz 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I needed to know! Thanks, I couldn't find the history amidst the myriad of block logs....I won't be blocking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This user was never guilty of sock puppetry, and he wasn't blocked for sock puppetry, he was blocked, on the face of it, for insulting an administrator. However, he did not protest this through standard means, because he had abandoned the account, having scrambled the password. Following proper early dispute resolution (discussion with the blocking administrator), an unblock was negotiated. The notices on the various accounts are incorrect. Here is the relevant history.

This user edited under a prior name or names, and those accounts were abandoned. After a lapse of months, the user returned as User:Sarsaparilla. As can be seen, this user nominated me for administrator, prematurely. As part of that process, he played a prank: he went to another RfA, that was snowing Support -- so it was irrelevant -- and offered to trade votes. If the other nominee voted for me, he'd vote for the other nominee. As soon as I found out about this, I went to that RfA, read it, and voted for that nominee, and repudiated any connection with this action of Sarsaparilla. Something has changed with this user. I've reviewed old account history, and, if this new phenomenon is there, I've not seen it. He questions the edges of Misplaced Pages policy. He does things that are not clearly prohibited, such as offer to vote-trade in an RfA. He did this in the full light of open edits, in a very visible place. If he had actually wanted to vote trade, he'd have inquired secretly, through email. Anyway, shortly after this, he abandoned that account and opened up the new account, Ron Duvall. This was the only account move that was marginally improper, because there were open discussions that Sarsaparilla had participated in -- such as the creation of WP:PRX, and then Ron Duvall was saying basically the same thing. Some protested that this created an appearance of more support than was actually present. However, there was no evidence that he intended this appearance, and he certainly did nothing to conceal it; he continued discussing the same issues with me, on my Talk page, under the new name. And, indeed, it was quickly noticed and an SSP report filed for Sarsaparilla and Ron Duvall. This process also dug up his old user name, which was irrelevant. There was no abuse, or charges of abuse that I've seen, on that account, clean block log except for an admin error quickly corrected. Because of this, I requested that the SSP report be deleted, which was done. This user has real-world reasons for not wanting his old user name be obvious; from my point of view, it would be much better if it was open, he was a long-time and very productive editor. So this time he created another user name, Absidy, and noted the connection immediately with the user registration. In no case that I've been able to find did one account edit after the creation of a new one. There were no multiple !votes; the only situations were the appearance of more comment on a few talk pages. This is not violation of WP:SOCK. He later stated that he did not realize certain possible interpretations of policy on changing accounts. However, in all this, as far as I've seen, there is only one minor violation, quickly corrected, of even that, the rapid shift from Sarsaparilla to Ron Duvall. Everything else in recent history has been completely open. This sock puppetry charge is repeated over and over. Those claims should be removed from his old user pages. It's enough that they point to his present user page. It's a continuing account, not a sock puppet. Given the notice above from Keeper76, and the likelihood that this concern will be raised again, definitely, the sock charges should be removed from those pages.--Abd (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only come across this editor for the first time today and I cannot say I'm overly impressed - look here where he is "fighting the power" here, here, here, here and here. Does anyone consider that a useful contribution to the AFD process, because I don't. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I did not refer to the user in question this time as being involved in sockpuppetry and actually defended his right to edit... MBisanz 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. The alleged sock puppetry was mentioned with the original report here, and is commonly mentioned elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if an administrator would remove those notices, given that there was never a determination of "sock puppetry," only a confirmation of what already was both obvious and openly acknowledged, that the accounts were the same user, and there was no "abuse of sock puppets," only a single instance of possible unclarity, immediately rectified, with no signs of deceptive intent.--Abd (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon block request

User:192.206.119.3 has a talk page with several vandal warnings and they continue to revert information (1, 2) on a bio page that is unsourced and inflammatory. I believe this should constitute vandalism and result in an anon block. Padillah (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are concerned about vandalism from that IP, the first step is for you to warn the user. There are no recent warnings on that talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly my point. They are doing the minimum to be allowed to continue to vandalize but not enough to get blocked. Then they start over in a week or two and do it again. They are using a technicality to get away with vandalism. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• This IP address is owned by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and I have left a warning that not only will further vandalism result in a lengthy block, but that it may also cause an abuse report to be sent to that company's IT department. The page is also watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's nothing to sneeze at. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have seen some of the gags I rejected as tasteless, considering their full product range! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Metros

So admin Metros totaly deletes both reports that I make after stating that I should resubmit them . The reports that I made were against two users who had gotten me blocked for 3rr, but had violated 3rr themselves. Why even suggest that I resubmit both reports if you're going to delete it anyway? Uconnstud (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So rather than get blocked for placing them on the 3rr report and getting warned for following policy I am asking other admin's to take a look at my report below. He was being a bit lazy (in my humble opinion) to completely and totally not even look things up, but asked me to resubmit it and then not look at it again.

See explanation for why the reports were removed at User talk:Uconnstud#3RR board and User talk:Metros#report. Metros (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He has even removed my notice. Uconnstud (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which I have every right to do. Plus, you placed the template twice, one of them in the middle of a sentence and the other with an odd indentation. Metros (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely interesting that here it states "Many administrators do have a modicum of intelligence, and are capable of making decisions without the help of huge complaints about the user's general behavior. Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible." Why would Metros simply ignore and delete stating that it wasn't up to par ? Uconnstud (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• So, you repeatedly spammed links to a site which shows no evidence of having copyright permission, and you've come here to bitch about being reverted. That may not be the smartest thing you did all week. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess it's ok to have youtube on wikipedia in one sense but not not in another? How fair of an application is that? Uconnstud (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are beating a dead horse, stop now before its ghost gets up and kicks you in the arse. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I blocked Uconnstud 24h for disruption. Three retaliatory 3RR reports plus all this crap here and a steadfast refusal to listen to people who told him to drop it. Enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Permanent community ban on Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs)

This person is probably either insane or one of the most obnoxious time-wasting trolls I've ever seen. The actual listing of socks/suspected socks and abused IPs is just a small fraction of the actual accounts/IPs he's abused. See Natalie Erin (talk · contribs)'s post at AN about The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), which is just another sockpuppet of Monro. I posted a partial listing of accounts/IPs this clown has abused to her talk (at her request). In addition to any work done by her trying to sort this out, I strongly recommend a permaban for this person for their massive disruption campaign/game playing. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. In my time as a Misplaced Pages user, I've seen quite a few users of the sort come and go - Michael/Hephaestos, and WoW among them. But bear in mind that it's the BEHAVIOR that is wrong, and not necessarily the PERSON, and while the PERSON should be banned for the BEHAVIOR, calling that person insane or a troll appears to violate WP:NPA and perhaps even WP:BLP. Nonetheless, it's valid criticism. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't worry too much about personal attacks on obvious indefblocked trolls who have abused multiple(tothenthdegree) socks/IPs. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Shrugs) It never hurts to be too careful. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I'll take the heat if this guy turns out to be okay after all. :-) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael WAS NOT Hephaestos. Hephaestos was a victim of Michael'sCorvus cornix_talk 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody's in any hurry to unblock the main account, so the user is de facto banned. Socks are blocked on sight as block-evaders (and for the same crass behaviour). What needs to change? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I spose, I just thought an official ban was different from a indef block. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. A user who is blocked is considered banned when we get to the point that no admin is willing to unblock. I don't see anyone overturning this one. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The question I raised on AN, which no one really commented on, was whether or not we should delete the sockpuppet category. IMO it's not useful to anyone but the sockpuppeteer himself, who is using it as a toy essentially, so we could probably delete it with few or no consequences. But I'd be happy to hear if anyone thinks this sock category is actually useful. Perhaps it can be protected instead of deleted. Natalie (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Khan bangledesh

Will someone do something with this guy? He keeps vandalizing Kalash page. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The edits may not be helpful, but they don't look like vandalism. It doesn't look like any attempt at discussion has been made. Undos and rollbacks don't communicate much about why their edits are being reverted. --Onorem♠Dil 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning to discuss on Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 Edit Warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Misplaced Pages forum shop is closed. User was blocked perfectly correctly, has now also been warned for disruption. See also the thread about two up from here. Uconnstud, put down the stick and step away from the horse carcass.

JAysweet has already violated 3rr over 24 hours in a two day period http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=198260695&oldid=198256740 and has worked together with Colfer2 and i sumbitteed a report and had to correct the the edits so it would be correct

6 Reverts by two editors. 4 by one editor Jaysweet and 2 by another colfer2. All edit warring and why no block on either? Uconnstud (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For more background see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Metros several sections up, this declined 3RR report, this declined 3RR report, and this pending 3RR report. Metros (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see this 3RR report. Metros (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep Metros following me around again. Alright Metros deleted 3 reports from me. The pending with Colfer2 has been turned into a warning. I think that user Jaysweet should be blocked as well for at least the same amount of time that I was because he continued to revert even after I was blocked to totally violate 3rr Uconnstud (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the cross-posting and the Forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a bias from Metros and didn't want to violate a 3rr on a noticeboard so I posted it here. Didn't mean to upset you Jossi. Pretty name by the way I still love Josie and the Pussycats Uconnstud (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I asked why he archived this report and now deleted my question. I guess he was joking. I am being totally straightforth with this report. Uconnstud (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed Tiptoety 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I totally disagree with this ruling, and think there is a valid underlying arguement, I won't push this. At least Colfer2 was warned. Even if Jaysweet did in fact violate 3rr. Uconnstud (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, we already closed the forum shop. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "At least Colfer2 was warned". Just to be clear, the warning was not against me, but against Uconnstud. It was misworded at first in the header, then fixed by Metros. Similarly the title of this thread is a bit misleading "User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 Edit Warring". Thanks, have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nori198

Can someone please take a look into Nori198 (talk · contribs), he appears to be a sock of Eyrian (talk · contribs) and has been recently using 68.209.235.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to edit (self admitted). He has now started creating what appears to be a bad faith sock puppet case against User:Kung Fu Man, and is using IP's such as 72.234.254.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to show support for a checkuser to be preformed on Kung Fu Man. I would deal with this myself, but am way too tired. Anyone care to help, thanks in advance. Tiptoety 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is being dealt with this way. Tiptoety 23:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems

Please review and tweak: Misplaced Pages:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism by fake-impersonation user profile

This fake-impersonation user profile titled 'Sudharsans Papa' meaning 'Sudharsan's Father' in Hindi, has vandalized my userpage leaving an abusive comment in Hindi, '+ मे तेरा बाप हूं ' and this reads as 'Mein Tera Baap Hoon' meaning 'I am your Father'.

I sincerely request the Admins to ban this anonymous fake profile which has been created for the only purpose of impersonating and vandalizing my userpage, as evident from the contributions. Thanks a lot. ] (] · ]) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: It is to be noted that another profile titled 'Snsudharsan' was created several months ago and vandalized my userpage leaving racist, degrading comments that I was 'impotent Tamil pig' in my userpage and the fake-impersonation profile was also deleted.

I have blocked the user. Tiptoety 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt action :-) ] (] · ]) 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

threat posted on It Impossible(song)

this was posted by a sock of user:Mmbabies. Is there anything ; we as in general could do about it. Rio de oro (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone follow-up on it , I think the Misplaced Pages Foundation needs to know this. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC can vouch for me because he filed an abuse report on Mmbabies twice, and contacted the FBI , Houston Police Department, Texas Rangers; yet still we this bs. Rio de oro (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block and ignore in this case. If the user is clearly trolling, and not in any real harm, then just block and revert. Obviously this was taken care of once for this user, so furthur disruption from him should be ignored. — Κaiba 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, WP:RBI. IP has been blocked a month anyways. Tiptoety 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stephaniequinn

• Stephaniequinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is user is adding a load of vanity to Stephanie Quinn, for example

Her gifts for capturing attention are coupled with her talents for paying attention – to the sounds and needs of her community. Ms. Quinn is a gifted teacher, as well as an experienced public speaker

Also he/she created User:Stephanie Quinn which I tagged for speedy deletion as a user page for a non-existent user. I was going to report the user at WP:UAA, but realised that there is probably no violation as this person is not well known. I was thinking of nominating the article for deletion also, I'm thinking there is little chance of success in this domain, but articles like this I find annoying. People will say there are plenty of sources, but the same can be said of any group or person that spams all over the internet about themselves. This is all just part of an advertising campaign, but I know if I try to get it deleted people will say oh look there are 80,000 results on Google. What can be done ? Or do we just have to ignore it and move on ? I get the impression there are more and more articles like this about people who may have had an interesting career but who in fact are in no way remarkable enough for an encyclopedia, and (of other things) wikipedia is becoming wikiresume, for self-infatuated people who want to make it look like they are important enough for an article on wikipedia. Meanwhile people who are really notable in countries outside of the US, have only a one line article, or none at all. Jackaranga (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also she moved User (computing) into Stephanie Quinn, and someone else moved it back by copy/paste. This was almost 2 weeks ago, but nobody cares! Everyone is just leaving it as a total mess like that. Please fix!! Jackaranga (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right. Article is now speedied as implausible redirect/non-notable, whatever, Afd is deleted, and all is fine in the garden. Peasants are merrymaking after the storm, and weasels are dancing the hornpipe. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not OK please see the message on your talk page. If you have never fixed a cut/paste page move you can ask another admin for help, I can understand it might be a bit confusing. ThanksJackaranga (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished. Steep learning curve has now, I hope, been conquered. Not Everest, but 'king close. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the page history for User (computing) is still that for Stephanie Quinn. I'll list this at "fix cut & paste moves" IYDM & let someone more awake take over. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everything seems to be fixed now. There is only one deleted edit on Stephanie Quinn, and the history on User (computing) seems to be correct. The only thing I did was restore the rest of the deleted history on User (computing). So, you had it almost completed. (^_^) ···日本穣 03:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. I need to do some more reading, obviously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ModernLeaders

ModernLeaders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone look at the edits of ModernLeaders, in particular, his comments to me on his talk page? I would hit the appropriate button myself, but someone would probably complain about me, as the aggrieved party, being the one to make the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And..... Done Tiptoety 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

spam email from what looks like wikipedia?

FYI: I was browsing through my spam bulk box and I noticed some email that appears to be from the wikipedia server... even when I checked into the full header it still said wikipedia. --CyclePat (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

note: I checked to see if the user name existed but there where no user names of the such on Misplaced Pages. anyways... --CyclePat (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some spammers claim to be from Misplaced Pages. Somehow, they think it lends an air of verisimilitude, but, of course, they are wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just dont respond, ignore and delete. Tiptoety 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But they say that they have a $1.4 million in unclaimed Wikimedia donations that they can wire to my account if I give them a nominal cut in advance. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case I am willing to hand over my social security number. Tiptoety 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible impersonation

DreamsthatWar (talk · contribs) states on their user page that they are Admin User:Warofdreams alternate account to test "non-admin things". But considering the non-admin things like this vandalism here, I doubt this is the same person. I left a note on Warofdreams's talk but they have yet to respond. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:UN at least. If it is User:Warofdreams, which I very much doubt, he'll explain. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, anyone, back for a vengeance? --Alisyn 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits deleting prior material

There have been a couple of incidents recently in which one user's edit seems to override changes by another, or editing one portion of an article accidentally reverts to an earlier version of another person. This happened yesterday on comments on an arbitration case, and almost caused quite a skirmish until it was figured out it was an accident, and I've just received another report of the same thing on a controversial article. Has anyone else seen this, or know if there is a bug report? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can check out existing bugs here, and report new bugs here. ···日本穣 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arg....what is up with this?? Wierd block.....

Okay, so I just unblocked User:Blacknews4uscom so they could request their username changed, and yet they still stay they can not edit any page but their talk page. I have no idea what is up....did I do something wrong? Could it be something on their end like a browser cache...help please! Thank you, Tiptoety 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock looks OK to me and user is not showing as an active block. Has user tried looging out and then in again? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he has. At least that is what he said in his email to me. Tiptoety 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He was autoblocked; I've found and removed it. —Cryptic 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Tiptoety 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User Biophys stalking and reverting my changes without legit reason

The user User:Biophys has been reverting many of my legit changes in articles over the past few days, and in one instance followed me to a topic which he has never edited before to revert a very large revamp, again without any legit reasons, only citing completely irrelevant policies in a wrongful manner.

That's the increasingly frustrating part. For example, in three separate instances I added a response to certain accusations or situations in three seperate articles, and he removed the responses saying that it's "pov", which is clearly backwards to how NPOV policy works. Examples: article one: , article 2: , article 3: , and finally, an edit war in the article he's never even contributed to before:

I've also looked around at his other recent edits and can see this same sort of thing going on in other articles - citing irrelevant policies in a wrongful manner to justify his biased edits, and edit warring constantly. He has been warned by another user about edit warring in his talk page recently, which he removed.Krawndawg (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I explained this to Krawndang here . Please see all his ~50 edits in WP here .. His edits were rebutted by several users at several talk pages . All but one page indicated by him I have edited long time ago, and they are on my watch list.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The only edit I made that someone other than you reverted was the "conspiracy" title for a section - it was later changed to "claims" by someone else which I did not dispute any further, whereas you just reverted and accused me of pushing POV. You assume bad faith, and I resent that. Krawndawg (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for check

I am not an administrator. Will someone please check the page(s) "mortise and tenon". There seem to be two pages (both acceptably good) with a redirect of some kind.

Thank you71.197.68.207 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Schnabel, Tussen stigma en charisma ("Between stigma and charisma"), 1982. Ch. IV, p. 99:

   de intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji.

   the intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji.

2. Cite error: The named reference Kent2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards