Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:14, 9 September 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?

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Misplaced Pages and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Misplaced Pages user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Misplaced Pages, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

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

NYScholar has been adopted by Shell who is aware of the issues raised in this discussion and the previous discussion ... ; no need to continue this discussion. If any editors have an issue or concerns they should contact Shell on her talk page.

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Misplaced Pages. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Misplaced Pages policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Misplaced Pages saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Misplaced Pages, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Misplaced Pages. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review, a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Misplaced Pages "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" .

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Misplaced Pages or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Misplaced Pages editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report baofsed on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption.

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Misplaced Pages that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Misplaced Pages.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Misplaced Pages (and hence Misplaced Pages); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Misplaced Pages to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Misplaced Pages editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Misplaced Pages.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all

All my communications with him , except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on , if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Misplaced Pages work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Misplaced Pages that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Misplaced Pages editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Misplaced Pages editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Misplaced Pages in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Misplaced Pages. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Misplaced Pages better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Misplaced Pages in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Misplaced Pages process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in summary mode and diffs would be overkill. The behavior is on display here too. We're not going to come to terms with this unless we stop beating around the bush with Misplaced Pages-speak and recognize this for what it is, an editing pattern and expressed sentiments for other editors that are far out of the norm. Or to use language that others have, hyper-editing coupled with constant accusations. This has been going on indefinitely and seems unabated so we can assume it will continue. It's clearly bad for the project. Any page this lands on more or less shuts down, degrades in quality, and more or less shuts down until the editor moves on. Efforts to change the project have all failed. So are we going to live with it or not? Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.

Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.

At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are diffs in the opening post. If you follow the very first diff cited in the opening post you will find the archived discussion of the last ANI and there you will find more diffs to other discussions. The relevant diffs are all in the opening post, no one is asking you to go searching the archives. Sarah 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Misplaced Pages is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages results from the open editing procedure. To change Misplaced Pages from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Misplaced Pages. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Misplaced Pages, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Misplaced Pages:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Misplaced Pages. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me.  ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Misplaced Pages (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Misplaced Pages user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sanctioned": I have reviewed my archived 21 and see that "sanctioned" as used there refers to a "block"; I am not an administrator, and I do not always remember the lingo used by administrators; I was required to be adopted by the conditions of a "block" placed by User:John Carter (see my talk page archive 21), and, as soon as an adopter came forward to adopt me, I accepted the offer to be adopted by him (User:Ecoleetage); I've provided links to the exchanges between John Carter and me below, in reply to comments by ThuranX, which distort what actually occurred and claim the opposite of what occurred, claiming that I was "reluctant" to accept the adoption; that is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and proved false by the archive exchange in archive page 21. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Message from Eco Lee Tage I was hoping not to come back, as I am trying to take an extended Wikibreak due to personal problems that I need to address offline -- and the very last thing I need at this point in time is melodramatic distraction. Based on what I am reading here, however, I need to step back and answer some matters.

First, when I received permission from John Carter to "adopt" NYScholar, I received no parameters, rules or time limits on mentorship. Nor did I receive any instructions that I had to report to any person or entity that the mentorship was concluded. The statement "if you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community" is specifically not Misplaced Pages policy in regard to WP:BLOCK (as the adoption was linked to NYScholar's unblocking), nor was it part of my communications with the blocking admin in this case. Without specific instructions, I chose to exercise my rights as the adoptive editor and state that I did all I could for NYScholar.

The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely my decision, based on what I saw as NYScholar's positive contributions to the project and the appreciation of other editors to his work, most notably Keeper76's unusually strong praise. Keeper is not one to give out praise lightly, so his endorsement convinced me that there was no reason to keep the "adoption" going. Based on this editor's writing and referencing skills, and the manner in which he was interacting with other editors, it was my editorial judgment that NYScholar no longer required mentoring. Perhaps he requires muzzling, given his propensity to use 5,000 words when five would be sufficient. (That is a joke, by the way.)

Since nobody gave me directions on the mentorship, I find it odd that we are getting after-the-fact attempts to re-open a closed and resolved case and bring new punishment on someone who has already been held up to ridicule by his peers and blocked.

Furthermore, the mentorship concluded a month ago -- you people just noticed it now?

I also want to take a moment to address a comment made by one of the editors who felt NYScholar's "behavior is simply not normal." Not normal? This man has not brought physical, emotional or professional injury to any member of this project. He talks too much? Yeah, tell me something I don't know. His editing is overly exuberant? Uh, yeah, I know that, too. And do you know what the cited article, Czesława_Kwoka, is about? I originally rallied to save that article from deletion -- it is the story of a young girl who perished in the Holocaust. The main reason that article has been preserved and went on to win DYK honours is because NYScholar took his time and energy to expand the article's sourcing and provide it with content that ensured that poor child's life story wouldn't be erased from our pages. I don't recall any of NYScholar's accusers lifting a finger to help save that article. Thank you, NYScholar -- because of you, and solely because of you, that poor child did not have to die a second time by having her memory erased.

If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately. This does not contribute to the betterment of the project in any way, shape or form. And if anyone here who finds fault with NYScholar want to make him a better editor, I happily invite them to step up to the proverbial plate, "adopt" him and find success where you feel that I failed.

I am now returning to my Wikibreak. If you need to reach me, please contact me by e-mail since I will not be returning to these pages for some time. Thank you, and please be nice to each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ecoleetage. I see that Ecoleetage (who I know to be male from his self-description on his website and only from that) also assumes that I am a man. Even Ecoleetage does not know my gender. I can't believe how all of you regard this attack on both Ecoleetage and me to be reasonable or even "normal" (using a word he quotes from a comment that I haven't seen yet). May I just remind everyone again that scholars may be male or female. Re: the Holocaust-related article: I have done some specialized literary-related research pertaining to the Holocaust and given a paper at a major scholarly conference on the Holocaust, so the closely-interrelated subjects of Kwoka and then Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist became very interesting to work on and, because of (in my view) enormous importance as human rights issues (another subject of my work outside of Misplaced Pages), it became very important to me to make these articles well-documented and reliable and in keeping with Misplaced Pages's core policies and editing guidelines. The problems with the images are of concern to me because I fear that if they are not properly uploaded with all the proper licenses and proper fair-use rationales or whatever they need, down the road some administrator will come along and delete the whole article on Kwoka; I have taken it as a challenge to improve the Kwoka article and to create and develop the other two, but it is not a "personal" matter; it is an editorial matter. I am a very conscientious responsible editor (in actual life) and take such work very seriously. Perhaps that does not seem "normal" to others; but I also have devoted many, many hours to getting these articles where they are and I would not like that work to be lost to Misplaced Pages and other Misplaced Pages readers (as is the case w/ all the articles that I work on). My professional work is described in general terms in an archived talk page answer to someone who said I didn't have the degrees that I do have and so on. That too was highly offensive. Re: the anon IP user recently blocked: I rarely delete things from my current talk page; but that just seemed unnecessary to bear, and look what that anon IP user did to my user and talk pages afterward. I was unaware until administrators had reverted the changes bec. there is no orange bar for changes to a user page it seems. I was happy to have missed all that aggravation. --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What "waving"? I am so tired of your false accusations and AGF violations. I've hardly said anything and, in fact, am barely even on Misplaced Pages these days. I'm sorry but you were sanctioned. You were indefinitely blocked and required to undergo mentorship. If the community feels you no longer need mentorship, fine, I don't really care either way (although I think the screeds you've been posting here and elsewhere as linked by Orderinchaos indicate otherwise) but you can't just revoke a community imposed mentorship on your own. You have to come back here and tell the community and be willing to discuss it. It's most unfortunate that you insist on posting these incredibly long rants because all you're doing is making it incredibly unlikely that uninvolved admins will bother to step in and review it. And that's unfortunate for all parties. I would suggest, if you think you no longer need to be mentored, that you start a new SHORT section stating so so that it can be reviewed by uninvolved users. Sarah 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up SHORT(er) section

• From the top of this project page noticeboard:
  

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Misplaced Pages may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. template to do so). Please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.
This noticeboard is a busy and vital part of Misplaced Pages's administration. Complaints that are not serious and substantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.

1. I apologize for not being concise. I did not see the request for being "concise" until after I posted my long replies. The replies are long because of the unfounded and unsupported claims being made initially by Orderinchaos (at top of this long section).
2. OrderinChaos did not take his "grievance" up with me prior to posting this "notice".
3. OrderinChaos did not post any link to this notice to me to let me know that it was here. I came upon it by accident.
4. None of those posting their current (in some cases not concise either) comments making claims about a past incident (not this one) are posting any "diffs." links. The links in Orderinchao's first post here go to pages, not "diffs." If he examined the actual diffs., he would see that in one instance I moved an item intact to the appropriate article talk page (it was not deleted it was moved); the subsequent edits document that, and I refer to my clear notice in the "N.B." section to the poster in doing that. It was not deleted it was moved.
5. There is no truth whatsoever to the claims of "collusion" between the voluntary adopter Ecoleetage and me; that is patently untrue. My own talk page and archive pages 21 and 22 includes all comments by him and me posted there, and the whole history of our interaction. His practice is to delete old exchanges from his talk page, but they can be found in the editing history there. I am not responsible for his maintenance of his own talk page.
6. I will not be bullied into not responding to false accusations with continued complaints about the length of a response. If it takes time and space to respond, I am doing so. This is not a "rant" or a "screed" (and those are scare quotes). This is a reply.
7. It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to characterize another editor's sincere reply as a "rant" and to malign the person for having replied.

--NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a problem involving editing of The Dark Knight (which I have not edited since and would not touch with a ten-foot pole), I posted a kind message to Sarah. I will look for the "diffs." to it and post the link here in a moment. I was actually shocked to see Sarah's first and subsquent comments here. I posted the kind message to Sarah while Ecoleetage was my adopter, having learned from him the value of compassion and small acts of kindness. (Be back in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take a while longer for me to find the comments via editing history or an archive at Sarah's talk page. I will also post the "diffs." link to the item in OrderinChaos's first post here. Please bear with me. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Diffs. from the editing history of July 16, 2008, containing my thank you post to Sarah; I learned how to use that "smile" template from my early interaction with Ecoleetage. I posted smiles to him around that time for his guidance at the time, but posting the smile to Sarah was my own idea and not discussed with him in any way at all. I was applying what I was learning from reading his talk page and seeing how he interacted then (July 2008) with other Wikipedians. I admired and tried to emulate his example of civility and kindness. I am only familiar with him from that point in summer 2008 until now, as documented in my talk page archives 21 and 22 and current talk page, not yet archived by the bot (which I hope is working okay again now). Sarah placed my post to her and her reply to me in her archive 17, which can be found via her current talk page and which also contains earlier archived exchanges from before my adoption by Ecoleetage.

Note: At the time I posted that, I expected to be away from Misplaced Pages for an extended period of time; but that was the period of time coincidentally that the film The Dark Knight was released and, as a "major contributor," I continued to edit Heath Ledger in order to update it and keep it up to date; one link would lead to another in Misplaced Pages as I added sources, and I would find myself making corrections and adding sources to other articles; around that time I was interacting with my then new adopter and attempting to follow his example in my editing. In the past month, I have not been "adopted"; after Ecoleetage suggested that I take a look at a few articles, I got involved in editing them and creating a couple of related articles. I will probably take a break now, due to exhaustion from the process of editing those articles and the upset caused by this "incident" notice. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sarah, OrderinChaos, Wikidemo and others were involved in the previous incident, but this situation is not that situation, and if they are going to ask for a block of me or a ban of me, they are required to post "diffs." in an official action of some kind. In my view, on the basis of my editing of Misplaced Pages since my adoption, any such action would fail. They seem to be engaging here in instigating a punitive block (not in keeping with block policy) or ban, but, again, I do not see how any such thing is warranted. As I stated way above and as Ecoleetage and Keeper have also stated, OrderinChaos's initial post and subsequent ones by others are entirely unwarranted and this whole thing should be dropped and expunged. It is not I nor Ecoleetage nor Keeper who looks bad here, but other administrators (Keeper is an admin.) who are not even able to follow the instructions given at the top of this page (just quoted). I may be wordy, but being wordy is not a punishable act in Misplaced Pages; my intention is not "disruption"; my intention when I comment is the opposite: clarification to the benefit of Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedians and Misplaced Pages readers. --NYScholar (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the poster below as another one of my main detractors from the past already-resolved incident (which again is not this "incident" that is being listed by OrderinChaos, without "diffs.", which I have been unable to locate that refer to what he is talking about); the one posting below (ThuranX) also has done so frequently in the past incident without posting actual "Diffs." and constantly makes repeated accusations without backing them up with "Diffs."; that is not what this project noticeboard is for; and it is also not for dredging up past documented situations as if they still are happening. They aren't.

Big LIE (another) below in another subsection just added; I added the subheading: I did not "reluctantly" accept mentoring; I wholeheartedly and completely accepted it, even turning down an offer from User:John Carter to allow an informal adoption and no template of adoption; I accepted a formal adoption offer and the formal adoption template was posted. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link (made linkable for purposes of linking here) from the automatic-bot archived sec of my archive page 21: Hope it works. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the archived section (mostly about the archivingbot that I am voluntarily using (not a requirement); the adopttion is discussed in section above it): Response to John Carter; we were working together to try to develop the best archiving bot for the situation. Frequently, it archives things out of chronological order, and it hasn't been doing anything lately, so I've had to doing some archiving after material has been there 2 days myself at times, or straighten out the chronological order of archived things.]. I'll see if are accessible from my current talk page editing history, though I don't think it's necessary for me to post them. It is, however, necessary, for the initiating user (OrderinChaos) to post them so people know what he's referring to and can follow the previous and next edits. The bot was doing the archiving after mid-July 2008, not me, except for recent problems w/ its functioning. I've asked for help w/ it but none has arrived yet. --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr - too long; didn't read •Florrie•leave a note• 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tl;dr. Didn't have to, NYScholar is back to NYScholar's old tricks. NYScholar again with the proclamation that NYScholar never does wrong, everyone else just doesn't understand what they themselves say, and so we should all listen to NYScholar . I note that NYScholar began by interrupting others comments, a behavior that has come up before as inappropriate. NYScholar then decided to fill two screens with a lengthy, platitude and vapid nothings filled response playing the innocent (to the specific nature of the restrictions previously instituted), and victim to a group who just want to get NYScholar. It goes downhill from there. When confronted with 'Mentorship or community ban', NYScholar reluctantly accepted mentorship, only to be rapidly released from it to engage in more behavior of at best dubious ethical style. Again NYScholar protests, feigns cluelessness, which can't have happened, given how many policies were thrown in NYScholar's direction during previous troubles. By now, NYScholar should be aware that NYScholar should be editing and acting in a cautious nature when unsure, and should follow up with questions when unsure, instead of more bold editing, which so often gets NYScholar in trouble. It seems clear that the troubles NYScholar regularly stirs up are of greater weight than the edits done, which so often go undiscussed and cause trouble. I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above poster is distorting documented facts; see my comment above this section (posted while I was still writing it) and notice the lack of "diffs.". This is terrible. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah blah 'diffs'. This is nice, and would this be some infantile payback for the 'diffs' problem last time around? face up to things. You have a problem interacting with others. You're unwilling to listen to others about this problem. You have an arrogance problem. You don't believe you need to listen to others about this problem. You don't think you're wrong, and know you don't need to listen to others about this problem. As such, I stand by my assertion. As for diffs, the above, and previously linked archives support my contentions just fine, I see no value in reposting all those links again. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ThuranX: But if you would actually read the archived section with the exchanges between User:John Carter and me and between User:Ecoleetage (my adopter from mid-July to first week of August--about 3 weeks), you would see that they already contain the "diffs." and everything is archived. This procedure (AN/I) requires posting of "diffs." to back up any accusations against another Misplaced Pages user/editor; you are not doing that now, and you did not do that before. I am not "arrogant"; I am fair, serious-minded, a good-faith editor, and I contribute important and well-documented content to Misplaced Pages. Your opinion of me is your opinion. Apparently, you were not able to "get over" the AN/I that I initiated about another user to whom you refer as "Stu"; Stu apologized to me, and I accepted his apology; he offered to be "sanctioned" himself, but you and others supported no one sanctioning him. It's all discussed in the archived discussion in my archive page 21, linked to above. Please do not use uncivil and offensive language in your editing summaries; and please explain what your abbreviations at the beginning of your post above mean. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for agreeing that it's all already linked. that means I don't have to link it all again. There's your interpretation of previous events, which you harangue about here, and there's the interpretation of your behavior which I, Sarah, steve, erik, and numerous others saw. Its' really that simple. I've said my piece here about your constant wikilawyering, arrogance, and general inability to socialize here in a way conducive to editing. I leave it to others to either agree, and put an end to your tenure here, or to find some OTHER other other way of getting your to behave. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:BB: I do not follow that at all. I do not really accept "bold editing" as worthwhile. I follow WP:POL not qualified by WP:BB. I have never said to anyone "be bold" and I have never tried to "be bold" myself; I have tried to follow WP:MOS when I can (though it is often difficult to understand and inconsistent): see discussion re: that between me and Keeper in Talk:Heath Ledger, now probably archived. It can be found in the editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember how to code Keeper's user name; I'll try to fix it later. Scroll up to Keeper's comments (way up) in the meantime. I'll add the section later if that helps. --NYScholar (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the archived page 9 of Talk:Heath Ledger Please correct typographical error]: It was a request while the article was fully protected from editing due to repeated acts of vandalism throughout its history; it has been either fully protected or partly protected since January 22, 2008, the day Ledger died, and it was frequently protected at various times before that (if I recall). I have edited it between Jan. 2008 and now. It is an article that I have contributed a lot of time and energy to keeping well-documented. It was the biographical article on Ledger that first led me to the article The Dark Knight, which I began working on and encountered a group of editors who specialize in film editing (it seems to me) who know one another and who did not appreciate my working on the article and drove me away from editing it, via the AN/I that is being referred to throughout this current AN/I discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not "released" from mentorship; Ecoleetage canceled it, as was his prerogative. The only reason that I am commenting here is because of the outrageousness of Orderinchaos's claims in the top posts. All the rest of this stuff relates to a resolved matter. Where are the "diffs." to current matters. My comments in response here to others' false statements are not cause for "sanctioning" me; those who make false statements and statements without "diffs." need "sanctioning"; see WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:AN/I (this page at top). Please don't just jump on a bandwagon; read the top of the section and from then on first. I responded and no one is reading what I said earlier. Read Ecoleetage's replies and Keeper's replies. This is not a matter of "supporters"; they are simply replying to the outrageous comments of previous posters here. --NYScholar (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• For what Orderinchaos has initially claimed (and been refuted) see top of this AN/I. It was filed by Orderinchaos who did not discuss anything relating to it with me on my talk page before doing so and did not notify me of this AN/I involving me after doing so. I found it, as I say above, by accident. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper posted comments about this current AN/I a couple of days ago, saying that it appears to be a "travesty" and suggesting that it be dropped, as has Ecoleetage, who also sets the record straight re: the adoption. (Apparently, John Carter had not required Ecoleetage to consult with him when Ecoleetage thought it time to "cancel" the adoption, in part based on my then current editing and engaging with other Wikipedians and Keeper's praise of it; Ecoleetage simply informed me that he was canceling it, and I thought that meant that he was canceling it via John Carter; apparently, it was not a condition of my adoption that there be a time period or that the adopter inform the blocking administrator of the time when it was canceled. I was adopted by Ecoleetage from mid-July to the first week of August, about 3 weeks (which I refer to as "briefly"); actually 3 weeks is fairly standard for some adoptions, I learned when looking at adoption information in Misplaced Pages. Their time frame varies. Please scroll up to their comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I have already communicated, the only thing about Ecoleetage's initial telling me that he was nominated in an RfA that I was concerned about, as I express in my "support" of it, was that he couldn't perhaps serve after the end of the adoption to advise me about Misplaced Pages matters anymore, because he might become too busy as an administrator, and that he wouldn't have time to contribute to content of articles. The charge by Orderinchaos was of "collusion"; both Ecoleetage and I and Keeper have most emphatically said that charge to be false. Everything was entirely above board, and everything in my talk page exchanges with Ecoleetage is either still current or archived. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To me this seems like beating up NYscholar to take out enmity against Ecoleetage. NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects. So what if the mentorship was terminated without consensus? Did any evil come of it? Provide a link to one bad thing that is a direct effect of the termination of the mentorship. Having trouble? That's because there isn't one. Come on, ANI is for serious things that require the attention of admins, not silly squabbles over non-issues like this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I have never had anything to do with Ecoleetage, never participated in his RfA and don't know enough about him to have an opinion about him either way and I don't the other admins and editors have had anything to do with Ecoleetage either so your claim is a rather poor show of ABF, IMO. I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else. Sarah 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. I had never even heard of Ecoleetage until two days ago. The reason I did not take my "grievance" up with NYScholar is that it was not a grievance against that party's behaviour, but a community decision which had been undermined to which the community's attention needed to be drawn. Orderinchaos 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion: I remember the last AN/I report involving NYScholar very clearly. Sara and ThuranX have accurately characterized the problems with NYS here. NYScholar accuses others of bad faith motives while simultaneously demanding good faith in return in page after page of prose. He or she gets angry if an editor innocently refers to her or him with any particular pronoun that may portray one sex or the other. The editor edits profusely contributing pages, mostly to talkpages, while at the same time disingenuously claims to be "too busy" in real life to edit here at all, especially when others request his or her attention. These issues were brought forth on the last report. These issues still exist. There was no justification that I can see for NYS to be released from mentorship, and I would hope if NYS continues to edit here, that one of his or her supporters would consider continuing the mentorship. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be relying on your or anyone else's "memory" in this proceeding; scroll up to the instructions; if you have a specific and current complaint: please file links to "Diffs." as the instructions say and as other admininistrators have asked everyone complaining to do. Thank you. (I do not feel well and will be offline.)--NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A "diff" you say? Well, you don't exactly make it easy. Here, in the last paragraph of your edit, you told us you would no longer respond to this page. That is disingenuous. Below, you show bad faith of Sarah, accusing her of "baiting" you and vindictiveness, lack of compassion while also complaining of the editorial environment here. Then you accuse her of personal attacks without proof while simultaneously demanding diffs from her and me. Now that is chutzpah. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PRESENT AN/I not past; read what comes above. And see last post. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say you are going offline when you don't? In fact, I knew you would respond immediately, because that's what you've done in the past and that's what you are doing now. You haven't changed since the last AN/I at all. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah's comments: As in the past, she makes statements, does not provide "diffs." to support them, baits me into responding, and then complains that I respond or how I respond or at what length I respond. Everyone can examine my own talk page archive to see at what length she has posted comments to me. She has been now and in the past one of the reasons why I do not feel well; the continuing attacks, the unfairness of them, the lack of humane compassion, and the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page and against me is beyond chutzpah. It is hardly a way to improve the environment in Misplaced Pages. At this point, I wonder if those continuing to engage in such machinations should themselves be under review. Please desist. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me. It is most unfortunate that you continue making such unfounded personal attacks and accusations. I have made five edits in total to this discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I really have no clue at all how, in good faith, you can characterise my posts here as "continuing attacks", "unfair", "vindictive", "lacking humane compassion", "baiting", and "the reason why do not feel well". Yes, I have asked you to try to be concise instead of flooding ANI with long slabs of text, but this is because I understand how ANI works and I know that the more you overwhelm it with these long rants and screens full of text, the less likely it is that any sane uninvolved admin will want to review this issue properly and comment. For example, this single post of yours was 2016 words long, later stretched to 2157. This is a problem, it's why I asked you to be concise here. As the ANi intro says, posting these long slabs of text deters people from reviewing and it's exactly what happened last time and it illustrates precisely why you need to be under some form of restrictions. My request that you try to be concise is entirely consistent with the ANI introduction at the top of the page which states, "please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I have always found your false accusations offensive but this has gone beyond that and is just really very sad. I have deliberately tried to say little here and have only commented when I have seen others have held mistaken beliefs of have misunderstood. As for diffs, I haven't provided any diffs because I haven't needed to. The previous discussion is linked to in Orderinchaos's opening post and there's no need for me to repost the diffs he has already posted. The only other comment that could conceivably need diffs is my reference to your flood of posts to this ANI report but they're all right here for everyone to see so I see no need to present diffs for them. Sarah 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in the midst of your accusations about me, you state: "the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page...is beyond chutzpah." (italics on "were" in your original) Yes, it really is "beyond chutzpah" and I must insist that you present diffs showing that I, Orderinchaos, ThuranX and Wikidemon participated in Ecoleetage's RfA (at all, let alone before you went there). I cannot speak for what others were doing, but I know that I was not even editing Misplaced Pages during the three week period that included the week of Ecoleetage's RfA, so there is no way that I participated in it. I look forward to seeing some evidence from you regarding the others you accuse because, while I'm sadly becoming rather used to being the target of your personal attacks and bogus accusations, it really is an unfair personal attack to make such vicious accusations if said accusations are blatantly untrue. Sarah 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was an RfA, and had never heard of the candidate, until a day or so after it closed. I didn't comment on it, and my single comment on E's talk page was made after the result was certain and most of the commiserations had been posted. I had been made aware only a few hours earlier of the issues involved, and had looked into it to try and figure out what had happened. The false allegations are becoming tiresome. Orderinchaos 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

More of the same from Sarah above.

If anyone is a "target" here, it is not Sarah, but I (see the heading in the filing of this notice).

In an earlier comment above (scroll way up), in response to my saying that I wanted to end commenting here and go offline, Sarah demands that I reply. I have said that I would prefer not to be here.

I am the one being "accused" here, not Sarah. This filing is not about her. It is about me. Her entering the debate and dredging up a previous resolved incident (in which the "indefinite block" of me ended after about a day) made it about herself. I readily accepted adoption by Ecoleetage (see his accounts and my links to archive page 21 of my talk page earlier).

I would like to see the posting of "diffs." to something that I have written in Misplaced Pages (outside of my admittedly-too-lengthy responses to this convoluted noticeboard filing) to indicate that I deserve any kind of "sanctions" at all for my so-called behavior. My behavior in Misplaced Pages has been entirely civil and entirely done in good faith.

My comments here have been entirely within the requirements of Etiquette. I have intended not to comment here after my initial comments, but the continuing attacks on me and unsubstantiated false accusations against me regarding my work in Misplaced Pages (in both articles and talk pages re: images) required responses; in one comment above, Sarah demands that I respond in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you are unable to present diffs supporting those accusations because once again your accusations are utterly untrue. The fact is none of us participated in Ecoleetage's RfA or did any of the other things you accused us of doing. Really, enough is enough. How much longer must we tolerate your bogus accusations and self-indulgent essay length posts that side track and bog down discussions? And no, your accusations are most certainly not "entirely within the requirements of Etiquette"; they are offensive, disruptive and destructive. They are blatant personal attacks and WP:CIVIL violations which you ought to retract post haste. Sarah 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is demanding you respond immediately. You can't shut people up by claiming to go offline. Sorry. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is quite confused; it is up to the users posting their onslaught of comments against me here to post their own "diffs." (see the instructions). It is not up to me to do so for them. I have already posted "diffs." about the past incident, as archived in my archive page 21; I initiated that AN/I about another user named Stuthomas in relation to what I felt were breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and Misplaced Pages:Etiquette directed at me by him; Sarah entered that discussion and proceeded to make it about me, changed the heading to include my name and others, dredged up another then-past series of events (which had been resolved earlier), and it went on and on and on. Any "diffs." relating to that did not occur between the period of time that OrderinChaos filed this "incident" about: July 15 to Sept. 5, 2008. I am not responsible for posting "diffs." for the complaints against me. Those making such complaints are responsible for doing so. And if they are going to comment and characterize what I write, they have to read what I write, and stop claiming that because it's too long, they are not going to read it (e.g., ThuranX and at times Sarah, and others). If you are going to participate, you must read what other users respond to you; I read what you wrote, you need to read what I wrote. Otherwise, this is just wasting your and my time even more. And don't tell me that I have to "respond" to you when you won't read my response. I don't, and if I don't want to respond anymore, I won't. Why would someone continue responding when the people he or she is responding to refuse to read the responses? Just in that itself, you violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. There is no requirement that I respond at all. But I responded due to the nature of the statements made without "diffs." given that do not follow the instructions given above, which I have already quoted. But maybe you all didn't read that either. From this procedure, it becomes more and more obvious that those who do not treat me with respect do not in turn deserve mine. --NYScholar (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it's up to the accuser to post diffs, so please post diffs supporting your various accusations including the allegation that we are vindictively pursuing Ecoleetage and your insistence that we participated in his RFA. If you are unable to find diffs of us editing Ecoleetage's RfA page then I would suggest you retract your accusations post haste because you are in jeopardy of CIVIL and NPA. Sarah 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for review of what is going on here in Requests for Arbitration. I do not feel well (have a terrible headache from all this), and have asked for relief. I have too much of a headache now to find the link to the Arbitration request. It's currently at the bottom of the pile. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called "the first step" in such a process at Wikietiquette Alerts: . Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw no such action on the RFArb page. please link to your already filed complaint there. ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for closure

People, I am trying to take a Wikibreak, okay? I don't want to keep coming back here to ride this carousel. Let me repeat what I already said (which didn't seem to get noticed the first go-round).

1. My adoption of NYScholar did not come with any set parameters on length or depth. In fact, I received no instructions whatsoever except to "adopt" the editor because that was the sole requirement for unblocking on a matter that was resolved and closed two months ago.

2. The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely mine to make, as the adoptive editor. NYScholar had no say in the matter. At the time, I felt my judgment was justified based on the editor's renewed contributions to the project and on positive feedback from the admin Keeper76, who awarded NYScholar a barnstar for excellent work.

3. There is no policy requiring community approval on the concluding of Wiki-adoptions.

4. The adoption ended a month ago.

Dead horses are to be buried, not beaten. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, is there any sort of bad thing that came out of the severing of the adoption? No. There is no point to this thread. Maybe we should block Eco, on a long Wikibreak, for 24 hours? Or maybe we should block NYScholar for doing something wrong that everyone remembers but no one has proof of? No. I don't get what users want to get out of this thread other than drama. Any block would clearly be vindictive and punitive, not preventive as blocks are supposed to be. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just the last 2 hours reading through all of this and the linked discussion the problem is that the when the unblocking occurred there was a failure in Ecoleetage recieving the intent of the adoption and what was meant to be achieved. Also as part ot the unblocking there was a requirement for NYS to change the way in which his/her talk page is archived that being that all discussion get bot archived 48 hours after the last posting to it NYS talk page has a notice saying I archive them when I feel discussions are over and/or when I have no further time to participate in them a clear challenge to and total disregard to conditions of unblocking. There where also ettiquette and incivility issues raised though no clear sanction was proposed, one can only presume that an assumption was made that such problems would during the course of being mentored/adopted be addressed. IMHO there is reason to re-instate the block, before doing so I like to give NYS the opportunity to relist as requesting adoption and to remove the User_talk:NYScholar#N.B. section from his talk page. Gnangarra 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one wants to block Ecoleetage or sanction him in anyway at all so talking about blocking him seems rather silly. I really wonder if you're actually reading this section (and with one single post to it being more than two thousand words long, I honestly don't blame you if you haven't read it) but your comments really aren't helpful. This is a long term behavioural issue that really needs to be resolved once at for all. I don't agree with the way Ecoleetage conducted his mentorship of NYScholar, especially given that it came about as a result of an indefinite block and a near community ban (again, the last ANI that resulted in the mentorship is linked in the opening post) and the behavioural problems that needed working on were very clearly discussed in that discussion, but Ecoleetage was acting in good faith and obviously hasn't done anything to warrant blocking. So it's silly to even be talking about such a thing. The idea that this is all just about the terminated mentorship and that there must be a demonstration of "something bad" happening as a direct result of the mentorship being terminated is incorrect. I kind of expected that the thousands and thousands of words NYScholar's posted to this section with utterly untrue, unfounded and hysterical accusations against numerous editors and administrators would speak for itself, especially in light of previous ANIs. I feel like you've just read the first post and then the last post by NYScholar proclaiming that we're all vindictively pursuing him and Ecoleetage and nothing in between. Sarah 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Sarah, I'm disappointed in how Ecoleetage's mentorship worked out, but like her, I don't place 'blame' on Eco. However, the immediate reversion of NYScholar to his/her/its/their/NYScholar's old behavior shows that NYScholar continues to be unable to work with others. Consider below that NYSCholar has restated, with incredible fluffing up, all prior arguemnts taht it's everyone else. Community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above people - there would be absolutely no point or value whatsoever in blocking Ecoleetage, and it would be a breach of our blocking policy. This is a case of taking on a responsibility and then not fulfilling it, likely through a lack of understanding of what the responsibility entailed, which probably comes back to a communication issue (i.e. Eco was not informed precisely of the conditions). One would not block a mediator for declaring a situation resolved when it isn't, which is probably the closest equivalent. There's no blame to be assigned. Orderinchaos 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second of Ecoleetage's call for closure and related statement

I was taking a "Wikibreak" too after filing a request for help from Wikiquette alerts. I also do not want to have to return here.

As I state clearly on my talk page: Please do not copy and paste my words and take them out of context; it is possible to provide a link so that people can read them in context.

Corrections of the above statement by garra:

1. There is a bot on my talk page that archives it automatically: the bot was not a requirement of the past situation brought up by others over and over above.
2. There has been no (I repeat: no) incivility or breaches of Etiquette on my part. Others have vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked for their acts of vandalism. I had not seen that vandalism prior to those blocks being instituted by administrators. (See the editing history in my user talk page and my current talk page.)
3. Here is the context for the out-of-context quotation by garra: N.B..
4. Notice the reference to the archive bot.
5. I added the parenthetical ref. to it in July 2008. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that it is there; see top template re: the bot.
6. As per the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines referenced by links in "N.B." and at the top of my talk page, and entirely properly, I have and take my prerogatives re: maintenance of my "User" space (user page and user talk page) in Misplaced Pages.
7. I remove what I find to be personally-offensive, harassing, and/or uncivil remarks; I remove unsigned comments; I remove uncivil comments made by anon. IP users (some of whom have recently vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked by administrators). As per Misplaced Pages user talk page guidelines, I delete common template notices not involving "sanctions" after I have read them (common practice).
8. A few times since the bot began operation and there appeared to be glitches in its operation. I have manually had to archive a few exchanges after 2 days/48 hrs. and after clear evidence that the exchanges were finished (as the bot was doing does when there were no bot glitches). Currently, there seems to be a problem w/ its functioning, as it hasn't archived anything properly recently, and I've asked for administrative assistance w/ it), beginning last week. Therfore, if it failed to archive finished exchanges after 2 days and 48 hrs., and after more than 2 date/time-stamped replies, I have occasionally had to do that manually.
9. There is no reason to re-instate this block or to have any other "sanction"; to do so would be punitive retribution based on false accusations.

Related points

1. The previous "indefinite block" lasted for about a day; as per its condition, I accepted the offer of an adopter immediately upon its being made.
2. The adoption lasted from July 15, 2008 to August 5, 2008 . It was canceled by the adopter, who stated that he believes that it is no longer necessary.
3. If adoption is still warranted (which I do not believe it is), I would be happy to be adopted by anyone who is reasonable and pleasant to work with and who observes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, including my past adopterUser:Ecoleetage, whom I feel I learned a lot from (even how to be concise). I do not feel that he "failed" his role as an adopter.
4. Ecoleetage did what he was directed to do, and, prior to the beginning of the formal acceptance of his offer, I summarized the past difficulties that I had been told I had in Misplaced Pages for him.
5. See archive page 21 of my archive: I've already linked to it above.
6. My academic propensity for wordiness and thoroughness of expression is not his responsiblity, it is mine. I am aware that online communications can be unclear, and I strive for clarity. That takes use of words. I am an academic in the humanities; this is how I communicate. I am a writer, an editor, a teacher, and a consultant in the humanities.
7. Anyone who volunteers to adopt me needs to be aware that I am very busy for extended periods of time doing other non-Misplaced Pages-related work and that I may not be working on Misplaced Pages at all at times. The template notices on my talk page alert people to that. My work schedule is not always predictable, and, now that we are in the fall of 2008, I will be more and more busy with other things. I was working very hard on real-life projects that had to get to press by early August, and in and out of Misplaced Pages from mid-July through early August. For the past 3 weeks I have worked on articles that were pointed out to me by Ecoleetage and got heavily involved in striving to improve them; that coincided with the image problems that I pointed out relating to them and with Ecoleetage's RfA (which he notified me of last week).
8. When unfair actions and breaches of basic human rights occur against me and others, I speak up. That is my prerogative as a citizen of the United States and as a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be adding that user box to my user boxes so that people understand my longstanding adherence to it. Misplaced Pages should not be a "place" where people's rights to express themselves and to maintain their dignity are abused.
9. I see no necessity for any "sanction" ("block" or "ban") of me or anyone else at this time.
10. The filing of this notice in this noticeboard and continuing comments about it were and are in my view and in the view of others who have commented above inappropriate and misguided and a total waste of everyone's time and peace of mind.
11. I second the call for "closure". --NYScholar (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure would mean reinstating the indefinite block - if that's what NYScholar wants so be it. I don't see that the community has changed its mind that NYScholar must accept mentorship / adoption in order to continue editing. If a qualified willing volunteer can be found then we should continue as before but with a clear notice to NYScholar and the volunteer that the editing restrictions will remain in place: until the community lifts the ban NYScholar may only edit as long as a suitable adoption arrangement is in place. If Ecoleetage or anyone else wants to volunterr that should be approved first. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean by "closure"; "closure" means ending this absurd discussion. I already placed an adoptauser template on my talk page. It's up to someone to respond and offer to adopt me. If the person wants to do it via User:John Carter, who both initiated and removed the previous "indefinite block" (which lasted about a day), fine. But please Wikedemon, cut it out. I posted my "Update" below before you even posted this one above: look at the time/date stamps. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Wikidemon is not an administrator. --NYScholar (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close is either with NYScholar blocked or under ongoing mentorship, per the terms of the last closure.Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have placed an adoptauser template on my current talk page, signaling that I am looking for someone to adopt me. If User:Ecoleetage wants to renew his adoption of me, as he is now familiar with all of the complaints made above by others and all of the responses by himself and others to them, perhaps he will volunteer again. There never was any so-called "collusion" between him and me (as we have proved), and there is no reason why he could not resume his task as adopter (if he is so willing); if not, perhaps someone else, I hope as kind and considerate and humane as he is, will step up to the plate and volunteer. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not available as an adopter, sorry. After slogging through this thread, I am going offline to read something a lot lighter and fluffier -- Tolstoy's "War and Peace"! :-) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all right, Ecoleetage. I understand. All offers of adoption need to be posted on my talk page, not here. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have contacted another potential adopter currently listed in the adopt-a-user project and requested consideration of adoption. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney, an administrator, has offered to adopt me. I have thanked her and accepted her offer. I don't know if she has seen my reply yet; but it seems as though this adoption is now in progress. I have asked her to stop by here to post the relevant information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right after I posted this, Shell updated the adopt-a-user template to indicate that she has adopted me. I look forward to learning from her. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close this matter is to state "closed with no action taken" and to archive this discussion. I've already posted the adoptauser on my talk page.

This matter needs to be ended (closed and closed with no action) and archived. That's that.

For the record: The number of words that I have written in this procedure has been instigated by the nature of the procedure and the number of posts made by others. When so many people have made (in my view and that of some others) outrageous claims, with no "diffs." to back them up pertaining to my actual contributions to Misplaced Pages between July 15, 2008 and September 5, 2008 (Scroll up to top post by Orderinchaos), their statements have required responses from me and others to set the record straight. --NYScholar (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this entirely. NYScholar's proposal is effectively to accept that everything in this and prior proceedings is bullshit and we should leave NYScholar alone, despite the fully substantiated behavioral issues as raised last time, and the nature of this new thread. NYScholar never demonstrated real acceptance of the reasons for the enforcement of ban or mentor, and went with mentor for obvious reasons (it let NYScholar keep editing.) As seen here, and opined by multiple editors, the pattern of behavior has reemerged, and again, NYScholar deflects all criticisms with wikilawyering and counter-accusations. Until we get clear acknowledgment from NYScholar about the nature of the problem, recognition of if within NYScholar's self, and clear intent to actually change, then nothing can move forward, and certainly we cannot dismiss the section. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Post the "Diffs." that relate to the period from July 15 to August 5, 2008, and please cut this out. Thanks. My archive 21 and archive 22 pages document all my discussions in my talk pages during that period. ThuranX just won't give up on this witch hunt, which is still what it appears to me and others who have already comment on this "travesty" to be. Please watch your language and treat other users with respect. These are Misplaced Pages guidelines for behavior, not mine: WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to do three things: quit assuming bad faith while demanding others show you good faith, quit attacking others while demanding civility from others, and quit saying you are signing off when you don't. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User has been adopted

• NYScholar requested I act as a mentor and it appears that we're both in agreement on how to handle things (User_talk:NYScholar#Adoption_Request). I've looked over the concerns here, but if there are any other incidents that might help me make sure NYScholar is getting the best advice possible, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page, or shoot me an email. I'll do my best to keep an eye on how everything is going, but I'd like to ask that if any incidents come up that NYScholar is involved in, please try bringing the concern to one of our talk pages first so we can try to work things out. Thanks. Shell 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given Shell's previous comments at the last ANI discussion, I believe that she understands the interpersonal and behavioural issues and I am happy to give her the chance to pursue mentorship with NYScholar. However, I will make it known now that I consider this a last chance and while I've previously been opposed to blocks and bans because of NYScholar's productive mainspace contributions, if we're back here again without improvement and with the exact same issues unresolved, I will be withdrawing my opposition to a community ban. Sarah 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."

I'm very new to Misplaced Pages, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page and one of the main articles in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Misplaced Pages will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Misplaced Pages, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Misplaced Pages" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Misplaced Pages to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Misplaced Pages with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Misplaced Pages, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Misplaced Pages in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Misplaced Pages completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Misplaced Pages leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Misplaced Pages puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Misplaced Pages editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Misplaced Pages" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly an unacceptable thing to say of course. Puttyschool should stop immediately and refrain from using such remarks or he would get blocked. But believe me, not all people would call it "anti-semitism." Other people of different confessions may get offended if someone would use something like "hindupedia", "islamopedia", "hamaspedia", etc. That happens here and we just call that "incivility." It has been discussed several times here and unfortunately there has never been someting clear. I hope people would get to a resolution. My point is that we should be firm in dealing with all this BS (with no double standards of course). All we want is a better atmosphere. That is my point and that is why we have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

On the other hand, I'd like you try to wp:assume good faith. If I had to block your second account it is because leaving an account previously blocked and starting a new one can be seen as avoiding scrutiny. If everybody does so then it would be impossible to manage Misplaced Pages. And of course, you were not the only person I check-usered. In parallel, I'm finished here, since "faysal" blocked me is sad because first, we don't want people to leave just for the sake of leaving and second, because I never blocked you. I blocked your second account. You were pissed off and that I understand (and I didn't consider any of what you said as legal threat - it happens) but that doesn't mean you are correct and right (saying thanks you and fuck you). Really Einsteindonut, we try to avoid the words enemy and evil. pathetic. I had offered you my help but you chose to not assume good faith. You'd have already been blocked because of all that but admins have used their cool sense. I hope this is clear.

Again, I suggest that you better think about the message I left for you on your talk page. That has been sincere and I am not interested in wasting neither my time nor the time of others. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it very sad that I am the one getting reprimanded and told what I can and cannot say in this case. I would hope that you and others can pay attention to the CATALYST of all of this in which you have spent critiquing me upon and spend more time with regard to that problem as opposed to focusing the attention and onus of the responsibility on the person who complained about it. I hardly feel I'm wasting anyone's time here, especially when people continue to blame me for the response to the original problem, rather than the original problem itself. Everyone here seems very keen on focusing on the complainer and not the complaint. I find that to be extremely troublesome. Thanks for all the "advice" "Fayssal" - go ahead and block me if you wish. I don't really want to be a part of something in which people can get away with making anti-semitic comments and then people who react to them are the ones who get reprimanded and inconvenienced as a result. Thanks for your offer to "help" Fayssal, but I'll seek it elsewhere. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about other editors« PuTTY 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(end of restored comment)

Puttyschool. Please refrain from doing that again. It could be that it is not considered as an anti-semitic remark but we all agree that it is totally unacceptable. Just don't do it again. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, I never imagined that you will remove my comments and others from this admin board, how dare you Please check Why Einsteindonut removed my two comments« PuTTY 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a pure accident. After you brought it to my attention I tried to re-add it, but then the page was updated and I got confused and couldn't. I'm happy to discuss whatever it is you were trying to say. In fact, I went back to try to find it and couldn't! I'm having some difficult times editing on these admin boards. I'm fine with whatever people want to say here though. There's no good reason for me to delete anyone's comment. I looked at that edit and i was trying to make a minor edit of my own stuff and I think I accidentally deleted yours. My apologies. I'm being 100% honest here. I'm ready to respond to whatever it was you said. I think you claimed that the JPedia comment was not anti-semitic. I'd be inclined to believe that it wasn't, but combined with the fact that you also claimed that the JPost was "just for Jews," that is what sealed the deal for me. If "Jpost" is "just for Jews" then certainly "JPedia" (in your mind" would be too, right? I mean, that's what you were trying to say, right? That Misplaced Pages is not "Just for Jews?" Yes, that is true, but that point had nothing to do with my edit, other than the fact that we were working on an article about a Jewish organization, and that I am Jewish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about me or other editors. you can focus only on my 3 words, dropping all other stories you have, like the GFDL license story. I think one of our arguments while reverting our edits was about your cutting and pasting from the JPOST article, then why you insist J mean Jewish, by the way is every “J” anti-semitic from your point of view or you select according to the circumstances, you can share your friends about your thoughts and ideas, but I’m not obligated to share your thoughts and ideas. About removing my comment, you removed two comments from two different places, is this "a pure accident", Wow, what a strange accident, which can’t happen in Misplaced Pages.« PuTTY 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only", therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Misplaced Pages is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Misplaced Pages is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion" along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you. Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Misplaced Pages, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Misplaced Pages is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Misplaced Pages is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly why you are talking about, you method makes me looses concentration, your statement about Egypt is completely wrong, I never heard it before, but I know most of your statements are based uponWP:OR .
I was reverting your edits as I documented in talk page for two reasons, i) unlicensed image with a very long unreasonable funny story ii)you added un-encyclopedic words as they appeared between quotes in the JPOST article, and what appear between quotes means that the words are not the JPOST point of view, about my assumption that JPOST is for Jews only, I’m not a reader for the JPOST newspaper, so my assumption was based on a few articles I read from the JPOST and this can be wrong, but this does not mean that JpediA is anti-semantic, especially my comment was not a general one as yours but was specific to you and your edit to the article. I don’t know too much about the history of the “J” but I took it from the” J”POST, and I was telling you that Misplaced Pages can’t use the same words as JPOST. Another point; please revise your contributions and tell me where is your NPOV from your first account till this one, and the next.....
So In order not to lose my main point I want to remind everyone I’m requesting blocking your account as you removed two subsequent comments I added in two different edits, and I want the history of this page to be checked I’m AGF but also it is one of my rights to know haw this was a mistake.« PuTTY 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The images licenses changed, as I mentioned. Also, apparently in your mind the "un-encylopedic" words are as follows:

"The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." from: Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion" upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Misplaced Pages pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Misplaced Pages. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Misplaced Pages? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

aharon42, "Jpedia" may be rude according to some editors POV, but sure it is not anti-semitic« PuTTY 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it from an Egyptian who knows. What is this, Egyptpedia? I assume I can get away with this, since no one wants to get on Putty's case for his remarks and since he is unwilling to even recognize what he did was wrong---thanks in large part to everyone focusing on ME rather than the catalyst to the problem. In any event, what can I really expect from people who are not Jewish? Do you see now why there are organization like the JIDF and ADL, etc? People don't even have a clue as to what anti-semitism is, and when it is there, no one even wants to do anything about it except "blame the Jew" for complaining about it. Thank you Misplaced Pages for proving something I already knew. Never mind. Case closed.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, is this another kind of drama? Can I say that your word is Anti-Egyptians, or you are also referring to Jews from Egypt and your word is Anti-Egyptians/Anti-Semantic as well? I don’t know how much time you need in order to learn, it is easy “judge the contents not the contributors”« PuTTY 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of you could do with a healthy dose of WP:AGF. Certainly the remark could be considered rude, but there's no need for this ridiculous argument -- just be the bigger person and step back a notch. If this sort of destructive bickering continues, there's a pretty good chance one or both of you will wind up banned from the article. Calm down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...

Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Misplaced Pages, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nagle is right on the money, actually. It's become clear that one or more editors at the article is a prominent member of the JIDF. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Misplaced Pages editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers published on their Facebook page.. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comments from admin noticeboard, he removed two comments from two different places, it is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever« PuTTY 12:48, 7 September 2008 (

It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sir/Madam, I'm requesting to block the account for ever for the above reason« PuTTY 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I accidentally deleted one comment that I know of. If i deleted another one on this board, than that was an accident too. I'm happy to debate/discuss with you or anyone here, there, or anywhere. There is no good reason (other than a pure accident) that I would delete any of your comments in talk areas. Feel free to bring this onto my talk page if you wish, or re-submit them here. I really have had a difficult time editing on these boards and it is not my intention to delete anyone's remarks. My apologies if it appears that way, but it is true. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. Your edit has apparently caused a huge problem by messing up a page that now requires several people's work to fix. See below, the section, 'Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help?' If it was an edit conflict consequence, you are not wholly responsible for that mess, provided you did not know what to do when there is an edit conflict. The least you should do if lower your sights, and start learning how to edit, without damaging this project.Nishidani

It was an accident which is easily caused by editors following the instructions given at edit conflicts. These instructions have now been changed in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of this problem. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an accident and it has been addressed in other areas and I have apologized for it. Again, none of this has to do with the original complaint. Very interesting how all of this because about ME, and not the fact that someone made a very discriminatory remark with regard to religion on Misplaced Pages. Call it what you want here, in my hood, it's called ANTISEMITISM and I feel it's very important to call it for what it is, and I will continue to do so, when I spot it here, or anywhere for that matter, ESPECIALLY when nothing is done about it, but to reprimand ME for complaining about it.

Putty needs to know what he did was 100% wrong and why. He also needs to apologize as that remark is completely unacceptable, or else I should be fine making comments after each of his edits saying "what is this, Egyptpedia?" Or something to that effect and not face any sanctions whatsoever for doing so. THEN maybe people will get onto Putty's case (as they are doing here with me for some reason.) LAME LAME LAME. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice - having "Misplaced Pages = worse than Goebbels" on your userpage may make some editors less likely to listen to any genuine complaints you may have. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing is bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be dandy if the both of you two would just calm down and have some tea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, You know the only good point you bring is that one Egyptian, makes the Great WikipediA an EgyptpediA, wow how much Egyptians are great from 7500 year till now. Other points are not related to this section which is blocking your account.« PuTTY 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I know all about ancient Egypt. There was a reason I left. I hope you remember who built your pyramids and I'm sure you remember 1967, hence your disdain for me, the article in question, the JPOST, etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a claims, or some thing to remember, it is WP:RS, As documented in ancient Egyptian articles, Egyptian built the pyramids and the culture was before Jews, at the same time, the concept of building the pyramids is against (Jews/Christians/Muslims) religions. Every one wish to have this owner, we don’t mind, but our culture was a documented culture and we have all old documents. About 1967 and 1973 which you missed this is completely out of line and we forgot all about the two years, but we did not forget that Jews are our cousins.
Please report this Luna, he did not accept the tea« PuTTY 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Report what? That you're still egging him on? That he's still taking the bait? This isn't going to stop while you're both trying to get each other blocked or banned. There's more to civility than acting nice for ten minutes to get a leg up on somebody -- politeness isn't a one-shot thing. Both of you should really stop trying to take the high road, because you're both just coming across as squabbling children. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or banned. I want some serious understanding from Misplaced Pages editors (rather than "you're being ridiculous!" and throwing the rule book at me, blocking me, checking me for socks, etc.) and I want them to help me to fully get through to Putty that what he said was not just wrong, but a serious personal attack based upon someone's religion. Unfortunately, no one sees it that way for some reason, which I find concerning. And finally, I want an apology for him after he fully comprehends what he did. The fact that none of that has even begun to happen is what "eggs me on." I pretty much tune out much of whatever it is he is trying to say since that comment and some of his other questionable remarks and reverts. In order to move forward, I need more affirmation that I make good points. He's actually egging me on far less than everyone else basically telling me that I'm crazy for having a problem with this. Civility should include something to the effect of, here you have an editor who tried to talk his points through and made a good faith edit. Another editor comes along and pretty much says "this ain't for Jews" w/out given a good reason for making the revert. It was very clearly anti-semitic. I'm just a bit shocked that others don't see it. That is all. Not calling for his banning or his blocking, but for more understanding from fellow editors, and helping me fully get through to him why it was wrong and why it was offensive, and a sincere apology. Since none of that looks like it's ever going to happen, I remain flustered. Trust me, it's more about everyone else response (or lack thereof) which is more frustrating at this point than anything else. It was beyond "rude" it was a fully personal attack on me and all Jewish editors on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the threats of blocking and bannings have apparently scared them so much that they are afraid to even come to my defense. I could care less if I am blocked and/or banned. It would say more about the problems with Misplaced Pages than it does about my activities here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page, there are a lot of editors here who don't get it. Standing here and holding your breath until you get an apology won't enlighten them. — ] (] · ]) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not "very clearly" anti-semitic. A statement like "Misplaced Pages is not for Jews" could be interpreted in different ways; it could be taken to mean "Jews are not welcome here" (which seems to be your take on it, and would indeed be a troublesome sentiment), or it could be taken to mean "Misplaced Pages is not only for Jews" (an interpretation which assumes good faith and allows the editing process to move forward, and in fact a true statement besides). Given Putty doesn't seem to have a fluent grasp of English, it's difficult to make authoritative assertions about their intended meaning. If you want others to share your highly negative interpretation of the original statement, you'd do well to stop flapping your arms about our willful stupidity and start demonstrating a history of problems from this editor. Evidence is a must when making such extreme claims. I will take no pains to defend Putty's rather silly reaction to all of this -- really, an apology and/or explanation would have done more to calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::The fact that one's religion would be mentioned in a hostile tone with regard to any edits is completely wrong and unacceptable. The fact that you are watering this down is troubling. The fact that you think "Misplaced Pages is not only for Jews" is somehow AGF is absurd. The fact that you just rationalized is concerning. I think I'll start mentioning everyone's religion when I revert their edits hastily from now on, since that is acceptable here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been said tens of times that it is NOT acceptable. The user has been warned and if he tries it again he'd get blocked. Who said it is acceptable? Really, don't think about starting mentioning everyone's religion when editing. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to stop hand waving and start posting evidence to support your claims. Response? More hand waving, now in bold. Very charming. My point wasn't "Putty attacked your religion and that's okay" but rather "I'm not convinced Putty attacked your religion." A temper tantrum does not convince me I'm wrong. Illustrating a history of problematic statements would be more useful, in that regard. If Putty continues to make problematic statements, we can cross that bridge; for now, it's not clear what admin action is needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was actually just summing everything up in bold. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it behind you?

Einsteindonut, despite Puttyschool's offensive comment, I think it's clear that you're not going to get what you want: an apology or any sort of disciplinary action against Puttyschool. Despite what you've endured over the past 24 hours, please try to calm down. If you can, try to put this incident behind you — because it doesn't seem like anything is going to happen here — and get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia. Lord knows it needs improving. — ] (] · ]) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Malik, about my comment, I apologize as it can be a misunderstanding comment, but I did not mean by JpediA the JewishPedia as he was trying to prove, and JPediA is not an anti-semantic word, and as you can remember I was calling you and other Jews editor to solve conflict issues, and I was working with you and Oblear and all editors without any barriers. But also check his comments, how may offensive comments me and other editors received from him from the day this article is created in WikiPediA, only as he don’t like what we did, so we must put a limit, what he don’t like we also don’t like, especially most of us don’t have COI« PuTTY 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this discussion any further. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very calm actually. However, if no apology? Then I'm not putting it behind me. I am improving Misplaced Pages (in my own mind at least.) Who am I bothering here? No one is forced to read any of this. I want it to be known that I make a big deal out anti-semitic comments combined with efforts by people to revert my editing decisions I made after fully discussing them in "talk" without their collaboration or input with regard to anything I discussed as to why I was making the change to the article. This isn't just about the comment. It is the entire context (from Putty's first comments when the article was first nominated for deletion) - to his constant trying to take out important and accurate, well-thought out and discussed edits because of his own cultural conflict of interest and his own personal problem with the organization.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished my tea, seems you don't like tea, all of us are improving WikipediA, can anyone comment on this« PuTTY 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a coffee person (who's waiting for an apology.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Einsteindonut and Puttyschool really need to take a break from Wiki. At this point, both have made extremely offensive comments to each other, and which are therefore offensive to other Jews and Egyptians. Personally, I think the JPedia comment is anti-semitic, but I see no history of Putty posting anti-semitic POV elsewhere on Wiki. I have a hard time taking the AGF road though given his defense of stating it is not anti-semitic, which is no defense at all. I honestly do not think Putty understands why it is anti-semitic (he is not alone), but it is. He has given a sort of half-hearted apology, and I wish both you guys would leave it at that. Sposer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sposer, I think I must also apologize “for the poor choice of the term”, According to my discussions with Michael Safyan I found that if the term “might give offense…” to at least one editor, then it is wrong to use it. Sorry next time I will take care about every “J”.« PuTTY 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions?

I've personally given up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article as it's too much of a battleground with baiting and conjecture well after everyone has been cautioned about such issues. The article is under Arbcom restriction yet the personalizing seems to not let up. I'm also uncomfortable with the original research to out anyone associated with the group - digging through Facebook and posting on wikipedia seems like a terrible idea when these people have death threats against them - to me that's a WP:BLP issue.

I would support full protection on the article - it's largely stable despite the ongoing quibbling - and possibly semi on the talk if trolling is also an issue. Banjeboi 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues when (a) all the people involved use pseudonyms and (b) they've published the "names" themselves. — ] (] · ]) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they are all pseudonyms - and just why are we diving into that original research on wikipedia anyway? - and, though I've not spent much time on Facebook, unsure they have really "published" this list. Two references were used to name David Appletree, do we have a RS that that is a pseudonym? If so we should state it, if not I wonder, given the death threats, if we should remove it. Banjeboi 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the matter and ways to resolutions

Let's see and clear up this mess:

Notes: Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles are under ArbCom restrictions.

On-wiki problems:

a) There's a total lack of AGF. Users from both sides of the fence still need to make big efforts to AGF and work together in peace. I applaud and encourage though user:Aharon42 and other people's efforts to make that happen.

b) Someone (IP) made this very nasty anti-semitic edit. The problem is that this user denies being behind those edits. 2 admins have investigated the issue.

Update: User is blocked for 2 weeks after some evidence was presented below.

c) Someone made this unaccaptable remark. That is totally uncivil and rude and should not happen again under any circumstance. If this happens again a block would be in order. Aharon49 has asked me to give my views on this and why I didn't consider this remark as anti-semitic. There's a big difference between attacking someone by saying "you are a dirty X" and "this is not Xpedia". It is still a gray area and the only way we'd know if it was really meant to be anti-semitic is to check the history of the contributions of the user who made the comment. We can still AGF until we get sure about that. So far, no indication of such a tendency has been noted.

d) Sockpuppetry has not been abusive as discussed above. Also, there are a few sleeper accounts belonging to one established user. I am waiting for some answers and explanations from some involved parties before taking action. I've made some checks and that covered a few accounts concerning parties from both sides of the dispute. My fellow checkusers can review that or verify the logs if needed.

e) Some editors have gone so far and got the names of some alleged JIDF people. This needs to stop (it is a precedent AFAIK). I suggest all names be oversighted (though the fact i am a member of the ArbCom, I have no oversighting tools). If this happens again blocks would be in order. We must respect the privacy of everyone as it is sacred.

Off-wiki problems brought here:

a) JIDF has tried to out and violate the privacy of Misplaced Pages editor user:CJCurrie. It says " currently updated for the time being, just because we feel like being nice....." I hope reasonable people at JIDF refrain from doing that. JIDF people must understand that Misplaced Pages editors are humans and outing them in such a shameful way instead of addressing the real issues or enter in a sincere dialog with our editors is not a positive thing.

b) It seems that JIDF is a bit obsessed with Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has been faced with a somehow similar situation (see the CAMERA ArbCom case. Please read one of the important principles laid out by the ArbCom... "the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") It is for the best of everyone involved that this stops. Misplaced Pages is open to everyone and there's no need to push that hard to the limits.

c) The subject of the article (JIDF) promotes "some weird stuff" (check the link at the khaki/yellow box at the left column). This is not "defending" as in 'jiDf' but "attacking". JIDF sympathizers must think about balance and mutual respect before accusing others of "anti-semitism." JIDF website links to thereligionofpeace.com (tRoP). tRoP titles include nasty and crappy stuff such as "California Muslims Angered They Can't Incite Murder of Jews..." (I say: all California muslims?), "Why are Muslims Powerless? Short answer - too much religion, not enough education. Muhammad warned Muslims against pursuing "knowledge that benefits not" and they've been following his advice ever since..." (No comment), etc. Attacking a whole religion because of some bad terrorists is nonsense and I'd urge JIDF sympathizing editors to be aware of the fact that this creates a very bad atmosphere over here. Nobody is innocent. Hatred and nonsense comes from all sides (not necessarily one).

So any resolution would depend on the willingness of involved people from both sides to address the above points and reconsider their actions. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, thank you for laying out the issues. Your "on-wiki" points are nearly perfect, except for the history of Putty's comments and editing with regard to the JIDF article. The second half of your thinking with regard to "off wiki" stuff is problematic. It seems outside the scope of my original complaint, and I believe "on Wiki" rules do not apply to to off-wiki content. Regarding CJCurrie and the JIDF post about him he actually outed himself on Misplaced Pages itself. The JIDF didn't "out him," the letter someone sent to the JIDF officially outted him after the JIDF indicated that they know who he is through the information he had posted on Misplaced Pages itself. I believe if certain Misplaced Pages editors are going to mass vandalize the project in a serious and vindictive manner, and face no sanctions from ArbsCom, then things can happen off-Wiki (as we see in this case.) In other words, "on wiki" neglect of certain issues can bring about "off wiki" consequences. Had the situation been dealt with quickly and fairly, then perhaps the JIDF would not have gotten involved. I believe (since you are bringing it up) that perhaps an ArbsCom case should still be considered for CJCurrie's questionable edits and removal of all "zionism on the web" links (for the most part) on Misplaced Pages. It was vandalism pure and simple in response to Oboler's exposure of the Electronic Intifada problem, and CJCurrie got away with it, which I feel is indicative of other underlying problems within the Misplaced Pages project itself. The entire case regarding CJCurrie is laid out on the JIDF site is very telling. All of your points in the "off wiki B" section seem to be completely disregarded by editors like CJCurrie, as a matter of fact. Your "C" Point regarding "off wiki" content seems completely out-of-place and irrelevant. While you might have certain opinions about the JIDF site and the content they provide (which is completely unrelated to Misplaced Pages), it is still just that, completely unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Again, thank you for laying out the issues in a clear and concise manner. In summation, I believe your "on wiki" assessment is nearly perfect, though much of your "off wiki" assessment is "way off" and should be outside the scope of Misplaced Pages ArbsCom considerations.--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you agree with my on-wiki points, could you please gently remove the "Misplaced Pages = Where the antisemites an anti-Israel POV pushers roam free. Where Holocaust denial and revisionism are given nice platforms, anyway" and "by all means, please overwhelm me with your rules and wisdom, because this system is clearly working to create great atmosphere for Jew hatred, demonization of Israel and the rationalization of Islamic terrorism" from your userpage? That would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'm not sure that the statements on my user page tie into your "on Wiki" points which were concerning one isolated incident as opposed to system-wide problems. However, some of your "off Wiki" points tie into some of those statements (especially with regard to rationalization of Islamic terrorism..) In any event, once a full scale (if there is such a thing) ArbsCom case with regard to the problems of CJCurrie happens and sanctions against him are implemented, I will reconsider my personal views about WP, until then, I can only go by what I have learned about WP and what I have experienced in my short time here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. We cannot be a newbie for the rest of our lives. We cannot have one classroom for every editor. My request has been gentle and is part of the AGF stuff above. You are not in a position to set conditions on what we have to do and not. If you want to discuss CJCurrie stuff, I'll suggest you file an ArbCom case. For now, your userpage statements are not appropriate at all and go against our AGF guideline and it is clear soapboxing as explained to you above. The question of userpages was a bit complicated years ago and it is considered as something clear nowadays. I hope you take this as a serious request. You may not like it but we are not bargaining here. If you have substantive evidence to back up your claims please present it to the ArbCom. If not, defamatory content must be removed. People have asked you gently. If nothing changes, people get warned. If the problem persists people get blocked. If that doesn't help people get banned. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Fayssal, this user DOES deny being behind those two edits. As far as I know I'm not blocked and nobody but you seems to be claiming it was me, so can you please leave me out of this absurd drama? My edit history speaks for itself. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I said the opposite? Have I accused you? I have the total right to have questions as other admins had. I've done the checks myself and all what I've done here is report what happened alongside other 8 points mentioned above. And yes, people are not blind to see that your edit history speaks for itself. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. All I know is that you've mentioned me here twice and now I'm asking you nicely to please leave me out of it entirely. I'm here to write an encyclopedia and I want no part of drahmaz. Thank you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you have made some edits to the JIDF article which weren't all that Kosher. I find it extremely troubling that you or "someone who happens to be within your ip range" vandalized my user page and the JIDF article with swastikas, which put me on the defense from the onset. It is my hope that WIkipedia will fully investigate the situation in order to make sure that "it wasn't you" as I personally find it TOO COINCIDENTAL. Therefore, I'm happy that your name is being discussed here so that we may get to the truth of the matter. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I listed that IP at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check. If any further discussion of NoC or the IP is needed, it may be worth another subthread. I may have more comment on FayssalF's substantive post at a later time. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, combined with the fact that an IP address attributed to him was responsible for vandalism in the form of multiple swastikas on my user page and JIDF article, the following edits to the JIDF article are the reasons why I feel Nobody of Consequence is highly suspect:

Added "totally disputed tag" from the very beginning

Continued to litter the article with deletion tags

Oboler rightly calls him out on his vandalism through marking for deletion tags and he responds

All that being said, what can be learned here? Both "NobodyofConsequence" and Puttyschool had issues with the existence of this article from the onset. I believe neither one of them got their way as the article still exists, so they manifested their frustration in other ways. It's very telling when people demand that something be deleted so many times and then we have the opportunity to watch their subsequent edits to that article---especially when, by all indications, anti-semitism begins to seep out as it has (in the form of swastikas and "jpedia" comments combined with "the JPost is just for Jews" etc.

Don't get upset with the Jews who understand how these things work, but this is PRECISELY how it works, both on Misplaced Pages and throughout history a) People don't like Jews b) People would rather that Jews wouldn't exist c) Because Jews exist, that upsets people d) Anti-semitism rears its ugly head.

By the same token, an article about a Jewish organization which fights anti-semitism is bound to attract all sorts of clever and not so clever anti-semites who will do everything in their power to try to deny and/or mask their inherent hatred of the Jew, and especially of Jewish organizations which know how to detect it and fight back.

Considering Jewish history and the problems online it really shouldn't be that difficult for people to see how much everyone hates the Jew here. The fact that everyone is pretending to not see it is insane. If this entire episode was about african americans or homosexuals, then very strict sanctions would certainly apply, since that double standard happens in real life too. All WP is showing here is that it is a pure reflection of reality. If anything, I appreciate the opportunity as it allows me to understand these issues and patterns even better. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have no single doubt now. User is blocked for a 2 weeks. The rest is nonsense (referring to your a, b, c, and d points) and you better stop it for once now that the user is blocked. You also better keep that fight off-wiki. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I appreciate the action you took. What determines the length of time? Seems to me anyone that would vandalize pages with swastikas should be banned forever, but I admit I don't know what determines these things. Promotion of Nazism (ie. Murder/Genocide, etc) is "kinda a big deal." I'm sorry if you think my points are "nonsense." Your telling me to keep that fight "off Wiki" seems a bit odd, considering you just helped me to acknowledge it and fight it. Anti-semitism, the promotion of murder, genocide, Nazism, etc., has no place on Misplaced Pages. My "fight,"if anything, ties right into WP's own rules of civility. I have just been using different language since I am new here. However, I do think it is important to call things for what they are, and let me be very clear, anytime I am talking about "anti-semitism" on Misplaced Pages, I am, in WP terms, talking about INCIVILITY. That being said, I urge people to do a "find and replace" in their minds in order to understand what I am saying. I would hope that fighting incivility and promoting civility would be welcome here. Again, thank you for taking action. I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Of course, someone is likely to revert the block, as they did in Ashley Kennedy's case for her continued edit warring. These people who feel so strongly about the JIDF article feel that way for reasons, that's all I'm saying. Those reasons are not always so civil and taken in the context of their feelings about completely uncivilized political movements and the rationalization of those movements' actions, as well as peoples' edits regarding Holocaust denial and revisionism and their various supporters and proponents, etc. It's extremely telling. Most people don't just get on Misplaced Pages to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about. In fact, that is the whole reason why I got on here and I'm sure if there was a poll, that would be true for everyone. Not everyone can be passionate about everything, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the same people would flock to the same articles with regard to certain topics in which they are passionate. In any event, that is how I come to my POV about certain motivations. I take the entire context of everything, not just seemingly isolated incidents. Nothing is a coincidence in my world, and I do not throw around any allegations just for the sake of throwing them around, and I always do AGF in the beginning actually. So when it seems like I do not, one can assume that I have good reason for that. I admit that sometimes I do not explain how I arrived at "C" without explaining A and B. However, please be advised that all of my conclusions will always have the facts to prove them. I don't do things just for the sake of doing them. I try to make valid points. Again, thank you for seeing my point, though I wish for him to be banned forever from Misplaced Pages. Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. In fact, well, I'll just keep that to myself since people can't make threats here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What determines the length of time? That depends on many factors and it is called admins' discretion. Fellow admins can review the duration and the block itself and make comments here or on my talk page. Block durations are not a problem. They can be tweaked if needed or if the initial one is not appropriate.

I said that You also better keep that fight off-wiki. It is probably my english though I don't think so. For me it means that you, in your quality of an editor, better keep Misplaced Pages free of fights (referring to "Jewish organization which fights...")

I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Now you know that we don't make empty claims here. Only differences and evidences are accepted. That is to say that if you keep on accusing people without proof, you'd find yourself being blocked.

Of course, someone is likely to revert the block. Please AGF. This is the last time I'll be asking you this.

please be advised that all of my conclusions will always come with the facts to prove them. So far, you could only prove one (after this whole lenghty thread).

I wish for him to be banned forever from Misplaced Pages. If repeated, of course yes.

Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. As far as everybody is concerned here, nobody promoted Nazism. That was not a promotion, it was a nasty personal anti-semitic edit.

Now, Einsteindonut, have you read my last message regarding your userpage above? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. Yes I have read it, can you please explain why I cannot leave it there? I'm sure it will change eventually, as I like to change things often, but if it doesn't break any rules I'm not sure why I should be required to change it until I feel compelled to do so. This does not mean I don't appreciate what has been done. You just brought up the CJCurrie case and I believe until that is revisited that I still have the same thoughts. I appreciate knowing that I can provide links and differences t o prove my points about certain things I find problematic. One area of disagreement, I'm surprised that you'd regard someone's multiple anti-semitic use of a Nazi symbol on wikipedia as not a promotion of Nazism. It was not just on my user page, but on an article for all to see as well (as well as the symbol of jihad.) In my mind, that's a clear promotion of Nazism and Jihad and not merely a personal attack, since it went on the article on the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is not a promotion of Nazism. Please read marketing promotions and advertising campaigns to understand why it is not. The offending user's aim was clearly to offend you and not to market and ideology or a product.

I'll tell you why your userpage is problematic:

• First, have you ever read Misplaced Pages:Userpage?
• Second, I first assumed that you came here to complain about some anti-semetic stuff and other uncivil comments. Now, it seems that you are shifting your focus and getting interested in user:CJCurrie. Have you ever interacted with him? Have you ever edited together? No. So? Why are you focusing on him??? What strikes me is the fact that JIDF has been accusing this same user for a lot of things and that included posting an alleged picture of him. Now, that the offender is blocked for the anti-semitic remarks, what is the reason for keeping those statements up there? There's only one thing I can explain that; that you are here to pursue an agenda which can be targetting CJCurrie and accusing some other editors who don't share your POV. That is why your page is just soapboaxing and I do not see any reason why keep accusing other editors there. If you got problems with editors, you have to follow the dispute resolution process instead. If that fails then you have the ArbCom. Does this makes sense to you? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

your first point, i'll check it out. however, my point is that some of his post of a swastika and the jihadist flag on the JIDF article, had nothing to do with "me" per se. it was an attack against a wikipedia article and the organization in which the article was about. two separate incidents. one at me. another at the JIDF article, for the casual readers to see. have i ever read the WP userpage rules? i think i skimmed them. if there's something specifically i should know, let me know. lots of reading. have i ever interacted with CJCurrie? Yes, absolutely. Have we ever edited together? Yes, absolutely. On the JIDF article. When I saw his name and tried to edit with him and interact with him, I was reminded instantly of what I had read from ZOTW regarding his efforts to delete those links and did not think it was a "coincidence." I understand what you told me, but will have to learn the processes. Allow me to ask you this flat out---is there anything on my user page which clearly breaks any WP rules? If so, I will take it down, but I would like to know precisely why. I see lots of things on many user pages. For example, I have seen many people who have "i am for the right of the return of Palestinians" in little user boxes. Is that not soap boxing? I certainly think if people can take such political stances on their user pages, that I should be able to express some of the issues I have found with regard to Misplaced Pages? Then again, if I am clearly doing something against policy, then please clearly express it and help extract it from any articles explaining those policies. If not, then I think it's just your personal opinion that you don't like what is on my user page. Which is fine, but I don't see why I'd have to remove it so long as it is not breaking any rules. In any event, I have made some minor changes to some of the text which might be a bit better. I believe Dr. Oboler had already pursued the problems with CJCurrie to no avail. I personally didn't like CJCurrie's demeanor nor his edits w/ regard to the JIDF piece. That, plus all of the edits outlined by the JIDF are highly suspect of POV pushing, combined w/ the fact that he removed around 200 ZOTW links after the electronic intifada story broke, and i think you can see some problems. I don't think I'm accusing anyone of anything in particular on my page. I have some links that people can choose to read, or not. Again, I'll be happy to take stuff down if it is clearly against the rules and if I could get into some sort of trouble for it. I'll look into all those processes you mentioned. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope Fayssal won't mind if I add a little instructive levity here about what Wiki is about. Apropos Einsteindonut's loose remark that

'Most people don't just get on Misplaced Pages to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about

I am now straining the bean through a psychotic sieve as I try to imagine what passion drives those thousands of marvellous editors who contribute to or have written good articles on digamma, Brazilian copperfish, Lemba, Dot matrix printer, Theme, Escherichia coli, or Giuseppe Piazzi. Does one really need to be passionate about the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, Hemorrhoids, or Phlebitis to write about them? The point is, we are in here to contribute material of substance to over two million articles, and not wage cultural wars by waving the flags of political correctness everywhere, especially at imagined dust under invisible rugs Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also say that it might not require "passion" per se, but knowledge on something, and if not particular topics, then people have a passion for editing/writing in general and that is why they are here. Can you please explain what you mean by "straining the bean through a psychotic sieve?" It seems with the constant reminders of my own civility and to AGF and all the other rules that they very much are "waves of PC flags" though I am not sure what exactly you consider to be "imagined dust under invisible rugs" and who it is you think is waving flags of PC at them exactly. A veiled personal attack is still a personal attack. Or perhaps I'm just imagining things again. If there wasn't something under that rug, then someone wouldn't be blocked currently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We're in here to write articles, not conduct political battles, or dob in one editor after another (what is the count in here now on both sides, including below?) for administrative action or off-site criticism. Misplaced Pages has a very strong record for acting promptly and vigorously against any variety of racism, including antisemitism. Most editors know how to deal with it, We do not need specialist witch-hunters. Just as we do not need mirroring comments likening our collective and collegial work to the works of Dr. Goebbels, or assumptions that most non Jewish people are anti-Semitic. That itself is as troubling a quasi-racist quip as anything you yourself have adduced in here to support your campaign. In normal man's language it means, 'if you are not Jewish, you have a very high probability of being someone who hates Jews': most people in here, under that assumption, qualify in your stated view as antisemites, which is highly offensive to the entire community. When I noted it, I did not run to administration. As has been the case with many such statements, one ignores it. Enough of this. One establishes a reputation here by content-edits of quality, not by the volume of one's comments on other editors. This goes for Puttyschool as well.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"We're in here to write articles" - that's funny, I thought you don't do that anymore? - where you say, "I've retired from editing wiki" Anyway, if you have proof of WP strong record on dealing with anti-semitism, I'd like to see. Regarding your with-hunter remark, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Also, regarding this comment I made, I'm surprised that you'd bring this up after you and I discussed it at great length and I fully explained why I said that and what I meant. Regarding reputation, I've never fared well among those who wish to ignore certain things. I'm not here to win a popularity contest obviously. If I was to do that, I'd know exactly what to do, but I'm not one to pretend that I don't have a POV on something and I'm not one to ignore problems or point out WP rules every two seconds. I'm just here doing my thing. I believe I have made some decent contributions, which are then batted down by people with the opposite POV. My interest are the I-P conflict and Jewish issues. It is not my fault that I am interested in working on things which have a high propensity toward some degree of controversy. Enough people didn't ignore some of my comments and actions (including CJCurrie and others), so I'm just learning how to kvetch from everyone else. Sorry if that bothers you for some reason. By the way, since you claim to be so keen on ignoring the things that bother people (or at least this is the advice you give) why don't you hone your own advice and ignore me and my complaints and comments and not call attention to them on your own talk page and on this board? Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me, but have I asked you to remove anything? Have I asked you to stop? Nope! I say bring it on! This is fun. If people don't like it, as you said, "ignore it!"--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find my truthful comment funny, I'm glad I've improved your day. To 'edit' means to contribute to texts, which I no longer do, as opposed to dropping a word or two of advice on talk pages to lower conflict and assist potentially good editors who have a problem or two, to get beyond their 'passions' and just write to the text with quality sources. This is an indirect way of assisting wiki in the drafting of articles, without editing. If this is 'hypocrisy' of the kind that you think 'fun', by all means, be my guest and laugh away. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF, Please check if this account J Hoffer (talk · contribs) is it another sock-puppets.
Einsteindonut, I don't know how you can find time to write all of this, it needs a lot of time from me to read all what you wrote, you will finish WikipediA papers, I’ll appreciate if you can provide a Summary « PuTTY 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two quick comments:

• Contrary to Einsteindonut's assertion, I have not "outed" myself on Misplaced Pages. I did not contact the JIDF after they allegedly "outed" me on their site, nor did I encourage anyone to do so on my behalf. I don't care if people wish to criticize my edits (or speculate on my identity in private), but I do not take kindly to defamation, intimidation and harrassment.
• I've already explained my actions re: Oboler and ZOTW. If you believe I acted improperly, you may register a complaint in the appropriate forum. Posting what you allege to be my picture on your website is unlikely to benefit your case, nor that of the party you wish to assist. CJCurrie (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

More socks discovered

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) == J Hoffer (talk · contribs) == Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) (the latter one using proxies).

While checking I've discovered some relatively unrelated weird and odd sockpuppeting but not related to Einsteindonut. I'll be discussing this with fellow CUers. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

if it's not related to me why do you have me with the "=" signs of everyone else?--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to some other established accounts (people unrelated to this mess and totally unrelated to you). Checking your accounts led to the discovery of another mess (totally unrelated) which I'll be discussing with the ArbCom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this Einsteindonut: a)you were talking with me in talk page as two (sometimes three) different persons. b)you were reverting the edits using your long list of different accounts in order to go around the 3RR. c)What about your vote stacking, you put seven votes in each AFD. d)you are the only source of trouble from the time this article is created till now. f)in addition to your COI. Shame on you. Please delete this user from Misplaced Pages, and repeat all AFDs he voted on« PuTTY 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time for you to change the way you act here. I hope this is clear. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to eat my words about the sockpuppetry not being deliberate. However I still think you need to tone your rhetoric down. If you document the voting by sockpuppets and they would be enought to swing things, you might be able to open a closure review.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week; several unblock requests have been lodged and declined. see hsi userpage and its history for details. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Misplaced Pages (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can preventing a person from editing (me) can be considered a good action. I am not against someone editing the articles by providing sources. But what if he removes my edit completely. I had edited the articles by providing valid sources. Someone (By78) blanks those edits the Admin (Jauerback) comes and supports it. Is that not a violation of Wiki basic right or edition of the article by every person by providing valid sources. How can Wiki admins allow blanking of those good edits. No reason is given expect that he disagrees with me. On what? No one knows. Just disagree. No source provided to prove his point. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I had provided detailed explanation. Admins says he is least bothered about the content. Then why is he the Admin. Revoke his Admin rights.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them why they ar reverting you?Geni 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, as I've tried explaining to you on your talk page and on the talk page of the article, I have no position on what the content of the article is other than it remain neutral and properly sourced. In the past, you have attempted to add content from unreliable sources that are outdated from which you tend to pull out your own opinion from. Your "attempts" to discuss the changes on the talk page have been solely to accuse others of vandalizing your work and to repeat the same poor reasoning on why your content should be included. Then, without ANY consensus, you make the changes to the article. Before you add any content to that article, you need to gain consensus to do so, because you obviously can't seem to do so without pushing your own POV into every sentence that you write. So, let's summarize what you need to do: 1. Discuss on the talk page without making vandalism accusations. 2. Gain consensus on the content, wording, and sources. 3. Add to article. 4. Rinse, repeat. Fairly simple, huh? Jauerback/_dude. 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to see WP:COOL? —La Pianista 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block for civility violations or repeated NPOV violations is not a cool-down block. But I see no mention of blocking here. Am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you still is not acting as a responsible administrator. Absolutely agree that the article must be nuetral and the Admin must make sure that it is neutral. What you are doing is just the opposite. You are supporting someone who reverses my edits. Those edits I made was by providing valid sources and remember that this time I had not even removed any links or sources added by By78. I had tried to include the real issues with valid sources and explained the same in the talk page as well. Now why are you reverting my good edits.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback/_dude. 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out a single recent edit done by anyone that I had removed or blanked like By78 is doing. What I had done is provided more information and links. What I am complaining is that these edits with links are being blanked by By78. The reason in plain explanation is hatred. Jauerback, If you can provide proof of me doing anything against Wiki rules, I will quit editing the Arjun MBT pages, If you cannot prove it I suggest you quit being an Administrator. Are you ready to take the challenge. This challenge is not just to Jauerback, anyone who thinks that I am wrong in this issue can take up this challenge.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of time to list the occasions where Chanakyathegreat pushed his POV by reverting other people's edits because he has demonstrated an amazing capacity to ignore reason and facts. I don't try to use reason with my cat because she cannot reason as humans do. In Chanakyathegreat's case, I am convinced by now that when it comes rational thought, he distinctly lacks it. When faced with overwhelming evidence supporting a position he does not like, Chanakyathegreat will simply resort to making groundless accusations against other editors' integrity as opposed to focusing on debating the points in contention. The edit history for Arjun is for all to see. Chanakyathegreat doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, Chanakyathegreat has exhibited a pattern of POV pushing. For those who are interested, simply check out the discussions for "Great Power" and Chanakyathegreat's own talk page regarding this topic to see how he tried in vain to get India listed as a great power, only to be repeatedly rebuked by fellow editors for POV pushing. As for the Arjun article, also see its discussion page to see the extent of Chanakyathegreat's blatant POV pushing and lack of rational thinking capacity. The consensus on most of Arjun article's content was reached a while back, yet Chanakyathegreat stood alone in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts, despite his repeated claims of strictly adhering to truths. Chanakyathegreat, simply claiming to side with truths/facts does not make you stand on the side of truths/facts. You have to earn such accolades by action, and action is where you consistently failed to live up to your self-proclaimed reputation for factual integrity. It just goes on to prove how irrational you truly are that you have resorted to challenging people to "prove" the accusations of your POV pushing, seeing that the discussion pages and edit history for "Arjun" and "great power" are littered with the dirty laundries of your POV pushing. This is really sad, bro, really sad. By78 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to win over by accusing other rather than stick to the topic of why are you blanking good edits and why you should not be blocked for such an action. Now don't come up with more accusations against me. Answer this. Your point that it was the summer trial that the tank has problem has been debunked. Hopes you accept it and changes the article back to the version that I edited. Now please don't reply with more accusations against me you are like that, you are like this you.. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tip number one: No labeling anything as "hatred." That, in itself, is "hatred."

Tip number two: If this is the only reason for which you want to revoke Jauerback's admin rights, you still need a little more to go on.

Tip number three: If you would like to present your argument, I suggest you do it after some time off, perhaps after a nice walk in the park or a hot cup of tea. Then, come back.

Trust me, the way your argument stands, even if you are right, it is hard to believe if it comes from someone who might be so full of anger that his judgment is clouded. I am not saying that you do have clouded judgment; I am only suggesting that that is the perception you are giving to others, judging from the tone of your writing.

Rest, meditate, vacation... Just take your mind off it a moment then come back. —La Pianista 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

La Pianista, I can prove you wrong. By78 reverts and accuses the other contributer, just have a look at his contribution list. His recent contributions are attempt to put the negative versions about the Arjun MBT and also made an attempt to deliberately hide certain facts while editing the the Economy of India page. I agree that one is free to edit any page in Wiki but Why should one hide facts and try to put only the sad affairs. It is deliberate attempt believing that it is the right way to tarnish the image of one nation. Now can you disapprove the above and say that these things are not done because of hatred. If not then what else is it?

Regarding anger, I don't have it guys. I want the rules of Wiki to be upholded and the person given freedom to edit the pages by providing valid sources so that truth remain in Wiki pages. Also I request that the Vandalization like blanking pages need to be stopped immediately and the spreading of hatred, unnecessary accusations against a person is also stopped in Misplaced Pages.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had provided proof for the summer trial being successful and the problem with the winter trials. I hope By78 will understand and change his opinion of the issues being from the summer trials. Hope that he revert the page back to the version that I had edited.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT talk page as well. In the comparison chart the Arjun status is put as doubtful by him. The tank is in service with the Indian army 43rd armoured division. It's already inducted and the status must be active. I had even provided the source. He knows it well, but still has reverted the talk page. These are the reasons I say that By78 is doing these kinds of things deliberately and he need to persuaded by Admins from such kind of anti-Wiki actions so that his contributions are for the good of Misplaced Pages rather than such vandalization. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Detailed explanation has been provided on the content of the edits. Also the apprehension of By78 about the summer/winter trials has been explained to him. Do anyone like to know anything more about the edits or is there any question regarding the same. I will be editing the page and hopes that it will not be blanked. Any violation of accusation will be reported here to keep the discussion of Arjun MBT talk page clean. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. You should know that participation in Misplaced Pages is voluntary, provided that you adhere to a certain set of guidelines, which you are all too willing to ignore. You want to stay, but you are not willing to abide by the rules: I really do not have a solution for you. I think you should follow your own advice, which I directly quote below: "Misplaced Pages towards its demise The quality of articles is hit. Vandals are allowed to push their own version with a single source without realizing what is it. No constructive discussion takes place about the subject. Attempts are made to present an older, wrong western viewpoint trying to tarnish other views. Truth or reality is hidden under the guise of neutrality whereas none exits. The Admins not only abuse good contributers but helps Vandals or directly indulge in Vandalism and don't use their brain. Rules are brought out punish good contributers rather than punish the culprits, just like some oppressive regime. THERE IS NO FREEDOM IN WIKIPEDIA ONLY THE FREEDOM TO VANDALIZE PAGES. If this continues WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED FOR EVER. I quit contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank all for the cooperation. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)" Your proposal sounds reasonable to me. By78 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

There was just now a little flap over at the talk page of the NPOV policy. Things were going fine, till Shoemaker's Holiday came in and poisoned the well against me. He didn't even get it right. I removed it, but he put it back. This is not the first time he has tried to get me. I would like someone here to issue him some sort of warning that this kind of pursuit of me is inappropriate. Now, everyone here knows what his other username was. Everyone knows (as he revealed it in his request for adminship recently) that he was desysoped partly for a block of me, and also that I played a major role in his RfC, which the ArbCom no doubt took into account when they desysoped him. I am sick and tired of his following me around and trying to "get" me. I have refrained from bring up his past, which of course is even more relevant than mine, in discussions. He has not accorded me the same courtesy. Here are only the recent diffs. I can, of course, dig up the other diffs of his trying to get me, on several occasions which I remember. But I am not here to try and get him sanctioned. All I want is a warning to him that this vengeful behavior should not go on any more.

I remove it here Here is the section where it's put back and discussed. He continues to compound it. FYI, I'm under sanction only for disruption, and POV pushing is one of the things which people spectacularly failed to prove against me. I even requested the ArbCom tell me if they thought that such was the case.

If the people here would like to go over and raise the tone of the general discussion it would be of great help. I personally don't think edits undertaken with such care over such a long time should be met with such surprise. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Martinphi's description of my arbcom case; however, it is also merely a distraction from the matter at hand, as I can prove my description was correct:

From the Arbcom decision:

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior (), including, but not limited to, using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox (, ), threatening disruption of the project (), and making deliberately provocative edits (, ).

Then later:

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

He is cited for soapboxing, and this is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Misplaced Pages, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." I'm sorry, but the arbcom clearly intended disruptive editing to include POV-pushing.

Here are the diffs to the NPOV policy:

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the related thread at WP:AE: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing: Shoemaker hasn't read the edited version. The paragraph he says was deleted was revised to:

Articles in Misplaced Pages should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates. Misplaced Pages always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

Further, I think he may not even presenting the actual original, that is a recently edited version.

But let's say he's right. Poisoning the well and saying I'm in the soup for POV pushing when I'm not, and insisting on keeping up the attack- wow. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that's two other paragraphs in the original, that's not the deleted paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to be dealing with both User Shoemaker and Martinphi over at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a bit of it therre, but not much, and it's rather changed in foxcus. More accvurately::

It is, at the least, a major shift in focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. Martinphi is the canonical example of the civil POV-pusher, as far as I can tell his main focus within Misplaced Pages is to legitimise fringe and pseudoscience topics. This behaviour is completely repeatable, and to find him trying to change the policy under which he has been repeatedly knocked back in his attempts to lend legitimacy to the fringe views he supports is definitely disruptive - not only does it violate the ArbCom restriction, it also violates the policies he appears to be trying to change! Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JzG, but when you said "this behaviour is completely repeatable" I presume you meant something else like "irrepressible," "repugnant," or something similar? If that is the case, I agree completely. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that it is repeated wherever he is active. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if you commented on the content rather than the contributor. I have no desire to wade into the fringe/mainstream debate, but just a friendly reminder. Brilliantine (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the content comes from? A contributor, and one who has been sanctioned for using Misplaced Pages for using articles as a soapbox for his own personal opinions on fringe topics. It's all fine and good to say we should focus on the content, but the reason the content keeps going bad is because MartinPhi's goals are completely contrary to Misplaced Pages's goals, and there's no reason to think he will ever change. People have to focus on the real problems or else we're all just wasting our time here. Why play whack-a-mole over and over and over again? The time spent could be better used improving the encyclopedia instead of constantly fighting back someone whose goals are incompatible with the entire project. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Guy's comment. The discussion above it was not particularly superb, but was at least substantive. Guy's comment offered nothing of any further use and was the type of comment that generally only serves to inflame situations. Since he's acknowledged some civility problems himself, I'm sure he won't mind me pointing this out. It's merely supposed to be helpful. Brilliantine (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Could we please leave off this subject? There is currently no damage that I am aware of or that has been reported to me. --Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really OK?

Um... anyone think it's something less than a good idea for an admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be hovering over the contributions of an editor he's recently been in conflict with,(,, (DunstandandRann),, etc) not because the editor (me) has done anything wrong, but because the editor doesn't subscribe to the admin's ideas about policy?

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. ( Emphasis added.)

Since when has it become suspicious behavior to disagree with an admin about whether an image upload is policy-compliant or not? This really doesn't seem right. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If an admin suspects that someone may violate policy it makes sense for that admin to monitor the person. I don't know who's right about the policy (I haven't looked into the dispute), but keeping an eye on someone is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. --Tango (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else, my contribs are out in the open, available for inspection, all 22,000 of them, and if FPS or another admin came across instances of bad actions and decided to keep an eye on me, that would be one thing. I've done that same for a number of vandals -- they do some vandalizing, you check their contributions to see if there's more, when you find it you undo it and post warnings, and if you're an admin perhaps you eventually decide to block. But that's not what FPS admits to doing. He admits that he's keeping an eye on me because I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Doesn't that strike anyone as a dangerous thing that can lead to no disagreements about policy, because there's no discussion, because the herd has been culled and anyone who disagrees has been hounded off the project?

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing FPS of that, not in any way shape and form, nor am I suggesting that such behavior is going on, or prophesying that it will happen. I simply think that using a difference of opinion as a basis for following someone around and checking their edits is kind of a real bad idea. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed's antics about non-free images included edit-warring to keep an obviously replaceable map graphics, and another that he aggressively defended with the bizarre argument that while it was being used just as a "substitute" for a possible free image, it was nevertheless not "replaceable" by the latter (here). This is enough to give me reasonable grounds for expecting some more of his image work probably requires cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can review all our past arguments again if you'd like, but I doubt anyone would be terribly interested, and the point here is that all these things are cases where I did nothing wrong, I simply disagreed with you, and in most of those instances, other people disagreed with you as well. Are you so entirely and positively certain that your interpretation, your views, your opinions, your analysis, your take on image policy is so completely, totally, absolutely 100% percent correct that whenever you declare an image to be non-compliant, even to disagree with your declaration is tantamount to misbehaving? Can you not see why someone might find such a view to be disquieting, to say the least? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, RFCs aren't supposed to be a way of forcing an editor away from an area they have been working at and in this case the doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus against FPAS. The correct forum to discuss this is the RFC. Sorry to say this Ed but your conduct here just makes you look like a petty wikilawyer and I really thought more of you then that. Spartaz 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? How do you figure that? I came here because this is the place where you come for administrative action. I thought that if my view of FPS's behavior was shared by uninvolved admins, someone could advise him to, you know, not go out of his way to shadow me. But, in any case, as I remarked elsewhere, if FPS sees something wrong with an image I upload, how difficult would it be for him to run it by another editor, who could then contact me if they agreed? In what respect is that trying to "force away" from image work?

You know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the community's consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable behavior. If that's the case... I don't know. ... I guess I'd have to seriously reconsider my committment to the project, because that's something I would find it quite difficult to live with, I think. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble with the "wikilawyering" thing. The man posts on my talk page, at first I laugh his Big Brother act off, but then it starts to bother me, and then it starts to bother me a lot, so I come here to see if something might be done about it, and I'm accused of "wikilawyering"? Wow. Just... wow. I'm not coming here in an hysterical state, screaming and carrying on and calling for people to be desysoped, as so often happens when there's conflict between an editor and an admin, and a charge of "wikilawyering" is laid on me? Huh.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for referring to petty wikilawyering. Perhaps forum shopping would fit better? You have an RFC but you want to extend the drama to an admin noticeboard as well. So I think petty forum shopping is a better discription. My apologise for mischaracterising your behaviour but you really need to settled for a single location for your crusade against Fut perf. Spartaz 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment, and assume that I'm telling the truth, that FPS's post on my talk page actually concerned me. Now, if I wanted some administrative relief, how would posting about his actions on the RfCU help me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? We aren't going to block FPAS for leaving messages on your talk page so there isn't any admin action that is going to follow from a message here & and do you honestly think it would help having someone tell him to lay off? If you raise it in the RFC and there is extensive support that FPAS shouldn't be reviewing your contribs then there will be a significant level of moral pressure on him not to. The trouble is that an RFC inevitally raises the entire temperature on any dispute and this kind of thing, is, I'm afraid, what happens. Perhaps I should have been nicer in my comments but honestly, I wonder what people expect sometimes when they get embroiled in personal disputes like this. It not like we haven't seen it before and its high time that we stopped chasing out defenders of the NFCC. Spartaz 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ask for a block? Am I being in some way unclear about what I hoped would happen here? Geez, talk about "raising the temperature"!Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Admins don't have any special powers except blocking, deleting and protecting. Aside from that being an admin adds no extra cachet to any discussion. So, if you don't want a block, would you like us to delete or protect FPAS? Otherwise this isn't something that requires admin action. If its having a word then anyone can do that. If its to guague community consensus on his actions you already have a RFC to play on. So, seriously, what did you expect us to do about this that requires the use of admin tools?. Spartaz 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, they have the power of the bully pulpit!

Indulge me and, once again, assume that I'm telling the truth, and further assume that some folks here saw my post and agreed with my concerns, at least to the point where they thought it was worthwhile to talk to FPS. So, if those admins were to go to FPS and suggest that it would be preferable, for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, for FPS to channel any concerns about my image-related behavior through another uninvolved admin, don't you think that might carry a little more weight than if I made that suggestion? You see, that's administrative relief.

And there's a larger point - I really think it's a pretty crummy precedent to set, and if that kind of behavior becomes broadly tolerated or acceptable, Misplaced Pages would be a decidely less pleasant place to be, so, besides my specific concern about FPS, I wanted to raise, for administrators, in a place that administrators frequent, this issue for their consideration, something which, again, can't be done at FPS's RfCU.

I'm not asking for special dispensation from the pope to misbehave, or to not have my edits scrutinized by FPS or anyone else, I'm simply suggesting that FPS and I are, in the Wikipedian sense, involved, with all the problems that brings with it, and that his following me around on the basis of our disagreement over policy is a really bad idea. I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial concept.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Anyone who edit warred in the last few days to keep this image obviously does not understand our policies on non-free content, and so reviewing their uploads is perfectly acceptable. FPAS has done nothing wrong here. Honestly, what do you want us to do? Jump at FPAS and say he shouldn't be reviewing your edits, as they're obviously all sound? Well, they're not. Would you be happy if I was reviewing your edits instead? It makes no difference, we're both admins experienced in the same area. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you would do that, I'd be grateful. There seemed to be a couple, the next few down his upload log, that were movie screenshots of actors in some movie role, used (as far as I could tell at a first brief glance) without any substantial commentary and with captions that implied they were used only to show what the actor looked like. Those would have been the next batch that would need a bit of looking into. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Checked down to mid-August, and I believe Spartaz is reviewing them also. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't actually see the image, or the image page to check out the fair use rationale put forward. No link provided to the deletion review so err how do we judge? Since edit warring was mentioned, how about the removal of images from articles, to declare them orphaned so they can be speedily deleted and then edit warring to keep them orphaned. Justin talk 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was of a map- the map itself was not significant, it was being used to show the location. Obviously replaceable, but Ed removed the replaceable fair use notice without comment, not once, but twice. Anyone who has done that in the last couple of weeks obviously has little to no understanding of our non-free content policies. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is badgering ok?

There is no reason for FPAS to follow Ed around as Ed is an editor in good standing. Just because you have lost a number of fights with him does not make him a bad editor. If this were any other person doing it, they would be rightly called for wikistalking. Given that the two have been in a number of disputes, I believe that FPAS should cease his antagonistic behavior and find something else to do. Yes, Virginia, the project will survive even if FPAS isn't following Ed around. That and the fact that it is FPAS, not Ed, who currently has a behavioral RFC open against him. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Valid point. Fut Perf, your thoughts? — BQZip01 —  02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Those are not valid concerns. Ed has little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg. I see no issue with tracking the edits of a problematic user in this field, with someone who openly disregards our policies and guidelines towards copyright. seicer | talk | contribs 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seicer, I personally have a grasp on the subject matter and disagree sometimes with FutPerf. So what? Just because I don't agree with one person's interpretation of some vague rules doesn't mean every action I take should be scrutinized. Talk pages are there for discussion and reasonable people can disagree about things. As for these the "little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg" I'll assume you meant something else because there is no evidence contained on that page whatsoever and the image in question seems appropriate under its fair use rationale. Am I missing something here? — BQZip01 —  04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you Ed? seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seicer, just because Ed's knowledge of Fair-Use and NFCC (which is correct I might add, but that is neither here nor there) differs from yours, it is no reason for an admin (Fur. Perf.) to follow (read: stalk) Ed around Misplaced Pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the somewhat interesting fact that even though pretty much everybody in the discussion about that logo agreed that its appearance on 120 pages was not a policy problem per se, Seicer posted this on FPS's RfCU (which I presume he was aiming my way, but maybe not):

If one user cannot see why the usage of one non-free logo on 120 articles, they should be sanctioned as such, especially when such unconstructive behavior spreads across four noticeboards and several talk pages.

So according to Seicer I'm so dumb and irresponsible, and know so little about fair-use and Misplaced Pages image policy, that I thought it was hunky-dorey to use an image on a large number of pages: Q.E.D.!! What a maroon!!! Except that in the discussion right here on WP:AN/I, both sides ended up agreeing that the number of pages it appeared on wasn't an issue.

So, who is it who knows nothing about fair-use and image policy? (And who, incidentally, felt it necessary to insult me personally in that thread?)

*sigh* You know, I wouldn't presume to know how much Seicer knows about fair-use, or Misplaced Pages image policy, or the cost of ponies in Peoria. "Seicer" is just a name connected to some text to me. And I've never, to my recollection, said that FPS doesn't know a lot about those subjects (fair-use and image policy, not necessarily about the ponies) - in fact, I presume he knows more than I do. But those have never been the issues in this conflict. The issues have been about the way policy is being enforced, and, specifically, the conduct of FPS in enforcing it, and I certainly know more than enough about those subjects. (And I supposed I will learn even more about it in the future, since it seems to be of little interest to folks here that an admin is dogging the steps of an editor based not on the editor's actions but on the editor's opinions.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All but one administrator agreed, and of course, the hotbed of a few vocal editors who can't tell the difference between abusive fair use in 120 articles and fair use in one article. It was taken to multiple forums and the image was not unprotected or restored; you're only crying about spoiled milk at this point, because its entirely moot. It won't be overturned, and it won't be unprotected for as long as we have editors who ramble on about reinserting the images. FPS may have some issues with being a hothead, but your posting history reveals much the same when tensions run high and emotions turn sour. Your mischaracterizations on your userpages, as noted below, is just one example of that. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of wikistalking, someone might want to have a look at Ed's little attack page in his user space, here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Attack page? Interesting interpretation -- but, hey, feel free to rummage through the attic. Hey, if you find my old copy of Introducing... The Beatles, would you let me know? (Unless it's a pool of melted black vinyl - in that case, help yourself, maybe you can get a quarter for it or something.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you probably thought it was an attack page, because I copied this quotation onto it:

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself.

I can see where the negative vibes and disdain for the community and its processes in this quote could lead you to believe that it was an attack page, but fear not, I do not endorse the opinions in that quote, I'm just keeping it as an example of how not to comport yourself in Wikispace. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, on first impression that section of your Todo page strikes me as rather disturbing and stalkeriffic. Putting it in sarcastic glowing terms doesn't get around that, it makes it worse.

I had been hoping that this was just a one-on-one conflict, but your ongoing behavior here and the existence of that page are convincing me that you do in fact have a behavior problem. It would be a sign of good faith to remove that section. It would be another sign of good faith to tone down the discussion on this page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a source of endless fascination. Quite extraordinary, really. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 10:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material indicated from that page, as per your instructions. Next, I will deal with posting justifications for a number of images I've uploaded (mostly pictures of cast members on film articles) which have been nominated for deletion by User:J Milburn as being "decorative".

Fascinating.

Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that quote above is not what I meant at all. Ed is perfectly free to quote me on that. I meant more the list of enemies and the little jibe against the "little admin that wasn't" (we all know who's meant there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial Solution

If there is some reason for which a deletion is contested (even a speedy deletion), perhaps it should simply be put through the regular deletion process. Plenty of new users want to contribute and simply make a mistake (yours truly is included in this bunch). By simply giving it a few days to work itself out, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. This would avoid the appearance of the person who nominates an image for speedy deletion, keeps it an orphan through edit warring, and then ultimately deletes it as something that simply cannot be done. No matter the correctness/incorrectness of such an outcome, there will always be the thought that such an individual was judge, jury, and executioner. By taking this route, it would avoid the appearance of impropriety. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I really don't see the problem with this. NFCC policy isn't always the black/white digital decision portrayed and there is often a need for for debate and community consensus denied by the inappropriate application of the Speedy process. Justin talk 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Firstly, leaving obviously poor non-free images in an article, even if the uploader really wants it there, is not always the best idea. If anything, the image should be removed while it is discussed, even if there is a reasonable debate- this is always the way I have worked it, even when others are challenging my own images. Secondly, that's not really what this thread is about, so this does come across as forum shopping- this thread is about how FPOS 'stalked' another user. Frankly, if we're in an environment where an admin cannot check the contributions of another editor, when that editor has shown he has extremely bad judgement on a topic, then we have a very strange situation indeed. Ed has admitted he would do the same thing with vandals/trolls, and I do not see how this is different- I do not think Ed is deliberately out to harm the project, obviously. Before someone jumps down my throat, pointing out that disagreeing with an admin does not mean you're ignorant of policy, note the example I gave in my last post. Ed's understanding is clearly poor. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. This suggestion is an attempt to avoid any appearance of undue bias by any admin, not this specific one. I also concur that an image need not necessarily be included in an article while the IfD process unfolds. That said, perhaps we need to include a disclaimer stating the image should not simply be labeled as "orphaned", but something along the lines of "removed from some article. As there is no longer a use for such an image, it should be deleted." Without that link to the article, there is no way to easily link it back to its placement to see whether it was appropriate or not. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the example we can't actually see? Justin talk 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins can see it . It was a map showing the area of the Southeastern Anatolia Project in Turkey. Maps can always be re-drawn, so they are always replaceable (unless they are themselves being discussed as unique historic documents of course). This one could have been replaced with any existing map of the same geographical area; moreover, there was already a similar (and more informative) free map in the article (Image:Ataturk regions-GAP.jpg). Ed edit-warred on the image description page, using the "undo" function without stating any reason in the edit summary, twice removing a deletion template that had been placed there (not by me), which is explicitly prohibited. This was clearly disruptive behaviour on more than one level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• BQzip, get your facts straight. There hasn't even been any allegation in this thread that I put anything not through the regular deletion process. In fact, I didn't delete (or even nominate) anything at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  FutPerf, please re-read the above and note I never even mentioned you specifically. I stated a solution to the appearance of a problem which could be remedied by a simple change in policy (not saying this is necessarily the best option available either, just trying to foster a solution). I didn't say anything in this section specifically regarding you. — BQZip01 —  02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, I still can't see anything requiring any admin time in this issue. Ed has made it pretty clear that he resents Fut perf checking his contribs. Fine but frankly we can't not watch for image vios and since we don't actually have very many admins willing to do this, who is going to do it if Fut perf doesn't? The earliest comments show blatent forum shopping and the comment about Admins being able to bully people shows what this thread is really about. There is no evidence of Fut perf behaving unreasonably in reviewing Ed's edits and his interactions look reasonable right now. So, no. This isn't something for admins to deal with. Spartaz 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speaking as someone who has been involved in the RfC and such, I have to agree with FutPer and Spartaz to a degree here. There is nothing requiring admin intervention nor is it productive to batter FutPer around wikipedia trying to find someone to lynch him. Now, do I think that FutPer going through the contribution history of those he is in conflict with is a great idea? No. I don't. I think it will lead to fights and to problems, but we are not FutPer's mother to stop him from doing things that might end badly. This kind of thing is best left to people like Spartaz who have FutPer's best interests at heart and who will, I am sure, let him know if he takes something too far. There are plenty of admin, it seem, watching each other so we also have to trust in them to step in. In summation: Lets just get some editing done. Narson (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  How, though, will these admins become aware of whether FPS takes something "too far" if FPS's actions aren't noted by somebody somewhere? Also, does suggesting that someone might speak to FPS about toning down his behavior really constitute "trying to find someone to lynch him"? As I've mentioned above, I'm not here with hysterical claims, calling for FPS's head or demanding that he be desysoped or topic banned - that would be ludicrous under the circumstances.

  Clearly, though, and to my chagrin and dismay, the consensus of people on this page is that it is perfectly OK for an involved admin to dog the steps of an editor he's involved with based solely on the fact that the editor disagrees with the admin on policy issues. I think that's a pretty darn dangerous precedent to set, but so be it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  When a user is being berated across multiple pages for the same thing, you can be sure other admin have taken an interest, and it does feel as though that editor is being lynced. It is pretty obvious that I have my issues with FPS. I found him to be callous and downright rude at times. However, he has acknowledged he gets frustrated from time to time and that is what caused his flirtation with the civility. He has stated on his RfC that he aims to try and avoid such behaviour in future and I believe he deserves a fair shake of the stick. God knows, I would hate to have people examining my faults, for they are many, so FPS has earned a degree of my respect through this process. Now, that being said, the other issue Ed is that what you want is not really what ANI can give, I don't think. Your issue with FPS is as a pattern of behaviour that you see on his part. Nor are 'precedents' set here. If you truely believe that FPS is beyond redemption, that his behaviour is so bad, then there is always ArbCom, but I would ask if you can't, perhaps, give FPS the benefit of the doubt and only react to his words, rather than a perceived (real or not) pattern of behaviour? Narson (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever said or implied that FPS was "beyond redemption", and I think I've been fairly clear (see above at various points) about what my reasons for coming to AN/I were. Of course, that seems moot at this point, since it's pretty clear that the concern I felt is not shared by a majority of commenters here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wonder of It All

Apparently, I'm such a profound threat to Misplaced Pages that I've now got three admins, working around the clock, vetting every image I ever uploaded! (See here and here.) Simply amazing. As I said, an endless source of fascination. One hopes there's a sociologist or a social psychologist keeping tabs on all this stuff. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. " ? I would just be thankful for the attention and move on. If, in fact, it is stalking and it is unmerited, then they will eventually look like dicks. If it is temporary "Hey, this guy is talking a lot on AN/I, I'll go look at his contributions", then it will fade away. Further, if what they are doing improves what you have submitted, then it's pretty defensible. Protonk (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am most certainly moving on. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse" 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive content about a user on another user's userpage

(for now)

Description: User:Evenin'_scrot! has posted the following message:

"I enjoy practicing law without a license, fishing, and collecting parking tickets from all over the U.S. I also enjoy cleaning up/correcting the numerous mistakes made by other Misplaced Pages editors, the majority of which are made by Non Curat Lex."

I find this inaccurate (I have made less than 500 edits, I cannot possibly be responsible for the majority of wikipedia's mistakes), offensive to me personally, and advocacy of unlawful activity (e.g. practicing law without a license) should not be condoned, even on a user page.

In aggravation, it should also be pointed out that the user is a sock of user:snookerhorn; between the two socks (and a third I cannot locate), there is a history of discipline for abusive and disruptive edits.

Administrative intervention is requested. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Buspar has removed the reference to you with the summary WP:NPA. If he restores it, feel free to leave him a civil comment about it.

About your suspicion of sockpuppetry, the place to comment is WP:SSP.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat reassured by the fact that Misplaced Pages currently has only a maximum of 950+/- mistakes... if the figures given above are correct. On a serious note, does anyone else have any problem with the editors (no, not the latin derived one!) username? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soft blocked for username. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- my ANI concern appears to be resolved for now. Sysop Lar seems to be taking care of the sockpuppeting problem. Thank you Gale, and everyone else.Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck of an AfD

It isn't time to close it yet, unfortunately, but can some other admins keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir? It seems every day I'm getting another request on my talk page to block some obvious set of sockpuppets, and the discussion has rather fallen apart a bit. Keep an eye out for some of the less obvious sockpuppets I haven't taken care of yet, and if necessary please close this mess early. Thanks. Hersfold 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is some trainwreck of an AfD and it certainly is a mess. Wow, its good im not an admin and i feel for whoever has to close that one. Good luck! Monster Under Your Bed 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp has proposed a solution at Misplaced Pages Talk:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It looks good to me, but I'd welcome input from more experienced admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for resolution of a dispute with a moderator

Hi

I have been threatened with a ban by OhanaUnited for what he considers to be inappropriate editing. As he is currently busy with a new job he doesn't have time to conclude our discussion on the matter. I have no problems with real life taking him away from Wiki, however this leaves me in limbo and I don't like having things like this hanging with no idea when its going to get resolved. So I was wondering if someone could pick up where he left off and help conclude the situation. My disputed editing can be found here].I just want to get things resolved so that I can get back to editing.

Thanks

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of "don't delete talk page discussions" do you not understand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was archiving not deleting.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did once delete things on the talk page for my account because I didn't know/understand archiving at that point. I removed a notice of speedy deletion for an attempt at an article on the Klub Foot and a notice of Orphaned non-free media, both times because I didn't think it would really matter. (Please note that I kept the discussion about my edits on the RuneScape article). Later, when there were multiple instances on an articles talk page of the same discussion and dead topics I then archived and edited it's talk page to try and make it better, following the guidelines. btw I thought WP:BITE was supposed to be in play around here?FlashNerdX (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pakhtun Tanoli

Here's a list of edits on my user talk: , , and corresponding admin action, and .

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, and a heap of suspected IP socks but his original account itself seems to be open. So Tznkai suggested I report this here. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A little background. De728631 reported this incident on WP:AIV and I declined it at the time. Following a conversation on my talk page I've reviewed the differences determined the following:

• Pakhtun Tanoli and the reported IPs are almost definitely the same user.
• This user probably doesn't understand the appropriate place for the contributions.
• This user is not evading a block via sockpuppeting, because I can't find any recent blocks to evade.
• This is not vandalism as such, but it is problematic.
• This user does not stick with any one IP for any significant duration.

This leaves us with something of a sticky widget, because I'm not going to range block all of 88.*.*.*--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh g'wan. Do it. It'll be funny. HalfShadow 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if we've determined its abusive sockpuppetry, we could start by blocking the main account and all the registered socks, and worry about the IP's later. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biggest CIDR range we can block is a /16, so that one would take rather a long time ;) Stifle (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved when this first blew up earlier this year and am familiar with the history. I'm going to indef the root account ( Pakhtun Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ). I'm also going to put a 72-hour block on 88.3.0.0/16 (the source of most of the recent foo). De728631 - I recommend that you have your talk page semi-protected for a week or so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another Sarah Palin thing

Could I respectfully request a neutral admin to look at the contribution~s of Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs), specifically at Political positions of Sarah Palin? Personally I think this is POV-pushing, especially on such a high-profile topic, but I really don't want to do the edit-warring thing. Kelly 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a very quick look, but the edits look pretty well-sourced at first glance. Who defines what is NPOV in situations like this? Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked 20 hours and counseled by User:Tznkai, an admin apparently recently back from 30 months off. GRBerry 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books was blocked for 3RR violation after specific (on his talk page) and general warnings (On the article talk page) as well as truthful, if snippy comments in edits on that page by other editors.--Tznkai (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page there, there was a peculiar claim concerning this editor. I don't know how convincing the claim is, but wanted to highlight it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Spoken Misplaced Pages template

Could someone introduce Keeper of the matrix (talk · contribs) to a block of some sort. They appear to have uploaded Image:Vote McCain.jpg for the specific purpose of vandalizing Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages. Also, considering how widespread the usage of Spoken Misplaced Pages is across Misplaced Pages, is there a reason why it doesn't have full protection turned on? Looks like the senator infobox has already been protected. --Bobblehead 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My ability to assume good faith only stretchs so far. I blocked the account for 99 hours and deleted the image in question as it was only being used for vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest an indefinite block? Corvus cornix_talk 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Perhaps the block should be until Nov 4 2008 (election day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jctw769 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May be ban-evading Bsrboy

Based on a look at his editing habits (mostly to Plymouth, and up until today, pretty exemplary) I think that User:Keeper of the matrix is probably a sock of banned User:Bsrboy. I also noted that this account was created just three minutes after one named Bsrboy376. However, if it is the same person, he's evidently changed ISP, because the rangeblocks (86.29.128.0/21 and 86.29.136.0/21) that were implemented for him are still in place. Bsrboy was known for vandalising while logged out, so a CU may reveal more.  —SMALLJIM  21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics

I have stumbled into a mess regarding the Austrian School of economics. Apparently, there are WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE issues in that most mainstream economists view the philosophy as heterodoxy (at least that's my layman's take on the situation). Proponents of the philosophy, however, want very much for it to be reflected favorably, and frequently, in Misplaced Pages articles. This disagreement has spilled into numerous articles, including Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Credit crunch, Credit cycle, Fractional-reserve banking, Full-reserve banking, Inflation, Monetary inflation, Monetary reform, etc., etc.

My first involvement here was dealing with the blatant sockpuppetry of Karmaisking (block log). See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. I also recently blocked a new SPA for 3RR at WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked). Some time ago, Gregalton asked for my advice, to which I basically replied “Don’t worry about it.” (See User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8#Why.) I can see now that my casualness was a mistake. The POV-pushing, sockpuppetry, harassment, and edit-warring have become extremely disruptive. And now Gregalton, one of the few editors working to keep the various articles NPOV and properly verified by reliable sources, in my personal opinion, has been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. See WP:AN3#Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours).

Quite frankly, I am in over my head and this report is rapidly become WP:TLDR. In short, I am proposing the following:

1. A community ban of Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log). See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Karmaisking and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Karmaisking.
2. An unblock of Gregalton (talk · contribs · count · block log), whose edits were not an actual 3RR violation, and not disruptive under the circumstances. He has so requested.
3. A possible topic ban for SPA Misessus (talk · contribs). Does that typically require an RFC?

Most importantly, I am also requesting watchlisting of these articles by experienced editors, preferably those with an economics background. As such, I will post notices of this discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Economics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a big problem. I don't think the mainstream view is so much that the Austrian school is heterodox, but rather that it was a stream of thought more or less within the mainstream that ran out some time ago, and that most of what was valuable in it has now been absorbed. What's left is a bunch of people more interested in talking about the greatness of the Austrian school (for example, here on Misplaced Pages) than in doing economics.JQ (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't been so much absorbed as debunked and superceded. That said, there are certain concerns related to the use of mathematics in economics that cannot be written off as fringe but much of it can including what is being debated here. Note that there has been a campaign among so-called civil POV pushers for years to push these heterodox theories on Misplaced Pages - and not just Austrian economics. Anyone who dares confront these people are met by armies of sock puppets and/or meat puppets. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry are clearly worries with this article. However, ANI is not a topic forum: This is neither the place to discuss opinions on the topic, nor the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with that. But occasionally it is necessary "to discuss opinions on the topic" to insure that edits comply with the official policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. If the edits do not, and a pattern of blatantly disregarding those polices is shown, then admin action is entirely appropriate. I renew my call for a community site ban for Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log) and consideration of a topic ban for Misessus (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the 'Austrian' editors as long as they 'play nice' (no sockpuppetry, no revert warring, no personal attacks, no pushing POV, minding WP:UNDUE). The trouble is that they don't play nice. Their continual harassment prevents real progress in economics articles. lk (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A look at Inflation certainly confirms the problem. Lots of edit warring and a complete POV Fork at Monetary inflation.JQ (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Gregalton

I have asked Stifle to consider unblocking Gregalton. Obviously, that was not my primary reason for posting here. — Satori Son 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am about to head off for the night — anyone can feel free to unblock if you feel it's justified. Just to note that he has violated 3RR 1 2 3 4, and none of the reverts were simple and obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits one and two show only one revert since there was no "previous version reverted to" (see this comment by uninvolved Coppertwig). The third edit seems entirely unrelated, and the fourth edit is clearly a simple vandalism revert. Perhaps these are not the correct diffs, but based on them, and since Stifle has retired for the evening, I have unblocked Gregalton. I am soon to retire myself, but further discussion is encouraged. — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about image

Hi, I recently rm'ed links to Image:Penis_van_een_Puber.jpg in a couple articles where it was really adding nothing. I suspect the licensing info may qualify it for speedy by CSD-I4, but I don't feel like merely tagging it with "no licence" before prodding. I'm thinking that there's another CSD for putative images of teenagers' erections that an admin here might want to employ. Pete.Hurd (talk)

It's on Commons, you'll have to get it removed from there. But I imagine 16 years old is legal in the Netherlands. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal for what? Being naked in a picture? It depends on whether the image would be considered pornography. If the image were pornographic in nature, the depicted person would have to be at least 18 years old. --Atlan (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey real-life stalking/harassment

After last year's Arbcom decision, I swore I'd stay out of all things related to Merkey. I'd still be doing that if he hadn't decided to harass me in the real world.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see , , , and . Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey , and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Misplaced Pages and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

• 166.70.238.44 and 166.70.238.45 where a tracert ends at a host that includes 'jmerkey' in the name
• 69.2.248.210, which resolves to Calculated Research & Technology, which lists a company named Omega8 as a partner, which is the exclusive distributor of Merkey's "Forensic Filesystem" according to materials on a site that Merkey controls.

I wouldn't bring any of this up if Merkey hadn't escalated things dramatically in the real world. When he began editing from 69.2.248.210, I was certain it was him based on the topics chosen and the fact that the IP address could be easily linked to him. Did I say a damn thing? NO. I let other people notice it and handle it, and this was the proper thing to do. I monitored the situation closely, but made no comments at all. The last thing I want is to have any dealings at all with Merkey, not on Misplaced Pages and certainly not in the real world. I also don't want certain people to start jumping on me and claiming that I'm an SPA against Merkey.

But this is really serious when you make phone calls and trying to mess with peoples' lives. What's he going to do next, show up at my house?

On 25 June 2008, Merkey called my employer and tried to get me fired. He asked to speak to HR, and told them who he was (including providing a phone number), and "you've got a problem employee on your hands." He then claimed to have checkuser results from Misplaced Pages indicating that some large percentage of my edits to Misplaced Pages were done from an IP address that resolved to my employer. He never asked directly to have me fired, but his choice of words made it clear he expected I would get fired as a result of his call.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey accused me of stalking him, but then almost a year later, he called my employer and tried to get me fired. Now I'll say this: if he had called them at the time that I was allegedly stalking him from my work, that's legitimate ("one of your employees used your computer systems yesterday to harass me in an internet forum"), but a year later? After I've left him alone completely in real life? That's way over the line. I want nothing to do with him, and almost one year after my last interaction with him on Misplaced Pages, he decides to move his battle from Misplaced Pages to the real world.

There's not a whole lot Misplaced Pages can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat and a veiled threat ) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Misplaced Pages. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true. Obviously, he doesn't have access, but I wondered if he had managed to get someone else to divulge information to him. After some delay, the ombudsman replied that there is no information in the checkuser tool indicating that my IP addresses were accessed or disclosed. That seems like a good clarification to add, that checkuser was not actually involved. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned , this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the facts are what you say they are, I would support extending the ban on Merkey to indefinite and irrevocable. I suggest you email the arbitration committee (see the email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM). Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sail too close to the WP:NLT wind, surely that telephone call would be slanderous? Brilliantine (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's that simple. Merkey is a bit of an oddball but it's undeniably the case that he has also been royally trolled on and off Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No matter how badly other people have trolled him in the last year, there's no justification for messing with me in real life. Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP. From my limited understand of the situation, messing with people in the real world is part of what got Daniel Brandt indef'ed. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you've been in contact with Merkey before. Can you get his version of events here? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - while this could be a serious situation, proceeding down the road with anything related to this based on one side's claims is a procedural and ethical mistake. Merkey's side of the story should be asked for and heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded - he deserves his say, even if it will probably involve a lot of wikilawyering. Let him e-mail his comments to Guy or someone else of his choosing. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. Harassment is unacceptable, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block has been implemented. — Werdna • talk 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've noted it on the related arbitration page. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block but I have unsalted his talk page if he wishes to participate to this discussion via that channel. His userpage remains salted (now extended to indef). Kwsn (Ni!) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pfagerburg, how did you verify it was Merkey that called (and not the GNAA)? --Duk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who called presented himself as Merkey, and provided a phone number which I presume is Merkey's. (No, I don't have the phone number; HR would have it.) He followed the pattern that I became accustomed to last year - claiming that I had stalked him, threatening to sue me, and asking that somebody (in this case, my employer, previously, admins or AbrCom) do something about it. Like the old way of spotting sock puppets prior to CheckUser, it fit too well to not be Merkey.

Something else I thought to mention: I'm not the only person who has had an apparent vendetta from Merkey spill over into the real world. I will not divulge the details publicly, but the gist of it is that someone who criticized Merkey off-wiki (and was never on WP) found out that copies of his message board postings were sent to someone who is in a position of authority over him. As in my situation, it happened several months after the alleged wrong. This person has communicated many more details to me privately, and I cannot offer those details to anyone here, unless/until I get his approval. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Merkey has commented on this issue yet (if he is even aware of it), so there's no confirm or deny. He has denied other things in the past, such as posts made to LKML where the headers clearly indicate that the e-mail came from a machine under his control, and of course denying that he was behind the posts from the anonymous IP's noted above, despite what Occam's Razor (to quote Sir Fozzie) had to say about that. He's welcome to deny it, but that doesn't constitute proof that he didn't do it.

The person at my work who took the call is out of town for a week, but I will check with him to get more details when he is back. I have a few aces up my sleeve that can prove whether or not it was Merkey, if that becomes necessary.

If it turns out that someone impersonated Merkey (essentially a variant of a joe job), I will 1. offer my apologies to Merkey for this AN/I, 2. request that his ban be reset to the 1-year term that was previously in effect for block evasion (by SirFozzie as of 12 Aug 2008), and 3. provide any information I have (including the phone number if it is made available to me) to assist him in tracking down the responsible parties, if he so chooses.

Duk, I can't get the absolute confirmation from HR until next week. Some of the information will be of a confidential nature (such as the phone number which he provided, the name of the person he called, the company where I work), so posting it here doesn't seem like a very good idea. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion on Latino (demonym)

I reverted edits by 888aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Upon checking the page history at Latino (demonym) it became obvious that this is a sockpuppet of 999aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked indefinitely. Please block 888aaa and check if there is any more problems. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked. Feel free to revert any problematic edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Delancey

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long time nuisance talk-page contributor whom I'm sure has been discussed here before. See web page maintained by victims!. It seems to me to call for long term deprivation of editing privileges. I mentioned this on vandalism page, but since he has only made two edits to real articles, they sent me here. The problem is trying to discuss something with this guy (over several days) only to find out after wading through his junk that it is pretty much total nonsense. I thought I was holding a discussion with a non-native and was trying to be extra careful. Eccentrics can be fun, I suppose, but do we really need him? 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The site you linked to is an artists' site. It's on DGD's work. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to follow, I agree. Here is one a bit easier, inside Misplaced Pages, on a serious issue: Talk:Slavery#To_The_Economics_of_Slavery. Apparently he always writes like this according to the website. This is disruptive. I thought he was serious for a day or so and finally decided to examine his user page for some sort of clue. That's when I discovered that he is not a serious editor. I guess if he is just part of the landscape and something we all have to put up with occasionally, like old Uncle Ned, we can do it, I suppose. I'm not sure why, though. 11:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like classic schizophrenia (disorganized type) to me. He probably has no idea that what he is writing is gibberish. (See word salad or schizophasia). Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There is some template vandalism at the bottom of the Canada article, and I'm having trouble locating the exact template involved. Any help would be appreciated. AlexiusHoratius 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Must have been fixed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Jeff3000 (talk · contribs) - thanks. I blocked 190.139.108.170 (talk · contribs) for a week, as it's not the first template vandalism they've done, and it's a nuisance to find. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone for me too, it must have been a cache issue with me; I had seen the revert on the template's history, but the vandalism was still showing up. Thanks AlexiusHoratius 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A note: this is part of a pattern of vandalism via proxies, aimed at templates and always inserting the same vandalism. A number of commonly-used templates were targeted and have been indefinitely fully-protected, and a couple of proxy IP's blocked for two years. Acroterion _(talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

persitent 'semi vandalism' to multiple pages involving the verbs 'comprised (of)', and 'composed (of)'

I'm not 100% whether this could be considered outright vandalism, however it appears that the edits of User:Giraffedata are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Giraffedata has edited multiple articles and has vigorously removed the verbs "comprised {of}" from each article. Occasionally he substitutes other verbs such as "composed of" or "containing" and therefore, many of the newly edited articles no longer make sense. Some examples:

Numerous users have requested that he explain his actions on his talk page, but to no avail.

Cheers --Fatal!ty 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• His edits look fine to me. "Comprised of" is grammatically incorrect. Epbr123 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It is incorrect to use the phrase "comprised of". See this MOS discussion for refs, but almost all style sources say to use comprises when the meaning is includes and use another verb for the passive voice meaning is made up of. Jim Miller 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also consider the disputed edits OK. Deor (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's replacing a non-standard variant most people consider to be an error by one that is standard in all dialects of English. How is this vandalism? — Coren  12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's the problem, I'm not sure 'most people' would consider it an error; grammatical 'errors' in common speech and writing are pretty common, I think this is just one of them. They certainly should be corrected, but all these edits would have needed was an edit summary, and there wouldn't have been an issue (at least not for here). --Ged UK (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary looked fine to me, and a quick look in any manual of usage confirms these edits are good. Brilliantine (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; all these edits by Giraffedata seem correct. The verb "to comprise" means to contain, so "X is comprised of Y" is wrong - this should be "X comprises Y" or any of the other variants Giraffedata has used in the above diffs. Even though "is comprised of" is sometimes incorrectly used, this does not make it correct. This is in no way vandalism. Please note that WP:VAN specifically states that vandalism is a deliberate effort to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Is he back? (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction/ban proposal on User:Naadapriya

Background

Last week, following some edit-warring concerns, I'd opened an article RFC on contentious material Naadapriya has been pushing to keep included in the article. I'd expressed the concern that his edits violated WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and at times, WP:V. Although at first it seemed the article RFC lacked input except that of User:erachima who had a very poor understanding of policy as it were, it eventually had more than adaquate feedback: User:JzG, User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Mspraveen, User:RegentsPark, User:David_J_Wilson and User:VasuVR were among the several uninvolved users that have shared the concern I have over the content Naadapriya insists on including, and the poor conduct he has continually exhibited. Naadapriya's page and talk page speaks for itself - the concerns have been expressed by other editors and administrators and those concerns have not been put to rest. But the bulk of the problems can be found from this section onwards on the article talk page. I have provided a few diffs below, but one can detect the problems just going through those 2 or 3 sections.

Users have found that Naadapriya:

• misrepresented sources (most particularly through novel synthesis, but sometimes also making statements that are not found in those sources which violates verifiability policy);
• often used unreliable sourcing (violating reliable sources policy);
• makes assumptions of bad faith that editors such as myself, in improving in the article, are submitting "weasels or make believe books and Jl articles" which have less weight than self-published sources. (Note: this diff also demonstrates the POV he has been pushing since he arrived at Misplaced Pages - which is why he resorted to sockpuppetry in the past);
• gave undue weight to a view that is not widely held (violating of NPOV policy);
• has a habit of edit-warring - see Special:Log&page=Carnatic_music;
• engaged in wikilawyering over the block he received for edit-warring ;
• restated arguments that were already addressed (a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and;
• continually makes assumptions of bad faith for several of those users who gave their uninvolved input in the article RFC, while disrupting Misplaced Pages - using it as a battleground to harass those users who do not conform to his POV-pushing. A clear example is found here. Another example consists of a recurring theme - Naadapriya is repeatedly claiming I vandalized the article when it didn't occur, and he was told in no uncertain terms that insisting that it has, is very problematic . Yet his response has shown no change .

The ultimate conclusion of the RFC was that the content could not be included. Naadapriya has meanwhile vowed to reinclude the contentious content. I think it is reasonably clear that these sorts of issues cannot adaquately be dealt with through the usual means of dispute resolution. I therefore submit the following proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user is acting in bad faith, but he or she is certainly very difficult to ork with. For instance, after I analysed some of the sources that were online and found they didn't really back the claims - ambiguous statements were made definite; statements about a class of subjects were rewritten as if one of the subjects in that class had sole possession of that class's attributes, and that kind of thing. When I then asked Naadapriya to quote the section of the book he or she had, so as to check a claim sourced to it, they went off on tangents four times.

I don't think there's bad faith, but they are extremely disruptive. Their lack of research skills isn't in itself a problem, as such things are teachable, but combined with a fanatical defense of the poor content, it becomes highly problematic. I'd suggest a mentor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 1

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for 1 year.

• Support; if he edits in another area instead, the editors in that area are also going to end up ripping their hair out as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I would be inclined to try a topic ban first; if this user can contribute productively in areas where they are less emotionally vested, then perhaps we may resolve this without the need to boot them. If they cannot keep to a topic ban, or choose to engage in the same behaviour elsewhere, then we have a clear indication that they are not Misplaced Pages material. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'd also rather see a hard topic ban (which I do think is needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, left a proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 2

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Carnatic music, broadly construed.

• Support - this minimum measure (community sanction) is certainly needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'd looked into this a few weeks ago and think a topic ban would be fitting. This would be a way to let Naadapriya keep editing the other Indian topics he seems more helpfully drawn to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, a topic ban should be attempted before more permanent actions. GlassCobra 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't hold out much hope of this editor's activities' ever making a net positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. His responses to the concerns raised by other editors seem to me to have been utterly bizarre. Nevertheless, I think it's worth giving him a chance to show that he can make positive contributions to other articles. It appears that no-one had previously informed him of this proposal. I have now done so. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support if (and only if) combined with mentorship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It is possible that User:Naadapriya is acting in good faith and believes that their view is neutral and accurate. Which it may well be but the reality is that the sources don't stand up to scrutiny and the content of those sources is often exaggerated. A topic ban will give him/her the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the encyclopedia beyond this article and is the appropriate first step before more permanent actions. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As per User:David_J_Wilson, I found the editor's responses, to the questions raised by other editors, not helpful. He seems to be an editor who is hard to discuss with and that could be frustrating at times. Though this might be a temporary suggestion, with an able mentor, I hope that the editor improves in his standing with his other contributions. Mspraveen (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Canvassing

Just a note, disruptive canvassing at this DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should bear in mind though that, as you were the closing user, this post here can be seen as canvassing as well. Not that I want to imply it, I just think you should have contacted a neutral admin directly instead of posting it here. SoWhy 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. AN/I is not canvassing. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it is. I say it can be seen as canvassing. Users may assume bad faith if the one, who accuses them of canvassing, himself goes and posts the debate somewhere with high traffic. While WP:AGF is of course important (and I do not assume bad faith that those editors will actually complain), I still think that this should be taken into account. Just to prevent any reason for complaints from popping up. SoWhy 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't. AGF doesn't even play a role. "Canvassing" is the gathering of a particular SET of editors who share a certain point of view in order to for those editors to participate in a discussion. Usually what follows that is "with the intent to shift the results" but intent is tricky to judge. the admins and editors who read AN/I do not comprise a specific set of editors with regard to this particular (or honestly, most any) debate. Bringing an issue that needs admin attention here is appropriate. We may say that other, lower level methods should have been exhausted but that isn't necessary. And lowering the threshold of the accusation from "canvassing" to "this may seem like canvassing" is not cool. It maintains the cloud of impropriety over the accused but allows the accuser to disclaim responsibility. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, this is an incident, and this is ANI. My message fits no criteria for bad canvassing. I did not canvass keep voters, and my message here is neutrally worded. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection review

If others would review my action here, I would appreciate it. Today I happened across User talk:193.62.43.202, which was indefinitely semi-protected in November 2006 (672 days ago) by (retired?) Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Bizarrely this semi-protection appears to be in response to this unblock request. Since I cannot fathom any reason to leave this IP's talk page indefinitely semi-protected, and as Can't sleep, clown will eat me is not around to answer any questions (not that he ever answered questions about his admin actions), I have gone ahead and unprotected the page. Since this is violating my personal 0RR for admin actions, I wanted to post it here for review. If consensus holds that my unprotection was unwarranted, I will revert myself and re-protect. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM made a lot of unwarranted IP talk page protections, and you were right to lift the protection on this one. Endorsed. -- zzuuzz 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2006, the software feature to set an expiration date on protections had not been created yet. All protections from 2006 were indefinite so an indefinite protection going that far back shouldn't be looked at as necessarily abusive - just one that was put in place and nobody bothered to lift it. --B (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin not using proper procedures or protocol, indef blocked user without any prior history

Tom Harrison appears to be abusing his administrator powers. A friend of mine contacted me by e-mail to get involved in this, as he has been indefinitely blocked from editing and the blocking admin does not appear willing to discuss the issue. In short, my friend's account is registered under the name Dine Peril. He is brand new to Misplaced Pages and is just becoming familiar with the rules. He has no warning for misbehaviour whatsoever on his talk page, and the history of the Talk Page will confirm this. He made a good-faith edit to today's Featured Article, but failed to cite his source. Immediately afterward, Tom Harrison indefinitely blocked him without any warning or notice. None of the proper templates for issuing warnings were used. I believe this was not a fair use of administrative powers and I would like to see some sort of action taken in this matter. Thank you. Ace Trigonometry (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:MEAT--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And your little dog too. Tom Harrison 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question ; note the highly deceptive edit summary. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut Kralizec, surely you mean 'descriptive' edit summary? Pints of Badde Fayth all round please landlord! Srsly, good block ;) EyeSerene 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To put it in further context this was Dine Peril's previous contribution. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, even if not obviously a WP:MEAT puppet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Ace Trigonometry as a sockpuppet of User:Dine Peril. The account was created 2 minutes after Dine Peril's post on his Talk page, and the other contribs have a, how shall I say, similar quality to them. Sanity check plz. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dine Peril's obvious expectation of receiving some sort of warning prior to a block indicates to me that he knows the workings of Misplaced Pages, and is trying to game the system. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballard Designs

(Copied from my talk page) --jpgordon 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:216.235.145.178

I was hoping that, as the most (relatively) recent administrator to deal with this user, you could look into user 216.235.145.178 and see whether or not another block should be applied. Previously, a four month block was imposed in November 2007 due to several instances of spamming pages with external links to a 'Ballard Designs' business. But as soon as that block was removed in March 2008, the user began to spam a number of pages, and even contributed links to the page Ballard Designs that was created by another user.

Was it the user's attempt to make the subject more legitimate? Likely. But it stinks of advertising.

I only came across the user's violations because of a previous incident of linkspam from August 2007 that I removed just today. Granted, there aren't as many incidences of linkspam as before the Nov 07 block. However, looking at his/her most recent edits - March 2008 to August 2008 - I am inclined to believe that he/she is going slow and steady in his/her linking, as to avoid arousing suspicion. With this user's edits and Atlrshr's creation of the Ballard Designs page, I suspect this is his/her/their attempt to not only legitimize, but defend the idea that his/her links/edits aren't incidences of (business) spam, as was put forth in the previous argument over the Nov 07 block.

That said, would it also be possible to see if there is a relation between user 216.235.145.178 and user Atlrshr? I find it highly suspicious that Atlrshr creates a page and edits on a topic that was previously a point of contention.

I edit a lot but by no means am I experienced in this sort of thing. Any help that you can manage will be appreciated. Please and thank you. Ultatri (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article probably needs to go to AfD anyway (my opinion is made pretty obvious by the article's talkpage). An assumption of good faith suggests that User:Atlrsher may have simply forgotten to login but, I think otherwise you may want WP:SSP as opposed to here (though as usual I could be wrong). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the SSP part is obvious and incontrovertible. The trick is handling the article and the named editor. Whole article and named editor might need to go. --jpgordon 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since this IP removed an advertisement tag in August 2008 from an article about their own products, it's safe to say there has been no reform. I know that hardblocks are drastic, but according to WHOIS this IP belongs to Ballard Designs. A hardblock of the IP for three months should take care of Atlrshr if they *are* a sock, and will have no effect on them if they are not. (Saving the time and trouble of a checkuser). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. I'll do that. --jpgordon 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist is also a possibility here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

No further action required. See content below. --VS 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Misplaced Pages's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved? Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai certainly has an ingenious style in smearing. I followed his link to an earlier contribution from the anonymous editor IP 76.171.201.224 - the one about which Tznkai said "guess who else is involved?" In fact Ricky81682 was mentioned that earlier time along with others, and unless I misunderstood, there was absolutely no conflict between the Ricky81632 and the anonymous editor. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

I wonder what Tznkai means by my "suspicious" writing style? Perhaps we will be enlightened in the course of his sockpuppet investigations....

Rick81682's advice to "let it go" is a cop-out. Tznkai has set a hare running and should have the guts to follow through with a sockpuppet referral. For that reason I am removing the "resolved" tag (it plainly isn't resolved) and putting this item back on the noticeboard. Is that a legitimate procedure?

(Oh, like some others, I have only now found my way to this item. I was looking for a sockpuppet allegation against me that was allegedly entered somewhere here by Rjecina. All the links seem to be dead, and I haven't really fathomed the archive process yet.) Kirker (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on this matter over at User talk:Tznkai#Sock thing at ANI and mentioned AlasdairGreen27 and Rjecina there. Those who are wondering about any new sockpuppet complaints that might concern them could look at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc, filed on 8 September by Rjecina. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of administrator Tznkai my "pathetic" "small-minded mentality" will not start another "idiotic" try to block Kirker. In my thinking he must recieve reward, but we are having new warning...

Can somebody show me place where I can start meatpuppets actions because of edits Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 on this page, in articles Magnum Crimen and Miroslav Filipović--Rjecina (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, cut that out right now. You are not helping at all. Stop with the allegations completely. A lot of them have been proven false, so quit repeating them to try to gain the upper hand. Otherwise, this thread was already archived not just once but twice. Can someone please manually archive this section, and split out the subsection below with a link? I really really don't like my name being dragged into this many threads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682: an acceptable level of adjudication?

Ricky81682 blocked me for 31 hours, citing that I had refused to respond to complaints about me. He took that decision ten minutes after putting a notice on my talk page that I was the subject of a complaint. Was I really in error for failing to respond within ten minutes? I have put that point to him and no answer was his reply. He says that I refused to respond to a complaint against me a few weeks ago, but the record shows that I did respond. The only other complaint against me was in November 2007. I never knew about it, no action was taken against me and the complainant himself was banned. I have put all this to him too. No answer.

Why was it Ricky81682 who leapt in to deal with the present matter? Another editor put to him that he had a clear COI (conflict of interest?) - a point he seemed to concede. And someone else suggested that a block of 24 hours instead of 31 would be appropriate - a point which Ricky81682 ignored as far as I know. I asked him if there was a procedure whereby I could register a complaint against him, but again no reply.

I was blocked in response to a complaint from Rjecina, who is a disruptive and negative presence on Misplaced Pages as would be quickly realised by anyone skimming his contributions. One charming example, and this on a TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs&diff=prev&oldid=233977689

Rjecina also pushes a POV agenda but I concede that he might not be detached enough from the issues to realise that he is doing it. In answering some of his assertions, I said I was doing so only in the hope that others might see what an idiot he was. This was a flippant remark in the course of a substantial and reasoned response, as Ricky81832 knew well. As Ricky81682 also knew when blocking me, Rjecina had asserted among other things that my parents were born in Yugoslavia. (This was a desperate attempt to undermine my credentials as a disinterested editor.) Moreover when challenged, Rjecina went on to say that if I claimed otherwise, he would not trust my answer. (It's all there on my talk page.) And this is a guy about whom I am asked to assume good faith, LOL.

Set against the general pattern of Rjecina's behaviour towards me, my incivility was a trivial matter. I would never waste my time entering formal complaints about Rjecina's pathetic conduct, and I assumed that in return he could take robust responses on the chin. Obviously not.

In presenting his version of my history on this page, to justify his actions, Ricky81682 chose to put into my mouth a paraphrase of what I actually wrote, in order to suit his own agenda.

Ricky81682 stated that I cannot work with others. Anyone who looks at my editing history in the Ante Pavelić article for instance, or Stepinac, will see that he displays only his own ignorance with such a statement. And anyone looking at the Miroslav Filipović article will see that I am primarily concerned with bringing some of the crap on Misplaced Pages's Balkan pages up to the standard achieved in many other areas of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes I do this in the face of pathetic whining from editors like Rjecina, obsessed with pushing their small-minded agendas. Rjecina hates the Filipović аrticle as I have rewritten it of course (see its talk page), but there's nothing he can do about it despite his best efforts, since it is self-evidently non-POV and is comprehensively sourced throughout. I suspect it is his frustration over this matter that drives some of the wilder allegations of sockpuppetry etc that he makes against me.

In responding to an earlier complaint against him on this page, Ricky81682 proudly drew attention to a previous commotion in which he involved himself. A surprising response in view of his professed concern to spread sweetness and light. He has also said he will apologise if his blocking of me was unreasonably hasty. Where will he put such an apology, if it comes to that?

All in all, I would say that at the very least he needs to take a little more care over the matters in which he chooses to involve himself, or step aside so that progress can be made in a subject-area of Misplaced Pages that falls woefully short of an acceptable standard. Kirker (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to be uncivil to other editors by calling them pathetic. Consider this a block warning for personal attacks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance this isn't clear enough, no more personal attacks, or I'll issue a block. Subject to another administrator's review of course. For the next 24 hours, no further warnings will be issued on this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was making no personal attacks - just putting cogent complaints about what seemed like unreasonable behaviour. That much, at least, Misplaced Pages should be able to live with. Moreover I described no-one as pathetic but described Rjecina's conduct as pathetic. But let people form their own views about that by looking at the record. For instance the Magnum crimen talk page (say from here onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Magnum_Crimen#J._A._Comment.27s_revision_.28September_2008.29) Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally Tznkai showed how little he knows about my recent squabbles when he gratuitously floated a fatuous rumour that I'm a sockpuppet.Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, calling someone's actions or them pathetic is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. An apology is encouraged, but not required.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, I'll put a way an admin once told me. It's hard to people to determine who is doing good edits and who is doing bad edits. Incivility, on the other hand, is clear. Acting uncivil makes it harder for people to take you seriously, no matter what you do. You can either take that as constructive criticism or ignore it completely under the guise of "I do good work, so I can act however I want." Regardless of everyone you work with, Rjecina seems to be a problem. Again, as I've asked, if Rjecina is doing something wrong, please explain with specific diffs. Pointing to a talk page and saying "they are disruptive" isn't helpful. I saw you mentioned the sockpuppetry allegations, which I've warned about (here albeit too late for your tastes, I guess). I agree that this checkuser request may be a bit much, and again, you should simply warn Rjecina and report on that conduct. Long diatribes again and again aren't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou

• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou

Seeyou is a WP:SPA editing articles related to Bates method. There is some evidence that Seeyou has a COI with the subject, but not enough to make a case for WP:COIN.

Seeyou's behavior is once again becoming highly disruptive, to the point where there are discussions to expand the RfC/U with the problems since it was written.

Seeyou is not fluent in English, which exasperates the problems.

The problems since the RfC/U include canvassing, personal attacks, gaming the MedCab and RFC processes, and general WP:OWN problems. The problems appear to be quickly escalating. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Ronz is saying. I initially got involved on the articles to stop IP spamming and wound up getting involved in the arguments. When I started editing the talk page, Seeyou was hardly civil or neutral, accusing Famousdog (talk · contribs) of paid editing and creating sections titled "For the Objective Reader Part <foo> of X". Recently, however, he's dropped these behaviors if only to use WP:MEDCAB as his own personal artillery. Practically all of his Medcab cases have been closed without resolution. -Jéské 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to either start another RfC, or if you believe the issues to be serious enough, a request for arbitration. Wizardman 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat block review

Blocks for legal threats are not my forte, so I would appreciate a review of my actions. I indefinitely blocked 83.104.51.181 (talk · contribs · block log) for this legal threat against Daniel Case (talk · contribs). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good NLT block, maybe shorten it to a year since it looks like a residential IP that will eventually be re-assigned. MBisanz 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty blatant legal threat, yeah, the block looks fine. And that IP looks quite static - a review of its contribs suggests an interest in footballers and other problem edits in the past anyhow. (Mind you, we don't usually block IPs indef - I'd suggest shortening it to a definite time.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not real sure what to do about the block duration, but since the {{uw-lblock}} defaults to indef, that is what I went ahead and used. This IP has threated the just switch IPs before , but has not, to the best of my knowledge, done it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, but I recommend a block duration of 3 years or so. IPs are usually not indefblocked.  Sandstein  19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot like actions for user

Can someone please see what they think of User:Psaywer1972 ·Add§hore· /_Cont 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked. Didn't respond to talk page messages, practically all edits unconstructive. If they want to explain themselves they can RFU. Black Kite 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like this was a "Random article" vandal, repeatedly clicking on that link and adding one {{fact}} tag somewhere in each article. Deor (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Eldereft Engaged in negative WP:OWNERSHIP/edit war WP:TROLL activities

I have tried to seek WP:3 mediation with user User:Hrafn, but in response User:Eldereft claims that tangential comments from other editors preclude it's two party guideline: (Eldereft is not a contributor to WP:3, my request was removed apparently to aid Hrafn, whose activities have not been commented on favorably from two previous WP:3 in which I and he have been involved: Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion and Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion) He has also begun to tag informally approved and review articles in a way that I believe can be fairly categorized as a negative form of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TROLLing to make a WP:POINT. Examples are recent edits with User:Hrafn to and . The Issues in Science and Religion was reviewed positively as a stub in Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion. The List of science and religion scholars was reviewed by User:Rocksanddirt and I have sought Rocksanddirt's counsel before adding this list's link to other article's See also sections. . User:Rocksanddirt responded here . (The point is that these articles have had some review and oversight other than by me.) I would like User:Eldereft's recent tags to be removed since the actions are non-wikipedia hyper-verification standards done in order to make a WP:POINT and ask that he or she stop tagging my articles further. The issues are really with User:Hrafn, but User:Eldereft appears to be intentionally interfering to make a WP:POINT with the WP:3 process. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322, your whole rant is based on a failure to assume good faith. If articles lack reliable sources for notability or are based on a neologism which isn't in use, they're subject to review. As for others becoming involved in your mediation, you seem to have forgotten that you named several other editors but failed to provide diffs of the alleged problems you had with these users. Last I saw, the case was stalled awaiting information from you. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Christian involved with a non-religious person (Hfran), the accusation that this is a failure on my part to assume good faith (WP:AGF) seems an ironic one. Moreover, The underlying issues have really between User:Hrafn and me and others have just recently join in and are tangentially going along with User:Hrafn. A clarification at WP:3 seems necessary, to me. For if you are refering to the WP:mediation cabal, then that process doesn't work here, because I am one editor with a dispute with potentially several (those who are going along with User:Hrafn). The resources required are potentially enormous and I believe beyond those of a single editor. That process seems really set up for a bi-lateral multi-party resolution. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: sorted out by a response to your belated post to Eldereft's talk page. Pity you didn't think of doing that before posting here. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The question of keeping the item up for WP:3 is resolved, but evidently there are still questions of Firefly disputing tags. Hope all is now clarified, bedtime for me. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not my strong suit, but I do periodically contribute Third opinions (both successfully and not so much), as Firefly322 may be aware. The first edit in question, removing Firefly322's request, was performed after checking into the situation; most relevantly, I found this section indicating a consensus to merge with another page. Since the post mentioned only "the existence of talk page's main-space article", I judged the matter to have been resolved. The subject area is something that interests me occasionally, so I then performed the indicated merge. As I am passingly familiar with both Hrafn and Firefly322 (and some of the other editors involved in the merge consensus), I would not have presumed to offer an independent third opinion, but I considered myself to be by that point operating outside the strictures of WP:3O. I am not sure what WP:POINT I am supposed to be making, but when I found Firefly322's re-addition I issued an apology. This was a full day after the event, but still prior to this present thread. The preceding diff also contains my notification to Firefly322 that I had prodded List of science and religion scholars.

Tags I have placed recently include aforementioned prod and a request for page numbers. Possibly this latter is the motivation for "hyper-verification standards"? That article contained 46 citations to the book that is its subject, but provided no indication of where in the book an interested reader might pursue the topic. This is manifestly not an indication of any suspicion on my part that the statements being supported are dubious; I find it perfectly credible that the book treats these topics.

Interested editors may note that there is currently Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. I am not at present a party to this case, but it concerns this family of articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 - would you please expand on your views concerning a putative relationship between religiosity and willingness to assume good faith? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In order to correctly assume good faith, one must have developed a discernment as to what faith means. Anyone can claim that WP:AGF has been broken and anyone can claim that they are WP:AGF, but unless one has some sense of what faith is, what it is to truly believe in someone or something, then the word faith when spoken or heard is weakly meaningful if not meaningless. So I don't see how WP:AFG works where an editor is consistently crude towards me and has stated that he is of no faith. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(interposting) dave souza comment about WP:AGF seems outside the bounds of wikipedia guidelines, because even per wikipedia guidelines assuming good faith is a two way street that depends upon certain mutual things. These things are partially outlined here: WP:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks and WP:Civility#Apologizing. Hfran rarely apologizes a rare example, nor does he or she recipocate in words of kindness. (I tried a friendly word of kindness, Hrafn never responded.), and again see what Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion mentions about someone's questionable civility on the page with which I have had to deal with Hrafn quite a bit. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod notice. The inclusion criteria for the list need attention, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooper Brown

Can someone who doesn't have a history with the editors involved (there must be someone) put a stop to the current idiocy at Cooper Brown? Brief background; CB is a parody column in an British newspaper – and a blatantly obvious parody to any British reader – but one US-based editor is insisting on treating him as a genuine journalist. ("I wanted to flag the notion that maybe this is fiction. Maybe even probably is fiction. We know that the newspaper isn't fact-checking it. Guantanamo Bay is in Mexico? My operating assumption is that it's a spoof. But I can't put my operating assumptions into the article.") Can someone break out a fresh box of TROUTs and deliver them appropriately? – iridescent 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• We could just send it to XfD. All of that back and forth and no one has sources...hmmm. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble it, it's undoubtedly a genuine (albeit fake) column – and written by TV star Dom Joly, who's undoubtedly notable – so an AfD would almost certainly fail. – iridescent 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Also, count me surprised that the article is parsimonious. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) is requesting unblocking. He was most recently blocked by User:Prodego for "Disruption through repeated legal action." Guido had been previously blocked for legal threats; Prodego undid that block on August 1, apparently because the legal issues had been totally resolved. Then, on September 4, Guido posted a non-specific note about his involvement in another legal dispute; according to the analysis of other admins this edit was the immediate reason behind the block. Guido now says that the legal action he referred to in this recent edit is already resolved, and wants to be unblocked. So what remains is the question of whether Guido ought to be indefinitely blocked for having taken legal action repeatedly. AFAIK, these two incidents are the only ones. Guido quite strenuously argued against being blocked the first time, as there was a question whether the legal threat took place on the Dutch (nl) Misplaced Pages or here. So I don't see a repeat abuse problem here, and furthermore, at the essence of WP:NLT are two points: (1) keep legal actions from interfering with Misplaced Pages, and (2) don't use threats of legal action to try to influence Misplaced Pages articles or editors. Neither one of these was a problem here. It would have been better for Guido to not mention the legal issue at all, but he certainly wasn't using Misplaced Pages as an inappropriate channel for communication. And the action was apparently based on off-wikipedia acts, not about Misplaced Pages editing. So I'd like to see an unblock here. Mangojuice 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that I'm opposed to pressing Guido for details about what this legal issue was, per the spirit of both WP:AGF and WP:NLT (i.e. Guido mostly kept it off of Misplaced Pages, we should try to do the same). Mangojuice 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some residual concerns, mainly related to the tone of m:Requests for comments/Dutch Misplaced Pages - unblock request. While projects are not related and we ban people other projects welcome, I still have questions as to why Guido didn't want this discussion brought to ANI. MBisanz 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something that needs to be made very clear before I feel comfortable unblocking this user is the fact that this situation will not happen again, he will no longer make legal threats and even if he has engaged in legal action with another user it will not be mentioned here. Tiptoety 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable. It should go without saying - but it's better said than unsaid. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Users should not bring up legal action, period. Not as a definite threat, not as a pointy allusion. Based on what I've read to date I'd support an unblock with a caveat of "Don't ever mention legal threats again" and if he sincerely wants to avoid disrupting wikipedia because of a legal issue, use {{wikibreak}}. GDB tends to make and cause a lot of noise wherever he goes, intentionally or not, but hasn't quite reached the point of irrevocably breaking the community's patience. Regards Meta, what happens off wiki(.en in this case) stays off wiki. Unblock, but I'd have this as his final warning about invoking mentioning the legal system. WLU (talk) Misplaced Pages's rules 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up after the first situation I believe. Prodego 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly better reaction this time, slightly less overt discussion. Shows a small amount of learning, which is better than nothing. WLU (talk) Misplaced Pages's rules 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Guido has agreed to no longer mention any legal action on-wiki. Tiptoety 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think Guido is evil or beyond being brought round. He is clearly very angry about the sabotage to his pet project. I suspect he will get over it in time; I am optimistic that the risk from a second chance is low in this case at this time. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I when I unblocked him, and I was quite optimistic too. I do not have a problem with second chances, I routinely give them to anyone who has any indication at all of an intention of collaborating. Third chances don't work the same way. Prodego 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:65.117.144.104

Last warnings are no good unless they really are last warnings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have blocked the IP, but for future reference AIV is that way →. Tiptoety 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV needs looked at

Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_8#Mathmo where I have reverted my close of the AFD in question. Does the DRV need to be closed now? The AFD can be reclosed by an admin - cause that is what it takes to grok consensus here? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I closed the DRV and relisted the AfD. It can be closed whenever anyone likes. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is 217.95.240.21 a bot?

Earlier today, 217.95.240.21 started editing for the first time, and for the next 4 hours or so, edited approximately a page every other minute. Some of these edits were to archived AFDs (see here, here, and here), and many were to user pages.

If it's a bot, it's not following policy. If it isn't a bot, it's something that (imo) should be looked into. Thanks... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it making good edits? If so, welcome him/her/it. A page every other minute is not fast if the person is doing wiki-gnome stuff. --A. B. 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed it and encouraged it to get an account. It's edits appear to be good and constructive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear about this when I said it was editing archived AFDs and user pages--no, not all of the edits are good. Having looked at them, about two-thirds were edits that shouldn't be done by a bot (or even an over-zealous newbie) (47 of 135 were good, if you want to be precise). I don't think that dropping 80+ warnings on an IP address would help any, which is why I brought it here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dorismith here. Something is definitely strange. Its one thing for a newbie to do a few small changes.. but this is hours of tedious editing. Good on them if they actually did it... but editing user pages and closed AfDs isn't appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be consistently changing The Lord of The Rings to The Lord of the Rings across a large number of articles. I don't think it's a 'bot, because sometimes they also fixed another typo in an article when doing so. The only problems are that 1) they don't use edit summaries, and 2) they're fixing user pages, talk pages, and archive pages that aren't worth fixing. They even fixed something in a sandbox.. So don't bite them; just educate them a bit. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Medes

For the past two months, 87.211.199.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently edit-warring to push a Kurdish nationalist POV at Medes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has been reverted by numerous editors in line with talk page consensus but has continued despite multiple warnings. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review his contributions and the article history and determine if preventative measures are appropriate. I would favour blocking the IP but, as I have been one of the editors to revert, I wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety by doing so myself. CIreland (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for steady edit warring for weeks over the same shred of content, with no talk page discussion at all. I'll keep watching the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fullfilms - only for SPAM

Please see contributions here. USer is only adding youtube links and links to a site they seem to be associated with based on the name. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A spammer in the works. He was indef-blocked by User:Orangemike. Baseball Bugs 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:96.250.13.105

96.250.13.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly removes referenced content and replaces with unreferenced opinions on the Impellitteri page despite repeated warnings. Hondo77 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tim Boetsch

It's probably nothing, but I just discovered this legal threat on the Tim Boetsch article (an IP wisely removed it). I'm guessing the threat is in response to this act of vandalism by an another anonymous IP. The user that left the legal threat is named Tboetsch. The editor could be a fan or the subject defending himself in response to the vandalism. Either way, figured it wouldn't hurt to report it. I've also notified Tboetsch of this thread. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arutam- Shuar mythology

In 2006, I posted an article on Arutam (The name of ancestral spirit given by Shuar; Amazonian tribe). Administrator: riana_dzasta decided that my article is a copy of a web page. Sure it is a copy of MY web page at http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/arutam.html

If he or she will do some basic search, she will find that I am the owner of minelinks.com address and my name is plastered on many pages along with my picture. No, he or she quickly decided that I was a plagiarist; a direct defamation. Voiding the information based on shallow research.

Thanks... that what one gets for contributing something unique, not a rehash of digested information. So, thanks anyway, my future contributions are over. I don't need to face shallow evaluation and quick decisions. Anybody interested in Amazonian Mythology can go to my pages starting at: http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/index.html

I know what I am talking about since I live for last 20 years in Amazon basin next/with to dying (REAL) cultures.

Rafal Swiecki, geological engineer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.197.67 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly Rafal, it is often impossible to verify whether such articles are copyright violations - after all, anyone could have registered your username and claimed to be you. However, although the article was deleted for being a copyright violation, it would have been deleted anyway - it read like an essay, was unsourced and it was actually difficult to discern what the article was about. Should you change your mind and return to Misplaced Pages, I'd be happy to help you in an attempt to rewrite such an article. Yours, Black Kite 06:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina Article needs attention

Someone appears to've tampered with either a template or the article itself so a rather offensive floating text piece pops up with a racist/anti-semitic message and some poor fellow's personal info. Unfortunately figuring out how they did it is beyond my ken of wikipedia. Zelse81 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse pic on the main page? Pls remove it.

• Copied from WP:ERRORS:

Image:MRstatue.jpg is a {{derivative}} work; there's no Freedom of Panorama for U.S. statues, so the photo should be fair use (unless there's permission from the sculptor). --dave pape (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's switch to Image:St Wulfran's Church, Ovingdean 20.jpg and remove the fairuse pic which somehow misses a fairuse tag. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting {{editprotect}} at the DYK talkpage gets no response yet. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Can someone take a look at this . The IP appears to locate to a library so it would seem fairly likely that it's just a kid messing around, but nonetheless ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive editor on Obama / Palin

Brand new WP:SPA editor Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after disrupting the Sarah Palin article and abusing editors there started adding disparaging trivia at Barack Obama with abusive edit summaries - reverted by 3 or 4 editors - and directly insulting editors (in this case me) there. The editor was already warned by an administrator that further abuse would result in a block and that the Obama pages are under article probation, and invited to learn editing policies. None of this seems to work. I'll step back and avoid any further engagement (it only seems to be inciting this person), and leave it in your capable hands. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards