Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 22 February 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User: Gabi Hernandez

User: Gabi Hernandez has been repeatedly warned for persisent disregard of image policies, and adding controversial un-sourced material to soap opera related articles. Warned numerous times. Continues to still disregard policy. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This case is a bit difficult to follow, since the user has cleared off warnings from her talk page several times. But from what I'm seeing of her contributions, a block or at least a stern warning--in both cases, with the next sanction being an indefblock--is in order. Blueboy96 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban

Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:

Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Misplaced Pages must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But enough about . --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. -FASTILY 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the 50th of our 57 states, don't forget. -- Atama頭 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Err... 57 states? I think you'll find there are at least 60. The 50th is Hawaii, and the 51st is Whoever-Heard-of-the-United-Kingdom. Rapido (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashville 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I feel bad for the guy, but I have to concur with the above. It's not worth the effort if he is going to act like that. Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment It's worth mentioning that the user has requested mentorship (on the condition of their return) on their talk page. Swarm 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've been misreading, but didn't he have a mentor when he was blocked? --Smashville 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember something like that, and maybe something about them giving up in frustration. , ah ha, yup, here it is. I think it was actually part of the reason this editor retired last year. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: In the interests of fairness (just in case Chuck has had a Flowers for Algernon experience, how about asking him (a) to say how he'd explain now what Madoff had done (because I honestly still don't think he understands); (b) to explain why he now thinks that changing the article title to Queen Elizabeth II of England would be a bad idea; and (b)select a couple of topics where he'd like to make edits, and tell us what those edits would be. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's answered . There's definitely a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - a troll would have given much better answers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Another piece of information Chuck's request for a mentor did receive a response, so I asked that person "do you know what you are volunteering for?" After a second look, the mentoring offer was withdrawn. (This Wikipedian should not be shamed or embarrassed for his generous offer: he sincerely wanted to help, but once he understood his challenge, realized he didn't have the spare time expected to help someone like Chuck.) It would take someone with a lot of patience & experience to help someone like Chuck to be a productive contributor, & anyone I can think of with those qualities is already fully committed -- or would be of more valuable use doing something else, for example refereeing any of the numerous ethnic/national content conflicts on Misplaced Pages. I'm beginning to think it's time to put a fork in this thread -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Anyway, as he now says he thinks Misplaced Pages is only for reading, he doesn't need to be unblocked for that. (At least I think that's what he said. It's rather hard to follow) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they said they plan on reading up on the manual of style and policy. Anyway, it doesn't look like their ban has a snowball's chance of getting lifted, and consensus is unanimous. Can we consider this an official "no"? Swarm 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf / Theserialcomma / JBsupreme

I stumbled into a multi-way civility incident and am bringing discussion here to a) get it off the least involved users' talk page and b) expose it to other uninvolved administrator review.

Parties are:

• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is my narrative; the parties and others may have different interpretations and are welcome to respond and challenge or clarify.

Tothwolf was the subject of an Arbcom finding and remedy about a month ago regarding uncivil claims and comments:

"1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

The current incident started with Theserialcomma removing a wikilink to an old page containing critical comments Tothwolf made in December from the top of Tothwolf's talk page: . Theserialcomma believed that the linked diff was a personal attack on him and other users, and violated civility standards and the edit restriction. Tothwulf disagreed and restored and filed a warning on TSC's talk page . This warning was reverted off Theserialcomma's talk page by TSC apparently using Twinkle and with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" . Tothwolf placed a slightly different warning - this time, reinterating a prior, standing request for Theserialcomma not to edit on Tothwolf's talk page and threatening to ask ANI for a topic ban. Following this, Theserialcomma filed an Arbitration Enforcement request over the series of events: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tothwolf, responded on his talk page , prompting a large response by Tothwolf , which Theserialcomma again removed with Twinkle with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" .

At this point I warned Theserialcomma that elements of his behavior seemed to me to be baiting and didn't specify how the comment violated the arbitration editing restriction, and commented similarly on the AE request . TSC reinterated the claim that the earlier diff was a violation of the arbcom finding to which I reinterated my concerns about baiting . Uninvolved admin A Stop at Willoughby echoed the baiting concern at AE following which TSC withdrew the filing . Theserialcomma claimed in the withdrawl that they would file the issue on ANI but did not do so at the time.

TSC during this came to my talk page and insisted I was biased and demanded I leave them alone and stop watching their talk page, which I declined to do as I have no COI and am not biased against them. Uninvolved admins do not become conflicted out of enforcing policy by dint of having done so, etc. I have previously blocked TSC for baiting another user, for a period of time which was found to be excessive (reduced from a month, in parity with the baited users' block for their abusive responses, down to 5 days).

Around this time I received email from Tothwolf complaining of TSC harrassing him and his aquaintences via email. I took no action on that.

Fast forwards a bit - JBsupreme now steps onto Theserialcomma's talk page and with this edit claims that Tothwolf is harrassing and stalking him now. TSC agrees. As JBsupreme claimed to be being stalked and harrassed by Tothwolf I compared edit histories, finding the only point of significant overlap to be edits to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bots . Tothwolf had been editing chat program and IRC related topics with about 40% of his edit history in the last 500 edits; it seemed difficult to sustain a claim of stalking when it was referring to their main article focus area. I advised JBsupreme of that and advised more AGF.

JBsupreme reinterated his position and states that he cannot AGF re Tothwolf anymore , followed by my reinterating , and his re-reinterating .

At this point Theserialcomma commented on JBsupreme's talk page, complaining that I was warning JBsupreme but hadn't sanctioned Tothwolf for his violation from the withdrawn AE case and demanding that I unwatch TSC's talk page. TSC followed with in which they claimed Tothwolf is still emailing them and harrassing them and trying to bait them (and further, ). I asked TSC if I should ask Tothwolf to stop emailing . TSC said yes .

At this point, before I had a chance to make such a request to Tothwolf, Tothwolf commented in the thread on JBsupreme's talk page making critical statements about the thread and both TSC and JBsupreme, including repeating his claim from the email to me that in fact Theserialcomma was email harrassing Tothwolf and Tothwolf's friends in real life, not visa versa. This was reverted off JBsupreme's talk page by JBS who doesn't want to talk to Tothwolf (policy compliant), and then Theserialcomma took Tothwolf's now-reverted comment as yet another arbitration edit restriction violation and asked for enforcement . At this point I determined that the situation is escalating and needs more eyeballs.

I would like to request additional input on the following questions:

1. Was Tothwolf's link that started this ( ) in violation of general Misplaced Pages civility and/or the edit restrictions he is under?
2. Was Theserialcomma's removal appropriate or inappropriate?
3. Were Tothwolf's warnings and edit restrictions reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
4. Were Theserialcomma's "vandalism" reverts with TW reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
5. Was the Arbitration Enforcement filing reasonable and well founded or unreasonable?
6. Considering all the above, was Tothwolf at that time in violation of his edit restrictions or otherwise acting unreasonably and uncivily?
7. Considering all the above, was Theserialcomma engaged in baiting or other uncivil behavior?
8. Was JBsupreme's claim of harrassment and stalking (wikihounding) appropriate and well founded?
9. Did Tothwolf's final complaint on JBsupreme's talk page violate his edit restriction or otherwise constitute abusive uncivil behavior?
10. Does my history or participation here constitute a conflict of interest or bar under Admin policy or best practice to continuing to act in regards to these users?
11. Finally, would it be appropriate for the community to issue a restraining order on all 3 participants in the form of an edit restriction that they cannot talk to or comment about each other? There's a similar ER in place for Theserialcomma and now-indeffed User:Koalorka - see Misplaced Pages:Editing_restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community

And finally, questions for the participants:

• Tothwolf

1. Tothwolf, have you sent any email(s) to Theserialcomma in the last month, or are you aware of anyone you are associated with having done so?
2. Tothwolf, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?

• Theserialcomma

1. Theserialcomma, have you sent any email(s) to Tothwolf or people he is associated with, in the last month?
2. Theserialcomma, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?

My apologies to everyone else for the size of the filing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, yikes mate, that's a heck of a tl;dr (although my reply here will be too). At least I was already familiar with the situation and knew what the diff links were... I can forward you the emails I've sent Theserialcomma if you'd like, although as I mentioned on my talk page they are the "Leave me alone" variety. You may want to re-read the email I sent you though as I didn't claim Theserialcomma had been emailing me directly. As I mentioned, one of the things that has been happening is a number of people I know have been receiving unusual emails which have been attempts to get them to give out any personal information that they might have about me (which won't work; they just contact me and tell me they are receiving suspicious social engineering type emails asking for my personal information). As far as I know, none of the people I know have responded to the emails they've received but there is obviously no way for me to know for certain.

If you are proposing an interaction ban, please also add Miami33139 to the list as well since he is directly involved in the larger issue. I'm not sure an interaction ban will actually resolve the larger issues though, as these three individuals have systematically attempted to harass me to the point where I am unable to edit. My primary editing focus had been in the Computing and Technology subject areas, including online communications and software. As can be seen in their contribution histories, these three individuals did not edit in these subject areas prior to interacting with me and have not made any sort of constructive edits in these subject areas.

For those who are not familiar with the larger issue, I made a statement here and the evidence backing up that statement can he found here, in the collapsed wikitable here (both of these are extremely long and detailed with 100s of diffs), and some simplified material can also be found here.

Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here. The diff link that Theserialcomma has attempted to remove from my talk page details this and was a reply to the personal attack she made here.

Now, partly due to how long this issue has gone on, I have very much become a "tell it like it is" person when it comes to this issue. As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I claimed something I backed it up with diffs. In the statement I linked to above (written November 2009) I said: "I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse."

My feelings on this have not really changed at all. I feel as though the community has left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself from the on-wiki harassment. While I certainly do have the ability to mitigate some of the off-wiki harassment, there seems to be no way for me to put a stop to the on-wiki harassment. Past AN/I discussions did little to resolve the larger harassment issues and unfortunately even an ArbCom case failed to resolve anything (had the EEML case and ArbCom elections not happened in the middle of the case things might have turned out very differently however). The decision the drafting arbitrator wrote (while throwing out all of the evidence I provided) only gave these individuals another tool with which to attack me. While I've unfortunately allowed myself to be baited a handful of times by these individuals, it hasn't happened all that often, and having been in this situation now personally, I have a lot more respect for people who have the patience to deal with issues of online harassment.

I voluntarily stopped editing for awhile in an attempt to mitigate the damage these three individuals were doing to Misplaced Pages. (You can actually correlate the drops in my monthly contributions in these graphs with the evidence I linked to above.) As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I edited, these individuals targeted those pages and attempted to have them deleted. They still wouldn't leave me alone when I stopped editing though, so we are back here yet again. They've continued their attempts to damage my reputation and quite frankly, that is unacceptable. All three of these individuals have attacked me constantly with claims of WP:COI, WP:OWN, and so on but have never provided any diffs to back up their claims and no other editors have echoed such concerns or provided any evidence which would back up such claims.

I'm tired of the harassment. Without going into too much detail due to WP:BEANS, I have in the past contributed to MediaWiki itself and I'm quite familiar with its internals. Because of this, it would be trivial for me to create new accounts which are completely separate from this one (and impossible to link via a CU) and set about editing again without being harassed by these three individuals. I've not done so however, because quite frankly no one should ever have to do such a thing in order to edit without being harassed. With as long as I've been using this particular username (outside of Misplaced Pages), I should not have to give up my username on Misplaced Pages simply because a few individuals wish to harass me and prevent me from improving Misplaced Pages.

--Tothwolf (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.

• on the other hand, tothwolf has contacted/harassed/threatened me twice via wiki email since his arbcom restrictions, with both emails having been immediately forwarded to arbcom by me. i never responded to tothwolf's threatening email, obviously, so he doesn't know my email address or IP. any admin interested can get his harassing emails to me forwarded to them. the same admin should also request his evidence of off-wiki contact from me, which doesn't exist. his first email to me is publically documented at ], which resulted in him being blocked. he thought he was outing me as a "woman blogger" or something, and felt so confident that he posted it publically without evidence. he was so completely wrong that i question from which planet he gathered the evidence. he was blocked for this attempted outing, but the fact that he failed so badly to come anywhere near outing me really makes me question his judgment when it comes to gathering evidence and making deductions. no idea what he was thinking, but it's a bizarre and creepy failure of an attempt to out me, regardless. check out tothwolf's backwards outing logic here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max
• as for my 'vandalism' reverts, i apologize. i will use rollback or twinkle's 'good faith' rollback on my talkpage in the future. i thought it was ok because it was my talk page, but it won't happen again, regardless.
• tothwolf was restricted from making allegations against other users. linking a diff on his talkpage that calls me, miami, and jbsupreme 'harassers, wikistalkers, and gamers of the system' to me feels like unsubstantiated allegations which were rejected by arbcom and resulted in tothwolf being restricted from making these exact allegations. perhaps the fact that he is linking a diff that makes allegations on his talk page, and not making the allegations directly, somehow absolves him from his restrictions. that's up to the community to decide. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief Theserialcomma, your lies just never seem to stop do they? You know darn good and well what you've done. Your ISP took things seriously when they were notified of your off-wiki actions. I believe they also have a 3 strikes policy and you've already used up two.

The IP address from the email headers that were shown to me match the IP address that attempted to breach my webserver (logs were emailed to ArbCom) which also matched the same IP address/netblock that Theserialcomma edits Misplaced Pages from. I could even point out some of her past IP edits on her "favourite" articles too if need be...

Theserialcomma, you were already told that email is "offsite conduct" and does not fall under AE. Your statement above "his first email to me is publically documented at ], which resulted in him being blocked." is an outright lie. I was not blocked for any sort of email activity, nor was I blocked for "attempted outing". The block that was imposed on my account was also the subject of lengthy email discussions with a number of administrators, the summary of which boils down to the fact that while the block wasn't justifiable under the rationale used, it was short enough that contesting it while it was active would have only created further drama and thus not really be worthwhile contesting.

Theserialcomma, I've never sent you a threatening email; I told you to Leave me alone. You revert of my on-wiki messages and warnings as "vandalism" so warning you via email seems to be the only thing that actually gets your attention. Your twinkle explanation regarding you marking of my edits as "vandalism" also doesn't hold water; you have to select "vandalism" as the reason for your revert.

This is also more than enough evidence of your long term harassment of myself and it is trivially easy for someone to go through your contributions and find that you've done similar things to others for as long as your account has existed. It doesn't even appear that you've ever made any actual constructive edits; you pick fights with others, revert people who you dislike or with whom you don't agree (then report them for edit warring, or on SPI, AN/I, COI/N, etc). Your blog made it quite obvious why you do so...it gives you something dramatic to blog about which will bring in more readers (don't worry; I saved copies of those posts so they won't be lost "accidentally"...)

You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan.

Theserialcomma, I'll tell you one last time: Leave me the hell alone.

Theserialcomma...you know, given the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence taken directly from your contribution history it's no wonder you, Miami33139, and JBsupreme didn't want any part of the ArbCom case and why you resorted to attacking my person and even others (full discussion) in further attempts to discredit me and damage my reputation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do with my time than put up with your abuse. I'd rather be forced watch a marathon of The Jerry Springer Show uncensored than respond to any more of your bogus claims. If someone needs to contact me, I ask that they please send me an email as I do not plan to monitor this AN/I discussion closely.

--Tothwolf (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.

• and while ill concede that my actions could appear like baiting, i actually asked him at least 4 times, with multiple posts to the arbcom clerk noticeboard to have tothwolf remove his attacks from his soapbox talk page. the clerks responded that i should take it to ANI. i didn't do so because i'm lazy, instead I removed the attack diffs myself. if that was wrong, i learned my lesson. i won't do that again either. but it wasn't baiting, it was a sincere attempt to get him not to link to a diff on the top of his talk page which calls me a wikistalker and a harasser - without evidence, and in violation of his restrictions. i approached that one wrong, but i admit to my error. but before chastising me for these minor transgressions, keep in mind that i'm fed up with tothwolf's delusional accusations and i want it to stop. even in his response above, he is continuing to try to OUT me. he calls me 'she' which is a reference to his ridiculous outing attempt for which he was blocked ] i have never identified myself as a woman, and i've denied it repeatedly. but he continues to call me 'she' because he is trying to out me as some female blogger. he's wrong, he's speculating as to my identity even after being blocked for this behavior. he is, at best, further inflaming the situation with this outing BS. how can he get away with continuing to make unsubstantiated accusations and outing attempts?

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re 1) -- while the content of that diff wasn't terribly civil, linking to it documented the issues that Tothwolf had with the case name, and was not itself uncivil. Hence, 2) the removal was inappropriate. 3) Jumping straight to a level-3 warning may have been a bit iffy, though. Since "topic ban" is a term of art referring to a ban imposed by the community, it was inappropriate for Tothwolf to claim that there was one in place, when it was apparently a simple request not to edit his page. 4) Claiming "vandalism" in this case was inappropriate.

That's all I've gone through so far -- I'm not sure if I'll be able to evaluate the other questions tonight. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I went with a "level 3" warning was this was not the first time Theserialcomma had edited my comments and it was not the first time she had removed that specific diff from that section on my talk page. See --Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer GWH:

1. It's not clear cut but given the arbitration ruling, it was probably unwise. Linking to accusations against editors, when the restriction from arbcom was: "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." could be considered a breach of the ruling.
2. Whether the removal was appropriate or not (I would say it was), it shouldn't have been theserialcomma who did it. If he was unhappy with it then he should have raised it elsewhere, and let others deal with it.
3. Tothwolf should have raised it somewhere else rather than template the person he was in conflict with. It is obvious that doing so would only escalate the problem.
4. Likewise, theserialcomma's choosing of the 'vandalism' revert option in twinkle would only further escalate things.
5. The AE request was perhaps reasonable, and should have been followed in the first place rather then go directly into the dispute. It's difficult to judge how bothered people are about something, or whether it's simply furthering a dispute. To my mind it would have been best just to leave it, but I haven't been in a long running dispute and through arbcom, which is obviously going to colour ones view of the matter.
6. Tothwolf shouldn't have carried on the dispute. I'd say this definitely breaches his restrictions.
7. theserialcomma has done nothing in this situation to de-escalate things, but instead every action has made it worse. I think 'baiting' would be an adequate description.
8. JBsupreme's claims do not appear well founded. I agree with GWH's analysis of that.
9. Tothwolf's last reply is full of the same sort of accusations that got him sanctioned in the first place. It is in response to JBsupreme summarily removing stuff from a list, which should at least have been discussed first. Lists do not require every individual entry to be notable and can often be a useful way of presenting information for subjects which are not notable enough for an individual article. In other words, tothwolf was perhaps right to be pissed off, but his response violated his arbcom restriction.
10. I can't see that GWH has done much wrong here.
11. Given all the above, I cannot see any hope that these users will be able to work together at all, so some further restriction is probably warranted. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes me think that it was baiting was the deliberate choice to use the ROLLBACK (VANDAL) option in twinkle. That was your decision and the only reason I can think of to do that in this dispute was to annoy the other user. I'm not saying that your only purpose in this dispute were to bait tothwolf, far from it, but some of your actions seemed to be baiting. If what you are saying regarding his accusations are true then that would appear to be a clear breach of the arbcom ruling, and I suggest you take it to AE. Quantpole (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

after tothwolf's accused me of DDOS, hacking his webserver, hacking his email, contacting his friends off wiki, libeling him off wiki, and then he continues to try to erroneously out me as a female blogger (he still calls me 'she' when i repeatedly mention i am a dude), it's highly likely that i could have been pushed to making a mistake in terms of which rollback button i pressed on my own talk page. i am frustrated, creeped out, and fed up. so if i came across as baiting, you'll have to keep in mind that he keeps accusing me of bullshit, and so i'm prone to make errors due to losing my patience. his talk page comments weren't 'vandalism', and i should have clicked the other rollback button. my bad. is this really the issue though? how many allegations and outing atempts can someone make against another editor before the accused gets some leeway in their responses. tothwolf is restricted by arbcom for this exact reason. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, if that is all true then I'd think it is up to arbcom to handle. I can understand you doing something in frustration, and I don't think using the rollback is that big a deal, especially since you have apologised for it. The only advice I can give is to try and rise above it. I know it's not easy when you're pissed off but it means things don't get clouded by relatively petty side disputes. Anyway, I think tothwolf's accusations in this thread go way past his restrictions, and should be sent to AE to deal with. Quantpole (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, can you provide diffs for each of the claims you are making above? I can (and have) been providing diffs and links regarding your behaviours towards me. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• unsubstantiated allegations, for which you should be blocked indefinitely: | their efforts off-wiki include attempts to damage my reputation. The efforts of one of these individuals to breach the security of my personal webserver to gain access to my email, personal information manager, project holding area, etc did not go unnoticed and their ISP's abuse group was notified and very cooperative. Logs of the DDoS attack. most recently, in this ANI, you accused me of contacting your friends off wiki. where's the evidence? is it in the same evidence database from where you 'discovered' i was a female blogger and keep trying to out me by continually calling me 'she' when i've only said i'm a man? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max . im not playing your games anymore. i am done with you. go harass someone else with your destructive imagination. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Some things just never seem to change... (full discussion) (full report) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the stuff I've seen here, TSC, the only one who should be blocked indefinitely is you. You need to back off and disengage, right now. You're only digging yourself a hole. Jtrainor (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting here that ArbCom have received some e-mails about all this since the arbitration case closed. It's complicated and for some part of this, a full understanding of the arbitration case and decision is needed. I believe that various community sanctions were put in place at some point after the case closed. A listing of those community sanctions would help (maybe list them at the case pages?). If further community sanctions are needed, that should be discussed somewhere. If the arbitration case decision and its interpretation needs clarification or amendment, there are pages for that as well (see WP:RFAR and its subpages). I would also note that if people are not happy with the result of the case, they should file an on-wiki appeal with any new evidence, rather than insist they were right all along. I am posting this as an arbitrator, but I won't say more than this, as I'm meant to be inactive on arbitration matters at the moment, but hopefully this will help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in but keep it short. I could almost care less what Tothwolf does with his spare time, but it does seem to me that after he "retired" from Misplaced Pages in the midst of the ArbCom decision that he returned shortly after to antagonize and follow around the very same people he was accusing of following him in the first place. I find irony in all of that. I won't use the word "wikistalk" here because that carries certain connotations with it, but I am going to call it like I see it. The accusations made by Tothwolf on his talk page absolutely should be removed; ideally that would be an action performed by himself voluntarily in an act of good faith in order to comply with the ArbCom decision. Thankfully I'm not receiving emails from this person, but I probably would fly off the handle too if someone was trying to out me or send me harassing emails. I hope I've kept this short enough. JBsupreme (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing ever seems to change...

From (courtesy of Uncle G ):

• "So far I see lots of hand waving and zero sources to back it up."
• "Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, "
• "Furthermore, the citations you have provided here do not surpass the definition of non-trivial coverage at all."
• "I'm waiting in the wings for my Wiki-stalking friend to attempt to counter me, but I'm guessing he'll just make some bad faith accusations and then find himself unable to produce any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject, once again."
• "Please log in with your normal account if you have one."
• "Please log in with your regular account so that we may validate you are not vote stacking."
• "I'd like to kindly ask that 83.254.210.47 log with their real account "
• "Thank god we don't have a bunch of "WP:IAR" hand wavers this time around and can delete this cleanly."
• "This entire category really needs to go "
• "Contested prod by some anon."
• "I have nothing more to add, there is no significant coverage."
• "Oink. And by oink, I mean delete. And by delete I mean burn it with fire as this isn't notable under any definition of the word."
• "And how does keeping it improve the project?"
• "There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to another article "
• "None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial."
• "I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product"
• "We really need to institute a CSD for software "
• "Ugh! How far does the rabbit hole of non-notable chat clients go on Misplaced Pages, anyhow?"

--Tothwolf (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - I have received emails from both parties in confidence and will be reviewing in depth tomorrow. I would like to encourage everyone to not continue sniping in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? (history) Or how about this? (Someone want to somehow convince me not to be cynical given the long term patterns here? cf. WP:OWB #41, #13, #3) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area

I recently created El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area and nominated it for DYK. User:Polaron put some banners on the article without explanation. When I insisted on explanation he/she provided what I consider WP:OR (no sources; personal opinions) and proceeded to rename the article, remove references and content, etc, etc. I requested that such changes not be made without consensus, particularly considering the article is up for DYK, and tried to revert the changes. Polaron promptly changed everything back and hasn't been willing to provided any more info as to the motives.

I don't want to get into an edit war but I need this restored before the article fails DYK. Basically I need a "don't do things unilaterally or you'll be blocked" intervention here.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks to be a content dispute. I don't see anything for admins to do here, unless you get into a move war. The Guest Life article seems to be a weak reed to hang the DYK hook on, and even if Polaron were not in the picture, passing verification at DYK would not be a simple matter. There is some discussion over at T:DYK. Better to try to persuade the DYK reviewers that the article verifies than to wait for admins to do something. I have notified Polaron of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....and then when s/he gets into an edit war because nobody would help, s/he'll be roundly condemned as being just as bad as Polaron. Sounds familiar to me. Isn't there some way of instructing Polaron that he has to engage in discussion about things he wants changed when there's disagreement? His refusal to discuss before things reach the edit war stage is a repeated problem, as I know you are aware. It may be a content dispute, but if he refuses to discuss it, what's the other editor SUPPOSED to do? Lvklock (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lvklock, thanks.

I removed the DYK nomination. Still this needs to be dealt with. EdJohnston, I am disappointed in your attitude. Your personal opinions about article content are not relevant. If you have concerns in that regard (and I welcome them) there is a place for you to discuss that but this isn't the place. The issues here are administrative. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any content even a single time. I moved the article to a non-misleading name. Mcorazao did a copy-paste move back when he could have simply moved it back. I only undid the copy-paste move as that was not the proper way to move an article. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is editor consensus that the former title should be restored, El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area, I can do that, or any admin. It is up to the judgment of editors whether there are enough sources to support that form of the title. If no agreement can be reached, WP:Requested moves is suggested. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And once again Polaron makes a unilateral move that is then treated as status quo while trying to discuss it with him is like pulling teeth. I do not understand why repeated issues like this with Polaron are not addressed. Lvklock (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

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

I need to say up front that I am very much not an unbiased party to this, but could someone take an objective look at this comment on another editor's talk page: ? User notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've forgiven Matt. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GD, you should be taking note too - you simply change track too much, and too easily sometimes. It's really disconcerting. I was pushed into losing my rag today by Tryptofish, and I think this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get me out of his way. Why speak for someone else otherwise? He has canvassing people today to revert me past where he can go (being up to 3RR) - that says it all I think. As it happens, GoodDay is one of the few friends I have on Wikpedia (if I have that many) so talking to him in that manner is something I wouldn;t do to Joe editor. He can say or do whatever he wants in reply. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think the comment was beyond the bounds of CIVIL, and nothing said above makes it acceptable, nor does Matt seem to understand that it was not acceptable. Yes, Matt and I are at odds with one another, but no, I did not make this report to get Matt "out of the way". And that canvassing claim is a very big stretch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that I am only at 2 reversions in the matter to which Matt refers. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "big stretch" at all - It was cut and dry. If I filed it with evidence you would be pulled up on it, esp given the context. I just don't capitalise on people's mistakes the way you clearly do. You clearly asked two editors on their Talk pages, one after the other, to help you when you were on 2RR. One had already stated he wasn't interested on editing on the article, the other hadn't edited it for a while. Your relief when another editor did eventually assist you was palpable. You said you had almost given up! Then you file this AN/I on the very person you wanted reverted!

It's continual abuse of the spirit of Misplaced Pages by someone who never seems to properly adhere to the rules. It's like they are not there to you, as if you've seen to much in life to be effected by trivial technicalities, and you feel that CDA is 'far too important' to Misplaced Pages to be held back by awkward hindrances like abiding by the wider consensus, and technical editing rules. I'm bang on here - I've seen you too long now.Matt Lewis (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the matter closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is generous of you GoodDay. For the record, whilst I may have led a sheltered life, User:Matt Lewis is without question the most uncivil regular editor of Misplaced Pages I have ever come across. See for example, User talk:Matt Lewis#RfC/U notice, the background to which was an RfCu he took out against me. Whether or not that was justified is another matter, and clearly as I am an involved party I intend to say nothing further unless requested to do so. Whatever the outcome here I can only suggest that uninvolved parties pay some attention to this ongoing issue before it escalates further. Ben MacDui 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I became aware of the RfC/U when I went to Ben MacDui's talk page. It was never certified and I offered to close it (when I finally did 71 hours had passed, much longer than the required 48 hours). For this I received a fair amount of invective from Matt Lewis, whom I strongly urge to focus more on writing the encyclopedia and less on drama. If this is the way he treats his friends, continued behavior of this sort seems destined to lead to blocks or worse. His work on articles is good, and he should focus more on that. Ruhrfisch _><>° 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis hasn't made a substantive edit to an article for weeks. He's been doggedly engaged with CDA since December, and this took over from an obsession with the British Isles Naming controversy. Matt, are you here to build an encyclopedia or to create drama? Fences&Windows 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for not pointing this out in my previous comment. Ruhrfisch _><>° 15:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask anyone involved in the British Isles naming controversy and ask them if I'm "obsessed". This is kangaroo court now. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(speaking as someone who has recently run into Matt Lewis during the CDA process) Matt Lewis has an unfortunate tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, mistaking disagreement and differences of opinion for personal attacks on him. This thread on Matt's talk page is unfortunately illuminating. Matt filed the (above-mentioned) ill-advised RfC/U; three days later it was deleted by Ruhrfisch after failing to attract a second certifier. Normally, this would be a bit of uncontroversial housekeeping. Matt's immediate response was to attack Ruhrfisch and threaten another RfC/U ("this time some oomph behind it") aimed at Ruhrfisch.

• This thread seemed to have a bit of tension behind it, but it was chugging along until Matt burst out with his "All this work you are making me do...is frankly an abuse of another human being".
• This discussion is interesting. Matt had started a poll about how to word some portion of the CDA text. When later analysis found that the poll outcome was ambiguous, he began going around asking the editors who had voted in the poll to clarify their intentions. (So far, so good, if a bit bureaucracy-heavy.) Matt's stubborn insistence on having Sswonk guess at his state of mind at the time he voted is counterproductive, as is his attitude in the ensuing discussion.
• This thread contains another pair of RfC/U threats, this time aimed at Tryptofish (another CDA proponent). "...I'll tell you right now that if I'm not happy with your reasons for disputing people's clarifications (and there is no way that I could be I'm afraid) I will take you to rfc/u and put eveything I have behind it." "If he does I will use an rfc/u on him..."
• From the same page, a few days later. In an ironic twist, I believe he's overreacting to my observation that he doesn't have a good grasp of when RfCs are appropriate, or an understanding of what happened to his uncertified RfC/U of Ben MacDui. This time, it's a screaming threat (my italics, but otherwise his formatting: "IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I WILL TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO NOT SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to?"

He sees Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution tools as blunt instruments — cudgels to be used to try to get his own way. (In the last two weeks, he's threatened three RfC/Us, and filed one more.) It's a decidedly destructive and disruptive attitude. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I commented on you saying that before, and now I will issue a Warning on your talk page. I've taken far too much of your anger towards CDA, and you are basically an aggressive man. In short, I've had it up to my neck with your endlessly sour comments that blame me for every little 'damning' detail you either see, or think you see. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've known Matt on wiki for a couple of years now and very early on had a wee run in with him. I have come to realise though that Matt is here because he wants to improve Misplaced Pages, whether that's articles or in this case policy. I have also come to realise that he can come across occasionally as a little confrontational but, I believe that's because he really cares about this project. I think it would progress things further if everyone laid off the 'he said that but he said this' type of discussion. If everyone could draw a line under any bad feeling from before and talked in a more collegiate manner then this Ani thread could be archived. Anyone? Jack forbes (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I appreciate what you say in a way, but please don't remind me of our 'run in'! It reminds me of what people can achieve when they set out to get someone blocked (which you did admit later was your intention at the time). I swore while arguing with you, you were upset and told an admin you would resign, and bang, a block. It tought me a lessson, and I've been as careful as I can not to swear at anyone ever since. But we both know what GoodDay can be like with his sudden retractions, and I'm supposed to be one of those giving him advice. I do take the responsibily for asking his opinion in the first place (which I so very much value, before he so-bizarrely always changes it anyway), but it's the pressure from people here that lead me to lose my temper. Tryptofish, Jasdafax and Tenofall are bullies in their way - and they are all here doing a job on me. The evidence of all our behaviour is out there, and I'm happy to stand by all of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, for what it's worth, I share your impression that Matt is motivated by a sincere desire to improve Misplaced Pages. But I see a chasm between the desire and the conduct, and that chasm is hardly wee. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A chasm? After the way behaved yesterday? I have always stood by policy - when have you? Seriously. When have you on CDA? You've placed CDA in some kind of 'twilight zone' where policy is concerned. My responses to you have always been just that - responses, based entirely on what you have said or what you have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He is not the least civil wikipedian. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Faint praise Kitty(!?), but welcome I suppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I must respectfully disagree. I also am hardly uninvolved, but I feel I must fully agree with Tryptofish and others who express deep concerns. As just one example, Matt Lewis has come to my talk page with shocking and hostile contempt for me and my beliefs. He also repeatedly violates my request to respect my wishes that he refrain from further posting on my page... the only person I have ever had to ask this of. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that one is entitled to keep unwelcome parties from repeatedly disfiguring one's own talk page.

Looking at some of the other diffs here, of which I suspected but was previously unaware, reinforces my impression of a classic internet bully. Ben MacDui is correct, the time has come for uninvolved eyes to assess the ongoing methods of an editor I now view as overdue for strong corrective behavior. Ten of All Trades, Rhurfisch and Fences and Windows also make good observations. My thanks in advance for any consideration others can give to this matter. Jusdafax 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, that is full of exagerations designed solely to stick mud on me. You banned me from your talk simply because you didn't like me continuing to develop CDA, and you would not listen to my arguments. Jusdafax and TenofallTrades arevery much involved in this matter. Jusdafax - where do you get off man? Do you treat people in the real world with the contempt you have towards me for strongly disagreeing with your very much un-hidden attempts to ignore all consensus regarding CDA? What is it about CDA that people feel it is their right be 'tough' and ignore policy? The quality of people invlolved in CDA makes me seriously wonder if Misplaced Pages can handle such a serious process. Would you do this to an admin to try and get rid of him, Jusdafax? That is a serious question. You keep commenting publically that I have personally destroyed CDA, but all my work has been to various people's concerns. All this is really making me think really hard about whether CDA can possibly work, given not the 'angry rabble', but simply Wikipedians in general. Are Wikipedians in general wise enough to use CDA wisely? 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. I've seen a whole lot worse and more get swept under the rug in the past. Goodday seems to have wanted to let this go and so it should be done. If any of you had previous concerns, then it should have brought up then, not now. Too many here seem to take editing wikipedia way too seriously. It should be a part time hobby, rather than an obsession. Now lets all move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to let this go myself now. The fact that I stand up for myself (or have lost my temper on occasions) does not mean that I've not been treated like crap. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread, and so perhaps I should now say the following about where we stand. Clearly, GoodDay is satisfied that the matter is over, and I also think that there is now zero rationale for any kind of preventative block; indeed, a good outcome would be for Matt to contribute usefully to the CDA debate. However, I think the comments of multiple editors here have set a marker. Matt should take away from this that he has been warned to control his anger, and to avoid the conduct described above. If he should fail to do so in the future, then sections like this one will appear again, with more serious outcomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A few seconds after I wrote that, Matt wrote his own comments here. Perhaps I spoke too soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This AN/I has actually demonstrated why CDA just cannot work. Ironically, it's pretty much (and as close as we'll get to) the 'working example' that Kim Brunning wanted. It's amazing that it took this to bring it home to me.

Think about it: How this AN/I was started - not even by the 'supposed' victim. The way people I've disagreed with have just 'popped up' to stick the knife in. The things they have said - the exaggerations and sheer length they are willing to go (even with evidence of their own behaviour). Their mates coming in to join them (I can prove this). The fact that I'm not someone who ever wants to reverse AN/I on people (depite what people are saying, and what I've had to do in CDA at times).

Basically, we have 6 of the 10 CDA 'signatures' already. It's just too easy to bring a good man down.

Four people speaking against me here are admin, and what MacDui has said above has personally shocked more than anything on Misplaced Pages (which kind of echoes his own words). And an admin underneath him almost-unbelievably painted me an "obsessive editor" over the 'British Isles naming dispute' I've worked so very hard to help resolve! What on earth is that about? Are people not allowed to help Misplaced Pages?? MacDui comments were a stab and a half - what if admin behave like this at a CDA? How can the Bureaucrats realistically 'save' an admin that other admin line up against? Where does it leave those admin if the admin is 'saved'? Admin themselves (so sadly ironically) just do not behave well enough for CDA to work.

The RfC/u I filed on MacDui was over one thing - policy. In starting CDA behind everyone's back (and reverting my objection) he abused policy big time. All my edits at CDA have been over policy in some way, often above what I would rather see, and all addressing the concerns I've seen people raise (including the always-angry Tenofalltrades - and who else has done that?). I've cried "consensus people!" countless times now at CDA. But too many people so 'into' CDA just don't want to get their own 'obsession' out there. There seems to be no taste for properly addressing the central Canvassing matter at CDA, other than from me. That in itself should be concerning enough.

CDA as it stands (and possibly any form of CDA) will be just like this very AN/I. Who wants that? Do we really want this ? I'm a decent editor - the very nightmare scenario for CDA. There must be better a form of Admin Recall out there than this.

Run the early CDA, or whatever version of CDA you want to - my vote is to Oppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, it's all about the speed other admin came to blanket-support MacDui here. Canvassing is the only thing that can make CDA work, but it won't work against admin and the way they interact with each other. Where will that leave the Bureacrats who are supposed to judge daft admin attacking admin? CDA will simply stink before, during, and after the process. And the liklihood of a decent admin having to endure the indignity of a CDA is simply just too strong, strong editor canvassing rules or no (and it looks like it will be 'no').

The irony (almost too strong to see) is that it's the general poor quality of admin (not wickedness as such, just poor quality) that makes CDA an unworkable solution, not simply the "mob rule" of editors, which is typically brought to light by CDA's critics. No Bureaucrat will want to deal with it in such a public forum. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your answer is plain: you're now here only for the drama, even if you don't realise it. You are not some kind of martyr, and WP:CDA will not destroy Misplaced Pages. Remember those things called articles? You should go and edit some. Fences&Windows 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I strongly complained to you on your Talk page the first time you said I don't edit enough articles (which is rubbish), this second time must simply to have a 'pop' and wind me up at the same time. It is typical admin auto-WP:ABF towards someone who's actually edited all over Misplaced Pages. Drama is effectively not caring what the boring truth really is - so who is it who's being dramatic here? I've created articles, edited over all kinds of areas, and done a variety of things on Misplaced Pages, including improve guidelines, and plenty of non-article stuff. I'm not running for the sheriff badge, so there is no reason I should have to do anything just to please someone like you anyway. In my opinion there is SHOCKING 'administration' around here, and it's getting more and more easy to say as times go by on Misplaced Pages. It's called not having a leg to stand on.

The above long statement is me bowing out of something I've put over 100 hours of productive work into (a lot of which is still there, improving a CDA which cannot work). It is called dedication and hard work. WTF should I 'edit articles' in between? I chose to make the statement here, as this is where I had the epiphany. Standing by the sidelines and being negative or cynical is no work at all - I've put in serious hard work listening to people and working on solutions - and I've got crap for it all the way from pop shops like you. CDA has attracted too few serious editors. It is not attractive enough, and this actual AN/I has proved to me that it cannot work. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Perhaps this thread has reached the end of its usefulness. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which reads, Misplaced Pages is not therapy. If a user has behaviour problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Misplaced Pages may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Misplaced Pages's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons.

And you think that is an equal and fair response to my comment above? Don't feel too comfortable by the gang, Tryptofish.

Those kind of essays so rarely get used in good faith do they. If you believe I'm mentally unstable and deserve a block, you ought to have the courage to openly say it, and not insinuate it through a cute link. This AN/I was a shocking thing to do to someone, and you knew by the time you did how GoodDay felt too - you should really be seriously ticked off for bringing him into it, when you knew full well that he didn't want to do it. It was just pure opportunism, after canvassing for meat puppets (belated apology or no) had failed to get you what you wanted. I've always had Policy on my side - and it is easy to show how you have consistently contravened it, esp by constantly ignoring clear consensuses - so you won't get me blocked for any thing I've done wrong, you will only get me blocked by winding me up and trying to make me lose my rag. I'm not great at spotting that, and I do wonder if you haven't been doing that for a while now. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would an administrator close this report, please? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't require an admin. Archiving at the wish of all parties. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable comment at User:Keegscee's userpage

--Crossmr (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The user has now indicated that they plan to evade their block.--Crossmr (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to have admitted to using open proxies as sockpuppets and trolling users that he feels are not acting in good faith on his user page. He also stated that he's retired, but the message was posted ten days ago, and he's still editing. PCHS-NJROTC 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Non issue. Saying you're retired doesn't mean a damn thing. Brett Favre anyone? Let's not waste time with this silliness. Keegscee (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the retirement issue; it's about your admission to using open proxies, sockpuppets, trolling, and not assuming good faith, although I mentioned the fact that you're not really retired so that this wouldn't be dismissed because you've apparently left Misplaced Pages. If it's a non-issue, why did you post that you'd probably be reprimanded for your behavior? Like I said on your talk page, I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, but you seem to have confessed to some pretty serious infractions. PCHS-NJROTC 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll let other people decide my fate then. Vaguely admitting to a crime without any proof or evidence of having committed such crime is not a very solid case. Keegscee (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, violating Misplaced Pages's policies is not criminal. Your continued assumption that Misplaced Pages works like the United States legal system, and that you're essentially inocent until proven guilty, will likely be seen as disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• support an indef block. Admitted disruption, appears to show no indication that they feel they did anything wrong and gives zero indication they'd stop doing it in the future.--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Now let's get back to some useful editing. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Which users did he troll? He does a lot of vandalism fighting, so some crap will inevitably land on his page. Pcap ping 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose How is this "trolling"? While it may be a Bad-faith move, it's not trolling, perhaps his actions may cause drama but nothing more. Look, I get this kind of stuff every day. IP socks comming over to my page and saying "you spelled somethnig wrong" and thats thier first and only edit. If you get something like this, ignore it and move on. No need to bring it to the ANI right?--Coldplay Expért 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  He admits on his user page I get much more pleasure out of making things difficult for people that I feel are not good faith editors. I generally do this through the use of proxies so as to be slightly more discrete. Like Dexter, if editors here knew what I was doing, they would probably agree that my actions are for the best of the project, although they would have to reprimand me for my behavior. that he's knows whatever it is he's doing would likely lead to a block but feels he's doing it for the greater good or that he's above the law. He also admits to using proxies to do that. He sees himself as some sort of hero for violating wikipedia's rules and harassing other users. That isn't remotely someone we need here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked. The entire point of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS is that users are not allowed to behave in that manner. We expect editors to treat each other with basic respect and dignity, not pick them out and harrass and attack and troll them.

Keegscee admits to ignoring those and to behavior which is blockable. He has defended it here and indicates he doesn't intend to stop. Until such time as he agrees not to, I don't see any option other than to indefinitely block. If he choses to continue to troll via IPs or proxies, we can't stop that - but we can send an unambiguous message that such behavior is abusive and against the community and the project, and not for it. Not being able to technically permanently stop it does not mean that we can't forcefully stop someone from doing so openly and with any shred of community suppport. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A Check user might also be prudent. He claims it will turn up nothing, but it could be a bluff.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

filed here--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I beat you to it with a quick request in the quick requests section. I don't think this requires more than a quick check request, a full normal SPI isn't necessary to block underlying IPs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, go ahead and delete that as unnecessary then.--Crossmr (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Intent to continue socking and ban evasion

After trying to vanish the user has stated they're going to evade their block and continue to sock . They've still shown no indication that they have any clue what was wrong with their actions and seem to believe themselves above the rule due to IAR.--Crossmr (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you propose we do besides WP:RBI here? He's indef'd already; a longer thread on ANI won't make him show the contrition you're after. Pcap ping 12:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply informing those following it. They might be following the thread and not the individuals talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiClique

An apparent Serbian nationalist account, User:FkpCascais, and yet another sock IP (193.206...) are actively plotting ways to see how they may do harm to me and/or my reputation. I've already been attacked by the creation of an offensive mock account, User:DIREKTOR SPLIT. They seem to think I am a "notorious Croat nationalist propagandist", even though the last bunch who shared their goals were Croats accusing me of "anti-Croatian" edits (they are both wrong obviously, and this is why I may be a frequent thorn in the side of Balkans nationalist agendas). User:FkpCascais' edits happened to get blocked into place on the Chetniks article, and taking that as a validation of his revert-warring method of inserting unsourced controversial edits, the User has spread his POV-pushing activities to other "unsuspecting" articles, again entering POV Balkans nationalist edits contrary to presented sources and contrary to consensus.
(The editors are generally pushing for the removal of mention of the fact that the WWII Serbian nationalist movement, the Chetniks, have in fact collaborated with the Germans. This is unsourced, and is contrary to a large number of scholarly publications.)

The small "clique" is another in a long line of folks who seems to believe the best way to expedite their agenda on the Balkans articles is to provoke me and get me out of their way post haste by ganging up and listing out-of-context any negative aspect of my editing they can possibly find (in addition to the by now customary edit-warring and harassing used for the promotion of their goals and agendas). --DIREKTOR 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And what are admins supposed to do here? Btw, DIREKTOR, what is your relationship with User:PRODUCER? You have quite an overlap in your editing:. Fences&Windows 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather think he hopes admins will apply the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions or one of the other ArbCom decisions regarding the various nationalistic disputes centred around Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans. I believed it common knowledge that there are blocs of editors who are "enthusiastically engaged in promoting certain viewpoints while deprecating those of others not so similarly enthused by use of their editing of articles and other spaces" and other editors such as DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who also edit largely within that group of articles. Requests at Admin Noticeboards for intervention in a real or imagined policy or restriction violation is quite common (although generally directed at DIREKTOR than by him). Perhaps it has only been me that noticed them these last few months? Oh, well, I may as well take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned both parties at User_talk:FkpCascais#DIREKTOR and the ip's talkpage. I would note that neither were advised of this discussion, so have linked to it within my warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, you made a very good point. There is very real possibility that User:PRODUCER is a sock puppet of User:DIREKTOR. I think that this claim should be investigated by an administrator as soon as possible. We all know what must happen if this claim is true. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the above is much more typical of the usual DIREKTOR related posts to the noticeboards - a whole lot of innuendo and nothing (such as another SPI request) to back it up. Иван Богданов, please consider yourself under the same restrictions as FkpCascais above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too much busy to launch an SPI request myself, but someone else should do that. Thanks to Fences&Windows, evidence to back it up is here - . Similarity is just too big to be an coincidence, isn't it? --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You think? No chance of simply two editors who contribute to similar areas? Any other "coincidences"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And they just have to be named for movie supervisory positions, in all caps. parallel evolution?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There a number of copycat similarities between their userpages as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same person. I found a similar situation with User:Comrade Graham and User:Chargh, who signs himself as "Comrade Hamish Wilson"—they are twins. At my suggestion they added that info their pages. Pcap ping 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am constantly being accused of being Serb nationalist and a vast number of similar nonsence. We have a very big problem here. User:Direktor just gathered Croatian made sources that (with some minor manipulation) cover his pushing of an entire movement (the Chetniks) and their commander, D. Mihailović, being considered a Nazy collaborators. The problem here is that by my edits, that simply clarify that the situation is not that simple, are putting in danger the personal interess of one editor (direktor) in doing his best to show them as Hitlers best friends... Direktor, as a Croat, and Tito enthusiast (Yugoslav Communist dictator), obviously pushes the articles to a total denegration of a Serbian Monarchic resistence movement, and its leader. Mihailovic was even condecorated by the USA and France for his efforts in WWII (a post-mortum trial was also held in the USA), so how can he be showed simply as collaborator? Aren´t we having here a completely different version, an article recently edited by one editor, in his way, and a complete blocking of any attempt made to try to put the article in a more NPOV way??? Please, don´t get too emotional with Direktors obvious manipulation and just see the facts. Other people have also contacted me in my talk page complaining abpout him, and, I didn´t knew, it was his 4th blocking! I have never had one before... His edits and the insistence in a sole collaboration side of the story are very untrouth and offensive to me (as a Serb-Jew) and to the USA and France politics (meaning they condecorated a Nazy friend, how ridicoulos. Please, can someone chek this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Proofreader77

I realize and respect the fact that User:Rodhullandemu's blocking of PR77's use of his talk page was reverted based on him being an involved admin, but I feel the time may have come for someone uninvolved to examine that question. I have this user's talk page watchlisted so that I can see when there are any actual developments or unblock requests, but the user keeps using his talk page for things like this, posting rhetoric to support his behavior and posting "status updates" when nothing has actually changed. Equazcion 18:20, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

With due respect they don't seem to be WP:Hearing that the, to borrow a word from the Arbcom case, bizarre communication after repeatedly being told to knock it off is unhelpful and disruptive. It may make sense to apply a short block or some alternative way that they can email for unblock if such a system is acceptable and also won't be abused. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just leave it until the steam runs out and in a month or so archive it all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is unblocking him; he is de facto banned from this site. After everyone has forgotten all about him, we'll bag and tag the pages. Tan | 39 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• No need to unblock him (ever) and no need for the talk page to be unblocked either when it is being misused. Lock it down and let him email his unblock requests in. Clear misuse of the talk page when blocked calls for it to be locked down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. Maybe now he'll think about his approach and hopefully see what he did wrong, and why it was wrong, and promise to never do it again if unblocked(although unlikely).— Dædαlus 10:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the overpoliteness on Misplaced Pages. "Good riddance! Maybe now he'll um... you know, see that he was wrong and promise to be better. Yeah!" Hehe... Just saying. Equazcion 18:12, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The user was getting on my nerves, to say the least with his incessant refusal to admit he had done any wrong, or was in the wrong at all.— Dædαlus 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to clean out the peculiar user subpages? In particular, SandboxA is bordering on an attack page and serves only to celebrate an unwelcome attitude. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nefer Tweety

User Arab Cowboy used a sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction. He also went to the Asmahan talkpage to defend his own edits he had made as the other account. Because of this he was topic banned for half a year from the articles and talkpages involved in the case.

The account Nefer Tweety has repeatedly removed the strike outs from the sockpuppet comments that user Arab Cowboy did. I would like to point out that the Asmahan article is on probation.

Copt:

Coptic Identity:

Asmahan: "to get rid of you and your sick stalking." this article is on probation and im sure this comment is disruptive and a violation of the principles of the case. Account Nefer Tweety has several times violated the principles with no action taken against him:

While removing the strike outs he also defends Arab Cowboys sockpuppet claiming it is not a sockpuppet although it has already been confirmed by several admins that it is: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Response by Nefer Tweety

The complaining editor, Supreme Deliciousness, was convicted of meatpuppetry on the same page, Talk:Asmahan, for making the exact same edits “corrections” to which another editor has responded.

Arab Cowboy attempted to stop Supreme Deliciousness’s stalking by using a legitimate, fresh start account. So, if there was any puppeting involved, it was the meatpuppeting on the part of the complaining editor.

On Talk:Copt and Talk:Coptic identity, Supreme Deliciousness continues to stalk another editor and strike out his edits for no legitimate reason. He had no previous input to those articles at all and only continues to strike through the other editor’s comments as a form of harassment by stalking, which is the main violation of the principle of Decorum of the Asmahan case. I am not subject to the remedies or principles of the Asmahan case, but Supreme Deliciousness is, and he has been violating those principles through meatpuppetry and harassment of other editors.

Supreme Deliciousness should be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages for his persistent disruptive practices and harassment by stalking. Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been no meatpuppet invitation, and I have already been blocked for that misunderstanding when I asked a neutral editor to get involved. This ANI request is about your violation of the principles, and you removing the strike outs from comments made by a confirmed sock puppet. Comments that a sockpuppeteer did defending his own edits. After he created the second account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time and to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction with the other account.

The admins have already concluded that it was not a clean start attempt Therefor his bann was not lifted. And yes, you are subject to the principles of the case as you have been mentioned as an involved member of the scope of the case and you have been warned before by an admin for violating the principles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety blocked 24 hours

Per my rationale at User talk:Nefer Tweety#Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. I am unconvinced by the logic of Nefer Tweety's response - an editor that is topic banned is not permitted to have their edits (or that of their sockpuppet) reinstated; otherwise the ban is pointless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Without opining on the merits of the block, we need a less black/white rule about this: I had a devil of a time once where a banned editor made a good edit/addition to an article that improved the article substantially, got reverted because the banned editor was banned, and then was told that I could not independently choose to so much as add the source that the banned editor used with my own words, because then I was "reinstating a banned editor's edits." It's not like banned editors have leprosy, and we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces if the underlying edits improve the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to take personal responsibility for such an edit, but you (especially you as a known activist in some areas) should not assume that your judgement of what is a good source is necessarily unbiased. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What Guy said - an independent editor may take ownership of an edit previously made by a banned editor, usually in respect of a content contribution (per Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Editing on behalf of banned users). It should be apparent that the new "owner" has confirmed the veracity of the content, and its compliance with policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Nefer Tweety account, it is far from being an independent editor, he have a long history of performing the same edits as Arab Cowboy which can been seen here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, your judgment was misguided. I am not topic-banned on the Copt and Coptic identity and I was not banned from editing Asmahan at the time Medjool was used. So, at least on Copt and Coptic identity, I could have reinstated those edits myself. Supreme Deliciousness had no business striking out my edits on those pages and as NT correctly pointed out, he just did it for harassment. Medjool was indeed a CLEANSTRAT account regardless of what others think. I did not defend my case against the charge of sock puppetry for reasons that I will not disclose at this time, however the charge was absolutely false. For you to build upon that false charge is propagating that falsehood. I ask you to please reinstate Nefer Tweety and stop Supreme Deliciousness's violation of the Principles of Asmahan through the harassment of other editors. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments here show that Arab Cowboy used his sock puppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction and the arb admins have concluded that there was no "clean start" attempt. He used his sockpuppet to perform several edits at Coptic and Coptic Identity against his topic bann and restriction. Nefer Tweety, after he removed the strike outs from the puppet comments at Asmahan (which Arab Cowboy is banned from including talkpage) Coptic and Coptic Identity talkpages, Nefer Tweety also carried out the same edits as Arab Cowboy had made with his sock puppet in violation of his restriction and topic bann at the Coptic article and Coptic identity article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at ANV

Can an admin go over there and clear it out? Thanks.--Coldplay Expért 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Never heard ANV used before, thought it was some board I'd not noticed for a minute--Jac16888 21:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's just like this page is the ANI or AN/I, except for vandalism reports.--Coldplay Expért 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I know, I'm just used to seeing it called AIV--Jac16888 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. well, can someone still go over there and clear it out? Its grown since the last time I saw it!--Coldplay Expért 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have died a little.  f o x  (formerly garden) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gard....Fox. (This may take a bit getting used too)--Coldplay Expért 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe ;)  f o x  (formerly garden) 22:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be worse, CE. I saw your comment and immediately thought of Gardner Fox. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:67.68.34.49 is back. Can someone block him now?--Coldplay Expért 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.--BaronLarf 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies (I declined the report on 67.68.34.49), I didn't think they'd be using that IP again, if it is a sock--Jac16888 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a sock of User:ScienceGolfFanatic. Trust me, he's been spamming my e-mail and been writeing things about me over at ED. He's probably watching this page right now. Best to do a CU on the IP?--Coldplay Expért 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for a very trivial request

Administrator User:Gamaliel is WP:HOUNDing me on pages he has never edited before, like Talk:American Liberty League, and when I complain about his inappropriate behavior, he posts cover-ups over my talk-page comments while making personal attacks against me and threatening me. Might a third-party request him to disengage and undo the templating? Many thanks. THF (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are some pretty serious accusations. What proof do you have of "posting cover-ups"? this? I do not see how that comment was constructive in any manner to building an encyclopedia. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This, not the reversion you refer to (which was a reversion of an IP-editor, not me). I see Gamaliel's insults and taunts and WP:HOUNDing of me in an eight-month-old conversation on a talk-page of an article he never had edited as far worse than my complaining about being insulted and taunted and hounded, but I leave it to others to deal with. I disengaged from Gamaliel after our dispute, but he's been following me around. I'll leave American Liberty League as well, and won't respond at User talk:Jayjg or this page further. THF (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"The author, Charles A. Beard, is deceased. This edit appears to be the source of the plagiarism. We should remove or rewrite those sentences." This is the comment that THF takes as "evidence" of my harassing him. Note that this is the only "interaction" that I've had with THF following his block. I've even avoided preexisting discussions on pages we've both edited. Does anyone here think that this is any sort of harassment? Does anyone here think that his response is in any way appropriate? Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an eight-month old talk-page discussion that was resolved, and Gamaliel intervened to say that I was countenancing a violation of WP:COPYVIO -- when if he had bothered to read the discussion he was intervening in, he would have seen that the text was written not by Beard, but by a living author who plagiarized the Misplaced Pages article. So, yeah, I'm a little insulted that G comes onto the page to insult me, and then further insulted when he taunts me for being blocked, then further insulted when he personally attacks me, then further insulted when he covers up all my talk-page comments when his talk-page comments (such as "You are incapable of acting as an adult") were far more incendiary. I've been trying to disengage, and he's insisting on creating wikidrama, and even asking (on

I did not accuse you of countenancing a copyvio, I thought you were mistaken about the identity of the author. I'm utterly baffled how you can get "THF wants to violate copyright" from "We should remove or rewrite those sentences". If you had not assumed I was attacking you with an innocuous comment and had not invented an insult out of thin air, no "wikidrama" would have occurred. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Jayjg regarding THF's behavior, since Jayjg advocated unblocking THF early, but we might as well hash it out here. I made an innocuous talk page comment and I don't deserve to be attacked like this for it. If THF is going to engage in the same behavior that got him blocked, then he should be reblocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Diffs? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THF's talk by Gamaliel:

• 15 Feb - warn to stop posting on his talk
• 11 Feb - a DTTR tag

Talk:American Liberty LEague by Gamaliel:

• Feb 20, Feb 20, Feb 20, Feb 20 - tagging comments as inappropriate
• feb 20 - a reply

Nothing else this month.

Gamaliel's talk by THF:

• Feb 17 - EW warn
• Feb 15 - the last of several in an ongoing conversation about wikiquette
• Feb 14 - the last of several in an ongoing conversation about dispute resolution
• Feb 11 - 3RR warn
• Feb 11 - accusation of an uncivil edit summary
• Feb 11 - an invitation to self-revert over an edit on a BLP

That seems to be the extent of it regarding Talk:American Liberty League and interaction between the two. SGGH 22:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

At least recently. SGGH 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• A fleeting barnstar for SGGH, fleeing behind the barndoors for THF and Gamaliel, and will any remaining sysop please turn out the lights when you leave - I'm off on a break! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't resolved. THF insists on restoring his unwarranted attacks on me. Throwing up your hands isn't dealing with this situation at all. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm only one of many admins - and if I wish to throw up my hands and withdraw that is what I shall do. Someone else can review it. Ciao, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments were a reaction to a different person placing a "closed" tag on this discussion and were directed at everyone, not a specific individual. Who specifically intervenes is immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If Gamaliel can provide diffs illustrating an attempt to resolve any disagreement through dialogue prior to simply cutting out THF's talk page contributions they that would help also. I wouldn't suggest doing that in a dispute you are involved in yourself. If he is launching personal attacks in places other than your talk, keep you hands clean and let a third party take a look at it. If THF is overplaying his hand (which I would say is a concern) then he also needs to reign in in a little. I would advise both parties to desist in any conversation or dispute over anything for quite some time. Allow a third party to take a neutral look at the article in question and allow the community to naturally improve it. Better the article goes slightly away from your interests than it leads to a wiki-fight that has its own ramifications (cough, blockings).

THF is being overly aggressive with his "attempts" to rectify the situation, and needs to stop following Gamaliel around and bring issues to his talk page which, I feel, are more just to get at Gamaliel than actually rectify problems with the edits. Gamaliel is being a little OTT by redacting all the comments on the article talk page too. I am inclined to view this as over-pushing by THF that has gone too far, and which hasn't been handled quite as well as it could have been by Gamaliel (perhaps he/she has had enough). That's how I see it. I want to hear from User:Jayjg though. SGGH 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear there's bad blood here. Since THF and Gamaliel don't normally interact much, I would recommend avoiding each other wherever possible, and if they do happen to bump into each other, using liberal applications of civility and good faith. Jayjg 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that any such application would be one sided. As I noted to you on my talk page, following his block I've already been avoiding major battlegrounds, I've already been quite careful not to say anything but the most innocuous of statements when he is around. But if he's going to take "We should remove or rewrite those sentences" as a vicious personal attack, then I don't feel that hoping for civility and good faith is going to be of any use here. SGGH said I could have handled it better, and I'd like to know of a way of handling this individual that goes beyond meekly accepting his attacks and avoid any article where he participates, some of which are articles I've edited and made major contributions to for years before he showed up to turn them into battlegrounds. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the pressing, why dig yourself further in by redacting comments on an article talk page? In my opinion it should be straight to a third party. Nevertheless, if Gamaliel avoids conflict, that means that if any conflict occurs from now on, THF would clearly be the one seeking it and therefore he can be dealt with. SGGH 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove or redact personal attacks directed at myself or any WP editor. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you find perfectly reasonable, it is simply my view that it exacerbated the situation when it should have been a third party's decision to do so. It was an article talk page not your user talk page. That is just my take on the situation, I shan't be drawn into debating it with you. I am of the opinion that both users need to cease fire, and if one user continues to comment negatively towards the other, then at least the other user's hands will be clean and clear action can be taken. I would expect THF to abide by that informal agreement too. My two cents. SGGH 18:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate or trying to draw out the conflict, but what is the point of not removing attacks? Should I simply allow him to attack me and say and do nothing? If I refrain from removing his attacks, will you or someone else intervene? Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I (or another admin) most certainly will. That is what I am saying, you see. Draw the line here, and that means that anything that takes place after now will be "stepping over the line". SGGH 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I won't remove or respond to further attacks but instead I will bring them here. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I have left a message on THFs page explaining the informal agreement you have made (and by extention, he has now been entered in to). Hopefully that shall be the end of things. Regards, SGGH 00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd Article

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

So I stumbled upon this article and I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. Normally I'd say bring it up for translation as it is a another tongue. However when translated into English it seems to be nothing but an advert...I'm at a loss as to what to do with this.

In English the top most part says this

"Forum Indonesia Muda is an entity of the nation who cares for the advancement of the country. Forum Indonesia Muda formed in step with the youth of Indonesia in his contribution to the environment. The youth is the candidate generation and future leaders who will bring the face of Indonesia, so the Forum Indonesia Muda determination to unite a better change."

Same thing on the user who created it userpage. Rgoodermote  22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagged with notenglish tag and nominated for CSD-G11. Looks promotional. Jarkeld (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that and for clearing up my confusion. Rgoodermote  23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

just not sure ....

Main debate --> Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion
I am just not sure here about the guidelines. I would like some admins that know more about what is allowed and not allowed when it comes to deleting valid contributions to articles..You may have seen this in other noticeboards, but i think its time that admin sees what is going on..See if Admin can answer if your allowed to deleted infoboxs at will as a project guideline... I just dont think a WikiProject can mass delete things at will. Most of you have probably seen this debate before, but i would say what is going on is mass sanctioned vandalism (i use this word loosely as there edits are all done in good faith), just wrongly executed i believe. Anywas if this is not the place for this i am sorry, but this is the type of thing that i think the community should solve so the debate stops. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also requested assistance from the Wikiproject council. This needs immeadiate resolution, IMO, as it has been dragging on for years. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't see this noticeboard being the right venue for that....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry i just though admin could answer the deleting question..O well i will move one

thanks Jubileeclipman this is here not out off malice..Its here because like you i think it has to be answered and put to rest.So i am asking all i can to solve it regardless of the out come. Buzzzsherman (talk)

Admins are now involved, anyway, so no problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass page move: referendums to referenda

A user has twice moved dozens of pages from "Referendums" to "Referenda", presumably because he believes that this is correct English. See Special:Contributions/Stephen_MUFC. He's been pointed to the discussions at Referendum#Terminology and elsewhere, but does not appear to have contributed to them. Someone else reverted the moves last time, and I'd like to do so this time but there's got to be a better way than doing it manually. I thought admin rollback was supposed to work for this. Note that I'm just asking how to revert the edits rather than suggesting any disciplinary action at this point.-gadfium 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback will work where you could normally reverse a move (e.g., the old page has not been edited) and where the move is the top change at the new page title. It won't work if the editor has followed their move with pointless spacing changes like , which I'm afraid I do see as evidence of attempting to make the moves irreversible - in other cases the editor has made changes such as using his preferred spelling in the article text, but it looks like he made these spacing edits everywhere he didn't make an edit of substance. That's potentially a big issue. Note that some of these can be moved back manually regardless, but I would suggest that such mass changes need to be reversed to avoid a "fait accompli" change done without previous consensus. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reversing the moves as quickly as possible. 'Referendums' has long been the standard plural on Misplaced Pages for excellent linguistic reasons. I think AWB will do page moves. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reversed a few of the mistaken moves and changes. I suggest giving the benefit of the doubt this time, but a substantial block for any future mass edits without consensus. As I pointed out at user talk, this creates work for other people to clear up. --John (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they're all reverted now.-gadfium 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like the "stadiums" vs. "stadia" debate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor threatens to bring things to ANI

There is a discussion on the Barack Obama article probation page and Barack Obama talk page. One editor threatens to take this to ANI. This is a content issue and escalation to ANI is unwise.

Basically, a tag team has formed who is obstructionist and disruptive. They insists on things that references don't quite support. They don't logically discuss things on the talk page. Even when an issue appears settled for the time being on the talk page (no objections in over a week after it's on the talk page), they insist on their way.

Rightful conclusion of this thread: close due to a content issue. Encourage logical discussion not disruption. Nobody is insisting that Obama is a Muslim. Instead, the topics include whether it is incorrect to refer to Bo as Barack's dog and in Barack's article when the White House and New York Times says the dog is a gift from Kennedy to the daughters, whether the religion in the infobox should be vague or more specific, whether opinion is allowed or strictly the facts, whether the White House source should be used to describe Obama's faculty involvement, etc.

RESOLVED?: Just a content issue where there should be admin encouragement to improve the article, not just insist on keeping it the way it is. JB50000 (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's unwarranted to bring it to AN/I, why bring it to AN/I? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please mark this as closed! Threats were made against me saying they would bring it to ANI. I want to lower tensions not increase them so closing this would be the best way to work for calm. Can you, seb, help be a moderator? JB50000 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have my own views on this, whatever those views may be. I therefore can be neither neutral nor a moderator. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) If I may clarify the above report, I believe JB50000 is referring to me, and my edit here where I advised everyone that the "Requests for Enforcement" page wasn't watched by admins, and a quicker way to get attention would be to come to ANI. I was given that advice by an admin, after my previous thread on JB50000 edit warring on the Obama page went ignored.

JB50000 (talk · contribs) has been a force for chaos on the Barack Obama page for some time now with the above case of reported edit warring, then another on the 13th over the word "small" in describing Obama's prior law firm. He returned tonight to make multiple edits over, of all things, Obama's dog. When he was reverted by two other editors, he opened this thread on the enforcement board accusing them of tag-team editing.

I welcome any admin attention into the situation. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's almost a Bush quote (Bring 'em on) - please spare us the Bushisms. As far as the small issue, there was an error that sat uncorrected for months. I pointed this out, nobody else. Then they wanted to use a word that no reference used so this shows that I am a careful and neutral editor. The tag team is the one who is disruptive and combativen. My positive and neutral desire for the page is highlighted here (summary of my edits and good/neutral ideas for article improvement) http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Seb_az86556#Seb._please_help Reduction in drama would be helped by closing this drama filled ANI section. If an admin wants to help, he or she could make themselves available to moderate a discussion and could limit their involvement to a week, if they desire. Or a new admin, maybe one who got the tools within the past month (this is to insure a random sampling rather than ask for an interventionist admin) could be asked to help moderate discussion for a week on their talk page, again limiting it to a week to save their time and to have a time urgency to settle tensions.

As a sign of restraint, I have unilaterally promised (on Seb's talk page) to stay away from Obama articles for 36 hours and pledge to do so longer if there is either meaningful discussion/moderation or the tag team agrees to take a little ObamabreakJB50000 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt evading WP ban and harassment

When SA was editing on Misplaced Pages, he also was posting comments to the Misplaced Pages Review website as "NotARepublican55." He made no attempt to hide his identity there as he included his WP username in his profile (which created auto links there to his WP user-related pages: talk, contributions, etc.). Other editors can attest to this fact if need be. Having been exposed firsthand to SA's behavior, I refused to believe given his inability to follow one WP community-imposed rule (that of not having contact with me before his ban) that he would follow his ban from WP. It seems my suspicion has been confirmed. Please note the first paragraph of the Misplaced Pages Review post by NotARepublican55/SuaveArt here (IMPORTANT NOTE: the user edited the post on Misplaced Pages Review after receiving notification of this AN/I in an attempt to remove incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, the user failed to realize that the original version of his post was retained in posts by other people who quoted it. See here and here. The timing of the attempt is uncanny.):

I left a note on AN. Here's what I think happened - there are actually (at least) 2 separate Giuseppe Provenzanos - one was a 19th Century Sicilian gangster (http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html), the other one is a former President of Sicily and current professor who was in office from 1996-1998. The Misplaced Pages page contained the bios of both men scrambled into one article.

Now, please note the following edits to the AN about the issue by anonymous IP 94.136.35.108:

• Diff #1
• Diff #2
• Diff #3
• Diff #4
• Diff #5

Same topic, same information, same board.

It strongly appears that SA has evaded his WP ban (and possibly has lied in regards to vandalism done under that IP). Seregain (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty ducky to me. The edits on the IP also pick up about a month and a half after the ban. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that first sentence means, but you're off on your time. SA's permanent ban started on Feb. 1st, and the regular editing for the IP begins only two weeks later. Earlier if you include the two acts of vandalism on Feb. 4th. Seregain (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Kevin was refering to WP:DUCK, as in, "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Thanks. Seregain (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got this message on my talkpage. If you want to compare IP addresses between me and that account, go right ahead. Not sure exactly what this users' problem is, but just he seems to be stalking me obsessively (as well as this other user) ever since I made an edit to List of controversial video games which he disliked. He also falsely accused me of vandalism to Wii Sports because of older edits by this (shared) address which I was not even aware of (and for the record - every time I connect I load a different IP)). For all I know based on his "edits", he may be an actual ban evader. --94.136.35.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

For the record, Seregain has lied about the "Notarepublican" quote that he linked above. It mentions the AN/I thread (long with several posts by other users), but doesn't mention that "Notarepublican" started the topic.

"Hmm according to the thread on WP:AN - there are actually (at least) 2 separate Giuseppe Provenzanos - one was a 19th Century Sicilian gangster (http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html), the other one is a former President of Sicily and current professor who was in office from 1996-1998. The Misplaced Pages page contained the bios of both men scrambled into one article." - "Notarepublican"

--06:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk)

"This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: 33 minutes ago" How convenient. Seregain (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL So in other words you still have no proof that I am "Notarepublican" (or even that "notarepublican" is a banned WP user). You're just speculating blindly based (I guess) on an edit to that video game article I made. Sure makes sense. Like I said, go ahead and do and compare IPs if you want, but you shouldn't used WP:AN/I as a forum for "speculation" about WP users. Since you lied in your OP and haven't provided any evidence, personally I think you should be banned for stalking, but that's my opinion.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you edit your Misplaced Pages Review post to hide the incriminating evidence after finding out about this AN/I? Seregain (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you create that account on WR to impersonate "suaveart"?

I didn't. My accusations are backed by evidence. Yours are not. Seregain (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I do have proof that you changed it if you really want to try to keep dancing your stupid dance. Seregain (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait. "...but doesn't mention that "Notarepublican" started the topic"? So with that, you're claiming Fram (the user who started the AN/I) is NotARepublican on Misplaced Pages Review despite the fact that NotARepublican is known by me and other editors to be SuaveArt, who is banned? Seregain (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You've still not provided proof of that (or anything). You say "you just know" this or that. See Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I'm sorry if I was angry with you, but I would appreciate it if you start a formal "sockpuppet investigation" WP:SPI instead of spreading these kind of rumors here.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since my posting of this, SA has engaged in harassment against me as evidenced by my talk page history. Seregain (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP checker evidence? You're essentially harassing and libeling someone now. You've been proven a liar in your OP assertion, asked to provide evidence, but just repeat your claims, claim "harrassment" even though you're the one stalking (at least) 2 or 3 different people not only on Misplaced Pages, but on other forums. You deserve a good ban.-94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to not attack like that 94.136, and to not call others trolls in edit summaries. Ks0stm 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor compounded the problem by issuing a 3RR warning to both for deleting and reposting comments to Seregain's talk page. The deletion was allowed, the reposting was edit warring. Both of them were kind of uncivil in the process, but 94 seems to be ahead in the uncivil wars so far. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that, and I have disengaged from his talk page. This isn't the 1st time that this user has made a false claim about me being a vandal, so it appears as though he's targeting me (as well as some other users) just because he had some problem with some edits I made to a video games article the other day.. Nevertheless I shouldn't have reinserted the talk page comment and I'll let it be.--~~

I have only been deleting 94.136's harassment, which it is. If that's wrong to do on my talk page (I know it's not wrong to do with my user page), then I apologize. Seregain (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, now I'm starting to wonder if "notarepublican" (On WR) is Seregain. Looks like me might be trying to impersonate another user here for all I know. I think this "evidence" should be taken to WP:SPI where we can clear this up, but that's my take. Personally I don't appreciate his individual's harrassment.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The both of you have been firing various shots and accusations at each other. Beware of claiming someone is a sock unless you're fairly certain based on specific evidence. To put it another way, be sure you "have your ducks in a row." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Seregain, who is blatantly obviously a sockpuppet, is raising this issue. Whether Seregain's original account is still in good standing I don't know, but this account is unquestionably not the user's first and the user is very obviously on a mission. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a checkuser should open the box and find out who all of these cats are, and put this fight to rest one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that 94.136 altered the title of this AN/I (which I have just reverted) to something against me. This is something that SuaveArt used to do with previous AN reports about him. Seregain (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got on, but I had both users contact me when I was sleeping last night. Seregain asked me to find the part where the IP messed around with the post here. IP then asked about 17 minutes later for me to perform a checkuser on him, something which I can't do. I told him that, so we shall see their response when they come back on later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Kevin, I was asking if you saw the original Misplaced Pages Review post that I quoted above as the user changed it after this AN/I was posted. It doesn't really matter now, though, since the original post was retained in quoted replies on WR. Seregain (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is very familiar with SuaveArt as I spent a good bit of time trying to get him to wise up, I will put my account on the line to say that the 94 IP is SuaveArt without a doubt. He is acting exactly as I would expect knowing his behavior. Quack, quack. Auntie E. (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am an uninvolved editor and know nothing about the situation here. I just want to point out a change in the header made by an IP and the edit accusing Seregain of being a sockpuppet. -WarthogDemon 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well he is. However, SuaveArt is blocked and likely banned by now due to serial block evasion. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• As is this IP now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that there was sufficient evidence of ban evasion. Also agree with Guy that an investigation into Seregain's past account(s) would not be inappropriate--methinks Seregain doth protest too much. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Guy's accusations are baseless and hinge on nothing more than SA's observation that my first edit was a "well-formed" AfD. Like it's hard to create an AfD when it's got automation and clear directions. Seregain (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

Hello, I have had an {{adminhelp}} request up on my user talk page for over two hours now. Could an admin please swing by and take a look? Thanks, Arctic Night 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I'm in the IRC help channel at the moment, and the silence would deafen you...0400 UTC to 0900 UTC it gets rather inactive in there. All the admins are asleep, I think. Ks0stm 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another non-admin :) . I don't use IRC so I didn't notice :) Arctic Night 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and I endorse... oh, forget it. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

spamming sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home

Various IPs and 05theben (talk · contribs) have added this site to Matara, Sri Lanka and Culture of Sri Lanka articles repeatedly in recent few days. One of the IPs have left me a message in my talk page. I have explained our policy on adding extern links. I have also reported this at WP:RSPAM twice. Check the first reoprt and the Second. Please help to repel spamming. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And again Matara and Culture of Sri Lanka--Chanaka L (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BIG Vandalism coming soon...

Resolved – Link is broken now - issue appears to be resolved. Arctic Night 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

4CHAN /b/ http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/199826604 As of right now, they are gambling to see which Wiki page they will attack. Please monitor this and immediately lock whichever page they decide on. They will vandalize the page someone suggests if their post number ends in "03". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.0.81 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke. So how are things in Flowery Branch, Georgia these days?

Just peachy? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, things are fine. Admin, feel free to remove this comment/thread if the aforementioned link is 404 and/or when their mess has been cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.0.81 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Link appears to be 404-ed now. Although I'm not an admin, I feel that this can be marked resolved anyway as per request of reporting user. Arctic Night 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of manually archiving this under WP:DENY. Nothing we can do except keep an eye out at this point. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They have one of these threads almost every day lately. —Soap— 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And its always a minor event. Gotta love that abuse filter--Jac16888 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't pointing out that 4chan will vandalise a page (despite the fact that they never do this, oh no) sort of like pointing out that a severely retarded person will probably lose control of their bowel functions at some point during the day? HalfShadow 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone think this has to do with the excessive vandalism here? -download ׀ sign! 20:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when has 4chan never vandalized a page? That's kind of backwards. They do indeed do it quite often.— Dædαlus 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy

• Radiopathy notified
• Abecedare notified
• Xeno notified
• Zero0000 notified
• John Cardinal notified
• Timothy92834 notified

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user was placed on a 1rr restriction at 22:36, October 29, 2009 UTC for 6 months. They were also blacklisted from twinkle per their using it to edit war. They have since violated it several times, and have created maybe two ANI threads requesting it be rescinded, which were both declined. I will try to find and link said happenings if required. Those happenings, however, are not at what is at issue here. What is at issue, is his most recent behavior, where he violated his 1rr restriction, and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault. The timeline is as follows(earliest at top):

• 00:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 makes a change
• 00:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts with edit summary: a) factually incorrect & b) too lengthy for lead in any case
• 00:55, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts
• 01:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 1 warning
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(1rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, adds more info, with edit summary: Added information about Harrison's cancer battle and death with references
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 2 warning
• 01:34, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy explains his position on User:Timoth92834's talk page
• 01:36, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(2nd past 1rr) with note about earlier explanation(take note of the edit summary here, which speaks of possible automation)
• 01:43, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Edits are factually correct and include multiple references.
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 4 warning
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 posts to article talk page
• 01:49, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(3rd past 1rr, 3rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:53, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Added back in references and documentation
• 01:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reports User:Timothy92834 at WP:AIV for vandalism
• 02:08, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal replies on article talk page
• 02:16, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) declines report with content dispute tag, telling RP that the edits are not vandalism
• 02:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(4th past 1rr, 2nd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:24, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with summary: Vandal adding incorrect information and remove references
• 02:32, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(5th past 1rr, 3rd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:39, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:40, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy replies to admin User:Zero0000's decline, disagreeing with them
• 02:42, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(6th past 1rr, 4th past 3rr, 1st past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:44, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal reverts with edit summary: Take content dispute to TALK!!!
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:John Cardinal's talk page telling him that it isn't a content dispute(second time RP has been told that it's a content dispute)
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:52, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(7th past 1rr, 5th past 3rr, 2nd past 1st admin warning)
• 02:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:00, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(8th past 1rr, 6th past 3rr, 3rd past 1st admin warning)
• 03:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:03, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(9th past 1rr, 7th past 3rr, 4th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:Timothy92834's talk page, asking user to discuss their edits
• 03:06, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(10th past 1rr, 8th past 3rr, 5th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:11, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(11th past 1rr, 9th past 3rr, 6th past 1st admin warning) with no edit summary
• 03:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) fully protects article with edit summary: Protected George Harrison: trying again, blocking for 2 days ( (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)) (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)))
• 03:27, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) deletes report with edit summary: article protected for 2 days, situation under control for now :)

There is a bit more, but I don't believe that is needed. Per the above, I am asking that his 1rr restriction be reset back to 6 months instead of the 2 that are left.— Dædαlus 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's statement

Radiopathy •talk•

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Radiopathy = blocked for a week, so I don't think a statement from him will be swift in coming unless copied from his talk page. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Double EC: Nevermind, Daedalus is a step ahead of me. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Already taken care of. A section from his talk page is transcluded here.— Dædαlus 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy call, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is that someone blocked the newbie who was most likely never aware of any of the policies. Too bad. May have just scared away a potential good editor. Oh well, damage is done now.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how Radiopathy missed the sundry inline (and handily online) citations eleven times. The edits he was reverting were straightforwardly not vandalism. This said, further down the article does say the LA County death certificate listed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer as the cause of death, although the source cited there, while mentioning lung cancer, says nothing about a death certificate. Hence, it looks to me as though Radiopathy, at least, truly believed the sources supported lung cancer as the cause of death but made a very big string of mistakes by reverting a good faith edit eleven times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Radiopathy is retired again. I guess he trying to break Brett Favre's record.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Disregard it. His attempts to retire never stick. I don't know how MO regarding them, but discussion should continue.— Dædαlus 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he likely hasn't really retired, and is only using that tag as a way to halt discussion in lieu of oh, he's required, I guess the proposal is moot now. ..Especially considering that he posted his unblocked request(04:40, February 21, 2010 UTC) after he replaced his talk page content with a retired tag(03:49, February 21, 2010 UTC). Retired? I don't think so. Discussion, as said, should continue.— Dædαlus 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Daedalus969, his "retirement" should be irrelevant to this discussion. He's done it before on several occasions when he gets frustrated with other editors. As for the other points, I have no doubt Radiopathy was doing what he thought was best. However, as shown before, Radiopathy doesn't care when his ideas cross with policy. I'd support the 1RR completely, as the edit warring line appears to be very blurry for him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The block of Timothy92834 was completely appropriate. I may be the editor who Daedalus969 is referring to when he wrote above, "and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault". If so, that's not correct: I didn't tell Radiopathy he was at fault. I did say it was a content dispute, and not vandalism, and while I agree with the block of Radiopathy, Timothy92834 is more at fault than Radiopathy. Timothy92834 ignored messages from Radiopathy, me, and Zero0000 to stop reverting the page and discuss the issue on the talk page. He made no attempt to do so. I don't think he is a true newbie; he has few edits from his account, but his edits indicate someone who knows how wikicode works, WP policies, etc., more than a real newbie would. If he comes back after the block and repeats the revert, he should be blocked again.

Both users were wrong to call each other's edits vandalism, and that is an ongoing issue with Radiopathy. In some cases, if he disagrees with a content change, he calls it vandalism, and then feels free to revert at will without regard to 3RR (and more recently, his 1RR restriction). It's too bad; he has made a lot of good edits and defends a lot of articles from real vandalism. In this case, I think he was correct to revert the original change(s) by Timothy9283. The sources are not air-tight either way and discussion was required. On the other hand, Radiopathy should have used other means to respond when Timothy92834 repeated the edits and refused to discuss the issue. Radiopathy did try ANI, and was told it was a content dispute, which was true, but not the whole story. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At first blush I did worry that the block of Timothy92834 might not have been called for, but when I looked into it, saw he hadn't heeded the messages and only fed the edit war with Radiopathy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose reset of 1rr restriction back to 6 months

This section is to make support or opposition of the proposal easier to follow.— Dædαlus 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - For the reasons already stated above.— Dædαlus 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper page-move vandal

This is an odd one. User Edward Seler (talk · contribs) created his account on 19 Mar 2009 and then did nothing until 10:59 today, when he made 10 more or less null edits to get autoconfirmed; at 11:05 he started making nonsense moves; at 11:06 the invaluable Mr.Z-bot reported him and at 11:08 I blocked him and cleared up his mess. Anyone recognize him? JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems hes answered it for you, , although its probably a wannabe--Jac16888 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Stars4change, again

• stars4change (talk · contribs)

Stars4change had numerous problems discussed at this previous ANI thread (since it's so long, I'm just going to start a new section rather than drag the whole thing out of the archives). In summary, they are incessantly using talk pages as a soapbox, they've been warned, blocked, and warned again, have promised not to continue their behavior, yet the behavior has obviously returned. I saw them at Talk:Capitalism#Child_labour, making some questionable comments based on their history. Took a look at their contribs and found more soapboxing since they promised to stop, including: , and . A lot of rhetorical "do you think you could add this?" comments. I don't know why they don't seem to be getting it. Can someone take a look please? Thanks, Swarm 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this kind of soapboxing is not what wikipedia is for. It would be one thing if they were actually adding useful content to the encyclopedia but this constant railing against capitalism (and promotion of fringe material such as The Black Book of Capitalism and When Corporations rule the world) is not helpful. I would suggest a User RFC Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Qattusu and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daphne Caruana Galizia

User Qattusu authored Daphne Caruana Galizia. There has been a number of concerns brought forward in a collegial and respectful way. User Quattusu despite several warning from myself to realize we are only commenting on sources. The author is insulting just about everyone there and claims we have in no way explained why the sources are disputed. If you review the AFD this has been attempted by several editors ad naseuem and now he claims it's just because : The rest of you are just arrogant losers trying to make decisions on things you know nothing about. The rest of you are just arrogant white American racists to force their agenda through, deleting anything from countries they think beneath them." ] or the response on a delete opinion ]. The thing is this is getting out of hand, we ned another user preferably a admin possibly from the UK or some other country to explain things to this editor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I warned the user that if they don't turn down the rhetoric they will likely be blocked until the AfD is finished. Please report back if this does not work. This is a WP:SPA with WP:OWNership issues. The deletion debate may be eligible for a speedy closure per WP:BLP to reduce the argument, which itself risks breaching that policy. I note that this user previously re-created the article after its speedy deletion in 2008. Was it them who originally created the article? If so a sanction of some kind might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure on that aspect. I was trying to AGF by having someone who might have common cause to say this to explain we aren't trying to censor or discredit. Make him feel less attacked and more receptive to feedback. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Impropriety and harassment help request

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

I have been very patient, calm, cordial, tolerant and responsive to a couple of editors that have unleashed an unnecessary campaign of harassment, intimidation and bullying. I have tried civility, dialog and reasoning with both of them, to no avail. I have asked several other editors, repeatedly, for guidance, advice and help. I have posted signs and notes requesting cooperation and assistance from the community. The immense majority of my edits (99.99%) are direct and accurate translations from Spanish sources. Most of my edits (99.99%) are neutral, objective, notable, verifiable, reliably sourced. Most editors that have reviewed my edits support and approve of my work. Unfortunately, these two editors do not appreciate or like the Latin literary style. I have begged and implored for a qualified and well versed panel of Historians, scholars or social science professionals to look into and review my edits. I have tried in good faith to have a civilized dialog and come to terms with these editors, to no avail. It seems that they might have an ulterior motive for their irrational and hostile behavior. For some undisclosed reason, this editor Flowanda, is persistent in attacking, harassing and provoking me. I have shown restrain, civility and respect, to no avail. Her direct and bold attack on my talk page on February 19, 2010, at 7:25, was completely out of place. I posted an inquiry on Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests to seek advice on how to handle her harassment, attacks and bully tactics of intimidation. On February 14, 2010, at 18:00, I had asked editor Fl (User talk:fl)for help and advice as how to handle this harassment. She advised to post a complaint on WP:ANI, and this is exactly what I am doing now. I need your help now. This impropriety needs to stop! Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Diffs please. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Grancafe's posting here appears to be forum shopping. Take a look at his complaint at EAR, WP:EAR#Dispute assistance request which is now closed and boxed up, for understandable reasons. One of Grancafe's complaints was that people were putting COI tags on his articles. See the summary comment by Largo Plazo near the bottom of the EAR thread. Largo Plazo reports that this issue was already hashed over on Grancafe's talk page. I would advise Grancafe to work for consensus on individual talk pages, and be careful to follow the WP:COI guideline in his future edits here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize for any inconvenience caused by my lack of experience here. I have only been editing on Misplaced Pages for less than two months, thus I am not very experienced in this kind of confrontation resolution processes or procedures. Kindly please be more specific as to your request. If you are asking me for a specific incident, simply go to my user talk page User talk:Grancafé and see Item 15, “You don't get to work it both ways”. If this is not what you are asking for, please ask me in more detail. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a COI complaint or forum shopping, as you want to call it. Your posting here is “smoke screening” and diversion tactics of misinformation, in an effort to misguide this discussion. Please, let’s keep any argument about COI out of this discussion. This specific complaint is strictly about impropriety and harassment. Thanks,--Grancafé (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And avoid making accusations against folks that you disagree with. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Iran-related edits

Can someone please scrutinise the recent edits by myself, 119.154.44.87 and 119.154.2.165 (who are probably the same person) to Academic publishing and Science and technology in Iran? I reverted the anon IP edits in good faith because I thought the anon editor(s) was/were pushing a point of view and the non-POV material was already adequately covered, but I've been reverted twice. Obviously the POV material must go but I am a bit concerned that I might be taking things too far by a full reversion. In addition I've now been accused racism on the articles' talk pages so there's a real risk of drawing other editors in to a nasty little fight. andy (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The source has questionable reliability, and the Iran article was definitely not a NPOV, it was obvious that the editor was pushing a Pro-Iran POV. I believe there was nothing wrong about your reverts. I'll post something on the talk pages of both users. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Left messages on both talk pages. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalistic renaming

Kitarora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going nuts with renaming of articles to stupid names. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the same guy as Edward Seler (talk · contribs) - see Sleeper page-move vandal a few reports above. Same creation date - 19 Mar 2009; same approach - no edits till today, ten innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed, then a spree of page-move vandalism. If we get more of these, might it be worth looking at user creations for that day and blocking any who have never edited? JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (not that anyone ever does), any newly created user that doesn't do anything within some reasonable time period, maybe a week, should be automatically rubbed out, as they are probably either forgotten by their creator or are up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Could a couple of checkusers please go over to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations and clear the backlog there? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that any uninvolved admin can also help out in blocking and tagging socks or otherwise determining that no sock puppetry is going on. See WP:SPI/AI for admins' guidelines on handling socks. –MuZemike 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I should note that MuZemike is correct in that the backlog area doesn't need checkuser assistance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest

The above mentioned user has done a number of questionable things associated with a flurry of recent AfD nominations:

• Canvassing: He is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. See also this request that someone who seems to be arguing to delete in one of the discussions come join two others Dwaynewest nominated.
• Indiscriminate copying and pasting of comments: Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see for example , (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), , , , etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing? What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed and considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories.
• Double voting: See for example this in a discussion concerning an article he nominated.
• Removing friendly notices from the talk page: See for example this.

Warnings from other editors concerning AfD behavior include: from Jmcw37, from Janggeom, fromJJL, from DGG, from Dream Focus, from EEMIV, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dalejenkins, possibly? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns over Dwanyewest's flurry of inadequately considered AfDs and PRODs. He seems insufficiently familiar with the procedures and policies. See also the discussions at the Martial Arts project's page. JJL (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He has been here for too long in my opinion to be Dale. I could be wrong though if Dale never edited his other socks on this IP, thus escaping the checkuser's attention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will grant that there have been a couple of them that were questionable, but by and large, many of the articles I've personally looked at were a bit questionable. First, making the big issue about PROD's is a tempest in a teacup. So what, it got PROD'D. PROD's are ridiculously easy to contest and they give you 7 days to do it. All prod's are listed at the prodsum page. I became involved in this when a number of martial arts related prods were removed, not by addressing the reason for the prod, but with a cut and paste message telling him to go to the martial arts project to discuss it. I expressed my disapproval of that at the MA Project page. But the end result was good. We all reached common ground, constructed a plan to methodically clean up articles in the project and so overall, the outcome was positive. The other thing that I've observed in the process is that some people are of the opinion that a trivial mention of something is enough to establish notability or that a couple of trivial mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. Then they take that opinion and (sometimes rudely) begin making accusations of bad faith actions. Rubbish! The AfD discussion is where that can be debated. People can, in good faith, hold one opinion or the other and dabte it and see what the community decided. I've nominated things that I still, to this day, don't feel have significant coverage, but the community feels a one paragraph review is significant. Ok, I have to accept that the consensus opinion differs from mine. Likewise, I've nominated things that others argued hard hhad significant coverage, but the community disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that they were acting in bad faith to argue the keep. Let the process function and abide by the consensus. But this is a non-incident and my biggest fear is that Dwaynewest will end up with some ridiculous sanction over what he believes is good faith action and something I don't see as being that disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he is a sock acting in bad faith I would advise him to continue on. Most of the articles he has nominated shouldn't be here in the first place. ThemFromSpace 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You advise him to continue double voting and spamming discussions with copy and pasted comments? Or how about in some cases, not even providing a reason? Nothing that he has nominated should be redlinked. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected user subpage

User:Tennis expert/Date delinking arbitration evidence could probably do with being unprotected and courtesy blanked as there is a more neutrally worded version of this content in the date delinking arbitration case. The user appears to have retired. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was actually indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Anyway, I've gone ahead an blanked the page - I haven't unprotected it, but anyone can if they feel the need. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Infraparticle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Infraparticle was stubified after a deletion discussion (linked in the top of Talk:Infraparticle) to remove OR and other unsourced material. A while after, Likebox restores the old version, triggering a revert war between several editors (myself included) over whether unsourced material is appropriate. This also triggered several discussions over at WT:Physics, and him filling an erronous WP:3RR report (here).

After several discussion, Likebox gives in and begins sourcing the article. He later admits during a rant on Jimbo's page that he deceptively sourced the article in order to prove some point, and that he's proud of his blocks.

Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also request protection of the stub version of Infraparticle to allow us to ensure that the text reflects the sources. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's creative: POINTY, disruptive, bad data, edit war. Most people just try one or two. I recommend an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what you get when you demand sources for trivial statements. I will admit right here that many of my contributions to Misplaced Pages have also been deceptively sourced. I have written derivations that are just as OR as what Likebox has done. But my work has been on more elementary subjects and I'm a less controversial editor. In my case it wa susually others who put in sources over my objections, precisely becuase I'd rather have no source than a deceptive source. But in my case deletion of derivations/explanations was never an eiisue. In this case, however the explanation was going to be deleted unless it would be sourced, which is a ridiculous demand. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, Headbomb and Finell are the two who are in the wrong here. They were edit warring in a ridiculous way, by repeatedly removing an essential paragraph of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not conver the derivatiuons at all (it wasn't me who pout in the source).

Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.

Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards