Misplaced Pages

• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More harassment from Arthur Rubin

This is another formal written complaint about User:Arthur Rubin. Arthur obviously wikistalks me on a regular basis. He is a long time editor and admin, and therefore is fully skilled at avoiding actual policy violations, while being as disparaging to my contributions whenever he sees an opportunity. Arthur and I began being in conflict over articles in the field of logic. He has now expanded his harrassment opportunities. For the record, this is an on-going issue with Arthur, and I have made formal complaints before.

On this occasion Arthur has given me a non-veiled threat to block me, even though I have violated no policy. He is so arrogant that he believes that I should be contemplating his mindset, and furthermore should be grateful that he had generously decide not to sanction me.

This is a formal written request for all the following actions

• An admin will give a written instruction to Arthur on his talk page not to wikistalk, or otherwise harrass me.
• My talk page is to be removed from Arthur's watchlist either by him or some administrative intervention.
• Arthur is to be banned from any future administrative action against me. If there is something so important as to require action, he is to approach some other admin with the issue.

I find all of my requests to be completely reasonable, and not any violation of Arthur's freedom to participate in contributing to the WP community. Be well, Greg Bard 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to show specific edits that establish a pattern of WP:wikihounding, if in fact that is what occurred. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the result of this editor moving an article without discussion (the edit summary oddly called the move a 'proposal' and me asking him to restore it. As there was a discussion about the article name in April and the article 2012 phenomenon is a fairly actively edited one. He refused to move it back and Arthur Rubin did the move, asking him to fix the redirects. The comment about blocking was "I suggest you fix all the redirects. It should give you something to do while contemplating why I didn't also block you. " Gregbard has complained before about harassment, see asking that all members of a Wikiproject be given a 24 hour block if there was a problem. Unless he comes up with some proof quickly I don't see much to do here. Dougweller (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need some diffs or evidence to show that this is happening; until then, we have no evidence that harassment is happening. (Note: the section Dougweller mentioned above is here.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The threat of blocking was improper, due to my long history with what I consider Greg's inappropriate edits of logic articles. As for this incident, I wasn't stalking Greg (although I have, at times gone through his edits to logic categories and templates, and proposing deletion of some as absurd, without possible definition, or inherently violating NPOV). 2012 phenomenon has been on my watch list for some time, and I noticed the move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur has taken responsibility for his offense to me. I have accepted. Just so that we are perfectly clear: 1) My complaint to Incidents was justified, 2) Arthur has admitted to the offense, 3) I will continue to engage with Arthur in a civil manner, however 4) I reserve my right to bring this incident up again in the future as evidence of a pattern. Be well, and thank you. Greg Bard 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

However, your complaint of stalking which should have been a complaint of being wikihounded, has not been shown to be valid as he has said that he has your article on his watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before and the day before, then it is reasonable to presume that it will come up tomorrow because each instance supports the conclusion that the sun will come up in the morning. So that is why I am stating for the record that this instance, any others I have reported in the past, and any I report in the future will all support a conclusion that yes Arthur is wikihounding or wikistalking or otherwise being wikidisparaging of my contributions ---whether he is or not. It needs to be this way because we all know that Arthur is perfectly able to abide by the letter of the policies, without any care for the spirit of them. So the idea is to encourage Arthur to be mindful not to inadvertently portray himself this way. Having incentive to reflect on ones own negative disposition is not a bad thing. At this point I would at least hope that he is asking himself if his dispositional beliefs are worth the fight he will inevitably incur if the pattern continues. Greg Bard 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of long-term patterns continuing, Gregbard is a long-term tendentious editor with a history of antipathy towards many of the editors in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics, of which Rubin is one. He needs to be reminded that when other editors undo his edits (especially those likely to watchlist the same articles he edits) it may very well have nothing to do with wikihounding or wikistalking or wikimisbehavior of any sort: the simpler explanation is that his edits are bad and that undoing them was the correct thing to do. The solution is not to shoot the messenger, it's to make better edits and grow a thicker skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me state for the record that I am not a tendentious editor, quite the contrary. I edit in ways that prevent, avoid and otherwise clarify POV issues by covering the meta-perspective. However Arthur and most of the rest of the math department have settled into their own version of reality in which I am the biased, POV editor. I recently tried to elucidate on this situation by creating the article Mathematosis which the group promptly deleted. When I moved the content to the Countering Systemic Bias project, they went to work destroying my legitimate venue for communicating such concerns. I hate using the term "fascist" for obvious reasons. However, objectively that is exactly how to describe the situation. They have forcibly suppressed my ability to oppose this reality that they have created for themselves. Interestingly, they have accused me of "ideological" editing because I want to cover legitimate aspects of topics from within an academic perspective of philosophical logic. You see in their minds, this emphasis from within a legitimate academic field which they don't care about is all about WP:Weight, and Bias. In reality they don't even really seem to understand what an "ideology" is. They confuse legitimate subject matter for bias because of their own systemic bias. There has been at least some admission of this from some of the more reasonable members. Furthermore, in response to your "thinker skin" comment: I reserve the right to complain, and I will. I don't have to pretend about the reality around here. Greg Bard 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Seven months ago is "recently"? And a unanimous-except-for-you "delete or merge" decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis is "the group promptly delet"? Makes me wonder about that "I am not tendentious" assertion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages editors are a self selecting group. If you intend to portray that some valid democratic and legitimate peer review has taken place, let me dispel that fallacy. I am only one of very few regular editors in the philosophy department. If we assembled a legitimate review of the situation with academics from all relevant areas properly represented, we would have a totally different political situation. Currently we rely on people considering this fact in their deliberations. However, that is far too optimistic. It is a perfectly reasonable claim that I have: Misplaced Pages suffers from a severe political bias due to the inordinate number of mathematicians as compared to philosophers who study logic. Greg Bard 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:EunSoo and socks

EunSoo (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday by User:Syrthiss for edit warring on Ayumi Hamasaki (see). EunSoo soon came back editing under an IP address and his block was extended. Today, he came back with a bunch of socks and made the same edits as he did on the previously mentioned article. Some are listed here and these are the others 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs), 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 222.124.223.42 (talk · contribs). He also edited under 125.162.70.81 (talk · contribs) but this one was blocked earlier. IPs 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs) were just blocked by Zzuuzz. But can someone protect those pages because he will be back soon. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He came back 118.97.148.195 (talk · contribs). MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Being sorted as we speak. – B.hotep •talk• 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles affected by the IPs you have mentioned remain in the state that they left it in. Can you confirm that what they have done are good edits? – B.hotep •talk• 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really gotten around to reverting all of the edits the IPs made, But mostly all of the edits made are not good edits but to the EunSoo they are. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How is adding this "Also known as = MatsuJun, Matsumoto Jun (松本 潤)" a bad edit? And MS didn't explain why it was a bad edit 200.81.202.164 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done the ones I can safely do for now. If there are further problems in the next few hours, add here. In the next few days, add pages to WP:RFPP, or by Monday, if I am around, ping me on my talk page. Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock right above and he's back editing under 115.69.217.106 (talk · contribs), 61.7.142.159 (talk · contribs) and 201.18.12.26 (talk · contribs).

He is also using a different editor's edit summary (here to "justify" his edits. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit summaries >.> Sorafune +1

As a pro-active move, someone may want to warn the Japanese WikiProject about this editor and anons in general. Originally, he was working on Korean-related articles. But because of my relationship with Japanese-oriented articles (and remembering that awhile back I pissed him off at a non-Misplaced Pages wiki site), he's given up on Korean articles and is now attacking many of the Japanese articles. People like this editor has all the free time in the world, and nothing will stop him. Groink (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• done. Syrthiss (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is still targeting some Korean articles. There's been a lot of the same type of editing going on in Hyuna. That article should be protected as well; I'm getting tired of reverting. Sorafune +1 23:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More contrary WP:ENGVAR edits

Just an FYI, the problems reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Contrary WP:ENGVAR edits and questions are continuing. The editor is continually reverting/repeating the same edits over again and it looks like he/she is opening up sockpuppets which are also being used to vandalize tags.MrFloatingIP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious disruption is obvious - note any further instances to WP:AIV where they can be dealt with quickly as vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest blocking this editor, if it has not been done already. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The only named account in the previous report is inactive, and it is abundantly clear that the anon editor does not have a fixed ip address so CU will not make a definitive match. Presently, whacking the ip's as they appear seems the way to go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean block the IP temporarily (for 24 hours, if it's the first block). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Anthonzi

• Anthonzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • See discussions. Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, User talk:Anthonzi#June 2010
• Anthonzi all of a sudden came to Talk:Emperor of Japan and wrote "You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly." (copied a misspelling as it is.)
  • Other editor reverted the post as a personal attack and warned the user , however Anthonzi restored the attack and tried to justify the claim.
  • Despite the warning by an administrator SarekOfVulcan , Anthonzi is still insisting the legitimacy of the attack. This proves the warnings by the community are not effective to make the user acknowledge the wrongdoing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Requested action to Anthonzi: Blocked from editing for an appropriate period of time. As described above, warnings are no longer effective to the user.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to believe that anything that can be misinterpreted will be misinterpreted. I'm not sure how a qualified suggestion about the practicality of attempting to edit an English encyclopedic article with less-than-phenomenal English skills constitutes a personal attack.--Anthonzi (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthonzi, I really suggest you to read WP:NPA. Stating "You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly" is still a personal attack, whether or not you said "probably". (Note to other editors: See this user's talk page for more examples of personal attacks.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made in good faith, not an attack. No one has yet elucidated how it attacks anyone personally. As of yet, the only specific accusation was a straw man fallacy. Unlike what SarekOfVulcan asserts, the comment does not tell the user to go away. The intent of the message was to give a constructive opinion on the likelihood of productive edits (one's that wouldn't be reverted in my experience on this wiki) being made with the demonstrated level of language proficiency. Additionally, I found it logical that learning the verifiability criteria would be much easier in one's own native language (given that the user was anonymous, I could only assume from the subject of the article which that might be). This does not constitute an ad hominem attack; it is a legitimate critique of language skills.--Anthonzi (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat Over Sourced Statement

I monitor this article "Ed Decker" after going through I forget how this got on my watchlist but it disturbs me greatly [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ed_Decker&diff=366407186&oldid=355897728

I was neither divorced or excommunicated for adultery. I divorced my former wife, Phyllis Ray Decker Montanari Danielson. I did so after extensive counseling with the Bishop and our Stake President and their recommendation that I do so. While I do not throw rocks, It was she who was having multiple affairs. I remained an active Mormon for a full 7 years after the divorce and was finally excommunicated in Bellevue, WA in 1976 AFTER I requested that my name be removed from the records of the church… The original documents from my excommunication are on file at Utah State University Special Collections Library : Collection #210, J. Edward Decker Collection, where most of all the research, books, videos, audio records, correspondence, files, etc are on file for researchers to use. That document clearly shows their reluctance to excommunicate me and that it was”my" decision and mine alone. These two facts clearly show that the Misplaced Pages posting on your website is false and slanderous.

How Ever the Statment Mr. Decker refers to is source by what appears to be a source that looks extremely dubious at best. I intend to remove it but since the legal threat has been made i felt the need to report it publisher page of source

Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant this get even more tangled, i found the diff of the addition, as it appears an Admin inserted the text and the source. In the mean time i have removed the text from the article space and it is now in the talk space Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat as far as I can see, more a statement that there are WP:BLP issues with the article. I was about to give the user directions to the BLP pages when I saw that, on the article talk page, someone has already done so. S.G. _ping! 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he uses the word "slander" but does no threaten to take legal action. Put yourself in his shoes, how would you feel if you saw an article that portrayed you in that light? He didn't handle it well, but it's easy to understand why he would be upset. I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he uses the word "slander" instead of "libel" is pretty much (circumstantial) proof that he hasn't contacted an attorney. --Smashville 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Half of the EL's in that article were dead (and would have failed WP:EL anyway). I removed them. Also removed one that was just some angelfire site that was little more than POV piece. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew jumping the gun

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Misplaced Pages is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do remember you taking ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ccacsmss

I feel reluctant to bring this up but I think I ought to. User:Ccacsmss has been active for over a year and specialises in highly focused edits which seem to entirely consist of stripping out Wikilinks, stripping out Wikilink piping and stripping out Wikilink redirection. The resultant Wikilinks often end up going to the wrong place. I can only describe his editing style as "autistic". There have been a number of warnings placed on his talk page and he was once suspended for 3 days. He still caries on regardless, mangling up around 20 or more Wikilinks a day. He has never commented on his own talk page to criticisms made by others and rarely uses edit summaries. He seems to operate on all topics throughout Misplaced Pages. He is obviously not a malicious vandal, but you have to ask yourself just what is the point of his Misplaced Pages career continually mangling Wikilinks at a rate of about 20 or more a day ? I doubt if he would take any notice of warnings or anything else on his talk page or would another suspension change his behaviour.--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Has been dispatched for two weeks by another admin. S.G. _ping! 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this user's contributions are often not very helpful, but I also don't think it's great to describe another editor or their work as "autistic". WP:NPA, please. Lankiveil 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

If you have a better term for editors who decline to discuss their contributions as Ccacsmss has failed to, please provide it. Over the last few years I've seen an increasing number of editors reported here who demonstrate similar symptoms which may be diagnosed as autism, & the best practice for dealing with them has come to be an indefinite block -- not permanent, just until the individual shows she/he can communicate. And calling them "autistic", regardless of the implications, seems to be the most appropriate term -- & far better than using a term like "jerk". -- llywrch (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a bunch of editors here who self-identify via userboxes, or otherwise, as autistic, or Asperger's, or otherwise. That may make their good-faith, although unusual edits a challenge to deal with. However, I don't think it is up to us to label editors or their edits in such non-neutral and pejorative terms. I've encountered many editors in my time here whose editing shows what one might call a "non-linear style"; but their edits, and their comments, have been (one you care to scratch the surface), valuable input. Care, please. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that applying labels like "autistic" to editors is wrong. Even a real psychiatrist would not make such a diagnosis based on examining one's wikipedia behavior. However, I think it should be a requirement that one be willing to discuss one's edits with his fellow editors if necessary. Being unwilling or unable to do that, for whatever reason, is a major problem. One I'm addressing in an essay I'm working on. It's annoying to go to ones talk page and see loads of warnings, image copyright notices and various WTFs and the editor in question has zero edits to any talkspace.

That being said, I also acknowledge that there may be some with interactive communication problems who still might be able to make useful contributions. In such cases it might be useful for them to have a mentor who understands what they are doing to "speak for them" if anything they are doing is challenged. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an article have two RfCs about the same topic?

I set up an RfC at Mass killings under Communist regimes requesting input into how or whether to discuss allegations of genocide against the Romanian leader, Nicolae Ceausescu, since there was a huge discrepancy between the figures used in his 1989 trial and figures accepted by historians. User:Marknutley joined the discussion at the RfC but has now set up a second RfC and reversed my reference to the first RfC when I added it to his RfC, and posted the following message to my talk page: "Per WP:TPO i have reverted your editing of my posts, please do not do this again. The issues are separate and your rfc has no place in the one i just started, thank you".

There are now two live RfCs on Ceausescu, although phrased differently:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

This appears to me to be disruptive. Is there any policy on two RfCs? Should the second RfC at least mention that the topic is covered by another RfC? Can additional editors now add a third or a fourth RfC on Ceausescu?

TFD (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two rfc`s as they are separate issues, the rfc i set up is to get input on reliably sourced content which has been removed, the one you set up is, well i`m not to sure what it`s for to be honest, you seem to want to talk about the uprising, my edit was about the actual killings over the course of the regime. So as you see they are separate issues. mark nutley (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

N/A0 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were "not to sure what it`s for to be honest" about the first RfC why did you not say that when you responded to it? TFD (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What i meant is that you requested comment, i gave a comment along with reliable sources. You rubbished them, and continue to rubbish them even though one is the BBC so what i am saying is i`m unsure why you asked for comment when the sources clearly state something and yet you refuse to listen, why even bother to RFC? mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From reading the first RfC, it appears the disagreement is not whether figures the BBC (or another source) provide are reliable, but that the figures changed as time went on -- from 60,000 killed to as few as 97 -- & should the article cite the original numbers, or the later & smaller numbers? If you disagree with TFD's response, the proper thing to do is to work within the existing RfC (even if it is contentious), not to start your own, effectively identical, RfC. Doing so is not going to convince anyone to agree with you, but it will make you appear, at best, as if you don't know what you are doing. -- llywrch (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Cable

Is being reported as being dead on his page with no citations, but according to BBC reports , the identification is not definite yet. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help. this is developing into an edit war. The page needs protection. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, but I'd note that there is now a source for the claim that the article's subject has died. (The source is the NME, which is generally considered reliable for music-related matters). TFOWR 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a BBC article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Would someone mind having a look at this request on my talk page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackensen's sorted it - thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat and general incivility

Please see User_talk:Anthonyhcole#June_2010, where I placed a WP:NLT warning after this editor make a half hearted accusation of libel at Talk:Acupuncture. Although I did not take the threat seriously, it is good to leave educational warnings to prevent problems in future and accusations that may be taken more seriously. I also asked them to strike the accusation. Unfortunately, their response has been to repeat the accusation, more forcefully "Too right. You did libel me. ... I now accuse you of being a fool" (diff). Could an admin please just have a talk with this editor about how we avoid legal threats and the term "libel", and that incivility and repeating of the threat in response to a valid warning is not appropriate. I would also appreciate the comments being struck by the author. Verbal chat 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of a legal threat is that it involves an actual statement threatening to take legal action, which seems to be absent here. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is libel a verb? S.G. _ping! 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We have taken the view in the past that accusing other editors of libellous behaviour is not to be tolerated due to the chilling effect we are trying to avoid. Now, I happen to know that what I said isn't libellous at all, but that actually makes the situation for Anthonyhcole worse as he is making unfounded accusations of a legal nature. I am not asking for him to be blocked, unless he keeps making such accusations, but I would appreciate an admin making it clear that this behaviour is not tolerated here. Verbal chat 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More importantly (what, with me not being a lawyer an' all) is this libel? (I reckon "no").

If it were me, I'd ignore it and move on. The editor isn't going to go to court over Verbal uncollapsing a collapsed discussion. Ignore it. TFOWR 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying "you libeled me" is not quite the same thing as saying "I'm going to sue you for libel". It is an intimidation tactic. As TFOWR notes, the best option is to not be intimidated. The user in question is very possibly headed down the wrong path in general, and time will fix that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but what I am asking for is someone who isn't involved to tell this editor that this behaviour is not on. Repeating the accusation and calling the complaining editor a fool does not help the project. It is better to give a gentle talking too now rather than require an indef block later when they go too far. Verbal chat 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with to my satisfaction, thanks. Verbal chat 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not mine. I have just been rebuked. I have asked Sarek on my talk page to explain what I have done to deserve the rebuke. But perhaps this is the place for that. Please explain. Anthony (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that someone calling your edit misleading was libelous. Not cool, whether or not you actually intended to take legal action to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to be clearer than that. Not cool? Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this at my talk page:

Libel is a legal term for a false statement that when written, negatively impacts the individual it is written about. For one thing, throwing that term around can create a chilling effect - especially in an instance like this where there was obviously no libellous statement made. While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation...and that is not acceptable. In addition, calling someone a fool is an ad hominem personal attack. Misplaced Pages operates on consensus and cooperation, not on intimidation and insults. --Smashville 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And will respond shortly. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The history. I collapsed an off-article Acupuncture talk page discussion about User:Middle 8 here with "Copied to COI noticeboard" on the hat. These two edits happened within seconds of each other. Ten minutes later Verbal reversed both with the edit summary "It wasn't copied there" on the talk page edit.

I asked Verbal on his talk page what the problem was and he said, inter alia, "Misleading note." I asked "Misleading?" To which he did not reply.

Back on Talk:Acupuncture Verbal, still not explaining what he meant by misleading, posted this: "Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note." I responded with "Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? Ad hom? NPA|PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly?" You know the rest.

I object to being called misleading. It is a description I'll happily wear if demonstrated. But it has not been demonstrated. In the absence of that demonstration, I deserve an apology.

Verbal has demonstrated he is a fool by inferring a legal threat in no way inherent or implied in my use of the term libel. It can be and is used in law, but also, in popular usage simply means any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise.

So. I have been defamed here. Mildly, sleazily, underhandedly, in a sly, drive-by, hopefully-under-the-radar way by this fool. Rather than apologize when I called him on it he has brought it here, and you have drawn the same false inference and accused me of intimidation. I now deserve an apology from you. Are you mature enough? Anthony (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for repeating the "fool" attack after being warned by two admins it was an unambiguous violation of WP:NPA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They say it's better to wait for an apology rather than demand one. Demanding an apology makes one look very egotistical. –MuZemike 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Nicely refactored -- I missed that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my timing was absolutely horrible there, but it really doesn't take away from the general message, though. –MuZemike 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• This matter is not resolved. Using the adjective "libelous" is not making a alegal threat. "I am going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. Describing someone as "a fool" for not knowing that difference is blunt, but hardly untrue or worthy of a block.  Giacomo  07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Giacomo. It's a bad block. Anthony made no threats, legal or otherwise. Calling someone a fool is not a "nice" thing to do, but it certainly does not warrant a 24-hour block. Another classic case where a veteran content editor gets blocked because another editor misconstrues his remark. Poor show indeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a fool once is borderline and deserves a warning. Doing so repeatedly after being told not to do it again is self-destructive. Doing so again on ANI after being told not to do that again is in a sense suicide-by-cop.

If he acknowledges the NPA policy and agrees to stop using "fool" to describe other editors in the future, I don't see unblocking as unreasonable. But I think he needs do acknowledge that, regardless of what he feels, the community (writ large, Giano excepted) feels that it violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and that it was not OK, and he needs to agree to not push personal attack buttons again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there. Both responses seem over-the top, so clearly everyone was just fed-up because of the content dispute. Time to unblock and forget about it. SlimVirgin 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive newbie Chirco evading block with 2nd account.

Nick Chirco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Chirco and the man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Possibly this belongs on some other noticeboard, and quite possibly I will fail to provide the appropriate info in the proper way, for all of which, I apologize in advance. Maybe this user qualifies as a sockpuppet?

User:Nick Chirco, new here since 1 June, was just blocked at 04:03, 7 June 2010 for 24 hours after some disruptive editing. Now I see that he's endeavoring to fix things to his liking using a new account, User:ChircoN. I noticed this because he's reverting my edits (incl. some reversions of his edits) on pages I'm watching. I know there's a way to provide the accounts' relevant links, but I don't know what it is. Still, here are the nicely-intersecting contributions lists for Nick Chirco and ChircoN. Activity with the second account started some ten hours after the 24-hour block began. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat cheekily, I'll say upfront that future reports like this should go to sock puppet investigations (however, kind people have dealt with my sock puppet reports here, before, and may yet deal with yours...) It may also be worth mentioning this to the admin who blocked Nick Chirco. TFOWR 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks for the tip (and I can see the {{user}} template, too). Next time I'll do it all better (I hope), so it's not cheeky at all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, reset the original block; I didn't extend it as assuming extreme AGF, a new editor might not have realised he wasn't allowed to do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chirco now evading block with 3rd account

Frightfully sorry to be a nuisance, chaps and chapettes, but this user has apparently set up another account, if only to fix some "grammer" (so far). Starting a sock account appears to be the only recognition this user (originally User:Nick Chirco, then User:ChircoN, now User:Chirco and the man) has shown any of the notices on his Talk page(s). Thanks for your attention. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, with instructions to return to original account and request unblocking from there. Primary account indef'ed as well.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 22)

Some stupid motherfucker deleted the "Episodes" section of this article. I can't figure out who did it. B-Machine (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that nobody assists this editor until they apologise for this egregious personal attack, their second in not very long – ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. B-Machine (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The episodes section hasn't been deleted... Theleftorium 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the previous seasons. The episodes are listed in a yellow infobox. That's what's missing from this article. B-Machine (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They never were in there for this article, so no one deleted anything. Presumably the primarily editors decided not to put it in the same format yet because the season hasn't even started airing yet, and only a few episodes are known at this point so there is little confirmable information to work with.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They shouldn't be placed in a yellow table until we have sources that actually match up the titles with the plots. We can't do that ourselves – that would be original research. Theleftorium 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was (very briefly, and at various stages) a table added to the article until its latest removal here on 31 May by User:Gran2 on the grounds of 'Unsourced, speculation, OR etc.'. You should probably discuss with him on the article talk page whether that's justified or not, before taking further action. Benea (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike

I think this user is misusing his admin tools. Yesterday, he blocked somebody for being a sock of "banned" user GEORGIEGIBBONS yet he is not on the ban list and his user page doesn't say he is banned. MuZemike then deleted anything User:UnknownThing touched including SPIs, Afds and Good faith pages. 92.40.93.104 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely due to checkuser evidence is practically considered "de facto" banned. No abuse of admin tools. _Tommy2010 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block this IP which is obviously used by Gibbons?--Atlan (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's Gibbons? I'm not a monkey! 92.40.93.104 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Rohedin 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Naively assuming good faith, I'll try to explain why MuZemike did the right thing: GEORGIEGIBBONS is indefinitely blocked; using a sock to evade an block is a big no-no. Salvio ( ) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

92.40.93.104's edit history leaves me in very little doubt that it is the same user as UnknownThing, who is apparently also GEORGIEGIBBONS. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I rangeblocked 92.40.80.0/20 for 1 month. CheckUser  Confirmed (You may verify by asking User:J.delanoy, who can the CU.) that UnknownThing (talk · contribs) is GEORGIEGIBBONS. He then just came back on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan, the same SPI in which UnknownThing was involved in, and continued to proceed with GG's normally-used IP range. –MuZemike 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as the ban is concerned, no admin in their right mind would ever consider unblocking this serial vandal and sockmaster. He has had a long history of blatant disruption, including SPI disruption, IRC disruption, and impersonating other users. –MuZemike 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically- de facto banned. _Tommy2010 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BOOMERANG came back... Salvio ( ) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Maashatra11

Gaza flotilla raid is protected for more than 1 revert in 24 hours as stated in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. User:Maashatra11 has removed multiple images in one of their recent edits from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366590058&oldid=366586582 --386-DX (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you give individual diffs of them reverting? Fences&Windows 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, have you tried discussing with this user or on the talk page of the article? You've not left them a message about this AN/I post either. Fences&Windows 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving problems

Hi! There was an article called Apraxia, which is about the disorder. An editor moved Apraxia to Apraxia (disorder) and created an disambiguation page instead that is called Apraxia. I did not agree with this, because I think the disorder apraxia should be the main page, and get a tag: This article is about the disorder apraxia. For other uses, see Apraxia (disambiguation). So I moved Apraxia (that now was the disambiguation page) to Apraxia (disambiguation). But when I wanted to move Apraxia (disorder) back to Apraxia, there was a message saying that it was impossible and that I should request the help of an administrator. So here I am! Can you please help me? Lova Falk talk 19:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Just to make things clear. I don't have a conflict with this editor, I just did not agree with the moving. Lova Falk talk 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page to the location you requested. The disambiguation page could also probably be deleted, to be honest. But in any case, in the future, {{db-move}} can be used in these circumstances. NW (Talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For future cases, you can use Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, which serves the same purpose. {{db-move}} may be faster, but it is not appropriate in all circumstances. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses

I've been presented with a case on my talk pages that is getting a little confusing, having evolved from some disruption and pov issues raised at a previous ANI thread with which I dealt with.

• Here is the original complaint.

Here are the three IPs involved.

• 94.116.37.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked temporarily
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned

The -43 IP was reported for , the -49 for and -189 for . Originally I took most to be pretty tame apart from the -43, which was blocked. The others were warned.

Subsequently, -49 has left this innapropriate vandal warning to advance its agenda by implying counter-agendas are illicit. A new IP, 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done the same here and 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done this and this.

The IPs seem to be following Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · logs) and Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · logs) around, reverting or changing content and disagreeing on articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Six-Day War and someone called Caroline Glick. I suspect there are ArbCom sanctions relating to Palestinian or Israeli topics, however I am not fully familiar with them.

The IPs are hopping all over the place, making warnings and blocks difficult, please advise. S.G. _ping! 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone informed. S.G. _ping! 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more IPs have popped up and I believe they are connected to the ones noted above. They are 69.110.8.85 and 99.132.106.62.

• These are 69.110.8.85 contributions. They focus on the Gaza War and Caroline Glick

• These are 99.132.106.62 contributions They also focus on the Gaza War and Caroline Glick and there’s also one edit on the Six Day War.

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ban for User:LaTraviata1453 for repeated and intentional WP:DE and WP:BLANKING behavior

This user has been utilizing destructive editing and WP:BLANKING behavior for quite some time now, in the article Celine Dion. Specifically, the user has had a personal problem with how the article section Voice is worded. The user has continuously reverted long-standing edits with statements that are both inconsequential, irrelvant, and controversial, all the while adding references that are both from non-English sources and difficult to verify. The user has never utilized the talk page to try to sort out a consensus with how the article section should be worded, nor has the user tried to explain why they continue to ignore personal pleas on their personal talk page. They instead blank the page time after time, and ignore anyone who tries to ask them why they still revert and add large amounts of information in the article. Users, such as Moxy and myself have given this user the the benefit of the doubt, and have also given the user ample attempts to explain their actions. This has come to no use, and the user continues to revert and add information without explaining at all toward why. I am becoming increasingly frustrated that this user is ingnoring personal pleas to stop acting in this uncivil way. I can find no other way but to hopefully have the user temporarily blocked, that is, unless they suddenly understand how to use Misplaced Pages correctly and engage with other editors in a civil manner. The article, Celine Dion is a FA, and I do not want this user's edits to jeopardize that status. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that banning is not blocking. I would support a temporary block (24 hours if first time), but not a ban of this user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

His edits were a while ago, so I didn't block him for the 3RR. Seems like a fairly new account. I'm going to AGF; left a note on his talk page asking him to move to discussion rather than revert-warring if his additions are reverted. Shimeru (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More socks of User:45g

The blocked sockpuppet 45g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also known as Grace Saunders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) may have some more sockpuppets – see Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Requesting unblock of User:45g. Can someone with more knowledge of SPI please post this to SPI? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and a sleeper check put in at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grace Saunders. TNXMan 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP and talk pages of schools in China

A user with a dynamic IP from Jiangsu was asked once on Wiktionary and later here to not add parent categories to subcategorised articles or insert Chinese orthography errors. (See wikt:Appendix talk:HSK list of Mandarin words/Elementary Mandarin and this talk page, for example). He continued disruptive editing on Category talk:Education in China by province and was blocked. Now he's back again and continuing to edit-war on that talk page and leave sarcastic comments about the appearance of Template:zh on dozens of talk pages.

He was just blocked as 114.233.133.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but popped back up literally minutes later as:

• 114.233.130.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.233.137.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And more to come, no doubt ...

On Wiktionary he was blocked for a month; see wikt:Special:Contributions/114.233.133.51.

Due to the large number of talk pages and the dynamic IP, neither semi-protection nor blocking are really practical here. It's also a major ISP in China, so a rangeblock might affect a large number of users (not too sure how many from there are actually editing). Can someone have a look into this? Not really sure what the options are for dealing with this. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

114.233.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 3 months. It's only 4k IPs, and I doubt that many Chinese people are editing enwiki, with the GFW and all. ( seems to be all this person). Ping me on my talk page if he comes back on another IP. Tim Song (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another IP this user has been using that is currently unblocked. 114.233.130.164

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/114.233.130.164

--Pstanton (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)