Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 11 July 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Extremely long conversation moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl

  Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's not a bad way to organize things when a single issue overwhelms a discussion page. For what it's worth, that discussion can and should stay open until it is resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Seriously...we finally get a clear majority on a proposal and we have someone derail the conversation with an improper close, and then I come back and someone has moved it off the noticeboard to a subpage. If we'd let the conversation go we might have actually got a resolution now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• It might now. It didn't when I did it, though, because I used three tildes. :) MickMacNee, sorry if this squelches conversation in any way; it's not my intention, but 300,000 bytes on ANI is just too much. :/ It was over 2/3rds of the page. Crossmr, it's standard to remove conversations that overwhelm this page; that's why the instructions for doing so are right there at the top, under "How to use this page". --Moonriddengirl

• I've moved the latest comment about the situation to the subpage. I will be moving any conversation that belongs at that subpage to it, unless there is consensus to restore the whole 300,000+ bytes to ANI. It's inappropriate to fracture it and have conversation in two places. Moonriddengirl

• I'd suggest that this was a sub-optimal but perfectly understandable response. Yes, the page was getting huge, and was totally domination this page. However, as has been noted above, past indications are that subpaging leaves only the "partisan warriors" involved. (I'm not just talking about pages realting to Betacommand, but other editors perceived-by-some-as-problematic who've been "subpaged" as well.) The topic ban discussion was preceding independent of the squabbling, I'd like to see that section restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, can we agree on some naming convention or something to make these easier to find/organise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• If consensus emerges to support the now 354,000 bytes of this conversation to take over ANI, then, certainly, we should restore the entire conversation. Restoring a single section would be a bad idea, as it does not give a complete overview of the conversation to anybody stumbling upon it now. But, respectfully, if ANI has never been able to resolve issues with Δ, then perhaps ANI is not the best forum for it. --Moonriddengirl 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to highlight this person aswell, I have tried to come to middle ground he just point blanks reuses, I have even moved the pic and cut them back to how there were done for the PAST 18 MONTH, so either he off his head of wiki have never cared before? I have stated in talk page and each pic talk description aswell, yet there not good enough, I have state there needed to better explain page, I also found its DAM cheek him he the one that in the edit war AND also placing the warning to me, Judge and jury?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)

• I think we need a bit of organisation here. We seem to have various Delta/Beta subpages spread out. Heck, the Delta/Beta archive pages aren't even all subpages of the same parent. I totally agree with moving all this stuff to different pages, so the rest of ANI can flourish, but the way it is at the moment is all very confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsal Axe (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what on earth this means, but it does not help me, and also seams that if this Admin is correct then for the past 18month, umpteen admins have failed in the duties.

Previous subpages

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand
4. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand
5. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 1
6. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2
7. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3
8. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 4
9. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 5
10. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 6
11. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks
12. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Reverting of subpage

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Subpaging. In support of the principle above (which I objected to!) I attempted to move the sanction-lifting proposal to the subpage, but was reverted by Beta. I'm cross-posting both to add the timestamp, also because I consider this an "incident" and I'm requesting adminstrator action: Either move the new proposal to the subpage or bring the old one back, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it was highly inappropriate for the subject of this ongoing ANI thread to fracture the conversation by starting a new section at AN, and I have said as much at AN. Since he reverted your subpaging his new thread and since there is some disagreement from evidently involved (I haven't had time to check deeply), I've transcluded the subpage to AN so that everyone can see the entire history of that conversation. (ETA: Had to reduce that to a link, as an e-mail I received informs me that it is creating load issues...which is why it was subpaged to begin with.) Moonriddengirl

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved administrators left?

We have a proposal on the subpage that has been open for 6 days. It' has a nearly 2/3's majority support, and the support has actually grown since it's been subpaged. At some point we need someone to step in enact the proposal that the community has clearly supported and clearly given plenty of time to considering.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Community sanctions are imposed through consensus. A "nearly 2/3's majority" obviously means "no consensus". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I regrettably agree with that; however, the circumstances, increasing numbers of supporting administrators, and clear overwhelming majority opinion (short of the usual 80% community consensus standard for such cases) basically require that we file an arbcom case to enact that outcome now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no hard line of 80% at Misplaced Pages:CONSENSUS. It's currently at around 29/17 or 32/17 depending on exactly how you count it (3 users seem to support, but didn't explicitly label their comments support), which shows far more than a simple majority. This isn't some 18/17 split, and the discussions has obviously been trending towards support, in the last 5 days the discussion has run 9/3 in favor of support.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As the proposer there I have an obvious bias in favor of the proposal; I also have, as an uninvolved administrator done a lot of community consensus closes. I would not close this one, at this time, as enacted. One might relist it to gather additional input, but that's already been effectively done by the high profile nature of the case. Arbcom exists in large part to deal with situations "stuck in the middle" sufficiently that the consensus criteria can't be met. The supermajority we have here justifies action, but not community consensus enactment of the topic ban. It does justify a "community patience exhausted" arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then as the proposer will you file this?--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert is right: none of the proposals in the subpage, pro-Δ or anti-Δ, have reached consensus or are likely to. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How could they when they're closed/shuffled around and constantly disrupted? However, I still don't see anything in consensus that necessitates an 80% majority, nor even a supermajority. What I do see is a rather clean unambiguous majority supporting a ban.--Crossmr (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the strength of consensus needed depends a bit on the severity of the sanctions being discussed. The proposal was an indefinite topic ban with limited exceptions for discussion: "Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development." Consensus for that is debatable (though getting there). But I would suggest that consensus is strong enough to support my more limited version: "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise; perhaps a brave admin is willing to declare it. Otherwise, Arbcom could be asked to pass it as an interim measure or something. PS As part of the discussion about a bot Delta has already said "If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months...", while in the subpage discussion some exceptions for the "no removals" approach were suggested. On both counts, simplicity wins: "no removals" is simple to follow and simple to enforce - and given the vast amounts of collective energy expended on enforcement around these issues, that counts for a lot. Rd232 public 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Except people weren't indicating their support for your version so you can't use their support for a different thing. Delta's proposal, and his offer, is frankly insulting "I'll stop being disruptive if you grant me this exception". That simply cannot fly. Him stopping his disruption can't be based on the community granting him an exception. With that statement he's acknowledging that he knows his behaviour is disruptive and doesn't have full consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, Nothing will ever have full consensus. What I stated was I would stop mass removals for 6 months to see if the talkpage tagging and DaB repair system was effective, if they are not, Ill continue, removal is the most effective method for solving NFC issues. ΔT 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Effect simply cannot be measured by how quickly you reduce the amount of non-compliant images, because there is a far more reaching effect to your behaviour. The effectiveness is greatly reduced when you enter into conflicts, piss off users, chase them away from the project, needlessly edit war, and remove some (not all) images from articles that should in fact actually have them. You've had dozens, possibly hundreds of users try to explain this to you over the years.Nowhere does it indicate in NFCC that you must do those things. Those actions are entirely your own choice.--Crossmr (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"so you can't use their support for a different thing" - yes, a completely different thing, apples and oranges. No wait, they're both fruit, that's too similar. Moondust and crocodile clips? No, they're both physical objects. Frogs and fridays? Well anyway, completely different. There's just no way that a near-consensus for a fairly complete indefinite topic ban could be translated by way of compromise into consensus for a lesser, time-limited topic ban that enables productive solutions to be explored. No way. So, best do nothing, as usual. (Heck, in this case, if Delta's bot happens and he puts mass removals on hold, it may not work out too badly.) Rd232 public 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I didn't say so in the community ban proposal, I think Rd232's proposal in conjunction with Beta's proposal is entirely acceptable as far as I am concerned. It was extremely healthy for Rd232, as someone else who wasn't otherwise closely involved, to propose alternate solutions that might have more community support. It would take a very bold uninvolved admin to close and enact that under the circumstances, but perhaps such does exist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr states that the proposal was "constantly disrupted" yet still wants the ban to be enacted. ? With respect, doesn't make sense. I noted before in that debate, and will repeat here; if you want to enact a ban on Δ, then start an RfC where evidence can actually be laid out, responded to, and considered in a fair and equitable way. This scattering across multiple boards, with closings/unclosings, etc. isn't yielding a proper process to cause someone to be banned for anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because despite the disruption there is still clear support for it. Delta discussions generally generate huge amounts of respondents, except when people do things like that have been done here. If people thought it was going to take 70 or 80 people to make the decisions, they really shouldn't have done what they did, however we still have a very clear majority. I've twice posted several incidents of Delta inappropriately responding to users and causing conflict with his behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of his on-going issues when handling NFCC disputes.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do you see what you're saying? Despite the disruption? Do you not see that the disruption has made the discussion completely invalid? Last I bothered to check, there was a clear majority to remove one of his restrictions. Should we apply that too? The best bet for your own sake if you want his head on a pike is to start an RfC. That will carry clear validity if it holds to uphold the additional sanctions you keep begging for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• An RfC is pointless. The years of discussion we've had has been an RfC. An RfC is a non-binding process that drags on for months and means nothing. Last I checked there is no support remove any restrictions. There was support to grant an exception for a specific task, that isn't remotely the same thing. The proposal was supported before it was moved to the sub-page, the majority wasn't as big, but it still existed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A note about User: Δ / Betacommand

I've resolved the latest conversations as no consensus and we keep in place community sanctions. I'm quite tired of hearing "we ignore them" or "this user gets away with (fill in the blank)".

No matter who the user is, if they are under ArbCom or community sanctions and edit in a way that violates the ruling, administrators need to uphold the ruling and block if need be, or no block at all/unblock if the situation is outside the scope. We have community sanctions for a reason. Keegan (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm not neutral in the whole affair, but for gods sake, can we please not say or do anything related to Delta at this or any other noticeboard until the ArbCom Motion is over. I don't care if he sets the server farms in Tampa on fire, keep it off of every other page and take it to the ArbCom motion page. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Svan (and I'm not neutral in the whole affair either). Let's let the ArbCom ruling continue and see what happens of it. Short of appealing to Jimbo himself, this matter is already at WP's Supreme Court. Additional discussion here is pointless. Buffs (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Laughs ...Svan? Err... alrighty then. I don't know why that's hilarious, but it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Muckraking by new user?

Cinnamon123 has made one post. I'm not bothered per se about the content of the blog he links to, but could this be the start of something disruptive? - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For context, a new poster on the Talk page of an IP/new-reg POV-laden Indian caste article has linked a lengthy blog post accusing Sitush, myself, another editor, and an admin of accepting $12,000 from some wealthy Indian to slander the Nair caste of southern India. It's kind of funny, but possibly disruptive, and it's almost guaranteed that this new-reg is yet another sock of one of several editors banned for POV pushing, edit warring, calling us "sons of whores", etc. And most likely the same person that wrote this blog post (with a whole 80 hits at last count). MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sujith.Kumaar may be behind the Cinnamon123 account. I've just NPA'd him/her for the response that effectively endorses the notion that we're being paid. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the other 2 mentioned in the blog. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, I clean forgot to notify umpteen people on this occasion. Am usually ok doing that. Still picking myself up off the floor and wondering when the cheque is gonna turn up. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And Sujith & Cinnamon have also been notified, don't worry. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Matthew, I decided to do a cursory check of both yours and Boing's contribs, and from an outsider's glance I'm seeing you two on the defensive side, not the slandering side. An interesting tale is woven by that link, but at a glance it appears rather, er, imaginative. I'd recommend we remove the link to the post from the above statement, so as not to drive this editor any more undue traffic (the link's in the history for anyone who's super curious anyway), block if they're a sock and move on. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted Cinnamon123's user page, which contained only a link to the same blog, labelled "Truth about the recent edits in the Nair page" - there's no "effectively endorses" about that version, it's a open accusation (I know I'm involved, but with such a blatant attack I hope I can be excused). I think we should simply indef block him for NPA rather than hanging around wondering if he's a sock, and just forget him and move on (and yes, zap the links to the blog, as that's only giving him publicity) - but obviously I won't do that myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Links deleted. Let me know if he does something like this again and I'll block him if I don't decide to do it sooner. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• This nonsense needs to stop; it's been going on for too long. I'm pondering whether Sujith.Kumaar simply shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, with a hammer ready to whack the inevitable moles. I'd do it myself, but I'm involved as well--Sitush promised me a cut of the money. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, they have been in touch. For tax reasons it is apparently better if it is paid straight into your account. Just send them your bank details, including password and security question. and they say that they'll arrange a direct payment via a nice man in Nigeria. If you pass on your address they'll "send him some blue pills as part of the deal, gratis", although I'm not sure what they mean by that & I guess that if I don't know then I don't need. YMMV.

More seriously, the general problems at the article are unlikely to go away. There are already a couple of admins keeping an eye on things but my dream of getting this sufficiently stable to take a punt at a GAN, which would be a rare thing for a caste article, are not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out a GA run just yet. I know the disruption is making it hard, but if we can keep on top of it (and especially if the Community decides to back Salvio's suggestion below), I think we're still in with a decent chance. I'm certainly going to be sticking with it and doing whatever I can from an admin position to protect both the article and the people working on it - I'm stubborn like that, and blustering bullies and liars trying to scare me away only reinforce my commitment (besides, I'd be mad to walk away from my 12 grand a month, wouldn't I? ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sod it; I've indefinitely blocked him. Clearly not here to contribute productively. Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Since this article seems to pop up rather frequently here, how about placing it under article probation, so as to give the admins who keep an eye on it a bit of latitude to deal with disruptive editors? Salvio 15:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd certainly support that - it would make the job a fair bit easier. I'm not bothered about receiving abuse myself as I have chosen to take an admin role in this and related articles, but I hate to see hard-working productive editors insulted and abused in the way they have been, and I'd welcome greater powers to protect them against such things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a zero-tolerance line against soapboxing and battleground behaviour seems like an obvious thing to employ here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• And today's contribution to the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• The SPI at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 might be of interest to people following this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam from Wikialpha

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

A halt to said spam has been promised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten a spam email via my Misplaced Pages account. It was saying an article I did an AfD on is preserved at WikiAlpha. Also said to find more and join up, goto WikiAlpha. It was sent by a non-existent user. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what admin action you are expecting here - do you have anything in mind? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This has happened before. According to this thread, User:WikiAlphaBot was doing the same thing and was banned for "Email spambot (per CheckUser)". Just wondering if it is happening again and how a non-existent user is emailing thru the Misplaced Pages interface? Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question, raised at WP:PUMPTECH#Misplaced Pages email from non-existent user. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us the username? T. Canens (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I once tried to start an SPI for various versions of these spambots at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAlphaBot. Singularity42 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikialpha admins seemed very responsive to issues about licensing compliance (although I've not visited their website since helping them with the issue). My naive question: has anybody asked them to stop? :) (Somebody may have done, I know.) --Moonriddengirl 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Now the world can read about Lewinsky (neologism) in two places! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but who in their right mind would want to? Besides, it could be worse. It could be goatse. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved; WikiAlphaRobot (talk · contribs), who was sending the emails, has been blocked as a sock of WikiAlphaBot (talk · contribs), who was the first account sending these messages. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not resolved. I just got another one a few minutes ago from ValloVir (talk · contribs). Obviously, block as a sock, but this is starting to get really annoying. I'm almost at the point of disabling the ability to let other users email me. Singularity42 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'm still getting the emails from ValloVir. Thank you for putting the block on. Bgwhite (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have alerted the administrator of WikiAlpha about this discussion (at least the one who idenfied himself as such here) - both at the talk page of his user account here, and at the talk page of his WikiAlpha account. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So what is this, a wiki-mirror for editors who can't cut it here? I'm sure there's dozens of these things around. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of them around, but this one specifically preserves articles that up for AfD. The main problem that brings it to ANI is that they are created bot accounts to send spam emails to Misplaced Pages editors about their mirror site. Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this truly spam though? Misplaced Pages insisted that Wikialpha keep a list of the article editors with the articles copied, isn't it appropriate to INFORM an editor his work has been copied to another wiki? Isn't that what the email links are there for? If someone doesn't want a email they can turn the link off. If they specifically don't want Wikialpha emails, I'm sure they could request to be put on a "no call list" with Wikialpha. Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As for what Wikialpha is, it's a user edited encyclopedia, just like Misplaced Pages. The main difference being that is doesn't have requirements for notablity, as the editors feel Misplaced Pages is a bit too strict on that. So they copy deleted articles from Misplaced Pages into their deletion space, and if if someone wants to look over the formerly deleted article, and sees it's fine except for falling short of Misplaced Pages's notability standards, they move it to regular article space on Wikialpha. I edit articles on both sites. It's actually a good place to keep articles in development that border on being notabile as you compile sources to prove notability. Mathewignash (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm Administrator Govind on WikiAlpha. I took a look at WP:EMAIL and I don't believe there is anything that this bot does that is in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies - I think that the fact that it is an automated email has colored your perception of it as being "spam"; as has been established above, some users have found these notifications helpful; after all, it is just a notification that one's article is listed for deletion, and I believe that this is a legitimate reason to contact someone. GSMR (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's most definitely against the spirit of the policy; I've blocked users for spamming research projects via email, for example, and have done so with authority. Running an unauthorised bot is most certainly against the rules. Cease and desist immediately or, unless a consensus forms here that this behaviour is kosher, I will quite happily block the accounts. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Using the Misplaced Pages's e-mail to send what amounts to advertising for your little hole-in-the-wall should not be in any way permissible here. IMO, block this GSMR person and anyone else found to be involved in the spam-flood. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do devolve to name calling Tarc. If GSMR looked at the policy and tried to fall within it, he's editing in good faith. Disputes in policy should be talked over before reverting to blocks. Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GSMR/Govind and Mathewignash, it should have become clear to you by now that these e-mails are not wanted. The bot has been blocked. Re-creating it was an act of block-evading sockpuppetry, if nothing else. Running unauthorized bots is also against our bot policy. Bots should also never operate without a clear disclosure of who runs them. But now, let's cut to the chase, shall we: who creates these bots, who controls them? Certainly somebody involved with the administration of Wikialpha? So, was it you? In that case, desist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not me. I'm acting as a representative for WikiAlpha on this discussion, though. GSMR (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then tell the person who is doing it to stop. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Is having a human send emails for this purpose, rather than a bot, allowed? GSMR (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, because you obviously haven't grasped it yet. Misplaced Pages and its email functions do not exist to provide either a catalyst or a carrot to your project. If you attempt to use the email function, the talkpage function, data gathered on wikipedia, contact information gathered on wikipedia or anything else from wikipedia in what amounts to advertising for your website, whether it violates the letter of policy or not, I. Will. Block. You. If anyone else does it, I will block them too. If it keeps happening we'll checkuser them, block all the accounts, and so on and so forth until you get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the policy being violated please?Mathewignash (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that Ironholds is thinking of WP:PROMOTION, though I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, these people were quite reasonable when approached about licensing issues. I don't see any reason to expect any difference here. It seems to me that people who have articles deleted as being out of scope on Misplaced Pages might be actually be interested to know that they have been migrated to a project with more expansive inclusion guidelines. I disagree with any plan to unilaterally block representatives of Wikialpha from making contact with those editors to let them know. It seems to me a courtesy that they are doing so. That said, I think it's important that any such notices should be through user talk page (contributors who want e-mail notices will receive one announcing the talk page change anyway), and I don't believe that they should include any kind of call to join WikiAlpha, as I think that would cross the line. --Moonriddengirl 18:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors here should not have to turn off their email function just to avoid these notifications. That cuts off their access to legitimate emails from other Wikipedians. Signing up to edit here should not mean that we are open to be contacted off-wiki by anyone else's bots. If there is a need to contact editors it should be done on their talk page or not at all. MarnetteD | Talk 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nothing to do with the emails, except being someone who got one in his inbox. Just thought I should chime in on the opposite side of the person who complained. It wasn't unwanted spam to me, it was information about an article I helped author. Mathewignash (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the essence of spam; they send out a multitude of junk knowing that 99.9% will get trashed. That 0.1% says "hey, that's pretty cool, thanks" doesn't make the spam ok. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please close this discussion as resolved. The bot in question has been retired and no other attempts will be made to continue. GSMR (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

→ –MuZemike 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, he must have accessed an earlier version of that thread. I've expanded it, so our "appalling" treatment is a little more clear. :/ --Moonriddengirl 18:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse MRG's approach, except that I think email better than the talk p., because they might well have left Misplaced Pages. It is information related to Misplaced Pages, that a former Misplaced Pages article has been moved elsewhere, and therefore appropriate for the email system -- as well as the user p. If I were doing it, I'd either do both, or use the talk p. if still active, email otherwise if activated, and if not, as a last resort the talk p. in the hope of communication. I think most people involved would certainly want to know, and I wonder where Tarc got his figures otherwise. If anything, I think it better to inform them than to use their work without doing so, although of course the license does not require it, it's a desirable courtesy. Whether other than the authors would be concerned is another matter. If I merely commented keep on an AfD, I'm not sure I would really care in most cases, but I might in some. (I can see that those who had !voted for deletion or nommed or closed might be annoyed to see they had not ridden the internet of the material, but they should have known that anyway.) I agree with MRG that a call to join the other encyclopedia is inappropriate, but it would also be unnecessary--if they are interested, they would be likely to take a look after getting the message, and decide on their own accord. To those who think it inappropriate: if this were to happen to an article you had written, would you want to know, or not? DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't agree with some of the comments here (I don't want to be harsh against the other website), I do believe the email is spam. That is, it is an email about a website I don't have anything to do with, it is asking me to join that website, and I have no option to request not to recieve the emails except by disabling the email feature with Misplaced Pages. I am in favour of the talk page approach, provided that if I indicate I want to opt-out of recieving notfications about a website other than Misplaced Pages (or WMF websites), I can do so. Otherwise, it is spam, plain and simple. Singularity42 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the concept that another site might copy articles removed from WP as a result of an AfD. I haven't seen a copy of the email in question, but if it simply informs the editors that the article will be coped to another site, I don't see the harm. Surely some recipient will not want to get the email, but they probably didn't want to get the AfD notice, and we aren't planning to discontinue that. (Yes, I appreciate the difference.) while I understand some might prefer not to receive the notice, I can equally imagine some might be miffed if the article were copied and no one let them no. I don't see an obvious way to identify in advance who would be miffed at receiving a notice and who would be miffed at not receiving a notice. If the notice goes overboard about what a wonderful place the other site is, and implores them to become a member, it might qualify as spam, but a simple notification seems more than appropriate. The admins at that site appear to be bending over backward to accommodate our rules, I think we could meet them partway.--SPhilbrickT 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The premise of this wikialpha site is beyond ridiculous. We delete articles for good reason here, be it children's toy cruft or untenable sexual neologism...the latter is the most problematic as they are now going to retain the Lewinsky slur for all-time. What you have is a handful of people scraping the bottom of the wiki-barrel for table scraps that would have otherwise be incinerated. We should not accommodate this farce in the slightest.Tarc (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the line drawn, Sphilbrick? Basically, we're setting up a precedent that any site that wants to a copy a soon-to-be-deleted article is allowed to send automated emails to users who had something to do with that article, and the uses have no way to opt out of recieving those emails. It would turn Misplaced Pages into a vehicle for third-party spam. By the way, for those that want to see a copy of the email, here is one (of the many) I recieved (note that it appears these bots were targeting users who started an AfD, not the creators of the articles):

Your article 'Jasper_Contractors_Inc' has been automatically preserved at: http://en.wikialpha.org/Deleted:Jasper_Contractors_Inc

We'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join WikiAlpha -- the open encyclopedia, journal and news source. Unlike Misplaced Pages, WikiAlpha has no notability or original research constraints. To find out more and sign up please visit: http://wikialpha.org/

--

This e-mail was sent by user "ValloVir" on the English Misplaced Pages to user "Singularity42". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Email>.

As I said, it's spam. Singularity42 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole dispute says more about the regular contributors to this board than anything else. When we first approached WikiAlpha regarding licensing over at the Village Pump, everyone was cordial, respectful, and helpful. We managed to work out something that (in my view) satisfied everyone and left no one in any particular bad moods.

Shift over to this board, where the very first comment labels the email as "spam," and then in the course of the thread numerous editors proceed to attack the site and its creators, which left them in such bad spirits that they decided to copy the thread onto their site as an example of how appalling we apparently are. It's bad form for us collectively, and it helps to further the view that Misplaced Pages is clannish and hostile to outsiders. (Mainly because we just were.) Apparently here on AN/I, the fourth of the Five Pillars gets thrown out the window. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not upset with the attacks - I find the effort put into clannish hostility amusing. Anyway, as I've stated earlier, this matter (of the bot) has been resolved, so there really is no reason to keep this discussion open. I find continuing to discuss it surmounts to nothing more than beating the proverbial dead horse.

Also, to reiterate, I am affiliated with WikiAlpha, but I am not responsible for the creation, running, or maintenance of the bot being discussed here, so it is completely unreasonable to suggest that I should be blocked.

(Perhaps saying that will provoke an agitated reply from Ta- someone... let's see.) GSMR (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Content on WikiAlpha like the article "Misplaced Pages's treatment of WikiAlpha" is completely WikiAlpha's business and not Misplaced Pages's. I've elaborated on the talk page of that article for those who disagree with it. GSMR (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Elektrik Shoos - As someone who frequently takes on the "you kids be nice or I'll set the dog on you" role I must ask: Exactly what of the above is "appalling?" Tarc does cross the line into insult with "hole-in-the-wall" and "spam-flood" but is told at once "Please do devolve to name calling Tarc." While this board does frequently turn into a race to the bottom, in this case I think you're being oversensitive. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Ironholds for the clear statements above: Misplaced Pages is being exploited (again), but spam is spam and senders will be blocked. Fortunately we do not have to spend hours discussing the obvious. GSMR: We don't care about some page on some website; please stop mentioning it as this matter is settled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious. I didn't start the discussion about it, and I've been saying again and again that the matter has been resolved so it'd be best to close this discussion as Resolved. Might someone do that? GSMR (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Otberg

Wha? Otberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of reverting well-referenced editions to the article which covers the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia. My edits, referenced by official documents, just like those by an IP address, were reverted as "unconstructive" by this user, who rejects "perfectly okay" changes in light of his point of view: "the kingdom never existed." Though that's not what exactly the sources say... I'm requesting a ban from editing the article, and related articles to the Kingdom such as Philippe Boiry and Orelie-Antoine de Tounens, because it is not helping, really. I'm not reverting his reversion to my edits to the kindgom article, anyone's free to do so. Diego Grez (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything other than a content dispute (aside from a single violation of WP:DTTR). I don't see any reason whatsoever for a topic ban. If I'm missing something please provide diffs. --Daniel 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez tries to propagate a state which never existed in real and tells us there is an King in exile, with the help of curios sources. Well sourced sentences like "Philippe, aka Philippe Boiry, is said to have purchased the title. When he visited Argentina and Chile once, he met with hostility by the local media and cold shoulder by most of the Mapuche organisations" he changed in: "When he visited Argentina and Chile in 1989, he met with hostility by the local media but was well received by most of the Mapuche organisations" - by using the same source, which seems to be a forgery for me. --Otberg (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, rather than anything that needs immediate action by an administrator. I'd suggest following the dispute resolution process, including (but not limited to) obtaining a third opinion or taking the discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I never realized that the topic area of proposed and failed kingdoms was another contentious hot-spot. The silliest things people will get hung up over (let alone that it's about an infobox). Silverseren 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the relevent website to ask them to identify any published sources for their claims that the kingdom was recognised so maybe we shall see.Fainites scribs 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Grez (formerly MisterWiki) should be reminded that he is still under an editing restriction which mandates that he continue to work with his mentor, HJ Mitchell, so I'm wondering if he sought out that admin's advice before coming here? It is unseemly for an editor who has been under a indefinite site ban, and has been allowed back on to the project by the community, to be involved in a content dispute he brings to AN/I. Content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, in discussion with other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Karma is a bitch, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As of January this year, Diego has been free of restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, and, more to the point, that of Diego Grez. The link I provided was the same as yours, but I misread the discussion completely, thinking that the starting point was the ending point. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Request more eyes familiar with the situation - Gun Powder Ma, Teeninvestor and Qing Dynasty theory

A few moments ago, completely by accident I noticed the AfD for Qing conquest theory (I was listing a different article for deletion and QCT was the top one in the AfD log so I took a look). I voted in the AfD according to my knowledge of the subject not thinking much of it. Then I noticed that the other commentator at the AfD, User:Kanguole was canvassed by the AfD nominater, User:Gun Powder Ma - given Kanguole's previous comments on the article's talk page, it's pretty clear GPM was expecting a deletion vote from him and that's what he got. GPM also informed the creator of the article, User:Teeninvestor of the AfD, but it seems Teeninvestor has left Misplaced Pages in August 2010 so obviously this was done for formality's sake (for the record, I'm not opposed to canvassing, but it is what it is).

I poked around some more and it turns out that the creator of the article, Teeninvestor, and the nominator, Gun Powder Ma, have some kind of a long-running feud going. Indeed, it seems that Teeninvestor left Misplaced Pages because of GPM's actions. Some of the previous controversy is here and on the two users' talk pages. Apparently Kanguole was also involved in this controversy.

I am not completely familiar with the underlying situation here but it does look like possibly Gun Powder Ma drove Teeninvestor off of Misplaced Pages (maybe with some enabling from gullible administrators) and is now going around and vindictively destroying the user's previous contributions - part of what sparked my interest in this is the fact that the AfD appears to be completely spurious. Even though Teeninvestor is not around anymore, and even if he was guilty of some stuff back in the day (and that's a real possibility - I don't know), this kind of behavior is quite problematic and I would appreciate it if some people who are more familiar with the situation took a look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful for you to read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor if you have not already. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. It does seem like TI was a bit trigger happy with the revert button, though content wise it's hard to say which user was right (I can see some edits by each, as well as others who were involved in the RfC, which violate POV, as well as ones which are legitimate), and the RfC does have a smell of a railroading to it. The point still stands - the AfD still looks like a vindictive persuit of a long standing grudge long after the user has left Misplaced Pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that Teeninvestor left Misplaced Pages because he was tired of Gun Powder Ma and friends' consistent efforts to get him blocked. However, this happened a year ago and I don't remember or care enough to argue the finer details of who was right in that dispute. A thread of aggressiveness can indeed be perceived throughout GPM's contributions, especially in the direction of glorifying (Western) European achievements and minimizing Asian and African achievements. On the other hand, GPM is well-read in his field, and sometimes, when the vindictiveness is applied towards the contributions of truly prolific serial POV pushers, it has a net positive result. Teeninvestor is long gone and the other user who collaborated with him on Qing conquest theory, User:Arilang1234, was recently indefinitely blocked. With only Gun Powder Ma and people sympathetic to him left on wiki, this thread could just devolve into a Teeninvestor-bashing exercise. Although the timing of the AfD leaves a bad taste in my mouth, intent is not easily proven on Misplaced Pages. Unless you put in the work of collecting diffs to substantiate these accusations yourself, I can't see this thread going anywhere productive. Quigley (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I canvassed only the two people on the talk page, Kanguole and Teeninvestor. Since their views seem to be opposing, they would neutralize each other anyway in the AfD, if you are worried about votes. As for Quigley's interpretation, that is pretty subjective. He was one of the few who supported Teeninvestor in the RFC/U. I don't doubt his sincerity, but his was certainly not the view of the majority of the users. Frankly, I don't know why this has been brought up here, I don't see any incident here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I canvassed only the two people on the talk page, Kanguole and Teeninvestor. Since their views seem to be opposing, they would neutralize each other anyway in the AfD, if you are worried about votes. - see, this is exactly the kind of thing that is bothering me about this situation. Based on the history here, it's pretty obvious that you were perfectly aware that Teeninvestor was not active anymore, hence would not respond to or even notice the notification. Kanguole would. So you're pretending that you are canvassing even handedly when in fact you know pretty well you're not. It's true that as Quigley says intent is very hard to prove on Misplaced Pages but it does appear like this involves quite a heaping of bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk)

You are getting absurd. I have canvassed the users who have shown an interest in the article in the past. It is beyond my power whether they are active, semi-retired or retired. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Marek's comment has merit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the reported scenario or Qing conquest theory, but Gun Powder Ma should be thanked for the excellent work done regarding extreme POV pushing by another editor (information here), and judging by the information at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Evidence of disputed behaviour, the two cases seem similar, in which case a double thank you is owed to GPM. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a stupid question, but how is canvassing an editor who's been gone for the better part of a year supposed to provide balance? I cannot speak to the rest of it, but Marek's got a valid point in that regard. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a particular point to make here, but my only encounter with Gun Powder Ma has been on a different subject where GPM was quite a persistent and civil defender against a determined pov-pusher. That kind of work is exceptionally important to wikipedia, and deserves another thankyou, although it's not absolution from all sins (I've seen other people who start as "defenders" occasionally go a bit too far in excluding any mention of the fringe view...) bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. My concern is just about the question of canvassing an editor who is no longer active, and I know absolutely nothing about the history or other issues--I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith, but to say that canvassing an editor who isn't active provides balance seems a stretch. I would be interested in GPM's view of how that provides balance. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma notified the editors he/she believed to have been interested parties on their talk pages. The article history does not suggest any other editors who should have been specially notified. He did the right thing. He should not be criticised for this.

There are two very small ways that he could have improved on what he did with the notifications . He could have written edit summaries, and he could have have put the name of the article in the heading of the notification. We all make mistakes.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

76.106.238.105 and VEE Corporation

76.106.238.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is certainly someone who works at VEE Corporation. Their edits always involve replacing the article with a press release. 76.106.238.105 has edited the page VEE Corporation about 10 times, as well as Disney Live, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.43.85 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been two months since they edited and they have not added any of this press release content that you claim. I don't see any need for action here at all; if there's a problem, fix it (which you have already done). Nate • (chatter) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Blackie Lstreet at Casey Anthony trial

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

already going at WP:BLPN. Two discussions not needed where one will do. Admins watch that channel as well. --Jayron32 00:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. Editor Blackie Lstreet keeps behaving in a way that I and others consider to be disruptive (and even vandalism at some points) at the Casey Anthony trial article. The editor claims that the article is not neutral and is a BLP issue simply because we present evidence that was actually used at trial, arguments actually stated at the trial (both sides are presented), and negative reaction to the aftermath of the trial (though both sides are presented). According to all reliable sources (every single one), most of the public has reacted negatively to the verdict of "Not Guilty" in the case of Casey Anthony. And yet Blackie Lstreet acts as though this is defamation and as though Misplaced Pages is presenting its own opinions, all because he believes Casey Anthony and most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. This belief goes against every reliable source reporting on this. All one needs to do is turn on the television here in America and see that most people are outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. It has also sparked several different debates which should be (and are) covered in the article. And yet Blackie Lstreet insists that "Only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict" and that there is a "silent majority apparently content to let the jury make the decision." Blackie Lstreet removed information about the outrage of the "Not Guilty" verdict twice, and was reverted twice. Just today, he removed the entire Evidence section (among other things) under false claims and reasoning, all while introducing bias and POV into the lead, which I reverted. He was mainly reverted because just about everything in the Evidence section was presented at the trial by the prosecution. And here he removed key arguments made by the prosecution all under the summary "Remove some clutter."

Basically, I and other editors need some intervention here in regards to Blackie Lstreet. It seems he keeps undermining the article, as expressed by another editor here, because he feels the article should reflect her innocence since she's been found "Not Guilty." And feels we are presenting our own opinions. As I stated, there is nothing POV about presenting facts. We present the evidence, trial, and reaction to the verdict as it has been reported through reliable sources. Not through our own personal opinions. And we do present both sides. I have attempted to discuss matters with Blackie Lstreet at these three discussions: Talk:Casey Anthony trial#The Publicity and aftermath section, Talk:Casey Anthony trial#article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder and Talk:Casey Anthony trial#Section on Trial needs overhaul. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a content dispute. The article may have problems with POV and BLP, so if anybody feels like offering advice or boldly fixing things, that would be great. I'm out of my depth there. I've posted a brief review here and alerted Wikiproject Law and BLP/N. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a content dispute, as the links and his faulty rationale showcase above; as expressed by more than one editor on the talk page, Blackie Lstreet is removing large chunks of the article that are relevant and reliably sourced. He removed the entire Evidence section, which includes just about everything that was introduced at the trial, and falsely stated that it was not introduced at the trial. He also claimed that we cannot use references from 2008 to present evidence that was included at the trial. The fact that Anthonyhcole, who somewhat sided with Blackie Lstreet, is saying that removing large or significant aspects that are crucial to understanding the topic of this article is just a content dispute, is absurd. There is no BLP issue going on here at all. There is disruptive editing going on here, as expressed by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Flyer22's assessment. I have also reverted deletions made by User:Blackie Lstreet; these were referenced multi-paragraph sections that are relevant and necessary to the article. It appears that Blackie Lstreet is attempting to push his own point of view (POV) by selectively allowing or deleting portions of referenced text, in defiance of editors' consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie has been editing since 24th of June so, if that's his first account, may need some guidance. Mainly, he's removing what he believes to be (and to my superficial understanding is) content that violates BLP. We're awaiting an opinion from WP:BLPN on that. Until then, I think we could cut Blackie some slack. I might just ask him to hold off until we get some wiser outside opinions. Done --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You and Blackie Lstreet are wrong. And you are wrong about why he is removing the material. The links I displayed above show why he is removing the material. He wants Anthony portrayed in an extremely positive light, despite all the sources that reflect the opposite of that. There is no BLP issue by presenting facts -- by presenting evidence used against her at trial. Blackie Lstreet had no valid reason for removing that entire Evidence section. There is no valid reason for removing crucial aspects of the prosecutions' points during closing arguments. There is no valid reason to remove two paragraphs detailing the public's reaction to the verdict. That was crucial reaction information he removed, all backed up by reliable sources. The section is called Public and media reactions. If most of the reaction is negative, then that is what we should report. No different than presenting a mostly negatively reaction to a singer's album or a director's film. Most of America is outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. We report on that. Now exactly how is that a BLP issue? What, because we don't lie and say that many Americans believe Anthony is innocent? The fact that you are defending Blackie Lstreet's horrid behavior is ridiculous. He removed the entire Evidence section, for goodness sakes! He still needs a warning, whether we cut him some slack or not. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is a BLP and NPOV content dispute. The issue was already posted on the BLP notice baord before it was posted here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial A non-involved neutral editor has commented there agreeing with me that the article has BLP issues that need to be corrected. Flyer22 does not want the BLP and NPOV problems corrected. Flyer22 acts as if this is his own personal article and Talk page. He even moved sections of the Talk page where these BLP and NPOV issues were being discussed, so that an administrator from here checking the Talk page would not be able to see as readily that there is an ongoing BLP and NPOV content dispute. I have tried to restore those sections of the Talk page. Bascially, this article is not in good shape at all. It is poorly written, filled with irrelevent minutia, and is obviously written to cast Casey Anthony as guilty of murder, despite the jury verdict acquitting her. Flyer22 seems to want to use the Misplaced Pages article as a platform to rebut or criticize the "not guilty" jury verdict. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute when you are removing the Evidence section to make Anthony look innocent. It's not a content dispute when you are removing prosecuters' quotes because they are too negative toward Anthony. One outside editor saying he wants part of a section trimmed does not make you right. That is not whole-heatedly agreeing with you. As I stated before, "BLP issues" to you means "any type of negativity presented in this article about Casey Anthony." The article has NOT been written to further support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. It was written from the standpoint of reliable sources. And, really, you have a problem with any negativity in the article about Casey Anthony, as you have displayed at the article. If you had it your way, the Caylee's Law section wouldn't be there either. For example, you say, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." WRONG! That would mean we couldn't accurately report on this trial here at all. By your logic, we would only portray Casey Anthony as innocent. There are no trivial details in the article, and it is not overly long or anywhere close to it, per WP:SIZE. It may look overly long from the table of contents, but most of sections are relatively short. The article is "not in good shape at all" and "poorly written" to you because it does not portray Anthony as some innocent darling. If it did, you would not be complaining about any poor state of the article. Further, I am not a "he." And unlike you, I am not writing the article from my own personal opinion. Unlike you, I have not stated any personal belief as to Anthony's guilt or not-guilt here at Misplaced Pages. Your agenda is all over the talk page and in your edits. Nice way to divert the attention away from the horrid way you acted at the article, though. Now people here are definitely going to see this as only a content dispute, no matter how inappropriately you acted. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have already responded, and I do not wish to take up anyone's time unduly, but I hope that no one will mind if I provide an update to this dispute. On the BLP Notice Board several more uninvolved editors have commented, and they so far have unanimously supported the view that there are significant BLP problems on this article that need to be corrected. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackie Lstreet (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There have not been "several more" (way to exaggerate, as always) and they have not unanimously supported the view that there are significant BLP problems with the article. They expressed concerns about what may be BLP problems. These are their opinions. I have seen nothing concrete in policy that says anything is wrong with the article. But either way, what does that have to do with your behavior earlier? It doesn't excuse your behavior whatsoever. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are ways to write the article and keep it reasonably neutral. The average American following the case is upset by the verdict, because there's no justice or closure for the child. As some of the standard news writeups have boldy stated, most of the family, and especially the accused-and-acquitted, have been liars from the get-go, and that makes things difficult for a jury, especially when the death penalty is thrown into the mix: The jury simply didn't know who to believe, and had to decide "not guilty" because the state couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. We'll probably never know what really happened unless the truth fairy pings someone in the family. But take a look at the coverage in the standard news organizations, and that should be your guide to writing the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's been some POV in wording and tone in SOME parts of the article. As an example, where it said that Baez "rationalized" away some evidence instead of the more neutral "explained". Which the edit warrior Blackie Lstreet correctly pointed out and fixed. But he seems to be going overboard with his contentions, seeing "POV" even when it's NOT really there. He has some kernels of truth in his position, but is exaggerated. Even neutral explaining of what happened, if it doesn't seem positive to whichever side, will be seen as POV or biased. And that view is an over-reaction. Some objective facts are just negative sometimes. That's just too bad. Deal with it. It does not mean Misplaced Pages itself agrees with it necessarily. All articles and editors need to be careful with tone, wording, and style, in reporting and stating things. But there's NO excuse to violate 3RR. Or to see things that just aren't there. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I have written the Public and media reactions section as neutrally as I can. But there is no way to say that most or even half of American are okay with the verdict or Casey Anthony; they are not, and this is backed up by every reliable source out there. It's not just because there is no closure for Caylee either; most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty. You advise us to look at the coverage in standard new organizations, but we've been doing exactly that. All of what you personally feel about this trial is in the article. That is how thorough I have been. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then there should be no issues. If Blackie has specific concerns, he can address them on the article talk page. However, if he's arguing "defamation", then he's over the line, and even hinting at a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that should be made here Flyer is that you are as emotionally invested and partisan towards the subject matter as you profess Blackie to be—your comments just above this confirm that. Thus I don't think you or Hashem are in any position to dictate who is violating 3RR or if reverting Blackie's "vandalism" qualifies. I really think you should all disengage from the article for some time, because it's clear that cool heads are not driving this discussion. I suggest that this AN/I report be closed if it's going to continue with you posting responses, because no desire for admin intervention has thus far appeared and having multiple discussions at so many venues is not productive. Take it to WP:BLPN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that have been reliably obtained that say MOST or HALF of the United States believes anything about Casey Anthony. You are asking for a pretty extraordinary conclusion, and policy demands that extraordinary conclusions have extraordinary evidence to back them up. You and the other zealous editors probably need to let more cool-headed editors take over the article for a bit. I'm afraid we'll end up seeing a thing like what happened with Jared Loughner with people blaming politicians and the media for the tragedy there. But this time, it will be people like Nancy Grace who get average people all worked up into believing they have to right this wrong or stand up for Caylee. We're not here to be advocates for positions, merely to present information. A jury has spoken, and without additional evidence, its voice is more reliable and important than 100,000 protestors, or any editor here. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I notice you say "reliably obtained." I guess that means your own WP:OR interpretation. Because various reliable sources state that most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty, including a new USA Today/Gallop Poll. The fact is...I can provide various reliable sources saying many or most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be guilty. There are no such sources stating the opposite -- that many or most Americans believe her to be "not guilty"/innocent. But, yeah, I guess the media is tampering with the polls too (sarcasm).

Stop accusing me of being "a zealous editor." I can be just as cool-headed as the next editor. But of course I am going to be angry when an editor is removing large texts of an article based on faulty reasoning and outright lies. I wasn't the one editing inappropriately. You also need to stop telling me what to do. And making assumptions about my character. Nancy Grace didn't get me worked up to do the right thing for Caylee, for goodness sakes! Unbelievable. And, yeah, in your opinion, we should only report what the jury has said about the verdict. No societal impact, etc. Wow, what a comprehensive article that would be. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The jury said "not guilty", it didn't say "innocent". Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh, except for the counts she was convicted on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And what more could they possibly have said? That's the most favorable verdict possible in American law. And there is no way any of us can possibly know the actual facts, and it is in any case wholly improper to give our opinions about it on Misplaced Pages, Everyone here saying their opinion would be in gross violation of BLP policy--except for the fact that nothing said here can do any substantial harm,considering the course of events in the RW. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen people convicted on less evidence. The problem here is that no one in that family has any credibility, so the jury had no real choice but to say "not guilty". The article should neither advocate for guilt nor advocate for innocence. It should report the facts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just one more thing... this USAToday poll found that 64 percent of Americans think that Casey Anthony most likely murdered her daughter, despite the jury's finding in the matter. That article also links to some other interesting stuff, especially about Casey being "comfortable" with lying, and also an explanation of how the prosecutors failed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the pollsters also ask those polled whether they think this entire thing is a media circus? NW (Talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. For another comparison, see Lizzie Borden. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Malik Shabazz is intentionally interrupting an article and edit warring. We should expect more from admins. I am requesting that another admin gives him some nice advice.

• [revert of something agreed upon after discussion (note edited diff)
• malicious edit after a barb from another editor
• revert

Current talk page discussion: NONE (Isn't more expected from an admin)

Previous talk page discussion: (The whole issue stems from presenting something graphic in both a positive and negative light, bringing in hair color is a red herring that is only there to cause disruption and make a point. But he didn;t even bother to look at the discussion it looks like since he did not use the talk page)

Notification of bad form with a request to stop:

Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First, on June 16 I fixed the caption. I fixed it again tonight. Cptnono's knickers are in a knot because (a) there is no Talk page consensus for the caption he likes, and (b) "unsmiling" in a caption is as meaningful as "brown-haired" or "black-haired". — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wear boxers. But you again have demonstrated that you are not suitable as an admin.

I assume that you started playing with the article since you have want to rock the I/P boat. Why now are you starting trouble and not months ago when consensus was formed (have you looked at the archives yet?). But my last message to you says it all. Stop starting trouble over stupid stuff and consider giving up the mop if you turn this into an ongoing concern. But yes: "Whatever" until you do it again.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I usually give Cptnono more credit, but tonight he's off his game. His first diff isn't mine. This was my edit on June 16. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• And another revert even though a talk page link was provided. Request a block to prevent disruption and a return to the stable version that had consensus. Malik has responded twice with WhateverWhatever

I will be reverting after 24hrs just to stay on the right side of 3/rr even though it is clearly malicious. Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing malicious. You have yet to show the alleged Talk-page consensus for the word "unsmiling" in the caption (hint: there is none). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See the archived discussion up above. Then self revert. The apologize for intentionally disrupting the article and edit warring. Even if there was not consensus (which there was) you are not acting like an admin and it is time you self revert. Then you should be stripped of the mop if this is how you conduct yourself. Note that I am not an admin since I tend to enjoy watching people squirm in situations like this. Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Neither of the words are in the caption. It's ONE word, which has almost no meaning in the article. You could say that it was a woman with fingernails and it would have about the same use as brown hair, or unsmiling. Grow up, both of you. Pilif12p 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm not a fan of belaboring the obvious. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Growing up isn't the issues (and if it is then certainly he should not be trusted to eb an admin). If you see the archived discussion you see that "unsmiling" was added specifically to add a balance to the article so that it did not look like porn. Finger nails and hair color have nothing to do with it. Carefully using images is. Malik has intentionally thrown off that consensus that was hard to reach. Is he allowed to edit war? So if MS is allowed to the I will revert again. Any objections?Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I have to agree with Cptnono at this point, anybody, especially admins shouldn't be allowed to do this. I read over the talk archive, and it did seem like there was a consensus to change it to his wording. *clears history* Pilif12p 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, pure and simple vandalism from an admin and he will get away with it. AGF is dead. I will be reverting in 24/hrs even though I should do it now (I don't trust the admins and it is a shame when an established editor cannot)Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But mark this as resolved. I will be continuing the edit war the admin started in 24hrs.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How about both of you stop editing the article for a couple of days and talk it out on the talk page? Seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. There was a talk page discussion. MS has intentionally edit warred AND left the article with a POINTY edit. If an admin can do it I can. And if admins do not see the problem with him then I will do it for them. How about YOU actually make a judgement? And just to be clear: I am pissed because IPs add things like "nigger" to the article and I have been holding the fort down. When an admin choses to spit in my face I am going to be pissed. Lok at the article and the caption then tell me he should be editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This looks like a pretty dumb edit war, but I do not see egregious conduct on either side. This edit (and the followups) by Malik do seem rather pointy but I would not call it vandalism, and based on the above comment I don't think he'll be adding it again. A block or Malik losing adminship do not seem to me to be appropriate responses to this situation.

Really you should both be using the talk page, as GWH said. In December three editors, including Cptnono, agreed on the "unsmiling" language, but of course consensus can change. Go talk about it or else just let it alone, since this is an incredibly trivial issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Bringing the smartest people in the world together so they can argue about cumshots. What a place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• • If this continues it will come close to if not outright win the lamest edit war of the year so far award. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Although the humor is not lost on me over this. It is a shame that people see it as a joke. Whatever: more donkey punching and less editing constructively. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Not really sure how to interpret your last sentence Cptnono, but please don't take the fact that no one is rushing to block or de-admin Malik as justification for you to "be as disruptive as (him) now". Malik should not have made the initial pointy edit to begin with and neither of you should have revert warred. You should talk about it on the talk page, or one or both of you can give up and leave it alone. This is a pretty minor dust-up and I don't want to see you bothered by it to the point that you actively decide to be disruptive, since that won't be good for anyone. If it helps try stepping back for a bit and then coming back to this tomorrow or the next day. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry for not being clear: Donkey punch as an image that is either terrible or hilarious depending on your disposition. But I am stepping away for at least a day since it is time for bed. But I am reverting after 24. But I do realize that MS will not be desysopped. I am almost surprised he was not blocked but I m even more surprised that he was not even given a talking to. This was pointless and now we know that admins really can do whatever they want because the community just doesn't care. You will block an IP vandal but not an admin. And editors like me obviously fall in between. Toothless .Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You seem to want a punitive block, but we don't do that here. Neither of you are edit warring right now, and Malik's comment above suggested he's not even interested in adding his version back but rather would be happy if neither of your versions were there and we just described her as a woman. Block are preventive, and there is just nothing to prevent here. I would agree with you that admins, unfortunately, get away with bad behavior that non-admin editors would not and that this happens far too frequently. But as I said to begin with the editing behavior here, while far from stellar, was not egregious. Saying "knock it off, talk about this instead of edit warring" seems like the right action for an involved admin to take. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Repeated promises to revert after 24 hours? Not good. 3RR isn't a personal allowance of three reverts per day; it's a bright line. Continuing to revert rather than discuss (or proceed to dispute resolution or whatever) would be editwarring. Article content should not be decided by whoever hits the revert button most (or whoever has the most careful timing of their reverts). bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Whatever mistakes were made here, how is there any suggestion of vandalism anyway? Do we need to point out as WP:Vandalism says, vandalism is not all bad edits to an article? If you're going to ask for blocks, you really should be aware of that already (as well as blocks not being punitive and 3RR not being a right) Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not about to edit this page from my current location, just to be on the safe side, but the best solution here would be for someone to full-protect and demand that the participants in this silly little slapfight actually talk it over instead of poking one another with sticks and admin noticeboards. Anyone? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yup. Protected for a week, if only to save Cptnono from being blocked the moment he tries to game the 24h bright line. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring of Lake Balaton

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

Slovakia-Hungary edit warring department is thataway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User Baxter9 again deleted mising informations in article about Lake Balaton. User deleted alternative names. I don´t know what is problem, because also Hungarian versions respect alternative names: http://hu.wikipedia.org/Port%C3%A1l:Balaton http://hu.wikipedia.org/Balaton#Nev.C3.A9nek_eredete --Omen1229 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a special edit war noticeboard for these types of issues. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary includes a link to our guideline, which is bullet 2 in #2 of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names). I don't see any evidence which suggests that the Latin, German or Slovak names for this place are of import to English speakers. The Hungarian Misplaced Pages's guidelines are not our concern. Furthermore, so far as I can see that's the first time that Baxter9 has edited that page, so he can hardly be edit warring over it. This does not require immediate administrative action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now I can delete all Hungarian geographic names in English articles about Slovakia, because that is bullet 2 in #2 of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Hungarian names are not import to English speakers. For example: Bratislava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attact from user Rammaum

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

please do not throw boomerangs in glass houses. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Simuliid

I believe the comments made "possess rude and arrogant behaviors" to be deformation of character and bullying.

Simuliid (talk)

The Sockpuppet Investigations page is monitored by administrators. If action is necessary, it can be discussed and taken there, without a need to ask elsewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Simuliid, I suggest you comment on the finding at the SPI page (that you used a sockpuppet account, which is not allowed) while you still can. Never mind, seems to be closed.

I also have a suspicion that Bugs will comment on your word usage, which is perhaps appropriate since, looking through your contribs to see if there are indeed arrogant behaviors, I saw you'd edited Royal Entomological Society Handbooks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 how does adding missing page numbers on page Royal Entomological Society Handbooks constite "arrogant behaviors" (the phase is not even proper english grammer) or am I missing what you mean? Simuliid (talk)

thumperward - fair point - but until this issue was raised I was aware what sockpuppetly was, and that it was not allowed, and as you will see I have been an editor for quite some time - this was done out of convenience, and not out of any malicious intent one was used on home machine and the other at work. and would have never disputed I was one and the same, sorry. But this it no excuse for defamatory remarks.

Simuliid (talk)

User: Dzlinker/Omar2788

Hello,

I'm asking for help to convince the user Dzlinker (a SP of Omar2788 according to Fr.Wiki , this account started to edits on WP on July 27th while the main account was blocked) to stop his disruptive editings:

- Removing a sourced information on the article Fossatum Africae, until I quoted the entire sentence, while a Ctrl+F on the PDF file used as source would give him a result: .

- Article Maghreb people: Adding a template which is wider than the article itself and refusing any further edits . The same problem occured on the article Berber people a few weeks ago .

Also, some "aggressive comments" should not be tolerated: nor the use of a Pro-Nazi template on his Userpage (in the beginning the template was looking like that : .

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

it's true this is another account of mine that i abandoned lately (not to bypass a block on the en.WP)

i've been blocked on the fr.WP so i totally abandoned that account (i kept the commons and meta ones)

Article Maghreb people: the guy refused any constructive talk about the infobox, and deleted every thing i wrote, it was really a hard work to do; as any one can see here, the width is totally acceptable, and the infobox is totally representative of the maghreb people, and this accusations 'disruptive editings is totally unacceptable. any one could verify my edits and be sure that they are constructive.

the source he provided on Fossatum Africae is useless in that case i asked him for another more complete and he kept reverting without consensus, trying to impose his PoV as he always do like on the article maghreb people where he refused any talk.

This guy is really not a wikipedian, since his principal edits are political and symbolic such as inserting: french algeria, french morcco instead of algeria and morocco, into biographical articles (so not historical) and refused talking on this page here. here are some of those unacceptable and undiscussed edits: and many others.

He says that algeria was internationaly recognized to be french. but this statut is dead, an article written in the early 20th or late 19th centry who says that would be acceptable. but today its totally false and confusing with the Algérie française (fr:french Algeria) slogan.

for the berber people article, as any one could see here i'm one of the editors who've edited the most on the article (then i was editing as User:Omar2788). and this discussion about the infobox images prove my good willing in that.

Also the accusations of my agressif comments are really too much saying. any one would agree that if a wikipedian work, is to spy over other ones edits continually every day to revert them or ..

no one could support it.

not talking about this same attitude he got when i was editing on the fr.WP. (he is like chasing my edits every where), i really don't support that

no one could support it.

Omar2788 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from Oursaint (talk · contribs)

Oursaint (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been adding unsourced material to Catherine of Alexandria and today came out with this legal threat. Elizium23 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the nature of his edits I have come to believe that this user has a conflict of interest with regards to the article and the film mentioned. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a legal threat against Misplaced Pages or any Misplaced Pages editor here. The edit appears to state there was a legal challenge regarding the production of the film, which would be both notable and relevant in the article. Any WP:COI issue should be brought up at the appropriate noticeboard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary -- Your persistence in reinstating libellous information leaves us no option but to start legal action -- seems pretty clear to me.

Good catch. I didn't see the edit summary in the diff. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked and NLT template added. Looking forward to hearing some reasonings although I cannot, of course, take further action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• The legal threat is certainly unacceptable. On the other hand part of the content being removed is a serious acusation sourced only to a dead link of a (for lack of better term) involved website. Can anyone give me a reason why at minimum the last 2 sentences should not be removed?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a partial removal here. Any restoration needs to be based on verifiability and not on any behavior of Oursaint.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Stanford professor rants about his BLP

I just noticed that Ron Fedkiw, a tenured professor at Stanford, is rather upset at his Misplaced Pages article and has posted about it on his web site: http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/

I'm not sure what's going on at Ronald_Fedkiw but since Ron's message alleges serious BLP issues, someone might want to take a detailed look. TotientDragooned (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's already being dealt with via OTRS - see Talk:Ronald Fedkiw#Misleading details -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't always instantly resort to legal threats. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(removing less diplomatic phrasing) I feel his depiction of the situation is unprofessional, which diminishes my sympathies for what is, in fairness, a frustrating situation if there are BLP inaccuracies.MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to attack the professor at this point? Monty₈₄₅ 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious how this works out because there are some odd discrepancies going around. The article creator says he was in contact with the subject when he created the article, and says "he didn't have much of a problem with it." Further, when the subject of the article, editing as an IP, removed a picture from the article saying that he had nothing to do with what it represents, the article creator reverted (clearly not knowing who he was reverting), saying that the article subject had himself said that the picture was "the best example of his work." That's a rather odd series of mis-communications.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What I find even odder is that a computer science professor apparently made it to 2011 without having the slightest idea of what Misplaced Pages is, or how it works (to judge by his rant). Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, Misplaced Pages, for a lot of older people, falls into the category of "stupid nerd internet shit". Just because you are familiar with it doesn't mean you should assume that everyone is. A very large percentage of internet users only use the Internet to look at email and youtube and so forth. Jtrainor (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor adding unreferenced info to BLPs and socking

Magoohoo (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of adding unreferenced info, including defamatory info, to BLPs. For an example, see . The editor has been reverted multiple times and warned multiple times, but has continued to reinsert the info over a period of time. The editor also seems to be using an IP to sock, even commenting on his own account talk page in an effort to mislead. See and . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like their entire history is nothing but adding unsourced trivia to BLPs, and edit-warring over it. I've blocked for 48 hours, and am happy to block for longer if it continues after the block expires. I haven't done anything about the possible socking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the obvious sock IP for 2 weeks too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and POV-pushing from anon IP

User:70.162.171.210 is using the current events portal to push right-wing propaganda about Obama causing U.S. "bankruptcy". I deleted their addition since it was redundant to a neutral version of the story that was already listed for today and I was called a "communitst hard liner" and then accused of "pushing a political agrenda". I gave up on reverting them. If someone else could take a look, it would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

actually it appears to me that you are involved in an edit war--S-d n r (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't forgive the WP:NPA by the IP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

anon ip does not appear to apply, the ip user has several hundred wiki additions. Also, the comments appear to be generally directed not personally directed at Kaldari--S-d n r (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After I removed his news post that "United States bankruptcy will occur on July 22" with the explanation that it was not reflected in the source, he wrote that "it does indeed reflect the source since all but communitst hard liners heard one and only one thing in his speech 'I do not have a deal'". Clearly his comment is a direct response to mine and directed towards me. And since when is an anon IP not an anon IP because they have an edit history? They are still editing under and anonymous IP address. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit histories of User:S-d n r and User:70.162.171.210 look surprisingly similar to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed that myself. In any case, I have blocked .210 for continuing to edit war on that page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If those are the same user, will blocking the IP also block the registered user? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the IP technically violated 3RR, FWIW. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring need not technically violate 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

...and sockpuppet abuse

Here's the smoking gun. The article Henry Feffer was created by User:S-d n r at 14:17 and then edited by User:70.162.171.210 1 minute later. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that sdnr's edits also came to a screeching halt after the IP was blocked. However, is this truly sockpuppetry? That is, did he use both ID's to evade something? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sockpuppet abuse examples (besides the discussion above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_the_United_States&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mark_Haines&action=history

In both cases, the registered user edit warred on behalf of the anon IP. I don't have time to dig further, but this seems blockable to me, especially since Sdnr was actively deceptive above. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith - if a new editor makes an edit without realizing a "logged out" status - that also results in the IP being shown as the editor. IMHO, unless there is a clear effort to deceive, or a second named accunt is used, I would chalk it up to "editting while logged out" which happens to almost everyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This person is certainly not a new editor. The IP address has a couple thousand edits and the registered user has a few hundred. Aren't their edits in the discussion above a "clear effort to deceive"? If this isn't an example of sockpuppet abuse, it seems like we have a pretty huge loophole. What's to prevent this user from continuing to edit war under both a registered account and an established anonymous account, thus appearing as two different people? Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a level-three warning on User:S-d n r's page. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

It is probably time for an administrator (other than yours truly, who apparently has a personal grudge) to step in. At stake is the insertion of peacockery in the lead. See also a discussion on the talk page, started by User:Pol098, who probably had no idea what they got in to--accusations by SPA editors abound, and I think Pol098 has given up. Your eyes are appreciated, and I'll stick a generic message on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards