Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:51, 1 February 2007

• 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?

Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miltopia has decided it is in Misplaced Pages's best interests to welcome those who are here for disruption. Cplot harassment account OurAnthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made four edits, the last being a test3 vandalism warning to my talk page, and at the same time, Miltopia decided to welcome him . I'd appreciate a neutral third party remind Miltopia that welcoming those who are here for disruption is disruptive.--MONGO 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience with Miltopia on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been that he generally tries to tone down anti-Misplaced Pages activity. I have personally tried to create attack pages on ED and have been reverted by him. Look at this: <www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Miltopia>. He's actually getting on some of their nerves because of this. He also mediates disputes between users. I know that you don't like ED, MONGO, but Miltopia really isn't the person to go after here.--Desnm 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you posted has anything to do with the fact that he decided to welcome an obvious vandal after that vandal left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage. Please use your real account next time you post here if you want any credibility.--MONGO 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no other account I can use.--Desnm 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So warned. Based on the times of the edits, I think it's unlikely that he posted the welcome at 03:22 after seeing the troll edit to your talk page, also at 03:22, but I'll bet he saw the earlier edits. Thatcher131 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the vandal account made an edit at 22:22, Miltopia welcomed him at 22:22 and a User:PullToOpen tagged the account with a sock tag at 22:22. Miltopia simply has my talkpage watchlisted and decided to welcome the vandal soon as he saw the vandalism to my talkpage. The times are all in the same minute, but Mitopia was on line and had just made an edit a few minutes before.(22:22 CTZ in U.S., sorry about that)--MONGO 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Thatcher131 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that I was watching WP:AN, having edited there recently and saw his comment, tried and failed to revert it (got beat to the punch, see below) and figured he was about to get banned anyway. Furthermore, it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. Milto LOL pia 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If, in fact, you do try to tone down the garbage on ED, any chance you can work with somebody to get that disgusting crap about Sceptre out of there? The kid is 15, for God's sake. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I may get lynched for saying it, but in the interests of Misplaced Pages, someone has to - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, welcoming an vandal account is not disruptive?--MONGO 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. He was banned. The welcome had zero effect whatsoever. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I never thought I would ever say this, I'm with Miltopia on this one. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst welcoming a blatant vandal isn't the most productive use of time, it will do no harm; it's certainly not disruptive, and this seems like a complaint with no grounds. Proto::► 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting a welcome message to a vandal account is certainly not disruptive. I often see someone vandalize, and give them a welcome message as a sort of "Hey, we can see you! Why not edit constructively?" wake-up call. It's sometimes more effective than a {{test1}}. I've certainly welcomed people, only to have my welcome message replaced in a mintue with {{indefblockeduser}} or whatever it's called, when someone else pegged them as a sock of some banned user. -GTBacchus 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint wasn't that a welcome message was posted. The complaint was this particular user, with this particular history and with a recent ArbCom decision decided to welcome a troll that was harassing MONGO. Coincidence? Maybe the first time. Maybe even the second. But this is about the twentieth "coincidence." It iwll be a nice reference for the next coincidence. --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't appreciated the context of the situation when I made my above comment. I was reacting to the idea that welcoming a vandal is automatically disruptive, but now I see that there's more going on than that, and I agree that this particular welcome message was a bad idea. I hope that Miltopia finds a way to contribute here without aggravating any situation around MONGO, and I hope that if he does find that way, the community is able to believe it, and accept his presence here. I hope we all are able to edit in ways that de-escalate conflicts and reduce drama. -GTBacchus 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Desnm created that account to defend Miltopia, first edit, sure knows a lot about me! It's also possible that Miltiopia could be indefinitely blocked from this website and it would be of nothing but benefit to this website...I see zero constructive edits. Peter Dodge and Proto shouldn't be defending disruptive behavior here as this isn't a playground.--MONGO 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would explain how this disrupts anything significant. It was a waste of space and of time, certainly, and not a serious or wise action, to be sure, but the only disruption that it appears to have caused for users other than Miltopia is this very acerbic section. Is there need for such hostility here? Calling for community banning of a user, discounting the entirety of the user's contributions to Misplaced Pages, making insinuations regarding sock puppet abuse, admonishing users for having an opinion that differs from your own - are such actions really necessary over such a minor issue? Think for a moment about the situation - is all of this hostility warranted for putting a welcome template put on a vandal's talk page? --Philosophus 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no hostility on my part. I have done nothing wrong except inform the community that Miltopia is still being disruptive. The vandal account he welcomed was created by Cplot, who has created the largest sock army I have ever seen on wikipedia, and who has been vandalizing numerous pages for months now. Desnm creates an account and his/her first edit is here to defend Miltopia and knows a lot about me and you tell me that isn't a sock account of someone? Simply put, we don't aide and abet vandals by welcoming them on their talkpages. It's not like this is the first time Miltopia has been supportive of disrution, or been so himself.--MONGO 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But again, how is this disruptive? I don't see how it aides and abets vandals, besides the possibility that it could be seen as a symbolic gesture. It's not like the welcome is "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here is a guide to vandalism and here are some pages that could be vandalised". --Philosophus 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, can you just drop it? No one has responded any of the times you or Hipocrite have tried to get me banned. I don't go around complaining about you, so why don't you just find something else to do? Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how posting {{welcome}} on a vandal account's page is disruptive? It's just a boilerplate welcome, not an endorsement of any particular misbehavior. —Dgies 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPDEDOO

I had just tried to revert him on WP:AN and had been beaten to the punch by someone with rollback. I welcomed him as a joke, knowing he would be banned. Not particularly constructive, but nor was it destructive. It has nothing to do with MONGO. Everything Desnm said is true. Stop making a federal case out of nothing. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And that was smart in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is, who cares? And why? The answer is nobody except MONGO and... I don't know about the second one. Milto LOL pia 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be under the mistaken impression that nobody but MONGO cares if you troll him and deliberately provoke drama. You may well be wrong in that. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• MONGO is irritated by my mere presence; there's nothing I can do about that. I don't care about MONGO at all, so I ignore him whenever possible and don't give any thought to walking around eggshells for him. I can't and don't care to change the fact that MONGO doesn't like my presence; only he can do that. Milto LOL pia 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strictly as a matter of fact, there are around a thousand of us who could, if you continue as at present, actually change that, by the simple mechanism of ensuring that MONGO no longer has to put up with your presence. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm kind of wondering why Milto hasn't been 'sploded yet, but I'm far too apathetic to bother beyond that. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we not go there? I'd be happier if this were just dropped. Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now really, I'm sorry, are you guys going to blame MONGO for saying that an editor shouldn't welcome a vandal, let alone an editor who has a long-time dispute with MONGO, whom the troll just happened to speak to right before the welcome? It is disruptive, and smacks to me of WP:POINT. Worse, he's making rude comments like it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. I have no idea why you guys are sticking up for him - he even admitted he knew the guy was a troll. Having never seen this conflict before, the suspicion of WP:POINT only gets worse when I hear that he's an ED editor, who, from what I understand, has a history of being a pain in the rear end on Misplaced Pages. Milotopia, if you would just say, "sorry, I won't do it again", would it be that hard? If it was just a joke and not a big deal, then why the need to argue back and make a scene (PS sorry for editing anonymously, I'm trying to take some time off, and this is the closest I could get myself to do). 146.186.44.199 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• No really. The second step of Dispute Resolution is to disengage. Please try that now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First point is that Miltopia, on being unblocked, was given the condition that he was to stay as far away from MONGO as possible. (His early edits were trolling and wiki-stalking MONGO.)

Second point is that Miltopia was involved in the pages relating to MONGO's RfAr, so he most certainly knows that MONGO has been very badly stalked and harassed by Cplot, even if Miltopia doesn't think that's a problem. (LOL, Loldongs, LULZ, Duh, Whoopeedoo, etc. Hope I got all those words right.)

Thirdly, anyone who is even remotely familiar with this case recognizes Cplot from his edit summaries, and knows that this is a troll engaged in very persistent harassment of another user, and that he is to be reverted and blocked on sight.

I'm not sure what Wizardry Dragon means by reminding people to assume good faith. If he agreed that Miltopia was being provocative, but that we shouldn't take it too seriously, and should just move on, I could understand that, though there has to be a limit to how much harassment of Wikipedians good users should be prepared to condone, and whether good users should be content to see someone in dispute with a harassment victim treating it as a joke. But if that's what he means, I fail to see where AGF comes into it. AGF would apply if we were to think that Miltopia was just checking the new user log, and sending random messages to people without checking their contributions, and had NO idea that this was someone who was trolling MONGO. Miltopia has admitted that he saw OurAnthem's edit, and was going to revert it himself, but was beaten to it. (For the record, I don't have a problem believing that.) In that case, it was in very bad taste. To treat harassment of your opponent as a joke is quite simply inappropriate.

I'm also puzzled by GTBacchus's post about how he himself has welcomed vandals. GTBacchus, you know Miltopia and MONGO have an rather stormy history. You have read that Miltopia saw the edit (and presumably realized who it was, since he has been following the case), and that he welcomed him as a joke. What you say about your own use of the welcome template may be valid, but it's completely irrelevant in this context. Miltopia didn't welcome him in the hope that he'd become a good contributor. He welcomed him in order to make a joke about someone harassing MONGO.

Those who defend Miltopia here seem to be unaware that an action or utterance can change its meaning according to context — just as "Good afternoon" can be a friendly greeting or a sarcastic rebuke to someone who is late. As Tbeatty says, there are just too many of these coincidences. And those who think it didn't do any harm — of course it did. It caused ill feeling. Miltopia, instead of saying how uninterested you are in MONGO, and how little you care for what he thinks, perhaps you could try (for your own sake, not for his) to care enough to stop making jokes that you may think are just below what's necessary to get you blocked. Musical Linguist 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Musical Linguist, you need to take a look at all these little situations and see what all this nonsense is originating from. These is like, the sixth time I've had to stop what I'm doing and troop off to ANI to dispel general mischaracterization and/or paranoia from other users. It's alarming that I managed to brush off MONGO for over a month and avoid him completely, save for these truly boring threads, and you still think I'm the one with the personal vendetta here. I don't see anyone else being followed to articles, WP:AIV, and several other pages. And you dragging up old junk already looked at by arbcom is only prolonging this. Are you interested in seeing this nonsense die out, or in re-debating every edit of mine, over and over, until you get the desired result? Milto LOL pia 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey, can everyone just stop the drama already? Just get a clue. No one is out to get me, you, MONGO, Miltopia, or anyone else for tha matter. This whole issue is a massive failure to assume good faith, and I'd ask all involved to do so. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no loss of good faith here. The question remains as to if Miltopia is here for purely constructive purposes. When editors knowingly welcome those that vandalize, this is not constructive. The best thing to do with repeat vandalism is to block and ignore, not welcome them. That you would see it otherwise is surprising. Miltopia has had to stop his work to come here over the last week three times I see, not just this time and not just because of my report alone. IF Miltopia was doing nothing but constructive edits, then there wouldn't be any complaints to the contrary. That is not the case, however. Furthermore, not sure what has happened since, but anti-Semitic nonsense may be the norm on ED, however threads such as this are not welcome here. Misplaced Pages does not tolerate bigotry or find puns on people's religion or ethnicity acceptable. If Miltopia can make adjustments to his contributions then there won't be any reason for him to have to respond here.--MONGO 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm replying to Musical Linguist's paragraph directed to me. I don't know who "Cplot" is and have no knowledge of that user's harassment of MONGO. When I commented, I was simply replying to the idea that welcoming a vandalizing or trolling editor is automatically disruptive. I disagree with that principle, and I said so. You say I had read that he posted the welcome message "as a joke", but in fact I hadn't scrolled down that far when I made my comment. I reacted to what I had just read. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think "joke" welcome messages are a good idea. It's certainly not how I use the {{welcome}} template. If I knew that my comment was irrelevant, I wouldn't have made it, certainly.

  I would also reply to MONGO's comment above that Miltopia's noting of the {{Bruchim}} template is somehow antisemitic. Have you read the TfD? It's pretty clear to me that Miltopia saw the template, thought it was in absurdly bad taste, and showed it to his friend. The TfD agreed that it was absurd, and that's why it's deleted now. I'm not sure how you're seeing antisemitism there, but if you already think that someone is antisemitic, I guess you'll see what you look for. -GTBacchus 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was too hasty in assuming that you knew the history of the Cplot harassment when you made your post, and for that, I apologize. I know nothing about the {{Bruchim}} matter, but would suggest that Miltopia would be less likely to cause suspicion if he refrained from jokes about a situation that many Wikipedians are rightly upset about, and if his reaction to accusations could be a little less provocative and flippant than LOL, Duh, cool it, and WHOOPDEDOO. I would also suggest that for someone who comes from a website that harasses Wikipedians, but who wants to edit seriously here and to be regarded without suspicion, it's not enough to claim to have no intention of antagonizing the people trolled by that website; it's also necessary to have an intention not to antagonize them. Musical Linguist 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're only reading the part of that thread that you want to read. Miltopia posted a WikiProject logo that he noticed that is used to welcome editors who may be interested in the Judaism WikiProject on User:K37 talkpage. K37 responded "The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL" LOL is laughing out loud of course. Miltopia then suggests K37 should post it to talk pages on persons who may be Jewish "Start using it on Jewish n00bs plz". K37 responds as to how he is supposed to know who is Jewish on the internets...read the thread. I am well aware that ED enjoys and supports lampooning all religions and ethnicities and was merely pointing out that since this is Misplaced Pages and not ED, the same kind of behavior here is much less likely to be seen as a playful pun. In fact, this kind of behavior certainly appears to be more akin to the disruption for which I myself and a number of editors associate Miltopia with. Thanks.--MONGO 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read the whole thing. I know what LOL means, too. I didn't take Miltopia's suggestion at face value; I read it as pointing out how ridiculous the template was, and not a serious suggestion that K37 use the template on "Jewish n00bs" pages, because, as K37 pointed out, how would anyone know whether a "n00b" is jewish? That's why the template was absurd, and that's the observation they were sharing. Nobody was lampooning a religion. The template was, in fact, absurd. I laughed out loud when I saw it, too, and I wasn't laughing at Judaism or Jews. I was laughing at an absurd template. -GTBacchus 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the entire thread. Miltopia posts the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism welcome template on K37's talk page. K37 responds: The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL, Miltopia then suggests he post on on other Jewish editors talkpages....etc. All I see is a suggestion, in all liklihood in jest, that K37 should start welcoming Jewish editors by inviting them to join the Judaism WikiProject, even though I see no reference that either one of them are Jewish and the fact that Jews are routinely mocked on the ED website, a website that he, K37 and you apparently, are involved in. Miltopia needs to wear his wiki hat when he is here and cease being disruptive.--MONGO 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm talking about the entire thread, and have been all along. The content of the jest was that it's ridiculous to have a special template for welcoming Jews when this is the Internet and you can't tell if someone's Jewish. Every line of dialogue that you cite was saying that. ED doesn't mock Jews; it mocks antisemitism, by caricaturing it and showing it to be absurd; many ED editors are Jewish. I agree that Miltopia shouldn't be disruptive here, and I've repeatedly given him advice to that effect; I don't think that pointing out absurdity to his friend on his friend's talk page is disruptive. -GTBacchus 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...if he is not being disruptive, then there wouldn't be a need for you to have to "repeatedly given him advice to that effect". Best wishes.--MONGO 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review my block

Dear fellows, following User:Biophys accuses and his reverting of the article on Boris Stomakhin I was arbitrarily blocked by English speaking user William Connolley who based his decision on the conclusion of Jkelly.. It is evident that they cannot validate statements of Biophys that I have violated BLP. Is the court sentence is enough reliable source? Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 This is now the most important matter in the dispute. By the way, if we would apply the same criteria to Stomakhin supporters statements they should be deleted too since they contradict to official materials, news articles and so on. Biophys wants only his sources to be in the article. It is evident he doesn't consent to any version made by Alex Bakharev, me or Mikka. User: Vlad fedorov.

The correct procedure here is to request an unblock, which you have done, and then e-mail the blocking admin. You are far more likely to get a favorable result that way. this could be considered block evasion and result in an extension of your block. MartinDK 09:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But the block itself is dubious. The reference for which I was blocked was inserted by other user, I have corrected the reference. I was practically blocked for other user who linked particular phrase in the article to other source which is disputed. Second thing, it is evident that administrator who blocked me just accepted the POV of one person and blocked me, because he can't actually evaluate Russian sources. He blocked me without evaluating any evidence of my wrongdoing which is contrary to blocking policy, he just relied on phrase of other - Jkelly - user, who also is incompetent in Russian. It is evident that both these individuals violated Blocking policy which requires administrators to review the causes before blocking. Vlad fedorov.

Here is the procedure from Misplaced Pages policy

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

1. Check the facts with care.

2. Reread appropriate parts of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy.

3. Contact other administrators to sanity-check your reasoning, preferably on ANI.

4. After receiving feedback, place the block, wording the "reason" message with care and without jargon, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

6. Stay around to discuss the block with other Wikipedians.

7. If an act or acts of disruption do not warrant a 24-hour block, consider a warning or posting to ANI before issuing a short term block. (Someone may well block them longer than you would have!)

8. If in doubt, don't block.

The content dispute has already been debated here. Usually 24 hour blocks aren't brought here for review and especially not when they are being invoked as a result of a decision on AN/3RR. I agree though that this appears to be something that needs the attention of someone neutral who a capable of reading these documents. But that is a content matter and not something for ANI to discuss. MartinDK 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Jkelly, or William Connolley have provided any explanations. I would like to know what action could be taken against them? Vlad fedorov

I would like to note that I was blocked allegedly 'for violation of living persons biography' and not for 3RR. Therefore it is appropriate place for me to complain see the talk page for User: Vlad fedorov. Vlad fedorov

In case there's confusion about the this, I declined to block User:Biophys here, after taking a look at edits like this which were being reverted. Saying of an article subject "He also criticized Russian government in defamatory and obscene statements." without source, as if this was Misplaced Pages's position on the matter, is both terrible editing and prohibited by our Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people policy. As for User: Vlad fedorov's being blocked, I think that William Connolley showed good judgement in doing so. Mr. Fedorov clearly should not be editing that article; his feelings about the subject appear to be interfering with his ability to write a well-sourced, neutral article in collaboration. Finally, I don't know why Mr. Fedorov is complaining about the block, given that it clearly didn't stop him from editing the article, which is now currently in its BLP-violating version. Jkelly 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...further comments here. Jkelly 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. User: Vlad fedorov continue violating LP policy, so I had to revert his changes. Main problem is a single citation taken from two unreliable sources and used for defamation of a living person. The source is unreliable because (a) the cited article is not dated (worse than blog); (b) the text of the article (Russian language) is clearly different when compared from two different unreliable sources; (c) the site has no any editorial oversight; (d) the cited text is ridiculous (someone asks Chechehn fighters to start nuclear war against Russian Federation). There are also other problems. None of other users (except Vlad Fedorov) ever disputed my arguments. See also Living persons notice board. Therefore, I ask you to block User: Vlad fedorov permanently from editing article Boris Stomakhin if he continue inserting this citation or other defamatory materials. Biophys 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov. Biophys 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

May I notice that Biophys reverts edits with completely supported passages and which contain undisputed passages. Look here cur he calls it '(missing references provided - see discussion)'. How could I work when he deletes everything which is sourced?Vlad fedorov 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this because Vlad Fedorov inserted again exactly the same poorly sourced accusations. Biophys 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the mediator for this problem? The article should be stubbed and rebuilt from reliable secondary sources. Jkelly 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Biophys disputes both primary and secondary sources. Primary source - RKO website, secondary source Izvestia newspaper. Biophys claims that citation in Izvestia contradict to citation in RKO website, although there is a perfect match. Moreover it is strange that Biophys in evaluation of citation from Izvestia newspaper relies on RKO website, which he claimed to be unreliable. Jkelly, please join here to the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By reverting the whole article Biophys deletes other texts supported by citations and not disputed. Moreover, the citations that he calls 'poorly sourced' are not regarded as poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages policies. Here is the cur which shows that Biophys deletes actually sourced texts cur.Vlad fedorov 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf (formerly User:Zer0faults)

NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages.

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. . To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it, saying the two admins' opinon that the poll was invalid does not override the opinions of the 25 users who voted in it.

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything that can be done to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Concur - I've observed this as somebody who has NOT edited these articles. He's been a problem. --BenBurch 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes ben sure this has nothing to do with your favorite noticeboard biting the dust? Where did GabrielF Conspiracy Noticeboard go? Please stop acting uninvolved. Whats next Tom Harrison or Tbeatty and Morton? How many GabrielF noticeboard people are going to leave "outside views" of how horrible I am? --NuclearZer0 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To summon one of us you have to say one name three times, not three different names one time each. Tom Harrison 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was not a participant there AT ALL. Where did you get that idea? (I did vote that it ought to be deleted though, and that Gabriel F should be blocked for a LONG TIME for having created it.) --BenBurch 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See how easy that was? Who is next? Ryan? --NuclearZer0 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Leave me out of this entirely unproductive campaign. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nuclear has apparently admitted working with sockpuppets to falsify consensus. His behavior of aggressive edit-warring on Iraq war is on-going: -Alecmconroy 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rofl I dont know how many times I and everyone else has to tell you that you need reading lessons. It says that I agreed with the views of Rex who was a sockpuppet, learn to read. Your smear campaign wont deter from the fact that the concensus is growing againts you, your attempts to eliminate people with a different view, through this post, the Arbcom you tried to file on Rangeley and now the RfC you did file against Rangeley is quite a dishonest way of attempting to make a concensus. Use the talk page and stop attempting to push everyone around, you fail at it. --NuclearZer0 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be confused but I am thinking that perhaps using a phrasing like "you need reading lessons" on a noticeboard where a lot of admins hang out is not the best way to avoid getting a block. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Colbert vandalism

Maybe someone can regulate new user creation? (limit to 1/5 seconds or something) --N Shar 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just shoot first and ask questions later . Hbdragon88 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, any page with "reality" in the title is being hit. BV warnings. ARGH. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea ... that's the way to discourage users from signing up Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't here for constructive business, we don't need these people around. – Chacor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, misread that, I thought at first that Yuser's comment was in response to Kathryn. – Chacor 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "shoot first, ask questions later" - do we actually need indefs? (I did a few myself this morning, but am having second thoughts.) Normally we consider one-time vandals to be reformable, don't we? Wouldn't the "commodity" prank go stale anyway within a day or two, so that there'd be little likelihood these guys would try it again later? What was the experience with the elephants? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The elephant thing lingered for a few weeks. --Coredesat 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While Coredesat is right, the initial orgy of vandalism did die down after a few weeks, the African elephant article still gets Colbert'red pretty regularly. It had to be fully protected again today after the same old joke. My humble opinion is that we should take a fairly hard line against this kind of stuff. Is it too much to hope that if enough Colbert wannabees get indef blocked, they'll start realizing they're being manipulated and be angry at Comedy Central, not Misplaced Pages? (And no, I won't get offended if you call me "naive", although I prefer "unrealistically optimistic".) -- Satori Son 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, the reason it was targeted yesterday and today is because Colbert mentioned it again last night. —bbatsell ¿? 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Very annoying. -- Satori Son 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're naive, Satori. I think we need to take a hard line against this stuff. People who really want to contribute to Misplaced Pages can sign up and behave like human beings. While initial mistakes are normal while one learns the rules, I'm not for coddling the blatant vandals. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign up? you need to read the front page a bit more closely. Not everyone who is an ip is a vandal - I was an IP for a looong time. --Fredrick day 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I know it's current policy to allow IP edits. 90% of the vandalism I revert comes from them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As do 90% of edits from testers who will one day create accounts and edit correctly... Milto LOL pia 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lo, the poor IP editor - too noble and care free to take thirty seconds to acquire an account. - WeniWidiWiki 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah don't worry - your userpage makes it clear what you think about IP editors - upto and including suggesting we report people who edit from IP addresses to their employers. Maybe you could make a special {{notwelcome}} message out of it. --Fredrick day 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was the clip in question. I saw that as it aired and immediately hit Misplaced Pages to see how long it took for the new article to be created, and for it to be locked. I was impressed. -- Kesh 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

I thought I would draw to the attention of admin the breach of WP:CANVAS on the above page. The AfD was initiated by User:Astrotrain, however, when the vote was not going his way (eight straight Keep votes) the canvassing began.

• User:Astrotrain, who has unsuccessfully nominated a number of similar pages for AfD, such as James McDade, , , then contacted a number of editors who had previously vote to delete those pages in the assumption that they would vote in a similar fashion on with regards this vote he was right!). So he then sent messages to Kittybrewter, Soltak, Weggie and Dhartung.
• User:Kittybrewster, then after voting for a delete, Kittybrewster in turn contacted a number of editors who she is in constant contact with on pages relating to the British Royal family and the monarchy, such as David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, Major Bonkers, Proteus, Laura1822. A number of them along with another close associate went and voted 'delete, but it did not stop there.
• User:David Lauder, then contacted User:Danbarnesdavies who is another editor who contributes mainly to British Royal Family pages.

the result of this was that the first delete votes came in on this topic.

• User:Astrotrain, obviously noted the "success" his breach of WP:CANVAS had and then sent them here, with similar effect!. Can admin please take the appropriate action as this is making a mockery of the whole system. --Vintagekits 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have placed a notice on Astrotrain (talk · contribs · count)'s talk page directing him to the discussion underway here. Navou 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have also put a notice on the AfD page itself. thank you--Vintagekits 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, an administrator is likely to review your canvassing issue here, however, I do not believe they will speedy close the afd. Not to worry, the closing admin will review the afd and take into account any single purpose accounts if any, and users with a single purpose. Regards, Navou 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, its just that it is getting out of hand a bit now and spilling over onto others AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started.--Vintagekits 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the editors that User:Astrotrain contacted, so it is hard to say if this is a WP:CANVAS situation, though if I were closing this AfD I'd say that numerous editors who show up to a debate after a message on their talkpage and opine "Delete per nom" carry less weight in the discussion than other editors who have rendered opinions. I don't think this should be speedy closed, but I imagine the closing admin will weigh this when he goes through the AfD.--Isotope23 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the links I have provided you should be able to see that the people he contacted had already vote delete on other recent AfD's that he has nominated so the attempt to contact editor whom he knows will support him should be evident. I know the closing admin will take this into account however someone needs to warning the editors involved in canvassing that it is unacceptable, especially as it is now effecting other AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started and is skewing the vote of those also - it is making a mockery of the process.--Vintagekits 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Address the case in question; ad hominem arguments score no points. Trebor 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith on Vintagekits' part. I was the one who added the canvassing template to the AfD, after seeing that User:Astrotrain had been canvassing for his POV that all IRA terrorists are inherently non-notable. After observing his behavior, I believe that all AfD nominations by Astrotrain of IRA members are bad-faith nominations in support of his POV-warring with Vintagekits. Argyriou (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that AFD is not a vote- and the editors in question have left perfectly good and reasoned comments on the deletion discussions expressing why they beleive these articles should be deleted. It should also be noted that Vintagekits has a terrible habbit of harrassing other users and admins with whom he disagrees with, and was formally warned about this recently. I would advise him to accept the consensus developing on these pages- namely that Misplaced Pages is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members. Astrotrain 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus like the one at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James McDade? Argyriou (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Astrotrain) If someone had pointed to reasonable precedents, then the "Delete" arguments would have held more weight. At the moment, all arguments seem to be "not-notable" without elaboration, or a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to IRA members. It's not a vote, so a bunch of people turning up and saying the same fallacious things shouldn't (I hope) contribute to the decision of the closing admin. Trebor 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but which delete opinions contain "perfectly good and reasoned comments"? The ones that say "per nom" or the ones that say "seems like" and are predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and claims that Misplaced Pages is somehow becoming a IRA memorial? These would carry more weight if the people leaving them would actually take the time to form an argument.--Isotope23 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor: To draw attention to Vintagekits's previous naughtiness is not to make an ad hominem point, it's to question his credibility. Isotope23: What don't you understand regarding the argument of IRA memorialising? As I write on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, there seem to be a large number of articles about minor IRA personalites, citing POV sources and with a latent republicanism/ anglophobic leaning. As far as I can see, the argument is quite clear.--Major Bonkers 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your argument isn't a deletion rationale... we don't do conferred notability (or non-notability) and the status or existance of other articles is no rationale for deleting or keeping this article. Either the subject meets WP:BIO or he does not and right now I don't really see any credible argument being made that he doesn't meet it. Furthermore, POV isn't a deletion reason either; it is a reason to cleanup and NPOV an article.--Isotope23 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits has promised to do a clean-up over-night, so we'll wait and see what turns up. I understood your previous posting to be that you did not understand the argument of memorialisation, not that it was not a good cause for deletion. I suggest that the problem that Misplaced Pages faces is this: that there are a series of linked articles, all of which display slight but significant bias, and which are set up and maintained by persons prepared to devote the considerable amount of time necessary to this task. I do not agree that this individual merits a dedicated page; the only significant aspect of his life was his accidental shooting by the Police, and there is nothing to stop the manner of his death being reported in a suitable article.--Major Bonkers 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally articles like this would be nominated for speedy delete (nn-bio). It should also be noted that Administrators recently had to speedy delete and blank a page about an alledged IRA member after Vintagekits added unsourced allegations about murder and terrorism. There is a clear danger to the integrity of Misplaced Pages about creating articles on minor IRA members where there are no reliable sources to back up the information provided. Astrotrain 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Diarmuid O'Neill satisfies WP:BIO, with two non-trivial stories linked right there at the article's bottom and the link to the Amnesty campgain. The various arguments about Misplaced Pages not memorializing or glorifying terrorists don't follow any policy or guideline I know of. {{nn-bio}} would not have been appropriate, and if I ever saw a user who was tagging articles nn-bio because of POV reasons, I'd consider a block for abuse of the speedy deletion process. As for the AfD, I !voted, so I can't do this, but it should be closed as a "speedy keep" (already running about 2:1 in favor of keeping even if we count all canvassed !votes, and possible bad-faith nom). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first version of Diarmuid O'Neill is sourced by The Telegraph, how were there no reliable sources? I wouldn't consider the initial version of the article to be a candidate for speedy deletion. One Night In Hackney 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Major Bonkers) Yes, it is ad hominem, because you're questioning his credibility by citing a previous and fairly unrelated matter, while in this case numerous editors agree with him. I don't see what relevance you linking that page has to this discussion. Trebor 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Trebor, it isn't an ad hominem remark, because all that I have done is write 'See:' and provide a link. I have not made any comment whatsoever; it's up to any other interested party to click on the link and draw their own conclusions. I, unlike you, have made no comment and I have had the grace not to impugn either your bona fides or those of Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the obvious question is why you did that. What relevance did it have? What did you hope to accomplish? Assuming good faith, I'll give you a chance to explain. Trebor 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that those contributing to this discussion should have the opportunity to see a full picture of a User's behaviour and be in a position to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And that means it is ad hominem. Rather than arguing the merits of the case at hand, you're commenting on the person who brought about the AfD. You can say you didn't put across a point-of-view but, being realistic, a link to a CheckUser can't be seen in a positive light. So my original comment stands: you are bringing into question the user, not the AfD. Trebor 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant for users to understand that Vintagekits has been proven to use sockpuppets to canvas support for his attempt to add yet more IRA propoganda. Astrotrain 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? I am not a sockpuppet; I support keeping the article. The fact he may or may not have canvassed in the past does not justify canvassing this time. Trebor 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DownDaRoad is my account, I have NEVER denied it, there is a difference between acceptable and unacceptable canvassing

 *                    Scale         Message            Audience 

• Accepted Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan
• Not accepted Mass posting OR Partisan OR Partisan

• Term Internal spamming Campaigning Votestacking

I rest my case.--Vintagekits 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to you, Trebor, that I have made no comments at all on either Vintagekits or his previous conduct. I am happy to let his record speak for itself (as he should be) and for others to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else here troubled by Astrotrain's nominations of all of these articles on IRA terrorists for deletion, with obviously spurious claims of non-notability? These strike me as bad-faith nominations, and I'm perturbed to see that someone might be using AfD in furtherance of a political or personal agenda. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly since a large amount of people have agreed that this person and the others are not notable- this is not obviously the case. Please don't attack the nominator- and put your arguments in the debate page instead. Astrotrain 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, that's just wrong. Two of your noms were already kept, handily. The one in question here is headed for a keep and clearly meets WP:BIO, per two articles in the Telegraph. The question here is whether you're trying to use AfD to push a POV - and in my opinion, based on your comments here and your actions on those AfD pages, is that you are. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to back up my statements with facts:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland - closed with one delete !vote vs nine keeps.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_McDade - no delete !votes, thirteen keeps.

And the subject of this thread is snowballing to keep right now, 17 to 7, and most of the delete !votes have nothing to do with notability. Don't use AfD to push your own agenda. If you see articles that are too POV, clean them up. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill page. There are a series of articles about minor members of the IRA that, frankly, are being used to memorialise those individuals and promote their editors' own partisan views. Astrotrain finds that objectionable and while it could be argued that the articles need substantial revision instead of deletion, it is also arguable that such articles could be merged or revised under different article headings.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's not Astrotrain's argument. He's claiming that these subjects aren't notable, which appears to be false. If Astrotrain objects to the use of such articles to promote partisan views, then he should work on the articles - not file AfD noms with questionable claims of non-notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is part of the same argument. These individuals are not sufficiently notable as to warrant an article in their own right; the existing articles should be merged.--Major Bonkers 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree- he could be mentioned in a list of People killed by the British police or something- but is not notable enough to have an article in his own right. Its not even clear if he was even in the IRA- the Telegraph says he was an IRA suspect, and there is no evidence from a reliable source if this was confirmed. The only source for being in the IRA are unrelaible Republican forums. These articles are dangerous to the credibility of Misplaced Pages- we've arealdy had to delete a similar article after libelous information was added by Vintagekits. Astrotrain 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tirghra state the he was a Volunteer on page p.365 and Gerry Kelly confirms it. As for claiming that I added "libelous information" - you know that I was the one that was proven correct in the end - would you like me to prove it?--Vintagekits 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Astrotrain is making bad-faith nominations, too. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a substantial number of people think in a similar way to Astrotrain and it is wikipolicy to assume good faith except where shown otherwise. - Kittybrewster 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has clearly demonstrated bad faith by his comments in the AfD discussions. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by one of his meatpuppets. Argyriou (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And that, Trebor, is an ad hominem attack!--Major Bonkers 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me and I am not a meatpuppet. Are you a sockpuppet of Vintagetits?? - Kittybrewster 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admin needed

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BenBurch is a cesspit waiting to happen. It's an RfC filed by a user with an openly admitted conflict of interest, "certified" by his brother, indef-blocked User:BryanFromPalatine, by proxy (needless to say I removed that); supported by another "brand new user" with one of his first half dozen edits (I blocked that one and struck it, WP:AGF does not mean we have to be wilfully obtuse), and now regrettably certified by an actual editor with a history, who I'd have hoped would know better, in response (of course) to canvassing, which is being engaged in by both sides. The substance of the dispute may be summarised as follows: We, the undersigned pots, feel that these, the named kettles, are unacceptably black. It has precisely no hope whatsoever of reaching a resolution of the problem, but stands a good chance of simply repeating all the same crap which is currently filling the talk pages of the various articles. Even if BenBurch were a problem, we're hardly likely to accept the judgement of someone claiming to be a member of the legal team of an opposing group. The very name Fairness And Accuracy For All positively screams the intent to engage in tendentious editing, but having a POV-warriors username does not in and of itself constitute a problem. These guys ate each other's guts, and that's never going to change as a result of an RfC.

Prize comment thus far: "A plague on both your houses". I couldn't agree more. Perhaps we could rustle up a cabal and simply close the thing as being utterly pointless. Failing that I might simply go back in a week and block all those who have added an inflammatory comment within the preceding 24 hours. WP:NOT needs an extra clause: Misplaced Pages is not Usenet. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, is that 'Rogue admin' you're after? Artw 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

psst... WP:ROUGE —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wow - that is..well.. are they just spamming random people to comment ? (it appears that way before I gave up) --Fredrick day 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the RFC, since it wasn't properly certified. There was no evidence presented that at least two people tried and failed to resolve the dispute, a necessary prerequisite for an RFC because of the focus in dispute resolution on preventing unnecessary conflict escalation. This was just a one-on-one dispute in which both sides were actively soliciting comments from other users, and as Guy observed, that's just a recipe for trouble. --bainer (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the best thing to do...but wait, this play may likely have more than one act.--MONGO 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh I have every confidence that these argumentative people will not go away, we'll be playing whack-a-mole with this dispute for a while yet. Full marks to Bainer for an excellent interpretation of the rules there, though. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 & Disruptive Editing

User:Pejman47 consistently reverts pages without discussing on the talk page, despite being told to join the discussion. The lack of communication has, unfortunately, made "disruptive" become the best description for his editing habits. Here are examples:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

• , was told not to .
• didn't discuss on talk page, hence .
• didn't discuss on talk page, hence .
• no discussion, reminded .
• Directly told .

Azerbaijan

• without responding to anything on talk page, hence .
• Directly told .
• still without discussing, hence .
• completely ignored reminder.

These are the instances that I have run into with this user. Note that, as of this post, he hasn't spoken about any of these changes on the talk pages and . In sum, I think there needs to be a consequence for this kind of disruptive and nonconstructive editing. The Behnam 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I have read all the talk page of Azerbaijan article and aware of the discussions and I have contributed to the talk page in 28 ,19 January recently (didn't you see that?)

about Ahmadinejad article it is totally biased towards warmongers; they didn't even mentioned in the lead that he is at most the second "decider" in Iran after Ali Khamenei, (beside the meaning of the "president"). It needs total rewrite and I didn't have time till next weekend and must get help from some other editors, too. Till then I think the tag of {{POV-section}} (which I was reverting it) must be there. take care.--Pejman47 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what either of these edit wars is about: you're moving text from one part of the article to another, and people are reverting back. What's the problem here that everyone is reverting each other? Part Deux 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Pejman hasn't been discussing these edits despite numerous requests through edit summaries and talk page. The Behnam 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a report here I'd like to point out an ad-hominem personal attack from this user during an AfD discussion GabrielF 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan-Hernet impersonating admin, Buchanan-Hermit

Buchanan-Hernet (talk · contribs) has been making edits to Gordon Campbell, which is strikingly similar to another editor and admin, Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs). It is suspected that The funky monkey (talk · contribs) is the same user too. Can administrator please step in? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked by Grandmasterka. Bucketsofg 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby again. - suggesting community ban

As one can see by the section a little bit above, there have been serious issues at Larry Darby with User:LarryDarby. Darby has most recently attempted to use a sock puppet User:User:BopBeBop(confirmed by checkuser) to get around WP:COI issues and making nearly identical edits, personal attacks and general claims that Misplaced Pages is controlled by Jews and Zionists. Example difs include . Most recently, in response to my attempt to give him advice - , he responded with and . At this point, some other admin probably needs to talk him and/or give him a long block for personal attacks and other issues. However, I wouldn't object to treating him as having exhausted community patience. (This was added at/by 20:44, 30 January 2007 JoshuaZ)

previous AN/I thread. I asked about this in the above thread, and, as can be seen, Yuser31415 was also concerned about this. I contacted Yusef about this new spate of edits. ThuranX 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to my interactions with this user, it is now clear he is not here to help, nor to contribute constructively or civilly. I would support a community ban of this user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me... Given that Mr. Darby has had contact, and an established OTRS case, we should get a link over to those pages ASAP. Those Wikifolk who folllow these things should know what he's done since they tried to work with him. Yes/No? ThuranX 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if Larry is going to cite WP:OFFICE agressively over Larry Darby, I would support deletion and salting that page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any OFFICE concern, merely an OTRS matter. No reason to delete at this time. JoshuaZ 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, whichever it may be, let's get someone 'up top' notificatiated, so we don't have to suffer through Darby calling again and restarting this mess. ThuranX 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I already left a note on the page of the person who answered the OTRS complaint. JoshuaZ 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent of that we can still decide as a community that we don't want him editing. JoshuaZ 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I might note that he himself doesn't want to be editing. Apparently Misplaced Pages is "propaganda." Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit , I suspect that Larry has decided to just lash out a lot. More evidence of a need for an indef block? ThuranX 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope: that IP resolves to Texas: . Besides, it doesn't seem in character for a guy who's the head of the atheist whatever group from Alabama to type vandalize WP by typing that Colbert stuff. Part Deux 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I support an indef block. This guy is clearly here to push an agenda and isn't even trying to hide it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What a complete windbag. Support, and admonish the state of Alabama for almost giving this guy a real position of power. (See his article.) Grandmasterka 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also support community ban. Note also that (presumably) he posted "Who is the Misplaced Pages agent for service of legal process in Alabama?" at the top of his talk page, which might count as a legal threat. Sandstein 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, given the above I think we have what indicates a consensus. I am therefore going to block him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I count three editors for and one against this ban. Am I missing something or does that constitute a consensus? It is very possible that I'm wrong here, but I thought that community ban was supposed to be a mechanism of absolute last resort. I thought that temperary bans and strong warnings usually come first. --Selket 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Bans can be made when a user exhausts the patience and trust of the community, by deliberately violating the spirit of the law even if not the letter of the law. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Selket, see the community patience clause of WP:BAN. JoshuaZ 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had seen that section and it states in relevant part, "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." I'm not questioning the action; I'm trying to understand the rule. Does four or five people constitute "widespread community support" rather than "agreement between a handful of admins or users"? --Selket 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this section, I see six people supporting the ban (JoshuaZ, J.smith, Grandmasterka, Sandstein, Yuser31415 and ThuranX (if I interpret his/her post correctly)) and noone opposing it. So unless there comes real argumented opposition (not procedural opposition only), I would call this a case of community support for a ban. 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opposition (procedural or otherwise). I'm just trying to understand what the procedure is for future reference. Thanks. --Selket 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: ) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support permanent ban. Jayjg 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban. This should have happened weeks ago. JoshuaZ 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Based on what I've seen of this user, endorse ban. --Coredesat 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with comment: it's not just socks, but apparent meats. I blocked LotusLander2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the account's first-ever edit, a direct reversion to Ellis's preferred version of Warren Kinsella. In an e-mail to me the following day (yes, I still have it), LotusLander2006 acted ignorant of (or surprised to be "confused" with) Ellis, yet identified herself as none other than Rachel Marsden. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that the Rachel Marsden article is currently protected on a version edited by one of the aforementioned socks. Just wanted to point that out. -Hit bull, win steak 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. Thatcher131 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and now it's been fixed. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. -Hit bull, win steak 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. For a partial list of blocks, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Bucketsofg 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Addhoc 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban --SunStar Net 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I see CJCurrie and Jayjg agreeing on something... world peace cannot be far away ;) Anyway, endorse with the recognition that the person has also made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Kla'quot 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Known Ellis IP

Any objections to blocking 209.217.96.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for an extended time, say, six months or even one year? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be able to change his IP at will, at least when he's determined about it. A long IP block won't accomplish anything. His favorite articles are permanently semi-protected already, since both he and Kinsella tear them up whenever they aren't protected. Thatcher131 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True; still, the idea occurred to me when I noticed the comparatively tiny edit history and the suggestion that no one but Ellis has ever used it—and that he returned thereto. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

His IP will be stable as long as it's not blocked, but then he switches. Probably DHCP on a cable modem that he can reset by unplugging the modem. Thatcher131 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking the IP might be a bad idea, as he'll probably go IP-switching. Roving IP edits happen... --SunStar Net 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some heavy words towards me

I need some help from some admin willing to communicate with User:Sys Hax, as I believe it no would be productive for me to try it myself.

I tagged the image Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg as "replaceable fair use" (WP:CSD#i7) some days ago and left him (non-boilerplate) message explaining matter. Then, after the 7 days period, the image got ultimatelly deleted by admin Herostratus.

User:Sys Hax wasn't happy with this outcome and left me a harsh message, calling me a "jerk" (edit summary) and "self-appointed bowdlerizing luddite". As I get a lot of such attacks (and as I don't know what "bowdlerizing" means), I decided to ignore it at the time.

Later, User:Sys Hax took some time to contribute to an (already existing) RFC dedicated to my persona. There, he developed his thoughts on the image deletion issue and asked "WHY HAS WIKIPEDIA NOT BANNED THIS HOODLUM?". He also took the opportunity to define me as a "punk who would prefer to drive around at night and break off car antennas with a baseball bat". I decided to ignore that too. A good thing from this RFC is that people now has some place other than my talk page to attack me, and I got less "You have new messages" warnings (note that I don't want to imply that this is the sole reason people contributed to my RFC). (btw, I don't know what's a HOODLUM).

Later in the day, he left me another message explaining me I'm a "vandalizing punk who should be banned ", called me an "image vandal" in an article's edit summary, and voiced in this same article's talk page that I'm a "known image vandal" and a "punk who's deleted hundreds of images for fun, always giving a ridiculous, bogus rationale". Also according to him, I "would rather be driving around at night smashing off car antennas with a baseball bat".

After some more time, he decided he needed to left me one more message, calling me an "asshole" (at least an English word that I have already learned!) and explaing me again his theory about "smashing car antennas with a baseball bat". It's funny that in this same message he says that "Judging by the number of complaints filed against (me)", I "won't be an admin very much longer". Well, I'm not and had never been an admin. But anyway, based on this misguided assumption that I am an admin, he goes on to wonder how did I "get to be an admin anyway?", and offers alternatives: "Are you the "catcher" homosexual boyfriend of a real admin, or are you just a pimply high-school social reject who hacked into the wiki admin database with a kiddie-script?".

At this point, I decided he needs help. And that's what I came here to ask for.

Btw, he removed his last message on my talk page, according to his edit summary, to "take (his) concerns to wiki administration".

If someone here is willing to talk to this user about his behavior, I would really appreciate. Best regards, --Abu badali 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message. Jkelly 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So did I. That entire section of that article's talk page had to go with fire. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you guys for your time. The user seems now a little more calm, as he used no personal attacks (or unknown adjectives) in the two recent messages he left on my talk page. Anyway, judging by his last editions, I believe he's still very annoyed about the deletion of the image he uploaded (and I believe very few editors have seen more complaints from users annoyed with image deletions than I did). Best regards, --Abu badali 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mkil problem, I need protection against this individual asap

It's a good thing I noticed this. Go on my talk page, go on rocky marciano page, go under my history, I tried to reason to reason to reason with this man. He kept on putting words in my mouth, that's why I told him to watch out and not talk to me, in the beginning I never said those things. But he keeps on playing with all my articles, I can not possibly reply again over here, so go on my talk page, read it, go on rocky marciano talk page and my other history, you will know this guy is a sophisticated vandal. HE ERASES TONS AND TONS OF MESSAGES. I asked him not to talk to me in a kind way, how long and how much can somebody stand, I mean, he is driving me crazy, all of his accusations above, he is repeating time after time, in different rhetoric. I ASK FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THIS INDIVIDUAL, HE IS AFTER ME, AFTER MY EDITS. Every time he edits something, he says he cleans up things, sure he does, cleans up whole articles and case in point... recently (check my history) he was after my Nino Valdez article, he put the date of october 7 1955, the date baker fought valdez, which is not true, IT WAS DECEMBER 7, go on boxrec.com or on any archives, that was the dacy, what did he do, put oct 7, i mean, i am trying to correct mistakes, what is he doing, again, you have to follow my talk page, rocky page and things i left on talk page for others, also i do not check emails every day, so give me up to 5 days to reply. BUT I NEED PROTECTION AGAINST MKIL, NOT ONLY THAT, HE CHANCES STORY, PUTS WORDS INTO MY MOTH, HAS PEOPLE DOING HIS EDITS FOR HIM, GIVING HIM PRAISE ON HIS PAGE (AND IT MAY BE HIM, FROM DIFFERENT IP). I mean, the story goes on and on and on, again, HE MAKES MISTAKES, HE EDITS THINGS OUT, HE PUTS HIS OWN STORY, HE NEEDS EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING, MEANING, EVEN FOR BREATHING. I TRIED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME TO REASON WITH THIS MAN, BUT NOTHING, ALL TO NO AVAIL! This particular individual has time, TONS OF TIME ON HIS HANDS, I do not, i have to type fast, lucky thing I noticed this reply here. MKIL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH CERTAIN BIOGRAPHIES/ARTICLES, HE IS NOTHING BUT PROBLEM, he demands greatness link for Marciano, well in fact he is considered great by many, Check my page for link. (italian-american community e.g.). Then he puts some link under Marciano for some fake computer fight, i mean how can a computer call somebody great, we are talking here about historians. Whatever has been accepted as generally true in the world, part of correspondence of true, then it is true. He is challenging logic and common sense. I was asked by few people to watch over the rocky page back in november and december, i did not do it immediately, but I decided I will and people like mkil should not be allowed to destroy other people's good work. Not only that he destroys it but kills other people's time and effort and good will. And if I am out of line at times, he provoked me. He did not want to listen, he kept on leaving me dozens and dozens of messages on my talk page, putting words into my mouth and if something went astray gave me some wiki links and policy which have nothing to do with the situation or particular problem at hand. What else to say, read if you have time, mkil will waste your time too, BIG TIME! I did not want this situation to happen, go all the way over here, but what can I do. He simply wants things his way, that's all, i told others i do not want trouble, But I can not allow this to go on, i can not allow mkil to make so many mistakes, rewrite history!

User_talk: BoxingWear

See the above thread. PTO 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I think BoxingWear's words make my case for me. By all means, check out our user pages and the Rocky Marciano talk page. MKil 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

To illustrate that BoxingWear’s charges are groundless, merely look at these pages where he reverted my edits , , . He accuses me of vandalism, destroying "tons of information," etc. Look at the edits he reversed. They all involved cleaning up sentences, correcting mis-spellings, and removing redundant information. Go ahead and judge for yourself if my copyedits, intended to make the pages more readable, deserve to be automatically reverted by BoxingWear. MKil 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

BoxingWear is now at it again, reverting my attempts to copyedit these pages and labeling it vandalism , , . As can be seen on the Nino Valdez talk page , my edits were done to improve the writing of the article. MKil 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

The above is incorrect, I never accused this gentleman of vandalism in the first place, I simply want him to stay away from few edits and I will not bother him again, there are about 3 people he is playing around with, if he simply walks away, 99% of all problems resolved. Again, I need protection against this individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#3RR He had problems with many other users in the past. I am not accusing him he is logging in under 58.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 I never said that, i did say however, there is a good chance it is him or somebody else, I mean, I do not care that much if he has support or many accounts, but somebody left praise under his account, some guy from ibro and he says he does not speak english, what, it's written in a great english. No, these things have been answered, they are all here... http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Greatest_problem.2C_not_resolved.2C_people_who_participated_in_the_poll_do_not_know_boxing

As far as the greatest goes... The following reply has been left on rocky marciano page...

Greatness is not in a word, you can not demand evidence via some link, that does not prove much, however undefeated/untied record in the heavyweight division speaks for itself, end of story. It's self evident, a given.User_talk: BoxingWear

This is definitely true. When someone holds the “greatest record” this is generally a good indicator that they can be considered the greatest.Thedeparted123 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, mkil put some link to fake fight with ali and marciano, who cares if computer thinks ali or mkil or louis or ali is the greatest, actually computer thinks jack dempsey is the greatest, according to the radio fight from 1968. ROcky beat dempsey. And I do not think many people can beat dempsey or tunney in their primes. But, again, that's computer for you. Moving on...http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#ARGUABLY_The_Greatest_Heavyweight_champion_of_all_time Others support the idea of simply adding the word arguably. And why not, most of the boxers are arguably the greatest or great. Now, the problem with this individual is, he simpy says he corrects mistakes, no he does not, he kills tons and tons of info, i have no problem if he puts citations needed in parenthesis, but he is rarely doing that, such behavior can not be tolerated. I do not want to waste my time on that. This person must be stopped asap.! Also, this is a very respectable user who agrees with me on everything (or just about) I said and she also supported the word arguably...

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bitnine&diff=104455094&oldid=103679440 Read the link at the bottom. And http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thedeparted123 http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=rockymarciano Certainly many people think of greatness, And when it comes to other edits, people praise my work for example... 14:50, 31 January 2007 Gilliam (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 200.179.244.89 to last version by BoxingWear) this was from one of the fighters i edited.

I am also a respectable boxing writer. (articles)

On a separate note, we need to recreate lineal heavyweight boxing champions, the vote was 5:1 not to delete that article and why was it gone, can i recreate it? So, all the future replies by mkil have been answered, he puts words into my mouth. Again, somebody must tell him to stay away now. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=7734&more=1 Answers.com has it copied from wiki but it's all wrong, that was the wrong version, later on I corrected many things there. My contributions speak for themselves, people like mkil are only downgrading it, provoking unrest. And of course, lack of civility, when it comes to that, mkil takes the case, http://en.wikipedia.org/Civility not to mention putting words into my mouth or never admitting he is wrong or when I am correct and that's most of the time. User_talk: BoxingWear

This is a blatant lie from BoxingWear: “I am not accusing him he is logging in under 58.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 I never said that,”

Go to my talk page : “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” MKil 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Exactly, the 58 reply might very well be you, but later i said may be you, ok, or somebody you know, that is what i mean, also, he keeps on saying he wants to correct articles, but again HE HAS TIME, I DO NOT, and he must be stopped now, he has time to take every single word I ever said and make it his case., Again, I do not mind if they support mkil but http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 the person who left this left it 2 minutes after mkil reverted something, not next day, not next hour. We need statue of limitations for replies! http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#3RR Boxingwear

Request another admin to step in

Because of this posting to my talk page, I feel I need to withdraw for now from dealing with Escambia High School and Knowledgebase11 (talk · contribs). Could someone else look in on the situation. -- Donald Albury 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watch list. Silly unsourced nonsense and personal attacks. Ugg. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Donald Albury 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP keeps spamming controversial links into Brian Mclaren and has violated 3RR

I found this out at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_McLaren. An anon IP Special:Contributions/198.77.238.254 has apparently been doing this for two days and user User:Virgil Vaduva, who is rightly reverting the spamming as a violation WP:BLP, is tiring. Would someone kindly ban anon IP for 3RR? Thanks! CyberAnth 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of {{subst:spam4}} Template:Emot? Continuously adding links despite being reverted, even if the links are not advertising in themselves, classifies as spam. Just for your information, this guy stopped on the 29th Jan, and it's the 31st today ... ? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blush. Did not notice the date. CyberAnth 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I've done the same before. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats at User:Azer Red/ED discussion page

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

User:Azer Red/ED discussion page was recently nominated for deletion at Mfd. As the page contains libellous statements regarding the Encyclopedia Dramatica website and its owners, along with legal threats, I've repeatedly attempted to tag it for speedy deletion. Apparently libel is something we vote on now, rather than deleting it on sight. I'd appreciate it if an admin took a look at the page in question. --- RockMFR 07:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What libel statements? Saying that posting personal contact information on Misplaced Pages contributors and calling specific Misplaced Pages editors pedophiles and various other things is a possible violation of their hosting provider's TOS is libel? I have !voted for deletion and regret stooping to counter obvious trolling on that page but calling it libel is equally a violation of WP:LEGAL. This page was a discussion on how to prevent off-site abuse until ED turned up out of no where. I guess MONGO wasn't wrong about the ED sleeper accounts. MartinDK 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not libel. So just forget RockMFR said that. The page specifically said it was gathering information for a class action lawsuit. That's the kind of legal threats that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be hosting. SchmuckyTheCat 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And it no longer does, it was deleted. Milto LOL pia 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree SchmuckyTheCat and I apologize for taking part in this disruption of Misplaced Pages even if it started as a good faith attempt to protect editors/administrators from being abused. Thanks for reminding me to stay cool when things get heated, I needed that. Sorry to the community for feeding the trolls even if I was heavily provoked to do so. MartinDK 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, np. There are trolls on both sides anytime anything related to ED shows up on Misplaced Pages. SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're half right. --Calton | Talk 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was certainly potentially libellous - the article was making probably invalid claims that the owners of ED had violated the law. Thanks to the admin who took care of this. --- RockMFR 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the website is no longer allowing completely open editing, the mods there are responsible for the content. But that is water under the bridge since the real way to get rid of that website only involves applying enough pressure at the right pressure points.--MONGO 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. I deleted the page last night speedily after much consideration as an attack page. It's purpose was to collect information to disparage its subjects. The subjects may be reaping what they've sewn, but two wrongs don't make a right and we don't need that kind of counter-attack on Misplaced Pages. Encyclopedia Dramatica is all about the "lulz of drama." Pages like this only feed the trolls the drama they want and belong off-wiki, especially if any talk of legal action is involved. There is really no need to mention ED on here anymore, even if you're upset that they're talking about you or other users in their uncyclopedic fashion. Don't slow down to gawk at the car wreck. Happy editing to all. Teke 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For those very reasons and the fact that this continues to feed the trolls over there I suggest this thread is closed as well. I would do so myself but I don't know how to do that. MartinDK 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

personal attack and abuse of personal userpage

User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it ) he was recieved an issue of a final warning .

his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

"this finger pointing is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Misplaced Pages. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm| 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text ] and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. ). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Misplaced Pages (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • By the way, Abu, when I was looking at your userpage, I saw that you are using a fair Use image on it. Would you remove that please? Jeffpw 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• no problem Abu ali 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive

I've been trying to engage with a user about apparent personal attacks, and in reply I'm getting only a reiteration ("proof of concept"). I'm at a loss. Any input or assistance would be appreciated. — coelacan talk — 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't go looking for things to be offended by. If you can't get along with that user, avoid them. Jkelly 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And can you suggest a list of other things I should ignore in the future, besides X? Should I wait for Y, or should I set the bar even higher? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that reply was thoroughly inappropriate, Coelacan. You should fix that. However, the editor in question, CyberAnth, has been up on this talk page three times now in as many days for problems. He was supported by Jimbo Wales for his actions in enforcing WP:BLP, and since then seems to be increasing in hostility. It's probably a good idea for some admin to make clear to him that being right once doesn't make him right always, and the behavior on Coelacan's talk page is certainly a personal attack. ThuranX 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry. — coelacan talk — 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ThuranXm, Sir or Madam, that is nonsense. The post to my userpage in question was made some 10 days prior the WP:BLP incidents. See here. Also, this situation is someone writing words, and then claiming that the very words they wrote, when quoted, constitute a personal attack. That is nonsense. I suggest that if people do not wish to have their irresponsible words, spoken in deeper recesses of WP, displayed in more noticeable places, the way to avoid it is to avoid writing such words in the first place. CyberAnth 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? I came to your talkpage and asked you to explain why you called me a "fuckwad". The whole conversation is right there on your talk page, so I don't see how you could get this mixed up. I don't care about the quote on your userpage and I've never complained about it to you or anyone. Quit changing the subject. — coelacan talk — 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth It does look to me like you did call this fellow a "fuckwad". Could you please apologize? That would be most appropriate now. --BenBurch 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if only I did. CyberAnth 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unattended issue

This issue went to the archive without attention. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive188#Primal_Therapy

Randroide 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, has any administrator taken action about this yet? It would surprise me if someone could just delete 2 weeks worth of discussion from an article talk page without any consequences. Did you restore the posts that were deleted? Further, it seems to me that the policy he cited in deleting applies to articles, and not what is on the talk page. Since you were actively discussing the issue, it should have remained on the talk page, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick look over the issue shows the text does still exist (but now on Randroide's talk page). It should not have been excised from the Primal Therapy talk page. I've asked GrahameKing not to repeat such a removal, noting that any subsequent disruptive removal of valid discussion will result in a block to prevent further occurance. I will assume good faith and trust he won't do it again. Randroide, I am sorry that nobody responded to your request the first time around (it does happen, and you did the correct thing in reposting it, civilly). Proto::► 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanket speedy request

I really don't know much about Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, but I have a hard time believing that all of our articles about it should be candidates for speedy deletion. One user seems to think otherwise. This would be a bear to revert one at a time. Could someone who knows if these requests are valid take a look, and possibly use an admin tool to fix them all at once if not. Thanks. --Onorem 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all the edits, mainly because he'd blank the articles whilst tagging them as "nonsense". He seems to be trying to set up a mass AfD for them now, so he's obviously read the comments on his talk page. yandman 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Who knows, I might make an argument for deletion on his mass AfD. I only noticed the edits because I saw an edit summary where he replaced the page, and the speedy reason was db|nonsense fanon. I checked it because I was hoping there was another speedy argument that I didn't know about. Then I noticed that all the account's edits were made today and all of them were redirecting episode articles and/or nominating them for deletion. --Onorem 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure you got them all. It looks like there are still about 40 articles listed for speedy deletion, plus another 12 or so that were redirected. I'm going to start reverting these manually unless there's a reason why I shouldn't. --Onorem 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see there was a second page of contribs... Done. yandman 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again. --Onorem 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I only saw one AFD nomination incomplete. I have completed it here. Navou 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Spoke to soon. There were eight other articles. I have included them into the single procedural afd. Regards, Navou 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Editor

I am fairly new here so I am not sure if this is the right way to deal with a user that has been making personal attacks and deleting people's discussions. This person's IP address changes everytime they edit, however, it appears to be the same person. I started out ignoring it in the beginning, but I think it should be looked into.

If my request does not belong here that is fine. Then I need some input on the best way to handle this person. RosePlantagenet 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly think the anon IP's words could be chosen with more care, I don't really see personal attacks going on. On the other issue, that of removing or altering comments of other editors, you are correct. That is bad form, and a warning should be given message should be left on their talk page. I doubt that would have much effect, though, since it is multiple IPs. Jeffpw 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, it is probably difficult to warn and even stop an editor when their IP address changes. That was why I did not think much could be done or was even sure if something should be mentioned. I was going to suggest a semi-protection on the page but that seems to be only for the article and not the discussion page. Or a way to keep the editor from deleting people's comments. Thank you very much for looking into it so quickly. RosePlantagenet 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Rose: I am not an admin. I'm just another editor, like you. But I have this page on my watchlist, and I sometimes look to see what the problem is, in order to help if I can. Jeffpw 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Substance abuse deletion

Hi, an IP-user has deleted portions of Substance abuse. This seems like something I could fix without being an admin - how do I do that (supposing I just have to undo an edit)? /PER9000 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this guy (User_talk:216.62.85.65) seem to have been warned about vandalism in the past./ PER9000 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. In future, click on "history", click on the date of the last good version, click "edit" (it'll warn you that you're editing an old version), and save. This is called "reverting". yandman 15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obscene username & possible sockpuppet abuse

All Male Action (talk · contribs), a new user recently blocked for revert warring , is following the pattern of editing of Improper Bostonian (talk · contribs), an account that appears inactive after an IP check at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJII determined a possible link to the banned RJII.

Note I am not requesting an IP check here. Irrespective of the disruption and possible sockpuppet abuse of "All Male Action," the account should be banned on the basis of policies prohibiting obscene usernames. If "All Male Action" returns with a permissible name, an IP check may be then carried out on the new account. 172 | Talk 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

em.. could you explain what is obscene about that name? I might be very dim but I don't actually seen anything there I would call obscene? --Fredrick day 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, maybe that it sounds like the title of a porno movie? It is arguable, but do we want to go there?--Ramdrake 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick day, the term is a sexual slang. If you insist on confirming this for youself, try turning off the adult filter the internet search engine you use and doing a search. I am not interested in testing this myself. For one, I have little doubt the term is a sex slag; and I don't want to view lots of gay pornography. Ramdrake, you don't have to "go there" to confirm the meaning. Use common sense to figure out what it is an obscene username. 172 | Talk 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - look at the filth in the first link that google gave me. --Fredrick day 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And how about the 2nd - 10th? So a band decided to name themselves after male pornography. That doesn't change that "All Male Action" generally refers to male pornography. Whether you want to call it obscene is another matter. --Onorem 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a reference to being gay is offensive? Can those who think it is please elaborate?-Localzuk 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud, are there people watching this page just to be difficult? I can't believe I've had to do this... This is what comes up on an image search. Turn off the safe search filter. Warning: The results are-- no surprise-- gay pornography. And, no, Localzuk, the name is not offensive because it is a reference to being gay. It is offensive because it is a pornographic term. 172 | Talk 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this same test apply just as readily to Wang as offensive? Bitnine 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the name is offensive, submit it to WP:RFCN, I don't see it as offensive, sounds like a bunch of firemen putting out a fire, or maybe a wrestling match. hehe. Porno movies have taken lots of good terms, No Man's Land refers to an area between combatants that neither hold, water-sports refers to water fun, or umm other stuff, , Scat is a type of singing form the 30s, and All male action can be many innocent things too, porno likes to steal real words. HighInBC 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't familar with RFCN. I started work on Misplaced Pages long before all these specialized pages were created. Also, HighInBC, what you say, as Onorem has already written, "That doesn't change that "All Male Action" generally refers to male pornography." 172 | Talk 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to deny it's pornographic meaning, just saying it is subject to interpretation. HighInBC 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for a block per WP:USERNAME. It definitely connotes pornography. If the primary interpretation of a term is going to be offensive, then it's a good idea to ask the user to change it. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like he's been indef blocked, so point mooted. That being said, perhaps in these cases people could stop by the talk page of a user with a questionable name and ask if they wouldn't mind changing it. I was going to do it myself, but saw he was already blocked. IronDuke 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note to a new user making constructive edits. But all along I knew about the sockpuppet connection, leaving me unsympathetic. 172 | Talk 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon corrupting sockpuppet tags

I noticed an anon 71.156.44.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making edits to the {{sockpuppet}} tags of a number of other IP users. One suspected sock that turned up a few times was SummerThunder. They have stopped for now but I'm posting here in case someone knows a history I'm not aware of. —Dgies 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy: 202.163.200.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was doing it too, but for different sock users. Then he tried blanking this section. —Dgies 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See also:

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

–Gunslinger47 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Request an indef block of Dgiesas. This account was jsut created with a username similar to mine, reverting the same things 202.163.200.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was doing and blanking this section. —Dgies 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Request an indef block of Dgie$ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalism-only account, SummerThunder sock. —Dgies 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Take to WP:AIV. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Phenylketonuria

This article has been vandalized. i only use Misplaced Pages for research, i'm not an editor and i wonder why can't i find a way to report a vandalized article, perhaps a button that directs a message to the editor of the article would be suficient. Anyway, the vandalized page is this one http://en.wikipedia.org/Phenylketonurias in the chapter: History - the text ends with meaningless writing. Thank you for your atention— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.244.1 (talk • contribs)

• It's been reverted. Thank you for reporting it. If you need help learning how to edit here, please feel free to message me. Jeffpw 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat or crystal ball?

While reverting the vandalism of 70.58.116.19 (talk · contribs) I came across this gem. I'm not sure if this is the right place for reporting this sort of vague threat directed at no one in particular. Burlywood 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think someone's just being "clever." No names or other specifics were cited, so I would just warn the user and watch what they do in future. ♠PMC♠ 20:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just someone playing around. {{subst:bv}}'d. We can do without such behavior. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Since the warring parties on the Free Republic article seem unable to go a day without opening a new sockpuppet, checkuser, mediation or other process against each other, I have suggested to the three worst offenders - User:BenBurch, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:DeanHinnen, in no particular order - that they leave the article and each other alone for a couple of weeks. If there is any more of the present crap I am strongly inclined to wield the clue-by-four and knock the lot of them out for long enough to give the rest of us some peace. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Having kept an eye on the FR stuff (while being completely out of the loop), I can understand your frustration, Guy, but I don't think both sides are at fault here. It seems to me more like one side gaming the system to drag down the other side to their level. SirFozzie 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only TOO happy to drop it. --BenBurch 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton

There is a comment in the page on Hilary Clinton which states "She is also the Devil". I believe this to be inaccurate and libelous.

81.132.62.254 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been reverted as vandalism RyanPostlethwaite 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do like the understatement, though; it's merely inaccurate to say that she's the devil... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair.... Philippe Beaudette 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made clear that we've had the Devil in the White House since 2000, so having her still there in 2008 shouldn't be too much of a shock... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is going to BJAODN. Daniel Case 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, established by checkuser

A Request for checkuser has revealed that User:BoxingWear has been evading blocks using sockpuppets. (See the case here.) Could an administrator please block him? Thanks, PTO 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Chick Bowen 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MensKeperRa actively lobbying other editors and attempting to vote stack AfD

Recently, this user AfDed Allen H. Greenfield. However, he does not seem to be content to let other editors make up their own minds. After I voted to keep, he lobbied my on my talk page, , and additionally posted a long derogatory screed about the living subject to the AfD. Could someone attempt to get this guy to approach the AfD in a more moderate fashion? He seems to be overly emotionally involved. Jefferson Anderson 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a word with MensKeperRa. Hopefully that calms him down somewhat. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Contributions review requested

I have recently blocked Edward called Enoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and wish to get other opinions on an indefinite block. He has asked God to kill James Randi within 30 days (also Larry King, apparently). It seems like there ought to be a no-smiting-request policy to go along with no legal threats. Chick Bowen 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours. That looks more like an indefinite unless the user agrees to stop posting that sort of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked him 24 for the crap on Kim's subpage, before I noticed the James Randi stuff. No one's yet gotten him to say a word on his talk page. Chick Bowen 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No smiting requests is a red link that will be turned blue when I have some time. Awesome. Proto::► 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism (real-life)

Real-life effects of penis vandalism.

Maybe this image should go on MediaWiki:Bad image list as no doubt someone will upload it. --SunStar Net 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Now someone will surely upload an image of it sooner or later. --physicq (c) 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake! --82.42.237.84 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --SunStar Net 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can barely see the image at (not even visible at google maps); hardly seems worth the mention of all these big articles. Part Deux 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing comment

So apparently a WHILE back I was involved in mediating a dispute between a couple of users, Devin79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't remember what the outcome of it was, but apparently the result was Devin79 was blocked for personal attacks by pgk. Well, I was recently alerted to this diff here in which the personal attacks continue and Devin79 announces his intention to wikistalk articles I've edited under various IP addresses. I'm a little disturbed by this. Here's the relevant quotation:

All of the above is also relevant to Jdorney's girlfriend SWATJester. SWATJester wouldn't know anything about the SAD if it slapped him upside the head. Having served 4 years as a Force Recon Marine, I would argue that I am far more knoweldgeable about this particular subject then some basement dweller who runs around calling himself "SwatJester". I will also be editing his articles with various IP addresses. Both of these little dirtbags can go to hell.

Ignoring the fact that I've been in the army for almost 5 years, including an Iraq tour, and experience with special operations units like 5th SFG, CAG, and liaison work with CIA, this isn't about the content dispute: it's about the announced intention get around his block with IPs to specifically target articles I've worked on. I can't see how this is conducive to the project. ⇒ SWATJester 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signaleer -- disruptive editing and sockpuppetry

User:Signaleer is engaging in repeated disruptive editing of P-51 Mustang for many days despite a community consensus against this user's changes and many requests from many users to cease. He is also engaging in personal attacks, userpage vandalism, and 3RR violations. Recently, he has been continuing his disruptive editing using sockpuppet IPs User:72.135.19.52 and User:160.149.99.58 (both IPs from the same geographical area, making the same disruptive edits, user claims to be in US Army and the 160 IP is registered to US Army). - Emt147 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing low level edit war between Signaleer (aka IP160.149.99.58) and a number of other editors on the Convair B-36 article as well, all over whether one or another image better depicts the plane, , , , even though the consensus is not in his camp. There has been little effort on his part to discuss the matter on the article talkpage even though he has been encouraged to do so., .--MONGO 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Signaleer and two of the IP address have made identical edits on Women Airforce Service Pilots adding non-notable, non-cited material, and reverting it when that material is removed (examples: , (where he called the cleanup "vandalism"), and here as an IP). Signaleer also insists on hard-coding image thumbnail sizes in numerous articles, despite being repeatedly advised that this is contrary to the MOS. He has blatantly vandalized a userpage (} and blanked a whole section of the article David Petraeus {). Formal vandalism warnings have been placed on his talk page ({{Uw-delete3}} added , {{Uw-delete4}} added ; it should be noted that this last one was posted today, and he has not reoffended since its posting). His response to warnings can be read here: . Akradecki 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance regarding User:Derex

• Note this complaint has already been investigated here and archived yesterday. Jayzel has reposted the material below with all previous administrator commentary on the case removed. Derex 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should just remind everyone of Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

• Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Misplaced Pages discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!". It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article. --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this page a joke? You archived this with no action whatsoever? --Jayzel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you just shout a bit louder? Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP update – COI - domination and incivility - mediation possibilities

Hello all. Further to the previous 5 notifications .– here is an update. Pro nlp editors seem to have changed tack and decided to move - remove - or delete any discussion relating to the long term goals civility. Despite encouragement by at least one admin towards NPOV summarization - domination by pro nlp editors is currently virtually absolute. Mediation by a neutral mediator seems to be more relevant - though these ANI notifications seem to at least be preventing the more basic facts from being removed from the article. The main critical views remain obscured through minimization - crowding out with non-criticisms - and selective editing. The can be fairly easy to present encyclopedically so long as editors work to summarize according to NPOV policies. It seems that the pro NLP group is strongly reluctant to allow this activity.

User Comaze is removing any information from his talkpage and from the NLP talkpage concerning his known COI . He also seems to be deliberately dominating the talkpage – restating other editor’s headings – accusing me of 3RR (no evidence) and again removing any goal or intention relating to solving the suppression of information issues . Comaze’s activities seem to me to be deliberately disruptive.

Comaze and user 58.178.144.161 are dominating the NLP article by removing any critical information placed there – and by restoring argumentative writing

In order to circumvent COI and meatpuppetry issues they are continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry when evidence of sockpuppetry is completely absent (I am clearly working on my own and discouraging sockpuppetry – meatpuppetry – or any other such group domination behaviour).

They are also resisting peer review recommendations to add images and so on

They seem to be uninterested in/dismissive of getting along with editors of a different view. In the interests of encouraging discourse which enables editors of all views to get along and be civil long term I don’t suggest a community ban on Comaze or 58.178.144.161. I will apply for mediation from a neutral mediator if the dominating group are interested. AlanBarnet 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator

Good day, I am writing to report what I view to be administrator abuse by the following Misplaced Pages administrator: User:Lar (talk). The following reasons are as followed:

1.This user began by giving me warnings about the layout of content of the Socialism article. While the user in question came off as well meaning, this user disregarded my own input in the matter while ordering me, with strong language to "take the advice of everyone else". This matter would not be a very big deal in and of itself, but a number of users, most notably WGee engaged in profanity and personal attacks against me, something that was not assessed by the administrator. The dispute itself has been a hinderance to the acheivement of consensus, and simply put, this administrator criticised me while "looking the others way" with regards to the questionable actions of the other users. Dialogue of this can been seen at the Socialism talk page.

2. This user gave me a number of warnings on my user page with regards to what he/she perceived to be a disruption. The issue at hand here is that he/she threatened to block me for the deletion of these warnings by me. This is not a blockable offense, yet this user clearly demonstrates that he/she believes it to be by stating that his/her "patience is wearing thin...". No user, not even administrators can tell other users what they can and can not include in their talk pages. This can be seen in my talk page. Checking the history might be useful.

3. This user has gone against Misplaced Pages blocking rules and regulations in that he/she has bolcked me for 24 hours: A. On no particular grounds, no specific reason or violation was cited as reason for the block other than that this user had perceived me to be difficult. B. This user and I were clearly engaged in what could be characterised as a "content dispute". It is clearly stated under the blocking guidelines, that it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone which is in a content dispute with them. This dispute referred to the discussion of page layout/settings in the Socialism article, where the dialogue of this dispute can be viewed here. C. This user, while not giving any specific citations/reasons for the block in question, stating that I should review the policies of Civility, No personal attacks, and verifiability. I agree, as I admit I could use a change in going about some edits. But the Misplaced Pages block guidelines has stated that none of these violations justify a block, and once again, no direct reason was given for the block in the first place. It should also be noted that the block in question took place almost immediately after I stated my intentions to report what I view to be administrator abuse.

4. This user has blanket reverted minor edits of mine on the grounds that "no consensus was given". This is a valid reasons for reversions regarding major structural changes, but does not apply to minor edits characterised by correction of grammer, etc.

In conclusion, it is my sincere belief that the actions of this administrator with regards to my account are not sufficiently justified. It is therefore my humble request that the actions in question be reviewed, evaluated, and that proper sanctions be given is such measures are found to be necessary. Thank you for your time, and have a good evening. ---- EnglishEfternamn _contribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, beyond Lar being extraordinarly patient with a rather...vexatious editor. A short review of the history of EnglishEfternamn's talk page shows Lar patiently and politely advising Efternamn how to handle a dispute at Talk:Socialism (Efternamn was attempting to change the article from American to British English). Efternamn responded by removing Lar's advice with rude edit summaries, calling it "harassment", "vandalism", and "personal attacks". See further up this page at #EnglishEfternamn and WP:POINT for details and discussion about how Efternamn earned his most recent block.

The only 'proper sanction' that I can foresee is an additional block of Efternamn (he's had three in the last six weeks already) if he doesn't start behaving in line with Misplaced Pages norms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These are clearly ridiculous and severely misrepresented allegations of the way Lar handled this issue. EnglishEfternamn's conduct has already been reported up the page a bit here and at the WP:BLP/N.--RWR8189 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent subtle vandalism -- need admin with rollback button

An anonIP, 74.116.94.254 (talk · contribs) has been defacing Islam-related articles for weeks and it took me till now to catch on. He/she/it alters dates and numbers just a smidge -- enough to make them inaccurate. I've given warnings; we'll see if that will stop it, or if the account will have to be blocked. In the meantime, could an admin with a rollback button revert all the edits that haven't already been fixed? Zora 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon doesn't seem to have done anything since you posted this, but I'll try to keep my eyes on them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Peakdetector

This user has been introducing some bad-faith AFD nominations for articles on Gawker Media-owned websites like Gawker and Deadspin. Has been called on it on his talk page. Needs to be blocked or stopped. Daniel Case 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't he already stopped? Last edit 19:34, 31 January 2007. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've speedily closed both of those AFDs. --Coredesat 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Userpage message

I do not think that message 2 here is really within the spirit of the project. There is a thin line between personal opinion and hostility and that message (to my mind at least) does not match WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. I am particular concerned about a statement that says You're at work? I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work --Fredrick day 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed WeniWidiWiki's offending comment, here. I see no reason the Wikipedian community should tolerate (a) uncivil comments, (b) personal attacks against IP contributors, or (c) the very philosophy of Misplaced Pages, that anyone can edit any page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks have to be directed at a specific person. Do not modify my userpage again. Do not place inappropriate warning /block tags on my talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a personal attack, but it certainly goes against WP:CIVIL for any anon editor who happens to visit your userpage. Also, remember that your used page is not entirely your own. —Dgies 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I removed it again. IP actually create most of our content. Biting them is harmful.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted me.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

"Censorship of opinions you disagree with is totalitarian and despicable. Only a very new or uninformed editor would think my comments or opinions are unilateral. This is an ongoing debate, and I am fully within my right to express my opinion about the matter, just as any user of a controversial userbox is". - WeniWidiWiki 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only within the limits of Misplaced Pages policy. Your comment is in violation of WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalize my userpage again by censoring my opinions. - WeniWidiWiki 07:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the message and protected the user page. I will leave him a message concerning my protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Do they make a barnstar for censorship and squelching dissenting opinion? - WeniWidiWiki 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, this looks like a good time to mention StBenedictsRule. I hadn't thought of Ryulong as a stout monk before, but you get the idea. You're welcome to include both praise and criticism of Misplaced Pages on your talk page, but do it civilly please, or you won't be able to do it at all. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bainer, if you are insinuating - or threatening - that I should be blocked or banned for holding unpopular opinions on what I consider broken Misplaced Pages policies, by all means get with it. AGF is a two way street, and obviously sarcasm is too complex a concept for many. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case the stout monk, rather than taking you aside for words, has protected your userpage which is more or less the same. But that's really a touch of colour to sell the analogy; the point of making the analogy in the first place was to illustrate that if you consider certain Misplaced Pages policies to be broken, by all means "expose the matter reasonably". Just don't get contumacious, and furthermore, don't get indignant when people take the contumaciousness poorly. --bainer (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet problem - User:Rjensen

It would seem that User:Rjensen has used two sock puppet accounts (User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil) several times in votes to create the illusion of consensus. All the edits of Obow and Jozil have been in votes in which Rjensen also voted (see diff, diff, diff, and diff for examples), and their language and style of writing style suggests that they are the same people. Even if they are not, it is obvious that Rjensen has asked these people to vote (making the accounts meat puppets). However, it is my belief that they are all sock puppets of Rjensen. The accounts have absolutely no edits in the main space, so this is the only logical explanation. A more detailed report is filed at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjensen, but there is a huge backlog there, so I posted here in hope of getting a quicker response. -- Cielomobile 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request Semi Protect

The Current Featured article is getting hit left right and center can it please be semi-protected? Æon 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection come to WP:RFP – PeaceNT 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon - IP 213.170.207.96

Some other admin might like to keep an eye on this anon., who has turned up today apparently with some sort of axe to grind against Richard Dawkins and biological evolution ... along with a willingness to be uncivil on talk pages. As an affected editor, I don't plan to be the one to give any warnings or take any similar action, though I did suggest to him/her on the talk page of the Dawkins article that it would be an idea to read our policy on no personal attacks. Metamagician3000 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Board Game" entry replaced

The Misplaced Pages entry for "board game" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Board_game) now reads "Carl Calhoun, from Central Mountain high school in lock haven, pennsylvania was here." I'm not particularly technically proficient, so I wasn't sure what to do about the vandalism but report it here. 24.215.209.66 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. To fix this crap in the future, see Help:Revert. MER-C 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ramirez72

User talk:Ramirez72 has been adding the Philippines on the infobox of Spanish language which implies the language is spoken widely when it is not; in fact only 0.01% of the Philippine population speaks Spanish as per the 2000 Census. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to stay out of the debate, but Ramirez72 (talk · contribs)'s behavior has been less than stellar. He has twice engaged in personal attacks ( ), continually reverts the page with the insistence that his version is "Fine", and exhibits something of an agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spanish_language&diff=prev&oldid=104512627). He has stopped the personal attacks since I left a warning on his page, but hasn't stopped edit warring. JuJube 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please block this user and this ID address

I have already had trouble with User:tinylittletom who was later blocked. I have just checked my userpage to find out his new user A mysterious stranger and 194.106.39.211 have writed insults on my homepage.

I have already put my page back to normal but I'm fed up with this user insulting me in the last week

Please block him

Lyer 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting user. Both she and tinylittletom created a deleted article called Podminions . She vandalized his user page as well . She signed a note on his page as A_suyash, an editor that reverted some of his changes on Shilpa Shetty. I don't know if this is even worth looking into, but I have a feeling they're all connected outside of Misplaced Pages. AniMate 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the anon's edits and blocked for six months. I'll look at the user in a minute. Metamagician3000 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Ryulong beat me to it - already blocked indefinitely. That was what I was planning to do after looking at the contribution history, so the block has my support if there's any debate about it. Metamagician3000 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why hasn't Lyer been warned about his/her userpage vandalism to tinylittletom? - Mgm| 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New way to fight spambots that make pages with nonsense titles

Following general consensus to implement an elegant kludge to protect non-existent pages in this VP discussion, I have created User:Flyingtoaster1337/Spam pages with nonsense titles, which may allow us not to pollute an entire category with nonsense titles. They include horrible ones like Talk:The Scream/ (deleted 10 times) and Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict/ (3 times).

Now all that's needed to prevent these spam pages from being re-created is for a kind sysop to move my user subpage to Misplaced Pages:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles and protect the page. All the pages listed are currently redlinks so there's no need for any deletions in order for cascading protection to kick in. Flyingtoaster1337 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done; moved, cascadedly protected, and linked to via Misplaced Pages:Protected titles. I am aware cascadedly is not a word. Proto::► 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :D Flyingtoaster1337 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR autoblocked

Please unblock him. Abu ali 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. yandman 10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot