Misplaced Pages

unindent) In response to ">Cowman109, was MyWikiBiz not banned for sockpuppetry and/or making legal threats? Neither would apply in this case. Risker 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added url Democrat4president.org to the Blacklist, and it appears Democrat4president.org article has already been deleted.--Hu12 22:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MyWikiBiz was banned for those it appears, but the outlying issue that started it all was the fact that he was paid to advertise for businesses on Misplaced Pages, I guess. That's the only similarity here I meant to bring up - the fact that we have another paid editor issue. Cowman109 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So when did everyone turn psychic so that they can determine the motivations of an editor for contributing. As long as contributions adhere to the content policy and guidance then what justification is there for blocking or otherwise harassing them? If a contributor engages in persistent confrontations over the content that falls into the existing methods for censure and enforcement.

I really think people need to get a sense of perspective here.

ALR 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ALR, this editor is perpetrating a fraud. I realize what a strong word this is so let me repeat it: this editor is perpetrating a fraud. This person is purporting to sell a service on eBay that would guarantee any purchaser a "homepage" at Misplaced Pages (read: an article, regardless of underlying notability) and guarantees twelve outgoing links to the purchaser's website. This person has no ability to make such guarantees, which are in blatant violation of WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. It is a play upon the client's ignorance and our goodwill. Durova 15:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the nature of any advertising on eBay is eBays problem, not Wikipedias. Frankly as far as the eBay advert is concerned, and the Craigslist ones below, caveat emptor. If someone purchases the service and then discovers that it can't be fulfilled then that is between them and the vendor. Misplaced Pages has no place in the transaction, other than as a third party.

I'd go as far as to say that any effort to do something, beyond what's already covered in the content policy and guidance, about it probably increases any liability.

I'd consider a comparison with someone who is employed by an organisation and edits articles related to them, either during their work time, or in their own time. Take a look at the PA Consulting Group page for an example of someone in the marketing department of the company dealing with the article.

I appreciate that in any system there is a tendency for rules and administranium to self perpetuate, but frankly I'd like to see the jackboots kicking in more appropriate doors. wikipedia has enough of its own problems without sorting out eBay and Craigslist.

ALR 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Selling something which it is patently obvious is unable to be delivered is fraud. While Misplaced Pages probably would be seen in the courts as a victim of this, not a perpetrator, we've moved, independently, to avoid such problems. You see that as a problem? That's an unusual perspective, and you seem to be almost supportive of it. Further, if you don't like what User:Summilux is doing to the PA COnsulting group article, talk to him/her, and edit that article to be better. If talking doesn't work, go to the COIN folks, and ask for help. We have recourse available, nad saying 'well, they're doing it too' isn't a valid defense. ThuranX 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My point with regard to PA consulting was that the blatant advertising was dealt with by discussion. That waas an example of a more general point, what is the situation with employees, or indeed contractors within an organisation, editing the articles related to their employers? I appreciate that the point was probably more subtle than is usual in this area.

I have no problem with someone making money out of this system, they've seen opportunities and they're exploiting them. If the advertised service is fraudulent then that is between the parties involved; Misplaced Pages is neither responsible for it, nor a victim of it. However I do object to some creeping effort to police the whole web. Policies and guidelines allow this to be handled without the rather excessive step of preemptive blocking of accounts, in fact you clearly identify two of the approaches yourself, and another is being used immediately below this.

So much for anyone can edit, frankly ones motivations for editing shouldn't be policed. Play the ball, not the player....

ALR 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy Just because anyone can edit doesn't mean they're welcome to roam wild. This site has policies and standards.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site We don't have homepages: we have encyclopedia articles.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_your_web_host A more explicit policy statement of the above.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Misplaced Pages is not a resource for conducting business.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Subjects have to satisfy a certain threshold of verifiable information to merit an article.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Advertising and self-promotion are explicitly against policy.

I don't set out to police every entry at eBay or Craigslist, but as an administrator of Misplaced Pages I most certainly do pay attention when someone attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages for ideological or profit motives. I deal with this kind of thing all the time. And if you'd rather participate in a different wiki where that kind of editing is welcome and I don't volunteer, you are most welcome to create one or join one. Unless you persuade consensus here to alter several fundamental policies and guidelines, I'll keep right on doing my thing. Durova 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is something I'm not communicating here. I've pointed out several times that Policy and Guidelines exist which allow us to address content issues. I have a concern that there is a pre-emptive effort to ban people on the basis that they might break those policies and guidelines, predicated on their service offering; writing or editing articles for monetary reward.

If that's not what you're suggesting then it's not clear from your wording.

The effort to justify pre-emptive action based on your assumption that the actual contractual arrangement might be fraudulent strikes me as rather disingenuous, and comes close to being intellectually fraudulent in it's own right. Of course I might apply a very different standard of justification around punitive action than you do. It strikes me that you're seeking to justify making up your own rules on the hoof, which is a risky direction to take.

Of course your suggestion that I should f*ck off elsewhere does seem to be consistent with the approach you seek to justify. Clearly my expectation of self discipline and professional behaviour from administrators is misplaced.

ALR 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother so much about the "fraud" aspect, the fact that he might be unable to fulfill his "contract". I bother about that he is obviously willing to try to fulfil it. Which entails that he is willing to write articles regardless of the encyclopedic merits of the subject, and make an effort sneaking them into Misplaced Pages, bending our rules if necessary. Note that he isn't just selling his services to customers he judges suitable (as MyWikiBiz did, if I remember correctly); he is selling them to anybody, to the highest bidder. So, according to the e-bay rules, presumably he hasn't even got any control over which customers he accepts or not. If I hire him to write an article about my pet cat, he will be obliged to try and write one and fight to have it included. This is what he is publicly declaring he's willing to do. And this means he is automatically not a good-faith contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. What eBay seller is going to risk getting negged over something he can't deliver, and, as noted above, about any subject the buyer wants? The seller has 6500+ positives with 6 negs, none of them in the last 12 months. $100 just doesn't seem worth the risk, but it's a creepy little section of eBay anyway. Of the five or so buyers I found from the last month (seller uses exact wording except for names to sell Yahoo Answer, Google, Facebook, etc pages), two have left feedback...buyer Robbo0 bought on Aug. 16 and left positive on Aug. 27 and Diremine left positive on Aug. 31, while RayJasm left a cryptic positive on Aug. 19 (bought Aug. 9). Other purchases were buyer from Bulgaria, online store "My Native Creations" and GiaPromotions, which markets poker stuff. The two articles could be connected with the feedback, but I couldn't see the dates from the already deleted article to see if it matched up. Be interesting to see what feedback comes from these buyers down the road. Flowanda | Talk 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Craigslist

eBay is behind the curve compared to Craigslist. From a Google search of site:craigslist.org for "wikipedia":

• This guy has "two projects that should be of some interest to an accomplished author with a potential book deal sometime in the future" and non-disclosure/secrecy agreements. It helps if, despite Misplaced Pages's "encyclopedic" style, you could "employ some passion." Salary is negotiable, of course

• A local filmmaker in Philadelphia wants someone to "create a Wiki profile" about him/her

• Canadians will be glad to know that Misplaced Pages needs photographers in Toronto to snap photos for use in articles. The photographer even gets a link to his site from "whatever article(s) Misplaced Pages uses the photos in", in exchange for taking "pro bono" shots

• Here's a guy in Houston who "guarantees (to write for you) a Misplaced Pages entry free from spelling and grammar errors", plus a "chance to become part of history". (I never thought of myself as historical.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more like this that have expired and are unavailable for viewing. The things people will do to promote themselves never ceases to amaze me. - KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the third of those four listings is completely legitimate. The other three look very bad. Durova 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he can't get a link in the article. In the photograph, maybe. But never in the article. Cary Bass 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to the photographer, explaining he can't offer a link *in* the article. Cary Bass 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know the third one is okay – the phrase "Misplaced Pages uses the photo in" sounded very odd. - KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lordy. The fourth guy has had a long, illustrated, reasonably well written, but completely non-notable article for almost a year: J. Kevin Tumlinson. See you all when this AFD red link turns blue. :-). --AnonEMouse 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh! I looked for him in userspace, not the mainspace. Look at the article's history - I'm trying to WP:AGF, but how many believe User:Oldhatgolfer and User:Hat72 are different people? - KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They _are_ the same guy. See Oldhatgolfer's deleted edits, and Hat72's deleted edits. (Non-admins can't see these, sorry.) - KrakatoaKatie 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot – I don't want to hijack ANI, but there's one more, and it may be the best one of all:

• A "Nude resort and spa" in Los Angeles wants a "WIKI expert to help resort on trade post for us". They "are seeking more help with really working wikipedia and some other sites like this as we cant seem to be able to post", and "and there seems to be many places for us to placemnt on Misplaced Pages". They're willing to exchange expertise for a free midweek stay at sea mountain inn for two people (URL removed) or two free dayspa passes for two" to their nudie spa.

If you're interested, please don't tell me about the experience. I have enough problems. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Free midweek stay at a nudie spa??? WP:Conflict of WHAT? I'm there! Any female parties interested in that second ticket, you know who's Talk page to hit up. Awww yeahhhh. :-P Bullzeye 11:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess since it's not an offer of money, it doesn't violate WP:COI. However, some of us (like yours truly) aren't at our best unclothed, so it's not all that appealing of an offer. -- llywrch 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it violates WP:COI. Durova 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if the editor in question seeks to insert content in violation of policy, and persists in doing so when that content is challenged by other editors. Although I'd agree that in this sense there is no real difference between a financial and non-financial reward.

ALR 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is precisely what its name implies: a conflicting motivational factor that could lead to behavior that works against the building of an encyclopedia. This is an old concept that managed situations such as free junkets long before Misplaced Pages or the Internet existed. You've offered no reason why Misplaced Pages should be forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard, and if you have some reason then you ought to advance it at the guideline talk page rather than here. Durova 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirey sure why you feel it neccesary to be quite so hostile towards me, peculiar really.

There is a potential conflict of interest in the situation, no doubt of that whatsoever. However it only becomes a conflict if the required edits don't meet the content demands of the community, recognising that those demands are somewhat fluid in places.

Whilst it remains a potential I see no need for any proverbial jackboots kicking the doors in until there is an attempt to break the extant policies. I'm not suggesting any need to re-invent any wheels, I'm merely cautious of pre-emptive action. In the UK we have this quaint tradition of considering people innocent until proven guilty.

ALR 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you've referred to jackboots in replies, yet you accuse me of hostility? There are proper channels for this discussion. You have focused on an inappropriate one, refused to redirect energies into areas where your input might sway consensus, and expressed your opinion in hyperbolic terms. I have consulted Jimbo Wales, Cary Bass, and members of the arbitration committee when these matters arise in order to ensure my "jackboot" is in step. What work have you done in the area and whose input have you sought? From the looks of things, very little. Durova 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am more than a little concerned over the ad hominem aspect of these responses. The query as regards "paid for" article writing is one I raised earlier, and received a much more civil response (which I recommend to ALR). FYI, "jackboot" has a different cultural meaning to British (rather than English language) readers/editors and I would have hoped that all administrators would recognise that there are different nuances over the en-Wiki - and respond accordingly.LessHeard vanU 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that difference. It can be a little hard to hear a voice calling from the other side of The Pond. Really, I've wished for a long time that even ten percent of the people who offer opinions on how WP:COI ought to be interepreted actually pitched in at the chronically backlogged WP:COIN. If that colored my reply I apologize. Durova 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This excerpt from Nineteen Eighty Four (the ultimate British dystopia) sums up the UK attitude toward the concept; "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever." The boot is a jackboot. As for COIN, as with much on WP, comment (opinion) is cheap and action is... labour intensive. "'bless the COIN patrollers, and thank 'eavens you ain't one of 'em." or, No need to apologise - we are here to build the encyclopedia. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I regret that I appear to have offended you in my effort to get a straight answer to the question. I'm less concerned about COI per-se as what I see as a justification for punitive action based on an admins assessment of motivations, rather than evidence of non-compliance with policy and guideline in Misplaced Pages itself. I'm sorry if you feel that I've been unreasonable in seeking to get to that understanding. My point about integrity was related to the argument, not the individual, it's regrettable that wasn't clear.

Personally I steer clear of the governance in Misplaced Pages nowadays, in my experience it's a futile exercise because the scale of the project has outgrown the existing framework for governance and the creation of further governance. That's a rather broader issue than this specific area though. I'm also rather more pushed for time since I moved to a new job than much of it actually needs. Now that things are freeing up a little if the current flavour of this page is anything to go by I'll probably focus on other things. I spend my working day helping organisations improve how they operate, the first step is always recognising the need for change....... But that's a fairly broad philosophical debate about the evolution of communities and the interaction of social networks; an inevitable consequence of collaboration.

Thanks for your time.

ALR 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Once again: it's strange to me that someone on an external website offering a stay at a resort in exchange for an article would be violating policy, but someone offering it here on WP:RB would be just fine. Can anyone explain why this is the case? -Hit bull, win steak 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  Most of the offers on the Reward Board are token payments: $20 - $50 per featured article, usually on some obviously encyclopedic topic - and many of the offers have no dollar value at all, just pledges for reciprocal editing or barnstars. This raises my eyebrow and I wouldn't object if some established editors monitored the page accordingly. If push comes to shove I'd rather eliminate the money section from the Reward Board than let that page become a wedge issue. Durova 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea this board existed. I've been in the dark ;). Navou 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll have to assume some good faith, but even with that, the entry is eye catching. Commercial? Navou 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova, how much do you think Duremine is paying its writers? I'd say $20 would be the high end. Flowanda | Talk 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User Jason Gastrich would like to be reinstated

See the discussion here - Nascentatheist 04:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea for the exact same reason it was a bad idea the 5 other times he was unblocked. There's a good reason he is banned, he's one of the project's most disruptive and notorious sock puppeteers, and there's no evidence that anything has changed. Bad, bad idea. I strongly oppose unbanning. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bad idea. I closed Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jason_Gastrich on Aug 31 with a finding that User:Creashin was Gastrich's sock puppet; I don't see him changing his ways in just a week. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask "has he stopped using socks"...but Akhilleus has answered that question. He needs to show evidence that he has reformed first. Guettarda 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgive him, but I don't trust him. Sorry, but no. -Hit bull, win steak 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely no chance whatsoever. Last time he asked for an unblock it was found that he was actively sockpuppeting at the time, and the ban was roundly endorsed. Jason Gastrich is simply not capable of following Misplaced Pages policy where it conflicts with his own personal agenda, whihc is pretty much all the time, since his POV is so far off neutral. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, forget it. He consumed far too much volunteer time and evaded his ban far too much. Durova 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• No way. Eusebeus 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Jason's irrational responses to his Google Group this morning show that this was a good decision. - Nascentatheist 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh man, that is so sad - every single thread has one post by "Fraud Buster" and 0 replies. I suspect the brief exchange on his talk is the closest he's had to interaction with actual humans in weeks... http://groups.google.com/group/Malebogecom/about shows how well he's doing here; I suspect the <10 subscribers represents the totality of all those who care about his vendetta against Dave Horn. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a disclaimer, I have been familiar with Jason Gastrich's zany antics for years before I became active on Misplaced Pages. That having been said, I would oppose his reinstatement based on the recent evidence presented. Digwuren 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of User:Tecmobowl

Following a checkuser, I have blocked Jmfangio (talk · contribs) as a reincarnation of community banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wha...Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson...*clears head*... Daniel 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably should have checked earlier, but it didn't click for me. Durova had suspicions which led me to it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't someone close the RfAr? ThuranX 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but this simplifies it. Durova 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because we still have to look at Chrisjnelson's behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Related to that, I've filed a report under Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse#Notre_Dame_vandal, added that vandal to the list of banned users, and indeffed his socks. There seems to be no precedent for this so I've been bold. Durova 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys may want to let SirFozzie know that Jmfangio is a Tecmobowl sock. He'd said that he would have lifted the block himself provided Tecmobowl meet Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#User:Tecmobowl certain conditions, but it's pretty safe to say that he won't be allowed back. Blueboy96 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspected it that Jmfangio was a sock of somebody, but didn't really thought it was tecmobowl (as he was mostly fighting in football articles while tecmobowl dealt with baseball articles). Thanks Jaranda 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

86.157.254.67

• 86.157.254.67 (talk · contribs)

Entire contribution of the anon is a WP:POINTY deletion nomination of a wikiproject. Please investigate. User may be a banned user. Possibly User:Moby Dick. -- Cat 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm. It can't be WP:POINT unless he's disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Since there's no evidence of either disruption or any underlying point... -Amarkov moo! 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an IP coming out of nowhere just to MfD a newly created wikiproject is very very strange. -- Cat 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed strange, and should be investigated. That doesn't mean that you can immediately act as though his being disruptive is a proven fact. -Amarkov moo! 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks disruption oriented to me. But hey what do I know... -- Cat 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As further information for anyone who reviews this, a link to the project was posted on the Village Pump fourish hours before the IP first edited. -Amarkov moo! 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was told on IRC that the IP is User:Gurch who has a history of being a dick, trolling, and project space vandalism. -- Cat 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• What? Gurch is MIA right now, but honestly to suggest he's some kind of abuser or troll is simply fatuous. Pissed off, yes, but not evil, surely. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  He isn't MIA he edits as an IP. He was talking on IRC as "gurch" same time the same IP made the edit. -- Cat 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see that any rules are being broken, however. Gurch, or anyone else, can choose to no longer contribute as a username and contribute while not logged in. Whoever this is, Checkuser shows no double voting or other impropriety. He's also allowed to not like your proposed project. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Two questions (directed at Cat, not Morven):

• Any particular reason we're trying to out the identities of IP users today? Especially since there's no evidence of disruption, though of course you're free to disagree with the nom.
• Dynamic IP is useful info. Whenever I turn my DSL modem off and on, I have a new IP; if I were an IP editor, would that mean I'm not allowed to go to MfD until my computer's been on for a few days straight?

--barneca (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is innocent but me. Hence I should be the guilty party here. -- Cat 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the speedy deletion of the wikiproject. While at it block me too. -- Cat 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is saying that, Cat. Just that the nom doesn't seem pointy, and the ID of the IP editor doesn't seem relevant. --barneca (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gurch was never a vandal (nor a Dick in my estimation), although his pointiness might perhaps be considered trolling by some. I should think dealing with the subject in hand, and not indulging in retrospective speculation, is the proper response. LessHeard vanU 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have gotten the page speedy deleted and initiated User talk:White Cat/Poll forced leave. I hope everyone is happy now. -- Cat 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you again? HalfShadow 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat, stop overreacting to this. Just because people aren't fond of your idea doesn't mean you should throw in the towel, especially given the recent flak image-patrollers have been getting (case in point: User:Durin's recent departure). I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like a 6-year-old throwing a tantrum because his mom won't let him get the big toy robot. Misplaced Pages will grow a new nose to fix the one you cut off. -Jéské 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. --Haemo 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) White Cat, I don't think you should be posting logs on IRC to Misplaced Pages without Gurch's consent. Miranda 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Logs? Where? Because they most certainly shouldn't be published on Misplaced Pages, and should be deleted/removed on sight: 2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, July 11, 2007. Daniel 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's deleted now. Miranda 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whois data is NOT IRC log. They are more than allowed. Miranda find someone else to bother. -- Cat 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid polling page deleted (no, don't DRV, that really is dramaqueenish). We have a fucking encyclopedia to write without bothering our heads with some moronic "leaving" poll. White Cat can make his own mind up while we all look the other way and whistle for a wind (that is, actually do something productive). Come on, don't indulge the drama, people. We have enough of that without trolling ourselves by adding more. Moreschi 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of block and of unblock decision

Last night, I blocked a user, User:Sapienz, for posting personal information on another user's (User:Darrenss) talk page. Specifically, the information consisted of a fairly standard breakdown of an IP tracking post, but then included the line, "_____ is Darren Smith's workplace." (admins can see the edit here).

Sapienz has a history, under various nicks and IPs (including User:Potters house which was blocked for a username violation), of disruption on topics related to Potters House, and the user concerned has also extensively vandalised Darrenss's user page in times past until I protected it a couple of months ago after a request for assistance. Darren is a former member of the church and the roots of the dispute/harassment are firmly off-wiki.

A few minutes later, Sapienz posted an unblock request which ironically contained a false allegation and a personal attack against said user. An hour later, User:Ugen64 unblocked, but seems to have missed the last line of the deleted edit (which claimed to reveal Darren's workplace). Furthermore, the unblock reason given in the log does not demonstrate good faith towards myself or my original decision, nor does the fact I was not notified on my talk page (I was actually online for more than two hours thereafter.) I have protested this action at his talk page, but I would like a review of both decisions from a neutral party. It seems to me that gaming the system has on this occasion worked. Orderinchaos 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am getting fed up with the increasing use of {{unblock}} to circumvent discussion between admins. Once upon a time (a time in which both myself and uegn64 were admins), one was generally obliged to discuss an unblock with the blocking admin. Yes, there were still unblocks without the consent of the latter, but at least the matter of pending unblocks would be brought before him or her beforehand. There really is no excuse to unblock without even a courtesy notice and ugen64 does know better. El_C 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It does appear, from WP:BLOCK#Unblocking, that this should have been discussed first. The first sentence of that section makes that pretty clear...and the second, as well. I'm currently looking into the specifics of the block now, but on the general principle of discussion before unblocking I agree with El C and Orderinchaos. Daniel 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the ban for a lower duration, after consulting with others and deciding this is a serious enough offence that simply letting the current situation stand is not acceptable. However, this should not influence the above, as my own action is also subject to review, and if one of you decide to review accordingly and unblock I will not be opposed. (Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the last two comments before acting.) Orderinchaos 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In another unrelated incident today, Ugen64 also silently reversed my protection of a garden-variety disruptive blocked IP's talk page, with the rationale "still no reason to protect." The IP was making childish personal attacks and abusing various maintenance templates while blocked, so I protected the page for the duration of his block, standard procedure per our protection policy -- and unsurprisingly, as soon as Ugen64 unprotected, the IP continued the same disruptive behavior. When I asked him why he did this, he replied that I "was taking myself too seriously." It disappoints me that an admin would reverse another admin's protection in a situation like this without even as much as a courtesy note. --krimpet⟲ 06:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I should have left you a note. But that's a very minor matter of formality, seeing as you quite obviously saw my unprotection (and left a message to that extent on my talk page). This would be like me putting up an article for AFD, you voting "keep" on the AFD, then complaining to me about how I didn't inform you about the AFD - okay, maybe I should have informed you, but it's irrelevant seeing as you found out anyway. I'm 100% sure there is a guideline or policy that mentions this exact situation (not specifically regarding unprotection, but in general). Anyway, users (and IPs, of course to a slightly lesser extent) are given more latitude to make edits on their user page, user talk page, and subpages. For example, I can create a subpage that violates A7 but it won't be deleted. If this IP was posting those messages on an article talk page, or a Misplaced Pages namespace talk page, or some other talk page, then sure, it would be disruptive. But this IP's actions on his own talk page are no more disruptive than an IP blanking their talk page, or selectively removing warnings (and you might recall a post I made on WP:AN about Misplaced Pages:User page, which clearly says that removing warnings is not prohibited). To me (and most users I would hope), protecting a user or IP's own talk page due to their own edits should be a move of last resort (for example, posting personal information of other users or making repeated edits that are clearly vandalism). If some new user vandalized an article with "haha I'm awesome", would he get an indefinite block? No. If he vandalized an article with "haha Krimpet's name is XYZ and his address is XYZ and his phone number is XYZ and " then would he get an indefinite block? Yes, and it would be deserved. But it's only a last resort move.

As for the other incident - user:Sapienz was clearly blocked (as stated in the block log) for something like "posting personal information about another user; harassment" (that is not a direct quote, but simply from memory). That was clearly incorrect, as I mentioned in my rationale (that huge box below all User talk page that contains a link, among other things, to a WHOIS lookup). Then Sapienz made a reasonable conclusion - "this IP is probably Darren Smith editing while logged out, and since this IP resolves to , then Darren Smith is probably working there". Look, let's say I was stupid enough to get into a revert war and decided to log out to make a 4th revert at Swarthmore College trying to avoid the 3rr rule. So my IP is clearly visible - if someone says "this IP, which is probably ugen64, resolves to Swarthmore College" (ignore the fact that this information is publicly visible), I could not possibly have complaints, seeing as it was my bad decision to edit from the publicly visible IP. This is a very very minor violation of "posting personal information" (it was the combination of an educated guess and information available to every single person in the world), if it's even a violation at all. It did not deserve a block at all, and seeing as the punishment (1 week block) was much harsher than the actually deserved punishment (no block, possibly a warning), that's why I unblocked unilaterally without informing everyone. Think about it - if someone CSDs an article that is clearly not a CSD candidate (for example United States), would you be so mad at me if I undeleted it without telling anyone? ugen64 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I wrote all of this in like 10 minutes so sorry if there are any typos or badly written sentences or anything... back to organic chemistry homework :-) ugen64 05:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea isn't "talk to the blocking admin and tell them why you unblocked". The idea is "ask the blocking admin why they blocked, and discuss it with them, before you unblock".

Also, please be aware that "outing" Wikipedians is very serious, and this includes saying where they work. I know of one case where some trolls called an editor's workplace to complain of her editing during work hours, as "payback" for an on-Wiki dispute. The Wikipedian was duly fired from her real-life job. I know of another case where this was threatened, and the user had to resign from a Wikiproject to protect his job and his family. Yes, you can sometimes get information from I.P.s by doing a look-up, but that doesn't excuse trying to publicly "out" someone, or to making that easier for others to do. (The subset of cretins who will get revenge by calling someone's workplace to get them fired, doesn't always overlap with the subset of IT-savvy individuals who can resolve an I.P address.) This is a reason to tread very, very carefully here. Please discuss "outing" situations with others before unblocking. – Quadell 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Operation Spooner

Operation Spooner has repeatedly inserted this material into Ronald Reagan over the objects of several other editors, namely User:Arcayne, User:Info999 and User:Happyme22. (note: disagreement is concerning only "advocating less government regulation of the economy, speaking against the welfare state, and arguing that people should be allowed to keep most of the money they make from being taxed") Diffs: (This is not an all inclusive list)

His comments on the talk page make it appear that he plans on doing this indefinitely and he insists that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to his edits. After the material was explicitly discussed on the talk page (here) and a majority of editors explained why they didn't want the material in the lead, he has continued to reinsert the material without addressing any of the points the other editors discussed. I would appreciate it if an admin could look into the situation and take whatever actions they deem necessary.--Rise Above The Vile 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, briefly looking over the situation, Operation Spooner is clearly acting in good faith, but he probably should not be continuing with the reverts as it does seem that multiple editors disagree with him, but at the same time I'd be reluctant to block at this point. It seems like other editors in the article are overly hostile, though, and the matter seems to be getting heated for little reason (as so often happens). Perhaps dispute resolution should be looked at instead of rushing this off to the administrator's noticeboard? Cowman109 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also grown tired of this user continuing to readd the information and completely disregard wikipedia policy. I advocate a block, not indefinitely but until this user promises to stop readding the information and to actually read and understand policy. I think the user is nieve and if he is blocked perhaps for a week I feel he would come back and be constructive. Dispute resolution is not necessary since this is a problem with only one user.--Southern Texas 03:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And no one user appears to be at fault here. This just looks like the brewing of an edit war as multiple editors have expressed interest in both sides of the issue of introducing that bit of information into the lead. I'm also reluctant in protecting the article as there seems to be a good deal of positive editing in other areas of it, so dispute resolution is really the way to go. But if anything's clear, it's that just mindlessly reverting each other is doing no good. Everyone's to blame for that. Finding a way to improve on another's edits than undoing them repeatedly tends to end up better. Cowman109 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an Operation Spooner problem not a wikipedia problem. Block the user, inform him about WP:CONSENSUS and that is all that is needed. Dispute resolution would be going way to far for such an easy problem to fix.--Southern Texas 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At least one other user has also expressed his point of view. Generally protection is done in a case like this rather than going on blocking editors. (example of other edit). But Operation Spooner should definitely not be reverting once a day like he seems to be doing, so I'll leave a note on his talk page. Cowman109 03:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically asking for a block, because I'm not sure whether that will have a positive or negative effect on Spooner's editing here. However, this user has repeatedly ignored every other user that has disagreed with him and does not think that repeatedly inserting the material is against any wikipedia policy. I have little hope that dispute resolution will go any different. I was hoping that if a user entrusted with the authority to block/protect/etc clearly explained to Spooner why what he is doing is disruptive, then maybe he will actually discuss the material instead of edit war.--Rise Above The Vile 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cowman109 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, much of the above claims are false. Some other users have reveterted back what I put in, which indicates that they want the informatio there. Also the claim that I've been ignoring users who disagree with me is false.. I've been pleading on the discussion page for reasoned arguments why the information shouldnt be in the article, but all I've been getting are threats of being blocked if I put the information in or act against "consensus." And here you see above, the attempt to get me blocked in order to avoid discussion the issue of the content itself. Don't take any of the users' claims above at face value. There is an agenda. Investigate the issue and you'll see I've done nothing improper. Operation Spooner 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually away for most of the day, and apologize for not commenting earlier.

I don't really think a block will do any good, but it is the typical action available to admins to preserve the article and to enforce a bit of a time-out for editors who are having difficulties working with others, the block ideally being used to allow the user to see the repercussions of disruptive bahavior. Frankly, Spoon's account is pretty much a pov political account, used to push a specific agenda, as seen on his user page. Furthermore, he has shown that he perceives any attempts to correct his behavior as some grand conspiracy, as noted in his user page Advice for Newbies (updated as it detailed his 'oppression' by the rest of us). Yes, I will admit that I have little tolerance for anyone who refuses to listen to and follow the rules, and I make no bones about expressing my disquiet about it. Spoon's failure to follow those rules, increasingly sacrificed his AGF at least with me.

The user aside, the article lead was changed to reflect that the Lead doesn't introduce info that isn't in the body. Hisw edit - of his own creation - didn't do that, and the revision met with far more accpetance than his. He kept inroducing it, especially after we clearly outlined what was wrong with it. He steadfastly refused to concede, or even admit to the point, which amounted to disruption.Consensus tells all users how to go about affectiing consensus; there is even a flow chart. A new edit takes a different form. Not the same edit, and specifically not the same edit that has already been discarded by a majority of the editors activiely editing in the article.

As far a DR goes, discussion was attempted on Spoon's talk page, and failing that, in the Discussion page for the article, and then a consensus about the edit was specifically attended to. And dismissed. What did the user do then? He re-added the same edit, arguing that the consensus didn't satisfy him, that there weren't enough people participating in the consensus discussion. Not once did the discussion of how his edit violated Lead come into play. He just said, as another editor has pointed out, that WP is in constant flux, and that he was just doing his bit to preserve that, so that he could see his edit every day, if only for a moment. Forgetting the monumentally selfish, OWN-ish attitude, it is simply disruptive. We are activiely engaged in fixing the other parts of the article, improving citations and whatnot, and we are constantly having to cater to one user's ego who cannot seem to work well with others.

Speaking personally, I've done what Spoon has in my early Misplaced Pages edits. It was called edit-warring, and I was blocked for it. This is what is happening here. He is aware of 3RR, and doesn't violate it, but performs the same edit once or twice a day over a 5-week period. I learned my lesson, and have grown from it. It is time to fix the issue, and give Spoon the same opportunity to learn a lesson in low-grade edit-warring which is intrinsically disruptive. Maybe he will learn better how to accept that his edits aren't always going to be the consensus opinion. - Arcayne () 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain WP:Consensus to you. The purpose of obtaining consensus is to try to solidify particular edits into or out of articles, which itself is a quixotic quest, and exercise in absurdity, with no rational justification, since consensus is constalty changing on Misplaced Pages. It's quite frankly, a childish goal. Anyone who attempts this should actually be embarrassed.

Consensus is one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages and is non-negotiable. Since you dismiss that core policy out of hand, it may be best for all concerned if you put your talents to use in a different venue. Raymond Arritt 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to solidify your edits, or deletions, in an article would be to waste an awfully large amount of your life on Misplaced Pages. If that floats your boat, go for it. If a person has no goal to solidify anything into an article but simpyl wants to share the article with others, then there is no reason to obtain a consensus. As I pointed out, I don't care in the slighest if you or anyone elese deletes my edits as long as they're there for at least a couple minutes, because I have no desire to monopolize or own articles. Misplaced Pages is designed such that someone only need add the material back after sharing the freedom of adding, or deleting, content with other editors. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss whether I should add particular material or not. I've always been available for such disussions, and am open to be convinced against putting the material in. I just won't be intimidated into not putting material in an article with the claim that I have to please the "consensus," whatever that is, in order to add material to an article. There is no such policy on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." This whole claim that putting something that others disagree should be there is "edit warring," or for that matter, deleting it, is nonsense. No one is edit warring in that article. What's being attempted is to prevent me from adding material by claiming rules that don't exist and using threats of blocking me. Operation Spooner 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus exists such that all parties agree on a certain aspect of an item. A consensus on Misplaced Pages is such that all parties involved agree to the inclusion of the material that is to be added, removed, etc. Because there is no consensus at the moment, and no one knows what the hell they want, I've protected Ronald Reagan until you can all work this out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily all parties, as that would be called unanimity. Consensus calls for a general agreement among most involved editors (and potentially noninvolved ones). The aforementioned elaboration should be distinguished from a supermajority or majority, though, as they involve a set percentage of editors, while consensus does not. —Kurykh 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what we have achived in the article. One editor keeps adding the same edit in, and other editors remove it. Actually, one editor defended it, thinking we were picking on Spoon, until he discovered that the edit being added was unchanging, and had been added in steadily over weeks. then he joined the consensus asking that the edit not be reintroduced.

Allow me to present the argument in a different way. If a person violates 3RR in a single day by performing 4 reverts, chances are, they get blocked (we'll say 24 hours). If, after the block ends, they violate 3RR again, they are blocked for a longer period of time (again, say 48 hours). They are blocked because their edits are disruptive and are not agreed to by the majority of the editors (or violates policy/guidelines like, say, Lead or Consensus). All in all, for committing 8 edits in two separate 24 hour periods, they have been blocked for 3 days. 8 reverts over a 5 day period. I should like to point out that Spooner has introduced the same edit almost daily for over 4 weeks. Is it any less disruptive if it happens in slo-mo? And it should be pointed out that with perhaps one word-tense change, this is the only change he has made to the article in all that time. Contributors have been banned for less.

One of the basic lessons of Misplaced Pages is that if you cannot stand the scrutiny of being edited, you shouldn't contribute. Spooner has clearly demonstrated that he is unwilling to concede to the spirit of this rule. Or to the rule of consensus. Or to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. To his reckoning above, Featured Articles don't really exist, and that its all some great whimsy of use to even aspire to make article FA, as they are going to fall into chaos at a moment's notice. Pardon the crudity of the comparison, but his philosophy seems to be that, since we are all in a world of crap, why should we bother wiping? Its an unacceptable approach to making an online encyclopedia.

Usually, when one admin gives you the heads-up on policy, you might not agree with it, but you follow it. When two admins tell you the same thing, you start considering how you are misinterpreting the policy by mistake, and adjust accordingly. Currently, Spoon's user Talk page has no less than three administrators, who have been spending the past few hours trying to help Spooner grasp the problems presented here. How does Spoon react to this grand collection of intellect and experience? He assumes they are all wrong, and that they are threatening him and ganging up on him, and that blocking him would be immediately challenged. He even says here that he thinks people will "throw him in jail" if he doesn't stop his editing. Nowhere else on his user page does the word 'jail' even appear as a post by himself or another user.

This is the measure of what the rest of us have been dealing with in the article. We aren't ganging up on him. If we are less than patient with him, it's because he has exhausted the patience and AGF of at least myself. Three admins - I don't recall ever seeing three admins together in a user's talk page in like, ever. And they are in agreement - when does that ever happen? lol - Arcayne () 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONCENSUS was reached a long time ago, but Operation Spooner fails to abide by it. It's not that the material that Operation Spooner added is false, because it's not, but where he wants to put it was the debate, and editors reached concensus saying that the lead is not the correct place for it for it does not provide an overview of Reagan's life like the lead is supposed to. User:Arcayne already really solved the problem by placing exactly what Operation Spooner wanted in the "Governor of California" section, towards the bottom. I see this as a problem that could and should have been solved a long time ago, but evidently wasn't.

Then there's talk about concensus changing. Well let me give you a little history of me and Operation Spooner. He added Reagan's philisophical statement to lead and I removed it, saying that it would be better to go somewhere else in the article. He disagreed and placed it there again. I reverted, but then we reached a concensus at that time, something that we both agreed upon. Eventually, the article reached FA status and then User:Arcayne came in and helped redo the lead, removing the content but correctly summarizing Reagan's life in a nutshell. I really didn't care if the material was in there one way or another, but then another user, User:Info999 came in and said he didn't agree with it being there either, so I listened to their arguments and eventually joined them in opposing the material being there. Concensus already changed, and then, like mentioned, Arcayne wrote what Spooner wanted in the Governor section, but Spooner has been adamant in really being the only one wanting the material in the lead.

And now I look at Ronald Reagan and see that an admin, User:Ryulong, has made it so no one can edit "until everyone figures out what the hell they want." Well, concensus has figured it out; concensus has agreed that the material Operation Spooner has added to the lead is not the right place for it. As I've stated before, the information is not false, but rather does not belong where the user (and only the user) wants it to go. The whole reason this was brought to the admin noticeboard was not to have an admin say "I'm making this so no one can edit," but rather "let's do something about this user, because he/she fails to recognize that a concensus has been established!" Why should productive editors such as User:Info999, User:Arcayne, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Southern Texas and myself (among others) be blocked from editing the page? Wouldn't it be better to block (or condemn) the user causing the problem and not abiding by Misplaced Pages's policies? I see that User:Cowman109, User:Mr.Z-man, and User:Raymond arritt have left multiple messages on Spooner's talk page and are trying to reason with him, but it appears that he is not going to budge on this, so instead of just warning him that he might get blocked in every setence (like most of these people that are trying to reason with him are doing) why don't you step it up and actually block him? Arcayne has warned him about a possible block, Info999 has warned him about a possible block, Southern Texas has warned him about a possible block, even I have warned him about a block because he's not following an established concensus and hasn't for weeks....why not actually follow through with the block instead of punishing everyone editing Ronald Reagan? That is best for the Wiki community. Happyme22 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the Ronald Reagan talk page the whole day and only within the last few hours has the debate started to surface again. After reading the arguments, and having this discussion on the admin noticeboard, maybe, just maybe, Spooner has a point. He said on the talk page: "He was not only anti-communism but also pro-laissez-faire. Only saying he opposed communism is just one half of the picture."--I think we can work with this. I asked on the talk page, "Spooner, what is the most important part of his philisophy that you would want to put in the lead? Maybe, just maybe, we can compromise and come to something. Spooner, Info, Arcayne...I don't really see that we can do much else." And I see the arguing isn't getting us anywhere; so maybe we can work with him, because he does make a good point in saying that being anti-commuinist was only half the picture. Now, the entire statement about Reagan's beliefs is definetly a no-no in the lead, but it can probably be summarized or the most important part can be chosen...I don't know. My point is that it's a fact arguing isn't getting us anywhere, and thanks to these admins if we ever want to edit Ronald Reagan again we're going to have to compromise. Best, Happyme22 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown

There seems to be a problem here. After several weeks of full protection following intense edit warring, I unprotected this article this morning, but the apparently controversial content was almost immediately re-added. I have now reprotected the article indefinitely. However, the problem, the dispute, does not seem to be being resolved - I cannot see an end to the issue in sight. Other than myself, I was hoping for a third person perspective on the dispute, and on action that should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit made after unprotection wasn't the same as before, Ilkali before the lock was pushing "the Christian God" and after the unlocking changed it to "God". While it might imply the same thing (Christians always capitalize God), maybe a discussion can be had now that its been a few weeks. — Ocatecir 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am hoping for - discussion. I just want to make sure it is polite, calm discussion, rather than discussion that might occur as a result of, effected by, and distorted by a possible edit war. Or do you think that it should be unprotected again, before waiting to see what unfolds, and then taking action following that? -- Anonymous Dissident 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

THe subtext of his edits is even more interesting, in that he went for the 'Christian God' to 'a god' implying the christian version is distinct, and by the capitalization, the only right one. It's POV warring that's unlikely to get fixed any time soon. He's got a religious agenda, and he packed it in his lunchbox and brought it to Misplaced Pages. ThuranX 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly have misread me more. I wasn't pushing for 'Christian God', and I'm not a Christian. Ilkali 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

86.151.66.41 and Santilli and magnecules

• User:86.151.66.41 seems to have developed an obsessed POV about Ruggero Santilli's magnecule theory: e.g. he has added the same copy-and-pasted wiki-discussion-type text to Talk:Magnecule and Talk:Ruggero Santilli. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/86.151.66.41 . Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, it would be useful if someone who knows more than me about quantum mechanics and suchlike could check Ruggero Santilli#Work and its contained matter such as "Santilli’s iso-, geno-, and hyper-numbers and their isoduals", to check if this matter is truth or technobabble. Anthony Appleyard 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No claim to knowledge of the subject, but the responses on the Talk page use capitalization and has a tone (like "he would be known as THE GREATEST SCIENTIST...etc. etc.) that suggests a closer look is well warranted. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mathematical and mathematical physics community Santilli has gained a certain notoriety as a self-promoting fringe pseudoscientist. His "research" is not taken seriously. The magnecule is apparently a fundamental molecule made from reprocessed human sewage, among other things. A glance at his ethics page reveals details of a sordid campaign he waged unsuccessfully against the managing editor of a prestigious mathematical journal following an unsuccessful submission by Santilli. The biography seems self-written and rather inaccurate. It should probably be reduced to a biographical stub. --Mathsci 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

There has been a long edit war which has now extended into legal threats, could someone look into all sides of this, heres the diff of the legal threat. 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever has made the legal threat needs to be blocked indefintely. This type of thing shouldn't happen on Misplaced Pages, and the user that made the legal threat does not deserve to edit. Until he retracts/apologises for his actions, he should be indef. blocked per WP:LEGAL. Davnel03 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon review, I believe that no action should be taken here. First, I believe the action the editor took, which this talk page dif explains, was justified. The edit removed material that was sourced to an opinon column appearing in the website www.RenewAmerica.us. This website, upon inspection, is clearly an advocacy website that does not meet the special reliability requirements including independence and peer review that Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy requires for all sources used for all key facts, and especially potentially reputation-damaging material, about living persons. Second, the last sentence threatened to turn information "over to the Catholic League for prosecution." I'd let this one go. Sharing information with an organization isn't the same as a legal threat. People are as entitled to share information with the Catholic league as they are to call the ACLU, write their senator, etc. We don't know the Catholic league will respond at all, let alone take legal action; perhaps they'll just write us a polite letter. Given that the editor is basically correct and the material is inconsistent with our policies, and on net the user has done us a favor by getting rid of inappropriate content, I'll add a note to the user's user talk page acknowledging this with a gentle warning that someone might construe the last sentence as a legal threat and please not to do this as legal threats violate our policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor and I have given warnings about WP:NLT. There is something seriously wrong with that discussion and most likely that article. Its an article about the Catholic sex abuse scandal and the talk page has a section titled Nazi propaganda? I don't think blocking is the solution here. I would suggest opening a WP:MEDCAB case. Mr.Z-man 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Nazi propaganda section on the Talk page was last edited in May; perhaps some vandal or POV editor added a section which was quickly removed. Appears to have been dealt with and over. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that now, but there are still a lot of POV dispute problems that need to be dealt with though. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a section about Propaganda produced by the Nazis before and durring the second world war against the Catholic church. 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A block, under NLT is needed, but not indef. in among the anecdotal emotional rebuttal are some factual responses, and perhaps with some guidance, she can be brought into line with editing styles and thus rebutt some fairly radical claims in a manner likely to garner support and consensus. She certainly seems to mean well, but be doing it wrong. ThuranX 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the user shoud be indefinitely blocked (unless he/she has a long history of making legal threats). The user should be warned, and perhaps given a one hour block as evidence that his/her actions are serious.Vice regent 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Afterelton.com linkspammer?

I came across 131.191.10.175 whose only purpose seems to be to add links to afterelton.com to a meriad of articles. It's a gay oriented site, but it is linked to all kinds of non-gay related articles. — Edokter • Talk • 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at three or four of his edits, it looks like the IP is linkspamming to me. Davnel03 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Level 4im warning given. If he continues, report to WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I asume it's OK to check all the articles showing up in the linksearch and remove the links from the non-relevant articles? — Edokter • Talk • 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be OK. Davnel03 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many legitimate references, but I weeded out those that 131.191.10.175 spammed around Misplaced Pages. (and yes, all his contributions were only adding links to AfterElton.com.) — Edokter • Talk • 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WOverstreet

User:WOverstreet is not only engaging in revert wars now, he is engaging in personal attacks and vandalism. , , , . T Rex | talk 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Florida need Arbitration!!!! User:Cmprince seems to have some kind of vendeta against UF, and he deletes the alumni that I took hours to research. He has some kind of axe to grind, and is not very nice. Please help, by Arbitrating the dispute we are having. I just simply want to do my alma mater justice by allowing it the reputation that it has achieved in the real world. By the way I am not a Tech Person, I do not waste my time editing random pages. I simply have one issue that I am very very passionate about, and that is UF. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely - cursory glance of their contributions will show why. Spartaz 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. He wasn't doing anything helpful. This edit summary sums it up nicely: - Jehochman 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has requested unblock, based on their "Jacksonian" comments. I declined the unblock. - Philippe | Talk 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) through another open proxy.

Special:Contributions/67.52.216.8

--Irpen

Agree, and blocked -- Samir 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

7RR, no block

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

We're beating a dead horse now, no other admin action needs to be taken. Metros 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has already been blocked twice for 3RR+ warring elsewhere, reverted an article seven times in 24 hours. He was reported at WP:AN/3RR, and the only result was a friendly article talk page message, not even an official User_talk page warning from an administrator. Ferrylodge is even now asking the ruling sysop from his 3RR case for advice on how to get his preferred version protected; this situation needs to be reviewed by other sysops.

• Update: Ferrylodge is now actively requesting that administrators continue his edit war on his behalf. Italia 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll welcome the review, however, it seems that this is a now a mad bloodrush to get an editor blocked after the reply at AN3RR and here. I did not see any aggravating disruption, personal attacks, etc. I have protected the page and stopped the disruption there. I see no need to block in this case, and I stand by my decision to not block in this instance. Again, I welcome a review. Best regards, Navou 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You were edit warring with him, along with others - instead of lashing out blocks to all involved, the page was protected to stop all parties involved in the edit war. Now the page is protected, a block serves only a punitive purpose. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Two edits is not "edit warring," Ryan (and why I am not surprised to see you so eager to dismiss my concerns?). Let me get this straight: a 7RR editor who goes on to solicit advice on how to use page protection as a tool in his edit wars and asks administrators to edit war for him on a protected page will be neither blocked nor warned. Interesting. Italia 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll replace my comment that was inadvertently removed, and add to it. This is forum shopping, which is generally pointless, because the same admins usually have both pages watchlisted. You should continue this discussion in the original thread on 3RR. Nearly every page protect results in a "wrong version protected" argument. Such arguments are seldom heeded, unless there is an extreme case that puts the project in peril. - Crockspot 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (PS, I know this because I have made "wrong version" arguments myself.) Crockspot 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Protecting the wrong version" is indeed a WP in-joke, but the fact is that the practise of protecting the "current" version invariably leads to gamesmanship, where someone reverts to their preferred version and immediately calls an admin to protect it. This practise also encourages edit-warring, since everybody wants to increase the chance that their preferred version will be the "current" one when it gets frozen. Any exercise of restraint in edit-warring is thus "punished", and editors get the message that next time they should be quicker to revert. -- Zsero 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't just you though edit warring. It takes at least two to tango - the most productive thing to do here was protect the page, rather than put everyone in the sin bin for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)(ec) Do you believe that you can compel me to userblock? What purpose would it serve? Also, have you read my response regarding this edit? It is here.

If there is a revert war between two folks, and I revert one of them, once, then I have warred alongside. Using this philosophy, I can unprotect the page, and issue userblocks to all involved to prevent the disruption? This is an option I can use. Navou 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou, I would actually love to see you block editors who have done nothing wrong as justification to block a 7RR editor. Ferrylodge reverted seven times in a day, was not even so much as warned for it, and you're telling me that you can't take any measures to correct his (continued) disruption without blocking editors who've done nothing? His abuse of the editprotected template to solicit administrators to edit war on his behalf is decidedly disruption. Italia 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you so want us to implement punitive blocks, then I can block two people. But blocking for something done twelve hours ago is, quite frankly, stupid. —Kurykh 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He is attempting to continue his revert war through abuse of the editprotected template; where else am I supposed to go? And what was twelve hours ago? Are you calling me "stupid" (civility out the window, I suppose) without having reviewed the situation yourself? Italia 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Kurykh is saying the action of blocking would be stupid, not you. Regards, Navou 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the comment succinctly described by Navou. —Kurykh 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, what was twelve hours ago? Italia 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was retracting that while fighting 3 edit conflicts. However, the main point stands; you will be better off discussing solutions instead of clamoring for blocks. —Kurykh 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to strike out or correct your "stupid to block for something 12 hours ago" comment, then? Italia 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was still no formal warning for his 7RR violation or his attempt at continuing the revert war through abuse of the editprotected template. After agreeing to drop the revert war, he 1) asked a sysop to protect a different version then 2) used template:editprotected to the same ends. His User_talk page is completely clean of any sysop comment despite two back-to-back cases of severe disruption. Italia 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats due to the friendly formal warning I left on the article talk page. Venue not important here in my opinion. Navou 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You vaguely warned "folks," not him. There was no reprimand specifically to Ferrylodge for his 7RR disruption whatsoever. Italia 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like a pound of flesh, as well? We don't block people when we don't have to, and at the moment he's made more friends than you have. Navou's dealt with this as he sees fit, and that's the end of it. Being blocked is not the natural state for an editor to be in. Moreschi 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's aware now. --Haemo 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That Ferrylodge makes friends through behavior like this is exactly what's wrong with this situation. Calling for some kind of correction (even a warning) to a 7RR violator is not asking a pound of flesh. Italia 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please shove a cork in this guy? HalfShadow 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just all ignore him instead of constantly reverting... -Amarkov moo! 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of above action

Navou, I'm not sure this was the correct action to take here. Ferrylodge has been blocked before for 3RR violation, and for harassment of KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge was also quite disruptive on an RFC a while back WP:POINTedly made against Bishonen regarding his block for said harassment. link. Ferrylodge has long been a disruptive editor and has become a relatively frequent sight on WP:AN/I. Having been blocked for 3RR before, and having a disruptive past, common sense says that it would be preventative to block him from any future disruption to the project, for at least 48 hours. This would not be punitive, it would be preventative in light of his history of blatant disruption. I mean come on.....if someone violates the 3RR by 3 full edits, having been blocked for the same in the past, they obviously are fully aware of the rule, fully aware of their actions, and fully intending to further disrupt the project; be it on that article or a similar one. ⇒ SWATJester 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that I've "become a relatively frequent sight" here. This is my third time here, as I recall. The first time was initiated by me, rather than by anybody else, in order to get advice about Bishonen. The second time here was at the behest of Italiavivi, resulting in at least three separate warnings from administrators to Italiavivi on August 22 (LessHeard vanU and Tango warned him here, and ElinorD warned him here). So, now this is the third time here, and I don't think that's excessive considering the nature of the first two times here, and the length of time I've been at Misplaced Pages.

As for these current reversions, I thanked Italiavivi for his warning about 3RR, pledged not to revert any more in this instance, urged him to correct his own behavior, and urged him to stop edit-warring. I urged him to seek consensus at the talk page before changing the first three words of the Fred Thompson article, which were stable since 2004. So, there was misbehavior all around here, and I apologize for the number of reverts. As fate would have it, the page protection has frozen in place the version that I sought to change, so that seems like more than enough action against me.Ferrylodge 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but obviously you're aware now, so I'll AGF. ⇒ SWATJester 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD disruption

Digwuren (talk · contribs) attempts to disrupt the TfD of the template whose deletion he seems to oppose by tweaking the wording of the nomination for deletion submitted by the nominator (see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 9#Template:POV Russia.)

He claims WP:NPA entitles him to delete most of the nominator's explanation while the wording of nomination accurately reflects the problem of the template and its creator. Digwuren then revert-wars over his redacting of other users' comments.

Could someone explain to him the policy about editing other user's comments and watch further developments of this TfD? Thanks. --Irpen 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy against editing comments made by others is very subversivent to the policies against assuming bad faith and calling people racist. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree that the template is racist, your comment is welcome at the survey. --Irpen 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And the rationale behind allowing you to assume the template was created in bad faith would be...? -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read what the template says. --Irpen 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sometimes it pays to investigate the matter before rushing to comment. --Ghirla 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen persisting in using a deletion board for personal attacks

Moved from WP:AN.--Chaser - T 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, who is currently involved in a sterile, yet lasting arbitration case, is now seen using the Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion noticeboard for personal attacks. I first stroke out the offending parts, later removed them under WP:RPA, but he kept reinstating them:

• ,
• ,
• ,
• .

I'm normally not too sensitive about slightly offending comments and can accept good humour, but this case is neither. A TfD nomination that spends most of its content on commenting an editor rather than the nomination, and, indeed, contains but one word that can be reasonably considered discussing content, not personality, is something exceptional. Accordingly, I humbly request that the administrators take all proper and necessary measures to end this uncivility. Digwuren 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thread should be merged with Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TfD disruption --Irpen 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • You've removed it repeatedly "under" WP:RPA? Digwuren, WP:RPA has no authority. It's not policy and not a guideline. It's an essay, and a highly contested one. Please take a look at its talkpage, and at the first lines of the essay, which explain this. I quote: "It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus... It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." If you apply it you may find yourself "held accountable for questionable uses." "Questionable" is a mild term for removing and edit-warring over another user's comment on an issue you're involved in. Stop it. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

• For the record, I'm not in any way involved in this template. I don't care much about it, but I do care about a soliloquy of insults masquerading as a TfD nomination. Digwuren 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Echoing what Bishonen said, edit warring over the removal of personal attacks is not a good way to go. If it's undone once, then let it be. Generally unless it's blatant enough as someone saying 'fuck you', it's a good idea to not touch it. Cowman109 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the indefinite block for Digwuren was lifted due to promises of good behaviour, but the conduct seemed to have scarcely changed. El_C 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my first time removing personal attacks. If you look closely at the article's history, you see I proposed a series of approaches as to how the removal should go, in attempt to find compromise. And for the record, I've never been indefinitely blocked. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would RPA even apply to those statements? I don't see a single personal attack anywhere in them. ⇒ SWATJester 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original wording: "WP:POINTy inflammatory bad-faith template for article tagging with racist overtones created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates (see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)"

Let's consider every part separately.

• "WP:POINTy" can be considered a description of the template in question. This is the only such word, by the way.
• "inflammatory bad-faith template" is an assertion on not on the template, but on the user. It claims that the user is deliberately, in bad faith, causing flames. This does not belong into any serious discussion unless it can be backed down by appropriate evidence, which is clearly not the case here.
• "for article tagging with racist overtones" is an assertion of racist intent regarding the user. Again, nothing about the article; only an insult towards Suva, who, by any reasonable standard, can't be considered racist.
• "created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates" should be obvious.
• And finally, "(see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)" is interesting, because it refers to another TfD by Irpen where he deliberately used such wording, only to be then pointed out it was not only insulting but also not backed with any facts. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It often amazes me the lengths to which those who complain, and even soapbox, about censorship, are willing to go to silence others. It stops now, Digwuren. El_C 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are times and places for political discourse. There are even places for insulting. Some people pay good money to be able to call in to folks who claim to be scantily clad females, only to hear insults. But the TfD board is not a place for insults, and you can't reasonably calls attempts to retain civility on that board "censorship". Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've asked the unblocking admin for a brief followup (i.e. of whether Digwuren has been living up to the terms of the unblock). El_C 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deskana's report would be appreciated here. As far as I can see, Digwuren is on a never-ending revert-warring spree. It does not appear likely that he was unblocked in order to indulge in this sort of behaviour. --Ghirla 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Diwurgen, Irpen, and other related issues is now under review by ArbCom. I suggest archiving this thread, there is nothing we can add. Diwurgen, please remember that ANI is not a complains thread and concentrate on your ArbCom case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, could you please refrain from adding inflammatory comments whenever Irpen's name is mentioned? That would be highly appreciated. --Ghirla 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My behavior is under the review by ArbCom? Interesting. I did not know that but fine. I welcome the review of ArbCom if there is any. Judging by the familiar faces popping up at once whenever I post, I am always under some sort of a "review" anyway. Too bad some editors don't have anything better to do but commenting on most each of my edit. --Irpen 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My today's wikitime has been spent on populating Soviet occupation, reading several articles for Pullapää crisis and reviewing a WP:GA candidate. What have you done today, besides insulting people? Digwuren 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: your "Soviet occupation" essays should be prodded immediately. --Ghirla 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do that: Article proposed for deletion because: Ghirla doesn't like it and thinks that the article sucks. Suva 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support archiving for ArbCom to decide. ThuranX 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate what needs to be decided upon? I corroborate that, when I was involved in deleting two articles started by Digwuren and Co several months ago, there was a flurry of sterile edit-warring over removal of my comments (including the entire rationale for deletion) with references to WP:RFA. As a result, the deletion process was derailed. I believe Digwuren deserves a stern warning for having crossed the line of disruption. --Ghirla 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For ArbCom to decide what? I started this thread to ask some to take a look and stop the ongoing disruption of TfD. If this is done, there is nothing to "decide". Just watch this TfD, that's all. For the record, I have no objection to ArbCom getting involved in this nonsense too if this board is not enough. --Irpen 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AC looking into this or that is not a free pass for disruption and I will not sit idle if it continues. El_C 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this disruptive block shopping by Irpen needs to be examined by Arbcom. Martintg 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Block shopping? Did I ask to block anyone? All I asked is that Digwuren be told in no unclear terms to stop editing my comments. The message seems to have got through since he now left them alone. You are welcome to try to get ArbCom involved of course in this too. --Irpen 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your double standard disturbing. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat (talk · contribs)

CyclePat has recently stated that he wishes to be unblocked and has promised to not mention the AMA. - My only concern here is that he stated that he reserves the right to discuss the AMA if someone else tries to revive it. This is probably the best that we are going to do, so I propose we unblock him on the understanding that if he does mention it again, he gets reblocked immediately - obviously though, I'm not overturning a community ban on my own. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If I asked what the AMA was, would that be something I'd regret? HalfShadow 22:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restraining the urge to go on an anti-AMA rant) A group of would-be wikilawyers who tried to insert themselves into the dispute resolution process. Raul654 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA, the Association of Member's Advocates, an organization that was rendered historical a few months back. The reasons for the historical tag was dual: Lack of action after a while, and they got caught in bureaucratic nonsense. And if someone else tries to revive it, Pat'd better do his discussing of it off-wiki. SirFozzie 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering., I mean, there's almost 50 things it could mean. I may not be an admin, but it never hurts to know what you're talking about. HalfShadow 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The short version was that it originally set out to be a group to help editors through the dispute resolution process. Turned into a group that helped disruptive editors game the dispute resolution process. Durova 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in essense, sort of a meat-puppet collective? HalfShadow 22:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the advocacy that threw the thing off balance. I'm all for mentorship during dispute resolution. Durova 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallelujah. I will unblock, and I sincerely hope that Pat means it. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So do I, let's hope he can get back to some form of constructive editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Telephone call and legal threat

Not sure what the proper place to report this, but I would like other opinions and eyes on the issue. Anon user User:76.184.140.85 talk (Contibutions) has become irritated over my editing of content he added to the Idaho article and comments on Talk:Idaho. He just within the last hour called me on my home phone to object and during the conversation threatened legal action against me in Texas if what he percieves as censorship of his edits continues. He claims to teach at a Texas university and to have a Misplaced Pages username which he doesn't want to use for unclear security reasons. I don't know just how he aquired my telephone number and am disturbed by his attempted intimidation. I would appreciate comments and more eyes watching the situation. Thanks, Vsmith 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This behavior is clearly not acceptable. I don't know what we can do beyond blocking of the IP user and leaving a strongly worded message, though. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you contacted the Wikimedia Foundation? Durova 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Wasn't sure just who/how to report this and also not sure about the gravity of the intimidation attempt. Vsmith 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me and I'll give you Cary Bass's direct address. Durova 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Durova 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've browsed the leadup discussion at Talk:Idaho and determined that this report is credible. I can't actually prove that this legal threat occurred, but common sense says to take a conservative approach when a user in very good standing makes this type of report at this juncture in a dispute. I doubt Vsmith would waste a hard-earned reputation by posting a frivolous accusation and the leadup at the article talk page follows a familiar pattern of intense disagreement by someone who wants to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. This fits the profile of past cases that led to onsite legal threats. I don't know whether this indefinite block will become permanent, but the prudent thing to do is to put the breaks on this until the matter gets sorted out. Durova 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Preliminarily, the next time he calls, ask him to refer all further legal threats to info-en at wikimedia dot org and to have no further contact with you. Make it explicitly clear that you want no further contact from him. Contact your local law enforcement to complain of harassment if he continues.⇒ SWATJester 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an EMail Vsmith with a just a suggestion.--Sandahl 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've run a CheckUser, and there is indeed a mildly active account on this IP. I can keep an eye on it, and if any information from the IP is needed by the WMF or law enforcement, we can let them know. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Call your local Police. It's really that simple. That's an action covered by various protections against internet stalking, and probably also counts as harrassment. Further, the demonstration that he can 'get to you' in the real world can be called extortion in some places. The editor immediately took this beyond the authority of Misplaced Pages, and the WMF by dialing. Use your tax dollars, pursue this by legal recourse, and let the cops handle it. ThuranX 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple, at least not in the general case. The police will be more or less useless if such harrassment crosses international borders, and I'd have serious doubts about their effectiveness even in the US. Moreover, going to the police requires a serious amount of time and dedication. While this is certainly a last resort, we should still have on-wiki methods of handling this. --Stephan Schulz 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would further suggest that there is almost certainly no jurisdiction in the United States in which a telephone call consistent with that described by Vsmith, in the absence of a request, as described by Swat, that one not be contacted, should be criminally actionable. Joe 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have formally declined the IP's unblock request and semi-protected the talk page for 48 hours as a precaution. Pascal.Tesson 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this issue was dealt with in an exemplary fashion. Well done. – Quadell 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

A user recently made a personal attack at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline stating that another editors' comment(s) was "shitting all over" (), This most uncivil remark is a personal attack according to WP:PA (No Personal Attacks) which states, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" I believe this editor should be warned and temporarily blocked for this disruptive editing.Cholga 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, just so you know. You need to take what he said in its context. Jackaranga 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, no one is going to be blocked for a single weak personal attack, and you don't need admins to issue a warning to a user. Just do it! --Haemo 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say, the weekly disputes on ANI between Cholga and ILike2BeAnonymous are becoming extraordinarily tiresome. --barneca (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And all the antagonism is over an article on... a dog-walking park? Raymond Arritt 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So he was 'shitting all over' a discussion about gloves for picking up dog crap? Time for more gloves. ThuranX 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User picks up his vandalism right after week long block ends

A week ago User: Daddy Kindsoul was blocked for continuingly reverting the NOFX page, violating his revert parole.

Today the block expired and he went to the NOFX page to make the same revert again.

Now I know I should assume good faith, but considering the number of times he has been warned to go to the talk page before he reverts, I think this can be categorised as vandalism, as he clearly knows better.

I'm not sure what his revert parole conditions are, but he may well have violated them again. Hoponpop69 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More like intentional disruption, not vandalism, but that's splitting hairs. Guess he needs a parole extension, contact the RFAR folks. ThuranX 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop is been dishonest. As you can see from the diff no vandalism has been purportrated, just the additional of information with vertified sources; which he happens to keep blanking (See, WP:VANDAL) with his IP (see, WP:SOCK). Hoponpop has already been blocked by an admin this week for his abusive behaviour towards me (vile personal attacks in edit summaries), yet he continues to throw out personal attacks here.. clearly hasn't learned his lesson. - The Daddy 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Michael? Corvus cornix 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

There's been some edit warring over this page over the last week or so. I haven't particularly participated in editing this article previously, but when I tried to fix up a link and change some content, User:Prester John reverts without giving any reason. Hopefully some admins can give this page a look over. Thanks. Recurring dreams 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He tends to do that. I've put the page on my watch list. Raymond Arritt 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have dealt with this issue myself. But I (and others) have had conflicts with him in the past, so I've put it up here. Recurring dreams 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Eagle 101 has taken some action. So be it. Recurring dreams 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed the ANI post, in any case I have blocked User:Bless sins for revert warring, and have given warnings to everyone else involved in this dispute. Turns out the page was protected (by User:kylu) sometime when I started getting the messages to the various editors ready. Please stop revert warring, and simply discuss the issue. Thanks —— Eagle101 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. If disambiguating links is going to rile up users so much, I think it's better if I don't edit this article at all. I'll head off back to the safer world of Australian articles. Recurring dreams 03:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do think protection was necessary, I'm not sure the block necessarily was. Not that I am defending Bless sins edits, as I disagree with many of his edits and actions, but I don't think he should be blocked for a 3rr violation when he only reverted twice. I don't think he technically violated a rule.--Sefringle 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, for some reason people aren't usually blocked for edit wars upon article protection. I don't understand why this is, but in any case it seems a tad unfair for Bless Sins to be the exception to this usual process. The Behnam 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically violating a rule here does not matter, the reverting in itself is disruptive, I will unblock him/her on condition that he/she engage in discussion with everyone else. The protection and the block came at similar times, and I did not do the protection, two different solutions to the same problem at one time :) —— Eagle101 03:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would encourage you to unblock. The block does not, currently, serve any purpose. Also, as far as I can see the misbehaviour seems to be spread evenly (and none to thin) among several participants. --Stephan Schulz 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BlessSins regularly reverts and removes sourced information, irritating other editors. If you look at his contribs, you'll see. This was a good block in my opinion. --Matt57 03:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of what Matt said; not with the second. As I explained above, edit warring is based on the 3rr, and he only made 2 reverts, so I don't see how the block can be justified. I may have had many content dispute conflicts with Bless sins over misrepresentations of sources and his removial of content which he doesn't like, but I am generally against blocking as a way to resolve disputes, with exceptions in extreme cases; such as when rules are clearly violated, which I don't think he did in this case.--Sefringle 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You, nor anyone else has a right to continue reverting, this has been going on for 2 days. 3RR is an upper limit, doing "only" two reverts is still disruptive, none of the people involved in the revert warring were at their best. Please stop revertwarring and discuss the content issue. Thanks —— Eagle101 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest all those involved in the recent edit-conflict on that article be similarly treated, then? Would this opinion be any different if you weren't one of those involved? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I have just warned you and others in this dispute to settle down and discuss the editorial issue. Please do so, rather then pointing fingers. If you guys cannot quit editwarring, and baiting each other (the lot of you) I will consider more blocks for disruption. Please focus on content, rather then editors. Thank you. —— Eagle101 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To User:Sefringle: Please review WP:3RR, specifically this part:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

I think your understanding of that policy may be flawed, and you should re-consult it so as to no accidentally fall afoul in the future. Thanks for your thoroughness. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: I rarely remove sourced content (unless it's sourced to FFI, Warraq or other unreliable sources). I may, however, have removed sourced content by mistake (while reverting or some other editing).Bless sins 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"other unreliable sources" includes quite a large variety of content; basicly everything remotely critical of Islam.--Sefringle 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would suggest that you folks chat it out, and figure out (on the talk page) if that edit is correct or not. Perhaps there is a compromise version you can reach. Please try to assume that everyone working here has the best interests of this encyclopaedia in mind, sometimes all it takes is a little talk, and it avoids all this nasty talk about blocking folks. —— Eagle101 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Serafin puppets again

After the Copernicus article has been semi-protected, a 'new' account had to do the reverting to Serafin's version. Serafin sometimes tended to create accounts in rapid succession (eg ) and in fact this happened here (). But there's always more where this came from, so there are probably going to be more socks to block. Sciurinæ 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic has yet to be addressed. Is there maybe a better board for this issue or do you think it is minor because it could it be solved by simple reverting? The latter is undesirable because revert warring has been Serafin's tactic on Bureaucracy until all his resistance had been quelled by this. Every more minute not taken care off is also every new minute ban evasion has paid off for him. Sciurinæ 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Faith Freedom International

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

I believe that the following edits violate WP:BLP: , (and there are many more).

This is because they are adding content about living persons that is poorly sourced. For example:

• "Prominent scholars among those who debated with members of FFI include Khalid Zaheer, a student of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi..."
• "Reza Pahlavi advocated a democratic government determined via a national referendum which could lead to a constitutional monarchy."

The source in most cases is Faith Freedom (an extremist website). One source () doesn't appear to be working. Finally, I'm not sure if http://19.org is a reliable source.Bless sins 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be making any contentious claims. It's also using a self-published source in an article about itself. So, it appears that on both counts, the article is conforming to Misplaced Pages policy. Remove the dead link, explaining it is a dead link (and therefore not a verifiable source). The 19.org reference is in relation to someone from that site debating someone from FFI, so again that doesn't seem problematic. Vassyana 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used but only in content about themselves. I don't think self-published sources (especially that are extremist) can be used to make claims about other living persons. It is contentious because FFI claims to be right in its arguments against these scholars. The FFI also seems to be using notable scholars to increase its notability. We don't know whether or not 19.org is actually written by the person it claims to be written by.Bless sins 02:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what I saw looks OK. Statements are attributed as FFI's views and not as truth. On the other hand 19.org looks to be a classic unreliable source. Raymond Arritt 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with a specific claim about the debate with Montazeri awhile ago. The solution for now has been to explicitly attribute the claim of debate to FFI/Sina. If that is a solution appropriate to the other claims, then it should be implemented. I am, however, concerned that mentioning the debates may be placing undue weight upon FFI's "works" - we need to talk about that which makes FFI notable and consider leaving the rest, so that we are not committing activism for FFI by giving it another platform to present all of its views and claims. The Behnam 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this noticeboard is the place to post content disputes. I think it is more or less for policy violations--Sefringle 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, is not this section about a possible BLP violation? In its current state the article violates BLP by presenting these dubious claims as facts based upon FFI, a non-RS that is the subject of the article. That's not acceptable. The Behnam 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this article present dubious claims as facts. The article makes it pretty clear that the site just claims they are facts, and the article doesn't assert whether or not the debates really occured Reguardless, your previous comment wasn't really alluding to any allegation of a BLP violation.--Sefringle 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I brought the Montazeri solution up because I feel that it could be applied to the other claims under dispute, hence making this ANI BLP alert resolved. I first proposed this on the talk page, but you pointed me here. The Behnam 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you mean by the Montazeri solution, as I was not involved in that dispute.--Sefringle 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell - we resolve the BLP violation by explicitly attributing the debate claims to FFI, instead of presenting them as fact as the article currently does (for some of them). With Montazeri, I removed the claim (not a reliable source for this claim) because it used FFI to present the claimed debate as factual. Matt57 reverted, of course, (RV changes by Behnam - this is a primary source). After some discussion somewhere, he was fine with this version (montazeri followup), which attributes the claim explicitly to Sina. I think that if we do this, the BLP violations will not be present, and so there will be no need for ANI stuff. The Behnam 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what exactly do you suggest? What is your idea of how to change this?--Sefringle 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm just going to try it out on the article and then notify here so that we can review. If the result is satisfactory we shouldn't have a BLP violation. It's just a tad difficult because of the current writing (prominent scholars, since then, etc... hard to convert). I'd like to hear what Bless Sins thinks of my proposed method for resolving the issue... assuming that the point of this is to resolve the issue. If we all agree, we can put this discussion back on the talk page where it belongs, and come back here if real problems form. Somehow this ANI post seemed premature - we hadn't any real discussion on the matter, though I tried. OK if we close this for now? The Behnam 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?

I think I may have gotten myself into a revert war here. I removed the CSD templates that the editor kept putting on, telling him to take to AfD. Instead, he prodded it, calling the page an advertisment...the page is clearly not an advertisment. I removed the prod tag and told him again that if he thought the page should be deleted, he should take it to AfD. He put it back up saying, "I will let an Admin make that decision"...which isn't how it works. I removed the prod tag again with the edit comment "I am contesting your prod". He put it on again with the edit comment "I am contesting your contesting". I don't have knowledge of the subject matter, but looking at it for about 10 seconds you can tell it's not an advertisment. It's a contested prod and he needs to take it to AfD. I have removed the prod tag again...but I doubt that holds up. Smashville 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it doesn't really seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:CSD nor does it seem WP:PRODable. I am, however, a little confused to as why you haven't spoken to the user without using an edit summary. Tag it up with an AfD tag, and I'll note the user with the deletion policy. Note, however, that content disputes are not solved here. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to delete it anymore, sorry for the confusion, I'm used to working on a project where rubbish gets deleted a bit more easily. No offense meant, --NoCultureIcons 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...I didn't know where to take it...I didn't think the editor was working in bad faith...I thought we might be getting into an edit war and was trying to pre-empt it. Smashville 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. Just beware of the dreaded 3RR rule, which can get you blocked. Also see WP:LIST on how to organise a list. Perhaps this is the bane of your dispute. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... what s/h/xe said. Thanks for stepping in there, xmanynumbers... perfect example of a situation where an admin was most definitely not needed - just guidance from a trusted user. - Philippe | Talk 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to think that I was threating him/her when I place a 3RR/edit war warning just to inform him/her about 3RR. He responded by placing this comment on my talk page . I placed a WP:NPA notice on his/her user talk page, but I fear that the IP user will react in a hostile manner as he/she might see it as another threat. I don't expect and I doubt that any sysop action to be taken against this IP user. However I would like to request that sysops, if possible, keep an eye on this IP user. nat 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a danger that this will escalate into a war of warning templates. Probably the best way to de-escalate the situation is to make a polite post on their Talk page (or yours) explaining that you were not making a personal attack, that you don't have any animosity towards them, and that you simply wanted to alert them to the 3RR. It's probably also a good idea to explain that you would much rather discuss disputed edits, with a view to finding a compromise, rather than revert-war about them. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor removing notability tag

Ian McIan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article called Ryan Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not sure it lives up to WP:NOTE, so I add {{notability}} to the article. He removed it without reason. I re-added it and told him he shouldn't do that. He ignored two other warnings and removed it two more times. Upon giving him a final warning, 140.32.16.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom edits the same articles Ian does pops up and removed the tag. It's obvious it's him. Should he be blocked for this? Some diffs:

Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BOTijo

Was approved for 12epm by the BAG, but I've seen periods of 40+ epm. Seems to be doing about 24-30 epm now. Left a message for the operator yesterday, but no reply, so I bring this up to ANI. Q 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 hour for going too fast, (the one hour block should disable the bot as its pywiki, and allow the operator to restart at the correct speed). —— Eagle101 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

a matter of taste

I don't usually get worked up over this sort of thing, but I do think idle calls to "gas them all" with Zyclon B is not exactly conductive to a friendly editing atmosphere, even if marked as "funny" by things like "shit damnit lol" thrown after it. I'm not shopping for an immediate block of this chap, but it may be appropriate for an Uninvolved Admin to bestow upon him a stern admonition (this is mostly a case of "Misplaced Pages is not Usenet"). --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from ip range.

The range being 80.231.198.73 to 80.231.198.77, attacking the same articles at the same time.

Contribs:

• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.73
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.74
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.75
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.76
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.77

--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all for 24 hours. Pascal.Tesson 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Towns in the Former RSK

Could another admin or two look at the history and talk page of this list and confirm that I am acting appropriately? An anon tagged it for deletion, and when I turned it down as not meeting the speedy criteria, started blanking the list and changing it into a redirect. I'd hate to enter into an edit-war if I'm in the wrong. What I don't know about Serbia and Croatia could just about fill Misplaced Pages. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Page is now sprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Denizz

User:Denizz three times added the same unsourced information to the Anti-Turkism. When I wrote him to stop and go to talk page I received 2 not very kind warnings by him asking maybe Im using a sockpuppet and so on... .Andranikpasha 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, that information was already there, if you remember. You are the one who removed it. It was consensus. It seems to me that you are the only one who claims at least openly that ASALA is not anti-Turkish, which would mean that your removal is far from consensus. Also my edit summary was a response to your edit summary (you said there was a discussion (on ASALA's page) and I said noone else disagreed with me). What I said on your talkpage , was that there came an open proxy anon just at the right time, and did the same edit with you, if that anon is you that would be violating 3RR and sockpuppetry, I don't see anything wrong with it. Also we have another Canadian open proxy anon just like that one that is claimed to be you, Artaxiad, Vonones, and Hu1lee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad. I also noted that you made at least three reverts, and was surprised that you put all the edit warring allegations on me, which might have made me sound in a way I wouldn't like. I would have liked it more, if you had informed me about this discussion. I could have missed it. Deniz_C 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Denizz, I think its not the better place to start a discussion. And all other things you wrote havent any links and seems to be your opinion. For example, see here if I maked 3 reverts...Also pls add all your claims on sockpuppets to Administrators as Im not an administrator and your unproven accusations cannot be pleasant for me! PS- And also pls dont start editwarring here Anti-Armenianism as you cant accuse if I even edited it... Andranikpasha 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:207.144.220.3 constant vandalism

Has been vandalizing Arcade game non-stop. User has been previously banned. --Marty Goldberg 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked in the IP. In the future, you can report vandals at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Terror threat

See this edit. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cute. I warned the user while Moreschi deleted the article; fear our 133t tag-team administrating. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, block, ignore. Nuclear weapons? Come off it, mate. Kids messing around...we were all young once. Moreschi 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Should we just treat these things as nonsense, or should we notify "authorities" whenever people post stuff like that? Isn't just making a threat techniclaly illegal somehow? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No point in wasting valuable police time on some bored teenager. No evidence that this is a credible threat. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just think some pranks are far less funny than others and stuff like what that user wrote is just not cool. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and on that note, wasting police time is also illegal AFAIK. Admittedly, less serious than nukes, but still... Moreschi 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for something like this, was this board the correct one to take it to, or would I have been better off taking it to the "against vandalism" one instead? I've been "patrolling" the new user log to welcome new users and noticed some complex vandalism that I reported on the other board and that is also how I came upon this matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, ANI is fine, just in case the threat is credible. I agree that that sort of thing is not nice, which is why the user is blocked indef. Moreschi 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the police are often very interested in this sort of threat, and occasionally these things result in real-live jail time. 5 days before the 6-month anniversary of the Columbine killings, a Michael Ian Campbell sent an anonymous e-mail to a Columbine student telling him not to go to school the next day. (It was apparently a very, very stupid joke -- Campbell lived in Florida and didn't even own a gun.) He was arrested by the FBI and sentenced to 4 months in prison. So if a terrorist plot is later uncovered that bears any resemblance to what our friend "D the T" described, I'd expect him to face jail time (for being unlucky and stupid, if nothing else). – Quadell 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Though if a nuke does go off in NYC I'd think the police (provided there are any left) would have more important things to do than chase up "D of T"...Moreschi 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jake Brahm posted on 4chan that there were going to be terrorist attacks on stadiums and was arrested, yet it was a complete hoax/nonsense post. Jackaranga 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blofeld of SPECTRE

I recently created an article concerning an up and coming Russian emigre author Lara Vapnyar. As I was sorting the page out the above user tagged the article as needing wikification. I removed the tag and advised the user that I was in the process of creating the article. There was an exchange, and in the end apparently the article had not been wikified to the user's satisfaction, as he left the following edit summary, which can be seen in the history page for the article.

(wikified due to an incompetent user who still hasn't done it)

I'd suggest that this is not a useful way to sort out differences over acceptable levels of wikification, and that it is a violation of WP:No_personal_attacks. Is it possible for an administrator to remove the slur from the edit summary? Thanks. Larry Dunn 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice, but it was back in late August. I'm afraid that we usually don't delete/oversight specific revisions unless personal info has been revealed/libellous attacks made. Personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries are not enough, AFAIK. Sorry. Cheers, Moreschi 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why edit war over the tag? Why not just do the wikification and be done with it? What harm does a tag do? Corvus cornix 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No "edit warring" is going on here. I'm asking if an admin would clean up the edit summary to remove the prohibited personal attack. Larry Dunn 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am normally one to be 99% civil but what happened is this. I tagged a new article which was in a terrible state -no categories , no links wikified, no paragraphing no real context thinking I was doing a good job new page patrolling. The user later rmeoved these saying I was premature. I layed back a bit and suggested how he might create new articles -and that once he posts them he can't go on at other editors who tag them for clean up if they are not wikified properly to begin with. The editor peristed he would attend to it so I though ok cool and left him to it. I returned however several days later and he had still not done it. Now can I be blamed for tagging articles and bothering to fix a problem myself when the editor didn't follow up his word? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user tagged it six minutes after it was added, and added the comment about "incompetence" after the article had been wikified -- just not to his satisfaction. In any event, nothing the user cites is described in WP:No_personal_attacks as an exception to that policy. Larry Dunn 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you still need to work on that last 1%, Sir. Come on, apologize and be done with it. (We do heartily thank you for your Wikification efforts, though.) – Quadell 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the correct response here is "feh." Or maybe "pish." It's incredibly lame to go running to teacher over something so trivial. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Salom Khalitun permanently disrupts his RfC

We are currently preparing a user conduct RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Salom Khalitun. The subject of the RfC is permanently disrupting the process by adding his POV (usually in bold) to inappropriate sections. See the history and in particular e.g. , . I've informed him about the process here, but he rejects my suggestion. Can some uninvolved admin please take proper steps (warning, temporary blocking) so that the RfC can be prepared? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing his contributions, I've blocked him indefinitely. He's been nothing but disruptive, ceaselessly attacked other editors, trolled controversial talk pages, focused on other editors' ethnicity, and generally lacks any positive impact that I've seen. There is also a question in my mind as to whether he's truly a new user, but that's neither here nor there - his behavior alone is enough. I appreciate your willingness to go through the RfC process - if it reaches completion and there's a feeling that he should be unblocked, or if other admins disagree with this block, then he could be unblocked, but for now at the very least the RfC can proceed in peace. If there's no strong feeling that he should be unblocked, it may be superfluous. MastCell 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good move. I'd been watching from a distance and he seemed like one of the recently banned neo-Nazi users pretending to be Iranian. The Behnam 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Good call, I think. The RfC is now in reasonable shape, too. --Stephan Schulz 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a sockpuppet account, and I believe I know who the puppeteer is, but it's somewhat irrelevant - I can't prove it, and he's done more than enough to warrant an indefinite block even without that piece of the puzzle. MastCell 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and template oriented admins -- please view this discussion.

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_10 regarding the PD-RoM template, which was created by a banned user for the purpose of pushing POV via images and media. The template clearly cannot be acceptable under copyright law or fair use doctrines..... it's part of an ongoing edit war/POV fest going on at National Liberation War of Macedonia et al. ⇒ SWATJester 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JesseCarmichael

All of JesseCarmichael (talk · contribs)'s edits are vandalism, and he's now started page moves of User pages to offensive names. Could somebody block, please? Corvus cornix 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by Misplaced Pages's resident oriental poetic adminess. Moreschi 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to block him 50 seconds after this post, and I was already beat to the punch! You vandal-fighters are a quick bunch. :-) – Quadell 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks report and article semi-block request

I would like to report User:PIO for his repeated attacks against both me as well as Users No.13 and Kubura. The complication (I hope someone can resolve) arises here: the user in question is apparently experiencing "technical difficulties" so he uses an IP, however he signs his edits (with PIO), and it is unmistakeably obvious (due to the identical, rather shaky grammar as well as my experiences with the user) that this is indeed the person he claims to be.
The best example's of his attacks are here (in Italian, but still obvious), and here. I have warned him repeatedly, both on his IP and registered talkpages, he, of course, deleted all the warnings. The user is also suspected of sockpuppetry, and apparently thinks he can get away with murder if it is done in the Italian language.

Another matter, the extremely controversial article, Istrian exodus, has been in the past prudently shielded against unregistered users by Admins. This protection apparently expired recently and the article has become a verotable battleground of edit-warring. I request that the semi-block be returned so that this infinate conflict can finally end. DIREKTOR 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)