Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 11 March 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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

Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband

Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) has recently been active in discussing name and content changes in 9/11-related articles. Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda. Those who oppose ththis user's attempts to add conspiracy POV language to articles have been met with incivility and trolling on both article talk pages and user talk pages. Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility.

After these two edits, I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling., which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Misplaced Pages policy.

Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit, which, to his credit, he refactored (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling. He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her to not accept the "indignity" coming his/her way.

I, and I believe many other users, am tired of dealing with this user's constant incivility. Perhaps an involuntary vacation is appropriate here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Ice Cold Beer's assessment of the situation. I am particularly disturbed by the message placed on my talk page (which several other users received one as well) warning that I misunderstood Misplaced Pages policies; moreover, having been warned, should I continue my arguments, I would be guilty of willfully misrepresenting policies. Combined with this user's assumptions of bad faith as documented above, I see this as an attempt to chill discussion of the topic. Disagreement on policy is one thing, but accusing users who disagree with you of dishonesty is quite another. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but isn't that the reason we take such a hard line on legal threats? // Chris 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall respond to these charges in more detail when I get time. Suffice it to say for the moment that a number of editors, IceColdBeer included have been indulging in disgraceful tactics to prevent proper discussion of issues and to intimidate editors who threaten to undermine their authority. One of these tactics has been to knowingly misrepresent wikipedia policies over and over again in order to make a lot of irrelevant noise and thus make any intelligent debate impossible. I have not said this until now, but this behaviour is as bad as lying. It is plainly done with the same intent as lying. Haemo, who is an admin no less and therefore must be very well-versed in wikipedia policy, has been one of the worst offenders, which is why I left such a strongly worded message about it on his user talk. When he then repeated the offense, I left another message. Even though my wording was very strong, I made a point of not actually making a threat. At the same time I left a more mildly worded message for IceColdBeer (which he promptly deleted) because he had just committed the same offense as Haemo and all those other editors. It was just after that that he decided to leave his threatening message. His threat was marked "final warning" even though I had not received any warning before. That in itself shows an aggressive attitude. That his complaint was ostensibly about my message to Haemo, making no mention of the message I had left him that he had immediately deleted, was sneaky. He was pretending to be a third party standing up for the ill-used Haemo when he was actually pursuing a personal vendetta.

Basically there has been a culture of bullying, lying and and malicious wikilawyering that has been going on at 9/11 conspiracy theories and related pages at least since I first tried to get involved in editing the page at the end of 2006. My first experience of this was so horrible that afterwards I spent nearly a year without even logging into wikipedia. My message to the new user that IceColdBeer has brought up in evidence against me was for the sole purpose of making sure that he does not get bullied out of wikipedia the way I was and probably a good few others have been. I told him that he would not get the gentle introduction to editing that users get in other areas of wikipedia because that is a plain fact. I told him to get himself well versed in wikipedia policy because that is what I have had to do to survive the shamelessly devious wikilawyering of the group of editors I have been talking about. I did not advise him to be obnoxious. I simply advised him not to be naive. I certainly did not name names. However now that this complaint has been brought against me, it is time to name a lot of names. I am utterly sick of the way things are, as are many other editors, not to mention those who knows how many who have left wikipedia, disillusioned, and have never come back. Put simply, editors who endlessly cry WP:THIS and WP:THAT, often fraudulently and often in unison, but who absolutely refuse even to consider the significance of or the spirit behind policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Common sense or Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules, cannot be up to any good. Something must be done about such conduct. Such editors should certainly not be allowed to continue goading other editors whom they consider to be threats to their authority so that they can gather enough dirt to file a patently malicious complaint like the one that IceColdBeer has just filed against me. ireneshusband (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that I originally made when these accusations against my character, and my editorial judgment were first leveled:

Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say that I disagree with the accusations made against me, and against all other editors who have disagreed with ireneshusband on this issue. In my opinion, ireneshusband has spent nearly all of his time here pushing conspiracy theorist POV on a number of related articles. Repeated appeals to "commonsense" and "ignoring all rules" should set off the POV alerts in experienced editor's head as indicative of trying get around policies because they do not suit them. This is all well and good — Misplaced Pages puts up with POV editors on many subjects, and I don't expect the tolerance of this to stop.

What is not well and good are the continual personal attacks and incivility he has leveled against editors for disagreeing with him — charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are evident even on this very page. I have told him before, as have other editors, that it is not acceptable and not appropriate — these have fallen on deaf ears. Or, perhaps, ears that know the Truth™ and do not need to listen to others. I did not want to bring this here, because I am tired of this drama — but, as they say alea iacta est. Since I have been mentioned by name, I thought should at the very least offer my opinion and defend my name against accusations I hold to be totally invalid. I leave the actual actions to uninvolved admins. --Haemo (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this complaint malicious? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But what if editors are banding together and charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are accurate? My feeling is that those charges are accurate, and when someone comes forward with the courage to point it out despite the policy of assuming good faith, they are breaking laws and rules for a very good reason. The arguments presented by IrenesHusband have been very good, and indeed have made me think twice about whether the mainstream account is complete, or even accurate. Dscotese (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any instances of bullying, cabalism, wikilawyering, lying, or malicious behavior by anyone other than Ireneshusband? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, is it malicious to refer to a person as a "conspiracy theorist" rather than by name? This is done by several editors in this discussion. It is almost as if there is intent to discredit a person for seeing flaws in the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. If you want malicious, then just look at the edits of one editor who uses the term often (pick any one you want). If you want cabalism then look at them as a group. If you want wikilawyering then examine their application of policy references. I can't provide examples of Lying because I recognize the elusiveness of truth. Do you? Dscotese (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a number of the above listed "uncivil" arguments. Seems there's incivility on many fronts. That seems to be a tactic used to obscure facts. I appreciated IrenesHusband's message. I got one. There was nothing uncivil in it. Basically it said familiarize yourself with the policy, don't let me or Ice Cold Beer or anybody else familiarize you with what the policy means. Seems to me that's what Misplaced Pages policy is all about. In most of those snippets pointed out above, other than the bickering, I saw a lot of IrenesHusband trying to back up his points with references, trying to get them seen for people, not a person to judge. I think if anything, almost everyone mentioned was uncivil including the person who leveled the claim. Best thing would be for everyone involved to agree to be civil when it comes to discussing and editing this obviously touchy and heated topic. Seems to me if IrenesHusband were to be banned based on these claims, several others in these threads should be banned for the very same reason. I don't think anyone should though, I think the focus should be the article and not the people editing it. (Deminizer (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

This dispute, actually, has remained fairly civil on both sides, with the only exception being Ireneshusband. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ireneshusband has stepped over the line multiple times. But he's not alone as some of the above comments demonstrate. RxS (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Accusing some good-faith editor of trolling is in itsself very incivil. I feel Ireneshusband should do wiser than to accuse any author of bad faith except when reporting an incident. But he is certainly not trolling, he is trying to uphold policy in my opinion. If you cannot win the debates with arguments, please do not confuse matters with complaining about something else. ICB, you have room for improvement in respect of civilty yourself, in my opinion.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you're characterising Ireneshusband as a good-faith editor, then I think you might be pushing the definition a bit. That account appears to me to be a crusader for WP:TRUTH (ironically enough, given that the conspiracy theorists are usually referred to as Truthers). Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Incivil, perhaps; trolling: no. Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages.. Ireneshusband seems to be involved in fierce arguments about the correct interpretation of wikipedia.
   I am not much interested in judging other people's level of incivilty, I am busy enough with myself. But if I must, I would say that editors on both sides could be more civil, and relax a bit.
   Trolling means: intentional disruption. A flame is indeed disruptive, but flames usually originate out of good faith.
   I would like it very much when all editors who have made accusations of trolling either revoke that, or show why they think this editor is deliberately trying to disrupt wikipedia instead of trying to defend our policy, according to his own insights. Hope this helps?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. ICB wrote: "Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda."
   You seem very sure about the motives of your "opponent"? In my opinion, Ireneshusband is probably trying to make sure wikipedia is NEUTRAL, no more, representing significant minority viewpoints fairly and proportionately as we agreed via policy. That is not synonymous to "advancing an agenda". I hope we will direct our energy towards finding consensus on the correct application of the guidelines, and assume good faith on all sides.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While ireneshusband does show impatience at times I don't think he crosses the line or ever goes far enough to warrant reporting here. In fact his behaviour is understandable considering he constantly asks questions and in reply gets nothing but interpretations of Misplaced Pages policies in place of genuine answers which annoys me as well. Wayne (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe that I.H. is trolling; he is a crusader for WP:TRUTH who at least attempts to stay within WP policy, although his constant accusations of bad faith and cabalism are tiresome. Actions such as filing mediation requests indicate he is at least trying to resolve disputes, although the content of the mediation request is a good indicator of the problems here:

The opposers have, as always, completely ignored key aspects of the proposers' case. Instead they have grossly misrepresented wikipedia policy, as well as the evidence provided by the proposers, again and again and again, no matter how many times this is pointed out to them. This debate has never been decided by reason, logic or even a passably fair reading of wikipedia guidelines and policies. It has always been decided by the noise of irrelevant and/or misleading comments, in some cases accompanied by veiled threats. In other words it has been decided force and by force of numbers. I also want it to be made clear that making a lot of noise without honestly engaging with one's opponents' arguments and in brazen disregard for obvious factual information is obstructive behaviour and contrary to the policies and spirit of Misplaced Pages.

• Overall, I see I.H. as a problem user, but not a target for administrator action. <eleland/talkedits> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• I will label no one as problem user or troll. Instead I would like to bring up a quote, which might inspire people to change themselves instead of others:

  Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if he or she is not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is augmented, and you further our project. — I think that this can be the only way out of this.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would find your assertions easier to accept if it weren't for the fact that you appear to share the same fringe POV. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can well imagine that. But I've been in a similar, but opposite position. I've once thought that wikipedia must be crawling with paid disinfo agents. Nowadays I want to always assume good faith, and I sincerely believe that the most stubborn, irrational POV editing done by editors which oppose my personal views, are most likeely genuine, and good faith in stead of trolling, sabotage or censoring. Even if their actions amount to censoring in my book, I realize that is not the intention.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand well there is an user (ICB) that is accusing another user of:

• editing to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda ("without a doubt")
• incivilty
• trolling
• assuming bad faith

and why this accusations? Because he (ireneshusband) allegedly did exacly the same kind of accusation to other users before and (like is ICB doing here with him) assumed bad faith on other users. Am I right? Are we discussing about who has the right to assume bad faith and who has not?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pokipsky! I hope the above discussion has cleared the air a bit, and all are a little wiser than before. I have no idea what action an admin could reasonably take on this. Let's hope this report wasn't just a useless energy-drain!  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.

--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I gave Editor5435 a 24 hour timeout, but he is right on one point: Spot (aka Scott Draves) has been editing articles on himself and his own endeavours, and many of them do not actually have external sources do demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I would like to point out another inappropriate Wiki entry that appears to be self promotion. In the Wiki article Spot there is an entry under the heading Other meanings - *Scott Draves, digital artist and VJ. Based upon the contents of the list I feel this in an inappropriate example of self promotion and should be removed.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting your comments into the top of discussions, that's not polite. I am google hit #6 for "spot" so I think it's entirely appropriate for me to be in a any list of "spots". Any errors I have made editing other pages in no way justify what you have done to the Fractal Compression page. I also invite you to reveal your true identity so we can assess your conflict of interest. Spot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again serving your own self interest by shamelessly advocating and editing articles/discussions about yourself. Its a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's COI and self promotion/vanity. As for the fractal compression page you might want to check out the discussion page, finally someone agrees with what I have been trying to say. Again, I believe it is you who have an agenda to spread misinformation about fractal compression for some unknown reason.--Editor5435 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for bringing this to the attention of the admins, and Guy for stepping in. I don't know if I have time today to redo the article, but I'll get to it asap. Frankly I am really sick of dealing with this and if someone else who knows fractal compression would step up, that would be great. Perhaps if the text came from someone other than me, Editor5435 would be less incensed. If you don't really know about fractal compression and the history of deception surrounding it, please do not just assume the truth lies halfway between his claims and mine. Read the FAQ for starters, including the "Reader Beware" section. I think the Misplaced Pages article should have a similar warning.

As for the notability and sourcing for the articles about me and my work, this probably isn't the right place to address them in full but note that I didn't create these articles and they they have survived for a long time and been edited by a lot of people. I have made some edits to them under my own name without any deception, but I believe I am allowed to correct basic factual errors. If I have overstepped the rules then I apologize and invite an audit and the chance to provide references. Re notability, have been covered in Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. See my bio. Spot (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused by Ronz of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. This was not an act of vandalism, my intention was to end this ridiculous controversy. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The below brought here from Ronz's page who asked us to continue the discussion elsewhere and suggested here. Spot (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Misplaced Pages's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Misplaced Pages administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that Editor5435 has confirmed my statement: "Fraud was committed against the company and its shareholders by a scam artist." on their talk page. Rather than respond there I will try to bring the conversation here since he objects when I respond on his talk page, calling it harassment. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot, you were insinuating that the company was committing fraud, quite a different thing than being a victim of fraud. Also you said "pump and dump fraud" which is libelous, Misplaced Pages could be sued that have such things displayed on its website. You should be more careful about the accusations you make--Editor5435 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release says that the perpetrator was a Director of the company at the time. Regardless of who the victim was, illegal shares were apparently issued and entered the market. As for your accusation of libel, iirc I only said the possibility or appearance of a pump and dump (please point me at the exact quote, you seem to have deleted it). Merely stating my opinion is not libel, and neither is a statement in good faith. There are various people on the stock discussion boards saying the same thing, and in stronger language. Your threats will not intimidate me. Spot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editor5435 has nominated the page about me Scott Draves for deletion in retribution for our edit war. Spot (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retaliation? Or because he saw it as shameless self-promotion? We do seem to have rather more articles on you and your endeavours than the limited sources would seem to justify. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bunch of sources to the talk page on the article. I didn't create any of these articles. Spot (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sources? I saw more self-promotion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sources listed here: Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? are neutral third parties and established print periodicals writing about me and my work. Spot (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Scott Draves article has external links to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com which is gross abuse of Misplaced Pages, honestly, who makes web sites about themselves and uses Misplaced Pages as an advertising service?--Editor5435 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger

I'm too lazy to go looking through diffs but this user has been all over the place enough that I think there are probably more than a few users who'll know what I'm talking about.

Igor has become a nuisance at all manner of discussions, but namely those related to policy. It seems unintentional, which is why I waited quite a while before complaining, but now I feel I have to say something. He participates in discussions and offers advice to others, usually by spouting incoherent mixtures of passages he picks up from policies and from what other users say, when he really doesn't know very much about any of it. He ends up baiting the users (usually the ones who don't know him yet) into frustrating arguments. It might be an unintentional disruption, but it's become just unbearable, so that I've come to predict that any argument he participates in will take double as long, be twice as heated, and go completely off-topic.

It seems almost as if participating in policy and other controversial discussions is this user's way of forcing himself to learn English -- and that's not a joke or a put-down -- he really seems to not know much English, and wants to learn it by participating here. On a side note, it seems to be working, too; slowly, but still faster than any language class could accomplish. Still I don't think Misplaced Pages should be used this way, if it inhibits important discussions. I'm honestly not sure what to do about this. Perhaps someone should kindly suggest that he participate in the Misplaced Pages of his native language, and/or to participate in some other English online forum. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:43, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy he's violated? What admin action is necessary here? - Philippe | Talk 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that he's violated any particular policy. This is more like my cry for help. It would be much simpler if he had made a blatant violation, but since he hasn't (that I know of), I don't know what to do. If constant disruption is a violation of policy, even when unintentional, then that would be the violation. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This is from a while ago, back during the rollback poll, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about and the one that sticks out most in my memory. I had proposed to make changes to the non-admin rollback proposal, to which Igor responded:

"Modifying the proposal to take account of the requested recommendations will bring the consensus closer to fruition. You will need the approval of the bureaucrats. Once ready file it as a request for a Bot account. If you do not have the consensus, the bureaucrats will not grant you the account, because it will undermine their authority which is granted to them by the WP:stewards. Please make sure it is done correctly, and if you need any further assistance give me a hallo. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)".

Mind you, my suggestion only required editing the proposal page. This is the kind of speaking-without-knowing the user constantly engages in, only unlike other such people, he hasn't let up at all, and does this constantly during important discussions and when advising new users. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:11, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Here's one from my talk page yesterday. I'm not really sure where he was going with that, as I felt his comments were a bit off-the-wall, but in the end, it all turned into some sort of .. well, joke or something! I wasn't sure what to make of it but I'm sure he meant well - Alison 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (I just left a note on his talk page to indicate the discussion here)

This one really confuses the heck out of me:

We having a discussion not enforcing a discussion. Whatever the outcome that is the outcome determined by consensus. Not by your POV or my POV. Others can contribute and have contributed to this discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this even means - sure, the sentences make sense, and I know what all the words mean, but it seems like a collections of things that are vacuously or tautologically true. From ongoing discussion at WT:UP. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above example does read a bit like, because this shape conforms to the ideas which reflect he concept of pi, it is round, and thus, it is a circle, which reflects the ideas of pi, and is round, but only if it is round by being a circle. that said, I think IB wants to help and is trying to stay well inside Civil, though it means yoning down comments till they're just vapid. ThuranX (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's pretty much dead-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:48, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss a response to the question of what admin action is being asked for? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet. This discussion is to hopefully produce a suggested action. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:48, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am adding this comment in support of this thread by Equazcion at the risk of once again being lambasted by Igor (sorry but as an editor recently wrote on my talk page in relation to my many many attempts and the attempts of many other editors in working with Igor, here Assuming good faith can only go so far). Quite simply it is difficult to continue to write kindly about this editor - and whilst I will try my hardest - we are somewhat 'snookered' because there is no direct policy against writing incoherent statements. That said, checking through Igorberger's extensive history for this type of thing editors will at first come to the conclusion that the problem may be somewhat first language orientated, but then quickly change their mind when perfect English is used. (Igor states on his home page that he went to New York State University) However whatever the source of the problem, the fact IMHO is that Igor constantly breaches the disrupt guideline and most specifically in relation to that guideline where tendentious editing is defined. Igor has been directly spoken to about this on many occasions but most specifically as detailed extensively here but he simply refuses to adjust his methods and he continues again and again to disrupt the flow of wikipedia - especially in AfD's ANI's and similar points of community discussion.

To my mind then Igor is at the closing end of how to deal with disruptive editors because he refuses to listen to the community consensus and he should either:

1. Be given a final warning and then short block as detailed here at point 5 and if that does not work;
2. He should be community site or topic banned as detailed here at point 6.--VS 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no such thing as "New York State University". There is the State University of New York system (SUNY), with many colleges and university centers throughout the state, but no one who went there would make the mistake of calling it anything but "SUNY", and then always with the specific name of the place: "SUNY Binghamton" or "SUNY Purchase". There is also the "University of the State of New York", but that is the state agency which licenses higher education institutions in the state, and is not in any shape or form a "university" where people go to college. There is "New York University", a private institution in New York City, universally known as "NYU" - again, no one who went there would mistakenly call it "New York State University". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec³) This seems to be VS' slip-up in passing it on, not Igorberger's: His user page claims New York University. (And always did, unless someone changed the user box.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry my userbox says NYU. {{User NYU}} Igor Berger (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Would you like to see a copy of my NYU diploma? I can scan it an upload it to my server! Unfortunetly you must be an alumni to search the NUY online database. Igor Berger (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor dropped me a note on my talk page to the same effect - that he went to NYU, which is indeed what his user page says, and has apparently said since February 26. Everything I wrote above is factually correct, but I'm sorry I didn't take the time to check his user page, as it's clearly a non-issue. My regrets. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's a pretty categorical statement, and considering the size of NYU, the number of students who attend from many foreign countries, and the many schools it houses, all of which have somewhat different criteria for admission, I'll wager that it's a fairly indefensible statement as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Igor, I think you may be misinterpreting what the issue is here. It's more about your editing than your academic credentials. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Equazcion you are assuming bad faith and that is unbecoming of a Misplaced Pages editor! I offered to prove my attendance to NYU. I have a spelling problem that if I do not spell check I make mistakes, but I am not a LIAR as you accuse me to be! Igor Berger (talk) Igor Berger (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • No the point is you started this personal attack on me because you could not get your way in Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Nude_images discussion. I might be a good editor or bad editor but you have no right to attack an editor, because you do not agree with their editing style or POV. Igor Berger (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with your POV, and little to do with the nude images discussion. I removed all my comments regarding NYU. I hope we can get back to the actual point of this discussion now. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:12, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify - yes my mistake with regards the actual name of the university (it came from my memory of his talk page) - it was added to reflect a respect for the fact that if Igor went to a university that he should be able to understand that the community consensus is asking him not to add incoherent and unhelpful nonsense generally around Misplaced Pages. But this is not about what University Igor went to - it is about the continued disruption that he is engaging in by adding incoherent & unhelpful nonsense to discussion pages and talk pages. Attacking Equazcion is not an appropriate way to solve this issue - you stopping with this type of editing is - hence my suggested solution that you are at the very least warned not to add material of this nature again. Such an action is open to the Misplaced Pages community and if that does not cause you to stop then the community can and should block you from editing. How are you able to answer that request from the community Igor?--VS 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry Steve but you should get a consensus of the community first, especially of uninvolved admins. Igor Berger (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here we go again Igor. This process is about getting consensus. Other users above are saying the same thing as me. The links I point to above (as a result of previous consensus) do give us the ability to act in the following ways, and to increase our response if you continue to edit in a way that many other editors have now complained to you about. To repeat those ways (if others agree) are:

1. You are given a final warning and then if necessary a short block as detailed here at point 5 and if that does not work;
2. You are community site or topic banned as detailed here at point 6.

Towards this outcome - given that you will again twist and turn to escape the views of so many of your wikipedia colleagues - I am interested in whether the community supports or opposes this solution. For my mind to make it abundantly clear I Support you initially being warned as to not offering disruptive, incoherent, off-point edits.--VS 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've observed Igor for a while and whilst I don't think he intends to be a trouble maker or willfully disruptive character, his off point and just flat out incoherent edits are often disruptive. I endorse the position expressed by VirtualSteve. Xdenizen (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

break 1

• Comment VirtualSteve you accusing me of disruptions due to my edit style but you have not brought any diffs to prove your case. This is the second time you are accusing me. The first ANI was about COI, and now it is disruption. Are you canvasing for consensus? I feel you been on top of me since the first day we met, no other admin has had a complaint about me. Why is it just you who have been following and objecting to my edits? Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Please Igor - I have given you a direct link above as a great example of others who have concerns about your problematic editing - it is on your talk page (archives) and you commented to that editor (not me) with the words "Thank you for evaluating me". Read it please - and then read the comments above from other editors who are agreeing the comments of Equazcion (again not me). Why will you simply not stop with the editing about things that you seem to know nothing about and when you do edit no-one can understand what you are saying? Why do you not honestly address this issue of concern which others are pointing out to you?--VS 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• VirtualSteve why are you always threatening me with blocks? Blocks are preventive not punative and not to be used as cohersion tool? When you have had a complaint about my editing what did you do? Did you cunsult with other admins about me? Two other admins told you to walk away from me? But you kept following me and watching every edit I did. Igor Berger (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Igor - again you do not address the real issue with your off-point comments - I am not threatening you with a block - if that was the case I would have come to your talk page with a warning (which I will do in the future if I am not involved and it becomes necessary) but instead I am adding to a discussion on your editing style. You will note that I did not start, second or even third comment on that discussion thread. However, as I expected you did not (nor will you) answer the actual point you are being asked to comment on. Others will see that for the fact it is.--VS 10:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, a few months ago you accused me of gamming the system! How am I gamming the system? What are my motivation of gamming the system? I may not great editor, but I spend a lot of my time reverting vandalism and Spam, I mediate on articles to help other editors reach NPOV. Yes I place myself in situations that may not look like a good edit because some users attack me. Especially anons and socks. But you instead offering me support and understanding, you saying Igor behave! I am disappointed in you Steve. Igor Berger (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Approaching Igor with an ultimatum, in which you attempt to get him to agree to discontinue his disruptive edits, is of no use, because he disagrees or doesn't realize that his edits are disruptive. We're not dealing with a vandal that we can final-warn and say "don't do this again or else". That's what makes this such a difficult situation, and that's why I proposed to simply impose a topic ban and even suggest to Igor to stick with the Misplaced Pages language version that corresponds with his native language. He simply doesn't understand what's going on and will continue to insist that we're hindering him from his efforts to achieve "NPOV" or whatnot. If I thought talking to him would help I would've done that, rather than taking this to ANI -- and I have tried doing that before. It just doesn't work, not with this editor. We either need to decide to do something without his consent or decide not to do anything and allow him to continue as he has been. Those are the choices as I see them. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:34, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Equazcion, you are showing prejudece to foreign editors, by saying if they do not agree with you they should go edit encyclopedia in their own language. I am communication with you in English but you do not seem to even want to understand what I am trying to say! Who is acting out of bad faith here?Igor Berger (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...as if to drive the point home... Equazcion •✗/C • 10:42, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Igor's spelling and usage of English are no worse, and in many cases better, than those of many, many editors. Some of the comments said by others to be incoherent appear to me to make sense. Kicking someone because they don't write the particular variety of English that you want them too is pretty low in my opinion, but also pretty unsurprising in the current climate on Misplaced Pages. You have problems with the substance of his edits? Fine, address those:- but you don't like his style of English? Don't be so bloody petty. DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We're addressing those. The grammar thing was just a momentary lurch, and we're past it, I think. The disruptiveness is the issue we're addressing. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:17, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point to derogative and bad faith comment that Equazcion made about me. His comments are nothing less than calling me a LIAR about my attendence of NUY. here. I asked him to strike out the comments here but he chosed to remove them changing the flow of the conversation, and by esense refactoring the ANI thread to suite his version. Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• All true, except for the refactoring bit. I guess this cements my status as a rouge. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:15, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it cements your biase towards me! You nominated my essay for deletion after I came to you as a fellow editor for advice. Why are you so resentful of me in the first place? Could it be because I objected to your rollback tool that you proposed to the community? I objected the tool in the state you presnted it, because you wanted to give it to any editor without an admin supervision and uproval. I objected to that because, unchecked in the state how you propossed it, it was open to missuse and even abuse, by how you say, rouge editor like you? So since then you have been vendictive with me, picking fights whenever the oppurtunity strikes hot! Igor Berger (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Topic ban was my second suggestion - I am happy to support your suggestion Equazcion that it be imposed on Igorberger without his consent - and I take your point that it is of no use trying to discuss these things with him (I am a sucker for continuing AGF even when all others around me suggest it is a waste of time). I certainly will support it if it will stop Igorberger from turning the main concerning point of this thread around, from it being a concern over his edits to his attempting to become the victim.--VS 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• PS Your essay was deleted at MfD by consensus of the community not by Equazcion.--VS 11:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The essay was deleted, eventhough it had 5 keep for userify Why was it deleted? Was it because of its contrevercy and the sencetive topic of social engineering on Misplaced Pages? Please read this news article bbc report of CIA social engineering of Misplaced Pages. We have an inherit problem on Misplaced Pages, but no one wants to admit it or talk about it! Igor Berger (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) My rollback tool? I didn't propose rollback, I just participated in the discussion, and was actually against it in the end -- so no, I wouldn't resent you for being against it. Yes, I nominated your essay for deletion, but not because I had anything against you. I still don't have anything against you. To VS as well: As I've stated here more than once, I don't believe Igor intends any malice. This isn't a question of good faith -- I never stopped assuming Igor's good faith, but rather excessively stated the opposite. I just don't think he will ever understand that his edits are disruptive, no matter how much anyone tells him so. Regarding the essay: There were only 2 userfy !votes, vs 7 deletes. Your essay was deleted because that was the consensus. In fact, you were given the option to have it userfied on condition, which you rejected, and that was noted in the closing -- the admin said he was close to userfying but decided not to because you wouldn't agree to a condition. But I digress, this isn't DRV. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:53, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Social_engineering_Internet Sorry I count 4! Igor Berger (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You still had the option to userfy if you'd just agreed to a condition. The essay was deleted because you wouldn't agree. And even without that? I don't know where you see 4 userfy votes, but even so, that would still be 4 userfy vs. 7 delete. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

break 2

VirtualSteve, I do not see any consensus here, but I see your encuregment of Equazcion here. Please alow other editors and uninvolved admins to comment on this issue and not try to enforse your sysop resposibilities unaletorally! Igor Berger (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

VS is allowed to encourage me. Anyone is allowed to encourage anyone. It has nothing to do with being an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:00, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes anyone is alowed to encourage anyone, but he is involved admin, and showld not show COI, by promoting his POV. Igor Berger (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An involved admin is allowed to encourage an involved editor to continue a discussion, regardless of POVs. There is no conflict of interest there. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Encourage is one thing, but you response, "I haven't given up -- just took a break to play a new game :)" here Do you think this matter is funny and it is a game, that you make jokes to your friend VirtualSteve? Igor Berger (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a game. I took a break from this discussion to play a game. I didn't make any joke with him, and he is not my friend. This has been my only contact with him aside from the MfD for your essay. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:13, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Was it because of its contrevercy and the sencetive topic of social engineering on Misplaced Pages? Excusee me? I'm beginning to suspect this may be a game for Igor, an act to waste our time. I'm all for assuming good faith, but there is a rational limit. El_C 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I thought admins must close the discussion of MfD, are you an admin, because you closed the discussion and deleted the essay! Igor Berger (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:06, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

If he is admin, why he does not tell it on his user page? I see nothing showing that he is an admin. Igor Berger (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How could I delete it, in the first place, without being an admin? (think about it logically: are you able to delete anything?) El_C 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to enforce a topic ban right now. I think we're well passed that point, seeing him argue that conspiracy theory nonsense after he, himself, agreed with me that no one but him understood that deleted essay. And it's not just the essay, but it being symptomatic of his general disposition, especially on the noticeboards. Especially, as mentioned in my closing statement, confusing newcomers. Too much. El_C 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I am not argueing, but asking a question. Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I am just interested what topic am I being disruptive with? Igor Berger (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What controversy? Nobody could understand it? El_C 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if I have written in a style that other people have a hard time undertanding. That does not make me disruptive does it? Igor Berger (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Your increasingly cryptic comments and unerring ability to derail any topic on AN and ANI are getting on the nerves of many of us. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, thank you for pointing out what is the problem. So what do you suggest, because this is the first time I was told this. Igor Berger (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, stop being disruptive. Jehochman 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Stay away from AN and ANI unless you have something really really important to add that relates directly to the point under discussion and is completely on-topic and cogent and in some way concerns you. Also, enable a spellchecker (there's little we can do about your surreal word ordering, but an improvement in your spelling might help). Thanks! ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say this, "Should I obstain from commenting on AN, ANI on other people cases, would this help?" Igor Berger (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec²)He doesn't know what he's doing that's disruptive, so I doubt that'll help. I'd be for a topic ban from editing Misplaced Pages: and Misplaced Pages talk: namsespaces, including ANI, with the exception of situations that directly involve him. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:27, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to impose bans. If I say, I will not comment on ANI and AN unless it is relevent to me, you should assume good faith please. Because, this is the first time I was told about this. Igor Berger (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I am sorry to ban me from all WP: related articles is not fair! If this is what you want to do you should take the case to ArbCom. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

break 3

Please a site ban on ANI/AN etc - he has been told many times that his edits are disruptive and he has always continued to flout that truth as if ignorant of the fact.--VS 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Again untrue Igor - there are links above provided by me - which you have commented on which detail your disruptive edits. EI_C has hit the nail on the head - you appear to be gaming the system and enjoying the time wasting.--VS 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think WP: namespace is also important. He's all over policy discussions. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:34, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed.--VS 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to ban me from all WP: related articles is not fair! If this is what you want to do you should take the case to ArbCom. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger, I suggest you accept a topic ban. You can still edit any article you like, and interact with other users on the talk pages. This remedy is quite generous given the substantial weight of evidence that suggests you have been disrupting Misplaced Pages, albeit unintentionally, perhaps. Jehochman 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I think it's appropriate, because it forces you to edit articles instead of trying to influence policy, as seems to be your main goal. Misplaced Pages is about articles, not policies. It wouldn't be permanent anyway. ArbCom isn't necessary for topic bans, although once it's imposed you could take your argument there if you feel strongly enough against it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:43, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should peruse your own contribs list before making accusations of spending more time trying to affect policy than editing articles. --WebHamster 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, I respect yolur opinion, as I have always had, but I need to think about it a bit. I do enjoy participating in AfD and MfD because it is part of editng Misplaced Pages as a whole. Should not regular editors contribute to the evolvement of Misplaced Pages? Igor Berger (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• We should review the situation after 30 days. If there have been no further problems, we can try lifting the ban. Igorberger, I suggest you agree to this rapidly, and then focus on non-contentious article writing. Jehochman 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know we topic ban friendly editors for their flawed English skills. Igor is a nice guy. WP:AGF etc. Go write articles yourselves if you don't want to see him here. --SABER 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not to do with English skills per se, as the discussion above should show. It's to do with the user in question derailing discussions and making nonsensical contributions to threads. That would be what we call disruption. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, if I agree to this, I should not even revert vandalizm on WP: article pages? Igor Berger (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's plenty of vandalism in article space. You won't get to the bottom of it. Jehochman 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in the 'evolution' of wikipedia (and am a regular here at AN and AN/I) but that is mixed in with primary activty - that of editing. Looking at your contribution history, you don't seem to do much editing at all - odd edits here and there. Accept the ban, show some willingness to get involved with the actual activity of the project (editing) and let's go from there. I should not even revert vandalism on WP: article pages? stay away from them entirely - you posing that question strikes me as the opening part of a bit of wikilawyering. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Igor - that's correct you should stay off the pages. Jehochman - I can accept your solution providing Igor makes his decision to accept very quickly. I want to continue good faith that he can edit articles and discuss with users on their talk pages and certainly such a decision can either be imposed through the normal processes or better yet (because we will have a better opinion of Igor) he accepts it publicly. That said, I have seen him twist things towards a strange outcome before - including the time on your talk page here where he suggested that my attempting to set him on the straighter path included my writing this story. Put simply - us waiting whilst we give some inordinate amount of time to Igor to decide if what we are saying is correct and fair is not a valid ploy for us to accept now.--VS 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• VirtualSteve, What does User:John Gohde and the Website that attacks him, has to do with me? http://naturalhealthperspective.net Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• That Igor was my very question to you when you posted the link to Jehochman's page after you were blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. The edits show how you will twist and turn your way out of sensible requests. Good night. Oh and I add the link details (as I give above) is one that relates to you directly.--VS 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • VirtualSteve can I help it if someone wants to write a blog post about me? Igor Berger (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of this complaint. Igor has been disruptive and, um, not particularly honest in the debate regarding anti-Americanism. That debate incidentally is also on this board: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Americanism Some sort of admin action on that article would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about that. This particular article should probably also be included in a topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:15, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed.--VS 13:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That brings the tally to Misplaced Pages: and Misplaced Pages talk: namespaces, including ANI (with possible exceptions when the user is directly involved in a situation), and the article Anti-Americanism, including its talk page, for a period of at least 30 days, at which point the ban will be re-evaluated. So what say you, Igor? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:21, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You got to be kidding User:Bsharvy is reverting everyone's edits, and I came other to the article to help mediate the problem, nothing more. I have no POV on anti-Americanism and it has no relevency or preference to me. Igor Berger (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No one said you had a POV, at least not in this discussion. That article has simply been another place where people have perceived you to be a cause for disruption, so it would need to be part of your topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Break 4

User:Bsharvy is the disruption of that article. Look at the article history. He is edit warring with all the editors who are involved with the article. Igor Berger (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the article history and talk page, it does indeed seem Igor hasn't been all that involved, although he contributed substantially to the talk page and only made a single edit to the article itself. I see this is another example of the problem, Igor, in that your focus seems to be very far from article editing. But, due to the lack of much involvement there altogether, I'd agree to leave this out of the topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:49, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That said, we're all waiting for your response. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:53, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just tried to moderate the discussion. Bsharvey is intent on deleting the article because he objects to the term anti-Americanism And he will not let other editors to do any edits to the article. Even if I wanted to edit the article, do you think I want to engage in edit warring with him? I just reverted one of his edits because I saw a consesus on the talk page for a removal of POV warning tag. Honestly I am not even interested in the topic. I rather edit hummus and falafel at least it is close to home..:) Igor Berger (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to all concerned, I don't think Igor is the disruptive element, or even a particularly involved party, in the Anti-Americanism article/talk page debate. Orderinchaos 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• So what is the proposal? a 30 day ban on WP: articles unless I am involved dirrectly with the discussion? Igor Berger (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You would be banned from editing any page in the Misplaced Pages: or Misplaced Pages talk: namespaces. The only exception would be ANI discussions regarding situations in which you are directly involved. This would be for at least 30 days. After 30 days have passed, the situation would be re-evaluated. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Waiting, again. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Stop waitting, went to buy cigarets..:) You need to explain to me a bit more what I can edit and what I cannot! Can I nominate an article for deletion? Can I comment on deletion process if an article I have edit has been nominated for deletion? Same with respect to RfC. I do not want to violate a topic ban! Igor Berger (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can't nominate articles for deletion or comment on existing deletion discussions, as those would require editing in the Misplaced Pages: namespace. You can comment at RfCs that exist in the article Talk: namespace, but not at Misplaced Pages:RfC. It's really very simple: No editing in the Misplaced Pages: or Misplaced Pages talk: namespaces. PS I've already got plenty of cigarettes. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • What happens if an article I have written is nominated for deletion? Can I comment on that? Igor Berger (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• We'll deal with that situation should it arise. You can ask at an admin's talk page in that event. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:25, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do we have any ideas in the event that Igor does not accept this as rapidly as was requested of him? It seems whenever an actual answer is requested he suddenly gets sluggish. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have one more consern, because I patrol for Spam and vandalism, I have many WP: pages on my watch list. I do not want to put myself in jepordy, if inedvertintly I revert a Spammer or a vandal. How can I remove myself from the watch list of all the WP: articles? Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think BOTH of you need to take a break, based on the history of this page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's easy. On your watchlist, in small text at the top, there is a link "edit raw watchlist". Click that and you will be able to edit your entire watchlist. It is presented in alphabetic order, so all the Misplaced Pages entries will show up one after another. Jehochman 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can consider the topic ban in-effect now, that's quite enough delaying. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I have not agreed with the decission yet, and being that you are pushing me, I have less inclination to agree. I prefer I am blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as a whole for a month, not tie my hands so I cannot deal with a problem that recuires me access to WP: Igor Berger (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree to that as well. Whichever you prefer. But no more delays; block or topic-ban, which is it? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:46, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, really just block me for a month. I need a wikibreak because I am tired of this wikidrama, and I have a life outside Misplaced Pages that I have been neglecting, Igor Berger (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Use the wikibreak enforcer instead. We don't block users by their own request. It would be better to spend a month quietly editing articles. Jehochman 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• In that case the topic ban would still stand. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry but the 30 day ban may be extended indeffinetly if requested. No? I do not agree to the ban. You wish to ban me from WP: please do. But I cannot promiss that I will not violate the ban, inadvertantly. Please bring this to ArbCom. It is not fare to exlude a user from WP: discussion, while allowing to edit main space! Igor Berger (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly Jehochman, I don't see the problem with blocking Igor instead. If he didn't agree to the topic ban, that's probably what we would've done anyway. He's not agreeing, so what now? Why not just block him? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:09, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell. This thread is appalling to read and try to post to with all the edit conflicts. I've had enough of this ongoing Igor issue and am quite prepared to endorse both a block and a topic ban based on the editing behaviour not the language skills. Igor, people have been topic banned from WP-space before. Sarah 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, if you would like to please topic ban me from WP: but I am going to file an appeal at ArbCom. Will they listen to my request I do not know, but I feel there is a problem here. Igor Berger (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone just block him so we can end this, 30 days as he requested. We offered an alternative but he rejected it, there's nothing left to argue about. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Is it April 1st already? We appear to extend almost limitless patience to trolls, POV-pushers, disruptive nationalists and crackpot theorists, yet a couple of editrs can show up at ANI and try to hound a user out of a namespace on the shoddiest of evidence? If Igorberger wants to enforce his own Wikibreak, fine, but blocking here is frankly ridiculous at the moment. Black Kite 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Surreal. Limitless patience, indeed. Black Kite distortion of the situation resembles theater of the absurd. Topic ban is now in effect. It will be enforced via blocking. Feel free to launch an arbitration case instead if you disagree, Igor/Black Kite. Or I'll do it in the case of unblocks. Thx. El_C 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is this how we do topic bans now then? Excellent. I'm off to ban half a dozen far more disruptive editors from WP-space then. I'll point them your way if they complain. Black Kite 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• With your questionable level of limitless patience, I doubt you could find a single one. El_C 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You only have to scan this page's recent archives for numerous examples. In comparison, this user's disruptiveness is trivial in the scheme of things. Black Kite 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Being vague does not advance your argument at this time, I challenge. El_C 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know. I would advance that losing, for example, the Betacommand trollers and the various sides on the State Terrorism by the USA article would improve ANI no end, for example. Still, whatever. Black Kite 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, perhaps I see what this is about. You attacking critics of BC, yet again. El_C 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since it seems that people have far more carte blanche here to attack BC than other editors, then it would appear to be necessary. I'm done here, now that it appears precedent has been set. Black Kite 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• This seemingly reflexive advocacy is alarming. El_C 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then again, I'm the one who proposed bringing Archtransist to arbitration after as soon as he blocked Jehochman, so I guess my standards were not up to scribe; but the community, minus Blackite, does appear to be catching on. El_C 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how taking dubious administrative actions to ArbCom (an action I would've agreed with incidentally) bears any real comparison to this. Black Kite 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find it peculiar how you manage to argue for & against limitless patience in the same breath. El_C 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you know exactly what I mean, actually. Black Kite 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what you're talking about. El_C 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4)I think one of the biggest problems, and Black Kite might not be getting this, is that Igor writes in a way designed to absolutely not offend anyone else, even when he wants to make it clear that he has a disagreement with their ideas, not them as a person. Unfortunately, disagreement and discussion of conflicting ideas is pretty much the gasoline for the entire Misplaced Pages engine; if it's not talked out, there can be no consensus built. Igor comes in, makes one of these overly delicate comments, and leaves both sides confused, and in tense situations, this often escalates the tensions, making both sides more irritable, because both are left wondering if they just got insulted or supported. I've seen him do this before, and I myself have sat back from the screen and had a WTF? moment. Because he's so dedicated to not ruffling ANY feathers, even when it's acceptable here, like critiquing a concept, it becomes the disruption we're talking about. Follow that up with his broad knowledge of the text, if not meaning, of policy, and suddenly you have a regular disruptor, though one who really does seem to operate in good faith. It is because he seems inherently incapable of understanding HOW his style of commentary can be disruptive, and doesn't seem to want to change it to a more direct manner of 'speaking' on wikipedia, that the fact is that a wikipedia: space topic ban may be needed. Frankly, Igor spending a month reading and not talking might be enough for him to see how strong, plainspoken give and take works better, or it might just frustrate him into speaking plainly when he gets back. Either way, after a month we might find out if he can say what he means, and maybe even mean what he says. ThuranX (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Break 5

Not sure where this discussion is headed, but disruptive editing can shut down work on any page, and policy and guideline talk pages are especially important to keep running. Sometimes we have to deal with a prolific argumentative poster who is inept and misguided but otherwise in good faith. Fortunately, most either flame out quickly or fade away. For those few who do not, I would suggest asking to hold daily contributions to a reasonable limit. If the person refuses, or makes a promise and breaks it, then we have a blockable behavior violation: deliberate refusal to conform one's edits to Misplaced Pages's standards. There are guidelines and essays on how to participate in policy discussions. I can understand a newbie missing the point, but after a while, if a person has been asked, warned, etc., and still disrupts, you have to do something. Wikidemo (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This. Is. Madness. Do I find Igor's comments to be a little off the wall (and frankly, maddening) sometimes? Sure. But do I see ANY reason to TOPIC BAN him? No. Folks, if we have to work this hard to find a policy the guy has violated, we're stepping way out of the grounds of reasonable discussion. If we've got a policy he violated, fine, warn him and follow our standard procedures up to and including a block. But if it's because some people don't like his editing style, then I think this is really out of line. Unfortunately, it appears that I'm in the minority on this, so I'll shut up, but I think this is a significant miscarriage of policy. - Philippe | Talk 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Philippe. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because you seem to follow the method Everyking was notorious for, commenting without being familiar with the evidence, doesn't mean that everything needs to be simple. Yesterday, Igor agrees with me that no one, not a single person, could understand his deleted essay. Then, today, he claims its deletion is a conspiracy. Misplaced Pages is not therapy, sorry. There's a limit, for those of us who do the work. El_C 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just want to say that opinions on this put forth by Black Kite and other similar stances are completely understandable from where I'm standing (sitting). This isn't a cut-and-dry case and it's certainly not what anyone is used to resorting to any kind of ban for. It's a pretty darn unique situation, and one that, unless you've had extensive experience in encountering the user, is hard to understand our proposed response to. So let's not fly off the handle when people come here seeing a nice guy and our attempt to block him and find that hard to swallow. 'Cause it is, and it should be. PS, Wikidemo's assessment is among the best I've seen so far, and Thuranx brought up some very good points as well. The bottom line is, this is a problem, and it not being intentional doesn't make it any less of a problem. It's also a difficult problem to understand if you haven't experienced it, so try to look through the many links we've been posting, and try to understand where we're coming from. Most of the people commenting here are experienced and reasonable people, and wouldn't jump to this kind of resolution if the situation didn't warrant it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Equazcion, this is not that unique. People jumping to the defense of disruptive editors of varying degrees of subtlety without looking closely at the evidence, arguably, is among the most pressing issues facing the noticeboards, for as long as I can remember. El_C 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this user's particular brand of disruption as the unique situation, not the way people are commenting on it. The nature of the disruption is what's unique here, and understandably difficult to understand. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:14, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(undent) But are we sure it is purposeful disruption? Or is it maybe just a user who lacks good communication/English skills? While I have been frustrated by many of his comments before and feel that they sometimes border on a WP:POINT violation (but even that is iffy sometimes) I do not think he has violated any policies and as such should not be blocked/reprimanded/yelled at ect . . . I am just now sure where this is all going here. Tiptoety 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's (probably) not purposeful at all, as has been said repeatedly... That's what makes this so difficult. Ya' may want to read through the rest of what's been covered above, painful as it might be. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, probably would have helped to read all the sections above. I strongly support a topic ban, I have rarely ever seen him make any helpful comments here or at AN, nor any comments that helped move the discussion along, instead all they do is cause more conflicts (as seen in this AN/I discussion. Tiptoety 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it should be noted that Igor has gone to Jehochman here to ask for a 30 day ban (which quite correctly was refused) and that Cardamon has offered him exact and very helpful assistance as to how to set up a personal self-enforcement ban here but at this stage Igor has not acted on the advice, but rather has begun adding his opposing and inaccurate views in other areas. So on the one hand we have Igor both above and personally asking for a ban of 30 days (but he knows that can't happen) whilst on the other hand when he is provided with a direct set of instructions by Cardamon as to how to self-enforce he does not take the action (This for all those editors that have not dealt with Igor before is typical behaviour when parts of the community have previously reached this stage with him - if you don't understand that go through all of his edits and you will soon realise that he has been gaming the system - and is doing so now). As Sarah has said above people have been topic banned from WP-space before. Given the views above IMO that should now be enforced, with any breach dealt with by a block (as he has self-pointed out on his talk page) so as to reduce the likelihood of future problems.--VS 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• He's also slinging quite a few personal attacks and accusations against User:VirtualSteve at User_talk:Jehochman#Request_for_a_30_day_block_from_editng_Wikipedia. --ZimZalaBim 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Result

At least one administrator has objected to the proposed sanctions. Therefore, sanctions are not in effect at this time. If problems continue, any uninvolved administrator can apply blocks to prevent disruption or other editing abuses. If the situation does not improve, any editor may commence a request for comment on user conduct, the next logical step in dispute resolution. Jehochman 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When did any action require 100% admin acceptance? There's a lot of call for him to be sanctioned, so why not? And, in the interest of transparency, which admin? If it's you, you have a big COI declaring the thread dead based on your opinion. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume he's either referring to me or Phillippe. I agree with you, though - if all sanctions have to have 100% admin agreement, I must've missed a meeting. We have "an editor is indefinitely blocked if no admin is willing to unblock" but that can't hold true prior to any action, otherwise there'd be mayhem. Black Kite 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay! That's great. I like it. Can we record this in policy somewhere? There isn't any documentation of how non-ban community sanctions work. Jehochman 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the proposed sanctions, I'll be clear that I will not move against them. If the majority of those here feel the sanctions appropriate, I will accept them and enforce them. - Philippe | Talk 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual result

As mentioned above, "topic ban is now in effect." I'm not sure what Jehochman is talking about, but, as the admin who closed the AfD (with a closing statement that made an appeal directly to the user), I feel that I am more than suitable to arrive at and enforce these 30-day restrictions. Objection by one or two individuals are not antithetical to consensus with respect to topic ban. Significantly, I still, increasingly, feel like we're being gamed. It's unlikely that an individual, in their 40s, with multiple companies, who traveled around the world, who speaks seven languages, gravitates toward this, highly entangled, mode of communication. A 30-day break from the Misplaced Pages space sounds about right. Feel free to start an RfC; or appeal through RfAr (the user has unrestricted access to make such an appeal at the RfAr page, of course). El_C 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the above is a very well put synopsis of the underlying concerns I also have regarding this editor - and indeed (in relation to the point below) he almost always attempts to play admins against each other when he is confronted by action against his behaviour. I support this topic ban wholeheartedly (and also the logic against their being a consensus of all administrators for such a decision). The topic ban will at the very least provide an immediate method for us to reign in any future edits by this editor if he again tests the limited resources of the wikipedia community.--VS 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I remove a section from Igor's userpage, with the edit summary reading: " is it really necessary to employ such inflammatory language? ("Misplaced Pages totalitarian regime!," etc.) We're just asking for coherent, informed, & un-entangled communication." I get reverted via an automated script by User:ZimZalaBim who writes: "Reverted good faith edits by El C; It is preferred that you not edit another user's page. bring it up on his talk page if you want him to remove it. (TW))." At first glanc, it looks like an admin undermining another admin. El_C 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, at first glance it is a user asking another user to act civilly. --ZimZalaBim 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not get to insinuate that all of us above are "totalitarian," and you do not get to restore that without discussion. El_C 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I protected Igor's userpage until we get assurances from him with respect to further soapboxing and attacks against those of us handling this. As I said on ZZB's talk page (no response to this seeming hit-and-run revert yet): it's not reasonable for a fellow admin to restore the insinuation that those of us dealing with Igor are part of "Misplaced Pages Totalitarian Regime." El_C 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, "hit-and-run revert"? Sorry I had to go piss. --ZimZalaBim 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Please do not undermine other admins without discussion again. El_C 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I say above Igor will always try and play the softly softly approach with one admin in an effort to have an admin versus admin action situation occur (check his history - I have been the subject of multiple of these). El_C's protection on Igor's page and awaiting assurance from Igor is a good way to go at this stage. I suggest we assume good faith on behalf of fellow admins and then this troublesome situation will conclude relatively quickly.--VS 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ZZB's also writes: To be honest, demands that one "stick around" and "do not undermine" sounds awfully like the regime Igor is complaining about. Relax, this ain't life/death. How did this person become an admin again? El_C 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why you're being so hostile towards me. I was admined in June 2006 under a different user name. --ZimZalaBim 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which username? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look FFS - all that is happening now is that you are falling victim to the game that this editor always tries to set up. Leave off and respect each other.--VS 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's exposing something rather important: an admin that feels it's fine for Igor to insinuate those of us above are "totalitarian," and when challenged about this, responds with: "if the hat fits." I'm glad we know that about ZZB, at least. El_C 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And such admins are never the 'open to recall' admins, of course. Pity. ThuranX (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok (talk · contribs)

Conflicts of interest happen all the time but I think this racial and biased comment of jjok (talk · contribs) is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages. His saying is Korea built up the miracle by prostitution from his ill faith. I think he needs to hear a proper warning from admins. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is Prostitution in South Korea which is what the edit is about. It also has refs that seem to support it. Do you have evidence to the contrary? All countries have prostitution and the fact that many Asians go on sex tours is well known. Where are the alleged racial slurs in this? I don't see him saying something like "Koreans are (insert slur of choice here). This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he has a long history inserting biased or fabricated contents with alteration to the article like this . The citation has no information about this. Besides, if someone who tends to edit against Japan said that the current Japan is a miracle of Geisha diplomacy, does it sound NPOV? The miracle of Hangang (Han River), a symbol of Korean archivment has nothing to do with the prostitution and if conflicts occurs, Jjok should've just reverted the edit or talked to people who disagree with his version at the talk page. He should not say the comment.--Appletrees (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The cited source is available on Google Scholar. It says that the yakuza have gotten into the sex trade; it does not appear to say anywhere that the Korean government set up official brothels, promoted sex tourism, or gave lectures on the importance of foreign exchange. Ultimately, this sort of deliberate long-term problem may require arbitration to take action against the editor(s) involved. Thatcher 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Great find by Thatcher. Appletrees-you need to be explicit about the problems someone is causing. Saying it's "racial and biased" only gives a vague idea of the issue. The real issue, as pointed out by Thatcher, is distortion of facts. If there's a long term problem of this nature by this editor or a closely associated group of editors, you may have an arb case here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse. I don't know whether you saw my another recent report or not Long time abusing Misplaced Pages by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets, but this is not a mere content issue. I tend to make lengthy or too abstract report for admins. However, Jjok (talk · contribs) is deeply associated with 2channel's disruptive meat/sock puppetry. I think this should go to arbicom case, but they are too many for me to deal with.--Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think prostitution was "official", just "legalized".

Somebody needs to monitor these articles for possible WP:NPOV violations. There's a major WP:NPOV issue hanging here, which may need to be resolved at WP:DR. The part I detest is that the word "kisaeng" is being associated with prostitution at all. Despite sources such as this describing it that way, I suggest using the word "brothel" instead of "kisaeng". The Misplaced Pages articles should be careful to use NPOV words.--Endroit (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you so quickly switch your attitude from accusing me of making "snide remarks" at Jjok's talk page to defend for Jjok. You followed me yesterday, so you're acting like a third person at Fut.Perf who takes interest in 2channel's disruption which is really amazing. Opp2 requested your help a lot which are mentioned on 2channel board as well. --Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Appletrees didn't seem to understand, I'll clarify what I mean: I believe this to be a widespread WP:NPOV problem, rather than a WP:NPA violation by Jjok. And the "snide remarks" I ignored here actually involved possible personal attacks by Appletrees against myself and others.--Endroit (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you already proved me that you gave me blatant several personal attacks on me including 'snide mark'. I don't see my any personal attack to you I focused on Jjok's personal and racial attack and you rebutted it with the inappropriate comment. I can point out "one by one" why I have such impression on you. --Appletrees (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please initiate WP:DR and we'll discuss it.--Endroit (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you on behalf Jjok who violates several rules like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEAT, WP:NPOV? --Appletrees (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Like I've said, there's a likely WP:NPOV violation, so we agree on that one point. I don't support Jjok's wording which equates the word kisaeng with prostitution, although some sources use that word. I don't support Jjok's wording which say that the brothels are "official", despite some sources suggesting support by high level goverment officials. Surely, there's no way that the South Korean government overtly endorses prostitution. That's ridiculous. If you like, I'll comment at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea to that effect.--Endroit (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, before going further, Jjok should explain the reason why he did it. --Appletrees (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My disputed comment seems this one in the edit summary:

"it is really a part of the miracle of hangang" (emphasized)

_{the color is added by Appletrees for the reason why Jjok is reported}

Appletrees, you do not have to think that I am saying "Korea built up the miracle entirely by prostitution" and I also recognize other aspects such as the compensation from Japan, $1 billion from US by entering the Vietnam war,, as well as sending coal miners and nurses to West Germany and construction workers to the Middle East. In addition, Yakuza also describes in p. 237 as follows:

With tourism as the third- or fourth-largest earning of foreign exchange in these countries, and most of the visitors men, for years local government officials condoned and even boosted the sex trade as means of gaining hard currency. A 1984 report by the respected Korea Church Women United condemned the nation's kiseang houses as "an auction block where girls are bartered in exchange for foreign money." Indeed, these critics charged that the sex trade had become to pervasive that without it Korea's all-important tourist trade would collapse - and with it a startling percentage of the cash needed to pay off the nation's foreign debt. Despite a 1947 ban on prostitution, claim the church women, Korean tourism officials even sponsored ideological lectures for the prostitutes about patriotism and the importance of the foreign exchange they earned.

I did not implement the first paragraph since it may referring to other South East Asian countries, however, the importance of the contribution by those sex workers in South Korea who sacrificed themselves for the economic construction is clear in the text. Appletrees, they may be filthy prostitute for you, however, the miracle of Hangang, a symbol of Korean achievement actually has something to do with the prostitution and I think they should be appropriately acknowledged.

Thatcher, I think I summarized the above description as "official" because of the nature of approval and promotion by the government (and I heard they actually set up two big kiseang houses on the left and right sides of the embassy of Japan in Seoul, which I am still looking for the WP:V source). However, if my summarization is too far, please feel free to change it to appropriate words, such as state-promoted or something else.

According to my old edit that was done when I was frequently editing based on "what I know" and "I saw it on the internet!" (actually, I could not reach the proper references since I retrieved the net using wrong keyword, "kiseang diplomacy", that is rather used in Sino-Korean diplomacy), and I appreciate Appletrees to give me an opportunity to appropriately update the description based on reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok, you're making further mistakes by saying like the above excuse. Your point of view toward Korean miracle is really amazing. You're not only violating the aforementioned rules, but also, I can say you're editing with WP:OR and your own bias. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of hearsays and original research. I believed that when you edit on Korean related articles, you're sticking to source. However, my belief turns out to not true. Do you ever think that what you know could be wrong? Your explanation is just absurd. --Appletrees (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot confirm any deliberate WP:V violation by Jjok. Jjok's source Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld (ISBN 0520215613) says on p.234:

• "In every major Korean city, large, government-registered "kisaeng houses" sprang up. One pair of houses sat in a wealthy area of Seoul, on either side of the Japanese ambassador's official residence. Each could accommodate eight hundred men at one time. The owner was reportedly a top politician with past service in the KCIA. Along with the official kisaeng houses arose hundreds of brothels and tens of thousands of prostitutes." (bolding added for emphasis by Endroit)

So that's where the wording "official kisaeng houses" probably came from. As I said above, I believe this wording to be in violation of WP:NPOV, and so I propose this wording be changed to "brothels approved by government officials". And I believe it may be safer to say that prostitution was "tacitly approved" rather than "officially approved".

There's still the question of whether the topic of "prostitution for tourists during the 1970s" is worthy of mention in the article.--Endroit (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to Thatcher's concern about a source for the government giving "lectures on the importance of foreign exchange", p.118 of Women's Lives and Public Policy: The International Experience (ISBN 0275945235) says:

• "This time the South Korean state encouraged and condoned prostitution because it saw women as a valuable resource with which to earn badly needed foreign currency. The kisaeng, the professional female entertainer, is officially registered with the Korea International Tourism Association (KITA) through the party house to which she belongs. .... KITA also sponsors an orientation program for these women, in which "renowned personages and college professors" give lectures and say such things as, "You girls must take pride in your devotion to your country, for your carnal conversation with foreign tourists does not prostitute either yourself or the nation, but expresses your heroic patriotism"."

It's not clear what status this KITA actually had in the Korean government, if any. But at least, it appears that the stuff added by Jjok is not something he concocted. Major WP:NPOV concerns exist, if this stuff needs to go on the article (ie: that the government "encouraged and condoned prostitution").--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, I think we're speaking of very different things in the thread. What I feel absurd at Jjok's explanation is that he affirms that the success of South Korea is made by not only prostitution but also compensation from Japan and other duty jobs like money from yakuza. I think his point of view is too distorted to contribute to those articles. I also checked out several articles in which Jjok edited show several other problems like WP:COPYVIO. Besides, Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate Jjok's political point of view or agenda. --Appletrees (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, please clarify if there's more.--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok, let me ask you one more thing. You added a citation on gimbap which is a book written in Korean(ISBN 9788985846974) and does not provide any preview over internet and you can't read Korean. How do you know that your quote is from p. 90. "일본 음식인김초밥에서 유래한 것으로 한국인들은 근대 이후부터 많이 만들어 먹었다." --Appletrees (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another source for the origin of Gimbap. Yahoo Korea dictionary says: "일본음식 김초밥에서 유래되었다." (My translation: "Gimbap originated from the Japanese cuisine nori-sushi"). Now you guys, will you also stop revert-warring in the Gimbap article?--Endroit (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, I appreciate your effort, but you're talking totally another story. The example of gimbap is why I can't believe Jjok's credibility so requested how he found the quote. I had believed that Jjok tries to stick to sourcing even though he has several examples to fail WP:V and WP:NPOV such as the first article, chinilpa, dog meat. Most of South Korean know that gimbap is strongly influenced by Japan that is undoubtedly fact, but we need to back up it by reliable citations. I checked on the history of the article which has long history of edit warring for the claim that gimbap is a Japanese dish. Unlike many Japanese editors, jjok said it is a Korean spin-off, so it is not a Japanese food. Due to his saying, I believed that whatever he edit on Korean related articles, his editing is different from Azukimonaka who inserts bogus citations like this. Jjok shows that he acts like a balanced person with sourcing, but if he inserted the citation from some hearsay like his above comment, I can't trust and cooperate him anymore unless he significantly improves himself.--Appletrees (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, if our combined vigilance helps reduce the overall revert-warring and the WP:NPOV violations, I believe we've accomplished something here. I don't know if sanctions are warranted against any particular editor at this point, but that's for the admins to decide.

If this case is archived or closed without any action, I will treat this like any content dispute and initiate WP:DR by moving my comments from the above discussion to each relevant article's talk page.--Endroit (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I repeatedly say Jjok did more than NPOV violations. However, I don't request him to get a sanction, but want to admins just to give an official warning to him. It appears that my wordings are not effective to him at all per previous discussions with him at his page and here. I still think that Jjok should've presented his thought more instead of your talking. He has been silence except the implausible statement. Besides, I or others interested in the articles Jjok edits should first check all of his citations since his sourcing seems dubious. It requires much time for people to look through whether he properly added or not.(he really betrays my WP:AGF--Appletrees (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees

As well as the source of Prostitution in South Korea having been deleted. Appletrees often tries the concealment of the source.

Case1 Namdaemun Chosun Ilbo introduced Namdaemun. "Namdaemun was specified for the national treasure No.1 by a Japanese empire. The South Korean thinks the succession of the specification of a Japanese empire to be disgrace. "" Appletrees was not able to deny the fact written in this source. Therefore, he tried to conceal this fact shouting, "You are a puppet".

Case2 Japan-Korea relations Chosun Ilbo analyzed "Japanese boom in South Korea". The South Korean was worshiping the electronic gadget made in Japan when South Korea was poor. However, the South Korean enjoys Japanese food and clothes today. Appletrees shouted "Vandallism". And, the source was deleted. He doesn't verify the source.

Case3 HanbandoJoongAng Ilbo explained the movie Hanbando. "The end for which Japan apologizes to Korea will satisfy South Korean's anti- Japanese sentiment." The signature of Ser Myo-ja shouted and he shouted though it was. He shouted though this was an article with the signature of Ser Myo-ja. "That is not a real "article" written by a reporter. Don' try to fool me again" And, the source was concealed. I advised. "Do not delete the source without the reason. "

He answered. "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Japan-Korea relations, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Again, read the citation, possibly a 2channel meat/sock"

I have been perplexed to his behavior. What contribution can I do? --Opoona (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Opoona (talk · contribs)

Opoona, you're speaking very selective information and attempt to turn the subject on Jjok. You're certainly not a new user because right after you created your account three days ago, you jumped in to help the banned user, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). He uses ODN ISP, and obsessed with anything related to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. On August, an odn user who seemingly looked like Azukimonaka inserted the category to the Hanbando article. On March 7th, Azukimonaka (later confirmed) initially inserted just a 'claim' regarding the movie without any source, so I reverted it. Then he reverted my edit to his version with the copyvio addition from the above mentioned dubious source and called me a vandal.. In the meantime, you suddenly reverted the article to the Azukimonaka's reversion as calling me a vandal as well. In this situation, you can't complaint that I gave you a warning sign. Your "shouting" like "Korean vandalism" is nothing but a personal attack on me. Besides, one of articles Azukimonaka gave has no reporter name, and the other is also has no information about who is Ser Myo-Ja and its like an opinion by a non-reporter.

As for Namdaemun article, you should answer that why you and your friends constantly refused to my suggestion to discuss at the talk page. Namdaemun which has several content disputes between Japanese editors and others ever since Namdamun fire occurred on Feb 11th. The former have not show any interest in the arson incident, but just tried to put "two photos" in a row and "National treasure" thing. According to Korean Yahoo encyclopedia, Japan never designated Namdaemun as a National treasure (gukbo, 국보), but just " treasure" (bomul 보물). Moreover, the book title which contains the photos is "Thriving Chosen: A survey of twenty-five years' administration". Japanese editors' intention is so obvious, so edit warrings over the inclusion of the images and the citation have crossed over the whole Misplaced Pages projects. Some editor provided better and clear images taken by an Australian photographer around 1904 to resolve this dispute. Besides, 3 b/w images taken in similar time are not necessary to include the all of them, because the article is not a repository like commons. As the result of the edit warring, the page had been under semi-protect for 2 weeks. It is later discovered that the news was reported on several pages at 2channel, and they talked the edit warring as well. However, you and your friends insist on putting the comparison pictures after the revelation. So I suggested to take it to the talk page. Now, Opoona, you should answer my question.--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Especailly, the InfoWeb ip user has tried to add the photo without any discussion throughout the whole Misplaced Pages (20 pages), so I can't assume good faith edit by this ISP user. That's why I reverted his/her edit and requested to participate in a discussion but these edit warrings in other language Wiki have been still ongoing. Here are examples.

• Namdaemun in 1910 during Joseon dynasty
• Namdaemun in 1935 during Japanese occupation

--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)

That's why so many meatpuppets ruined the Wikpedia's Talk:Sea of Japan

• Opoona (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Limited200802th (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Princesunta (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Coraroidman (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nyanyan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Amazonfire (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 124.87.134.96 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) OCN users as below.
• 125.200.62.100 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.199.33.96 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 218.224.54.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.200.60.174 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.119.222.117 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

As I submit the above reason, I request for checkuser on Opoona. The first three are all using OCN ISP, and show meatpuppting around Azukimonaka.--Appletrees (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

File this at RFCU. Then when that's done I think an arb case on the Japan-Korea mess is probably needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We should handle these cases less bureaucratically. Shoot on sight. I've indef-blocked Opoona as an obvious, disruptive meatpuppet. His contribution history was clearly focussed on harassing Appletrees. I say, zero tolerance, from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's way more to this than Opoona. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know. But there's also way more to it than what Arbcom is ever likely to handle. Lots of anonymous IPs and throwaway accounts, disruption spread over a wide range of articles and involving a large, ill-defined set of editors. If this were to come to Arbcom, I bet you any sum they'll do nothing but place the whole area under general probation and "discretionary sanctions" rules like they did to the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Fine. But knowing that outcome we can spare ourselves the trouble and just do it ourselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario

A Bearcat (talk · contribs) seems to be redirectifying mass number of articles on various Townships. The one on Cobden, Ontario (11,087 bytes) had caught my attention and I reverted his bold merges. He reverted back with the edit summary: "there was no removal of content; it was all merged into another article. there's simply no need for Cobden to have a separate article from the actual municipality that it's a part of." but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario (16,262 bytes). With little work that can be a good article. Please help sort this out. Administrative action may be necesary if the user is mass redirectifying mass number of articles without consensus (preliminary analysis agrees to this assertion: ). -- Cat 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Misplaced Pages practice is for less notable subjects to be merged into their "parent" article. Now, generally, I can't argue with this, especially when dealing with minor pop culture subjects. But for long articles on "real" things, where the merge takes the form of digesting down to a paragraph, that's harder to justify. But, so far, s/he doesn't appear to have reverted you. So there's nothing to see here, unless s/he starts to re-revert back rather than talk about it. If that happens, come back. But the bold, revert, discuss cycle, whilst sometimes annoying, is often a Good Thing. You two have done the B R bit; just D remains. Some inline sources in the Cobden article would help your cause here. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no patience or tolerance left to people mass blanking/redirectifying pages due to my general frustration on this edit pattern. Weather it is to pop culture related articles or real world topics such as this particular case, I am very very tired of it. If such activity has consensus behind it, I'd like to see the evidence for it. If there is no consensus behind it perhaps admin involvement may be warranted. I'd welcome someone else, preferably an admin (a person who has understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines) to pursue this issue. -- Cat 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my job to rescue articles people redirectify without even reading them. -- Cat 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody "digested" anything down to one paragraph. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that mass anything without consensus is disruptive. It's an attempt at overwhelming rational process. The subject doesnt matter--the direction doesnt mater--the particular way of doing it doesnt matter. Even for something which explicitly does not require consensus, like removing PROD notices, if I went through PROD and removed every prod notice, which I am technically entitled to do, as is every editor here, it would be wrong, and someone should stop me. DGG (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus that in general, geographical locations such as towns should not be merged - they're notable in the sense there will be third party sources about them, and apart from a bit of cruft in the Cobden article, I'm not seeing any real problem with it existing in its own right. Orderinchaos 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On researching it, there's some indication that WikiProject Ontario is dealing with this situation in its own way. No objections have been raised in two months, so unless article development is planned for the article I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. Orderinchaos 08:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects cannot dictate what becomes a redirect and what goes. That makes it more problematic. -- Cat 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, from the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." and "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting..." I've let Bearcat know about this but you might have got a quicker result if either yourself or User:Olsdude if either of you had asked him. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Non-consensus random removal of information will be reverted. We often consider these as simple vandalism. -- Cat 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's been no removal of information. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy dictates what becomes a redirect, and this was entirely consistent with it. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Cobden, it appears that Bearcat has contravened her/his own conventions v/v the merge, which were to merge only insubstantial articles, not those with content. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think Bearcat is vandalising then why not tell him that? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden is not a town. It's an unincorporated hamlet within the municipality of Whitewater Region, Ontario. The bottom line is that the municipality's article has to come first — the unincorporated communities within a municipality should only have independent articles once the parent municipality's article is itself long enough to warrant splitouts. Note that until I did the merge, Whitewater Region had a completely unreferenced stub article; the improved current state of the article is entirely due to the merges and redirects. And this is entirely consistent with WP:OUTCOMES, which explicitly states that communities and neighbourhoods within a municipality should be redirected to the parent municipality. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario All of the content from Cobden, Ontario is in the article on Whitewater Region, Ontario, excepting that which is simply an unnecessary repeat of information from a standalone article on a separate topic such as Logos Land. Check the various subheadings. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if we're using loaded language here. When I see an argument about weather Cobden is or is not a town I wonder why it is being brought up. The points that other users have made are still valid regardless of weather Cobden is a town or hamlet. Plus, I'm having a hard time finding a definition of what is a town, hamlet, or village but I don't think that it's necessary to clarify.

Also, I have to say that I agree with the guideline for merger set out by Bearcat - The guideline being this: Essentially, for smaller communities which are either (a) still redlinks, or (b) only one-or-two line stubs identifying the topic as a community within Township of Whateverville but giving no other verifiable and properly sourced information about the community - That seems pretty reasonable. (I do however question when or even if this has ever become policy) However it seems as though Bearcat may have gotten a bit merger happy. It seems obvious that the article on Cobden, Ontario is neither a or b. I can't see how anything is helped by destroying a perfectly fine article (I'm basing this on other peoples statements) and I don't think it makes it any different if you are erasing article X because article Y was not as good as article X.

Finally, the reason why I did not go to Bearcat initially was because, I'm sad to say, in my experience with contesting administrators decisions the only thing it accomplishes is to have my credibility as a contributor called into question, a bunch of cryptic blunt messages dropped on my board and very little else.--Matt D (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As an unincorporated hamlet within a larger municipality, Cobden is not inherently entitled to an article of any length until the incorporated municipality of Whitewater Region has an article sufficiently long, detailed and referenced to warrant being subdivided. And the definitions of a town, a village or a hamlet aren't that hard to figure out: a town is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of town under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. A village is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of village under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. If it's unincorporated, it's a hamlet, not a town or a village, regardless of its population. (Check the population of Fort McMurray, Alberta, which is legally a hamlet, if you have trouble with this.) The definition of a town or a village inherently requires that the community is actually incorporated as a distinct municipality with its own distinct local government. A municipality has to have a good article before any community within it is entitled its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I normally would agree with Bearcat but hang on a sec. I recognize the name and looked it up, this is OR (which is permissible outside article space) - Cobden is a definitely established town in Ontario. It seems to qualify from the definitions of geographic entity, it's there and it's been there for a long time. If you're going whitewater rafting on the Ottawa River, it's the closest beer store. I disagree with Bearcat that there is any inherent requirement for incorporation. The existence of the settlement area is notable by its own fact. Cobden is there all by itself. It doesn't need Misplaced Pages to tell it so. WP however, should report it is so. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether people say "Town of Cobden" in everyday usage or not, Cobden is an unincorporated hamlet, not an incorporated town. Being an incorporated municipality is an inherent requirement of being a town — any community in Ontario that is not legally incorporated as a town by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not a town no matter how many times you call it one. Misplaced Pages has to represent these things by their correct and proper legal definitions, not by popular misconceptions, so we cannot and will not say that Cobden is a town when it's an unincorporated community within a municipality.

But either way, you're misrepresenting the dispute here: whether Cobden has its own separate article or gets redirected to Whitewater Region, Ontario, Misplaced Pages is reporting the community's existence either way. This is not a choice of representation or invisibility — it's a dispute about how to represent the community best. And my position remains, and will continue to be, that until Whitewater Region has a sufficiently long and properly-referenced article that it is ready to be subdivided, Misplaced Pages policy dictates that smaller communities within it are to be represented in Whitewater Region's article rather than separate ones. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What an odd debate. I've lived in Ontario for most of my 40 years. Many, if not most, people in Ontario have heard of Cobden. I don't think many outside the Ottawa valley have heard of the "Whitewater Region" whatever that is. These are real towns, with histories, and are miles from each other. Just because there is no political structure for each town, doesn't mean that these are real places worthy of their own page. There is significant content for the Cobden article - it should clearly be a seperate page from the region. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A community has to be incorporated to be a town. If it isn't incorporated, it is a hamlet, not a town. And "who's heard of this" is not the standard for what deserves an article. As a municipality, Whitewater Region has to have a solid, referenced and substantial article before any subtopic of it gets split out — it doesn't matter whether Cobden is more famous than its parent municipality or not. Whitewater Region is the more important and higher-priority topic, because it's an actual municipality with an actual municipal government. Fame is irrelevant; the municipality is more important by virtue of being a municipality. It cannot have a short, unreferenced stub article as long as any community within it has a long one.

And furthermore, all of the information in the Cobden article is also in the Whitewater Region article — and without that information, the Whitewater Region article is a short and unreferenced stub. And the fact that something exists does not automatically entitle it to a separate article — Cobden should only have a separate article once its parent topic has a long enough article to warrant subdivision. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I (2X) HATE EC'S - Ontario - Official Road Map - 1992/93 (yeah, I'm getting on in years) - Cobden (991), C14. Notability established. (There's a cool magnetic hill just south of Dacre, pretty close). I'm trying to convey that "Whitewater Region" is as artificial as it gets, whereas Cobden is a real honest-to-god place with churches and pickup trucks and all that stuff. It pre-exists Misplaced Pages and will probably post-exist it. No matter how you try to cut the definitions, it just plain and simple exists by geographic fact. I've been there, it's an Ontario small town, I don't understand which rule says it doesn't deserve its own entry. It exists, it has a postal code. If that Blofeld guy is pumping hundreds of French commune stubs onto wiki anticipating their expansion, then we can keep the Ontario village stubs as well. (And thanx Nfitz) Franamax (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) It's not all that great of an article, is it? But it can be made better...

"Artificial" or not, Whitewater Region is an incorporated municipality, which makes it a higher priority for expansion and improvement than Cobden is. We do not make judgement calls about whether things are "artificial" or not; we report on the things that exist, and Whitewater Region is an actual municipal government which consequently has to have a real article whether you think it's "artificial" or not. And for the last freaking time: Cobden is a hamlet, not a town, because places have to be incorporated as towns to be towns. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet? That's not a word real people use. People will say they going to town, or going to the village. I have not heard one person in Ontario, saying "I'm going to the Hamlet to go to the store". It's just not a word that is used. Whether or not it is a legal definintion or not is immaterial. Short unreferenced stub article? Cobden is quite an extensive, though poorly written, article! That's no stub. And if you start eliminating articles for towns like this, what about articles for a part of a town or a city, such as The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo, Gastown, etc. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether "hamlet" is what people say in common everyday speech or not, it's legally what Cobden is. You can call it a town all you like in private conversation — but an encyclopedia can't call it a town as long as it doesn't actually have that status under law. Our obligation here is to be accurate, not to reflect common usage even if it's wrong. And incidentally, Cobden is not equivalent to The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo or Gastown, as those are all subdivisions of big cities — and each of those cities already has a long, substantial and well-referenced article that can be subdivided without turning the parent article back into a three-line stub in the process. Until the same can be said of Whitewater Region's article, Cobden is not an equivalent topic. Quality has to start trumping quantity around here. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Cobden is the notable entity, while Whitewater Region isn't. Logically speaking, the latter should be merged into the former. --clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's going too far, that's an insult to all the people in Forester's Falls! Which reminds me - is anyone asking for admin actions here? Maybe we should wander off to our own sun-dappled glade... Any suggestions for a better spot for this? Franamax (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An unincorporated hamlet is more important and notable than the municipality that governs it? Gawd almighty, I need drugs to make sense of that one. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I was mostly sarcastic. Second, I didn't say the hamlet was more important. If most of the content at Whitewater Region is about Cobden, why not have an article about Cobden? Why can't a municipality article be a stub? --clpo13_(talk) 01:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone still watching this, I'll tentatively say party at my place! I can open another bottle of wine and it sounds like Bearcat is out looking for some good drugs ;) Unless there's some argument, no admins needed, no admin wrongdoing, needs a good hat put on top? Franamax (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Test edit to get a timestamp. I can't believe this, ANI with only four edits in an entire hour? What about the drama people, what about the drama?? Franamax (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the only reason I brought up the whole town/hamlet thing was because I was afraid that the word hamlet was being used to imply "unimportant" (And maybe I was right). I also think a key point to remember is that the whitewater region article needing expansion is a very different thing then Cobden's article needing to be deleted. I wonder if anyone has considered that, perhaps, going to the library and getting a couple books about the history of the whitewater region would be a better method of expansion than the one currently being employed? Shouldn't that be the first step? Can we have an attempt at creating an article in the regular way before we start some territorial expansionist phase? It will have to be done eventually won't it? I mean, taking the history of Cobden and replacing the word Cobden with Whitewater region doesn't make a good article does it? All we are left with is no article on Cobden and a half-assed article on the Whitewater region. I fail to see the urgency that requires this merger. The Whitewater region article must be longer than Cobden's? Municipalities are more important by virtue of being municipalities? Maybe so but is this the only way to improve articles?

I realize that the history and information about Cobden would end up being in the whitewater region article. But anybody looking up the history of Cobden shouldn't have to dig through the whitewater article looking for it. And since, as other users have pointed out, the municipal government is, to most people, a more abstract entity than a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within, ect. people may want to look up it's history or whatever without caring about the greater whitewater region.--Matt D (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Victor64

This user was reported through WP:AIV. Despite an early constructive edit or two, edits had taken a turn for the negative, and I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. I believed that the user was not showing signs of wanting to be a productive member of the community.

I have since received several progressively more aggressive requests from a third party to unblock Victor. I agreed to an unblock, provided that Victor apologized for his vandalism and pledged to not vandalize again, and left a message to that extent on his talk page. In addition, I told the third party those conditions and also gave the unblock-l for them to get a second opinion if they wanted.

I have had no communication from the blocked party about this, and there has been nothing left on his talk page contesting the block. Nor has any email gone to unblock-l. The only communication has been with the third party, and has taken a turn for the ugly. The communication can be viewed at User:Philippe/Archive2#Your_block_of_User:_Victor64 and User_talk:Philippe#Your_block_of_Victor64.

I invite your review and have no objection if someone wishes to unblock. I would prefer that the unblock be accompanied by SOME indication from the party that they desire it and apologize, but I'm afraid I'm at a stale-mate with the third party now. - Philippe | Talk 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the block, and have no difficulty with the language. Out of 4 total edits the first two were minor corrections of anothers vandalism (most likely with a subject of personal interest to the editor) and the next two were major disruption of replacing a sizable quantity of content with an insulting term. Also, of course, indefinite does not equal infinite. I shall drop a note to the third party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to raise this until after Easter, as I don't properly have time to address this until then. However User:Philippe blatantly mischaracterised User:Victor64 actions by referring to the account as a "vandalism-only" account. As over half of this user's edits were constructive, by the very definition, it wasn't a vandalism-only account. I've pointed out to User:Philippe his mischaracterization, and he has ignored my comments, so I can only assume that his mischaracterization is deliberate - hence he is lying to the community. I've documeted the actions of User:Victor64 on my talk page. User:Philippe blocked User:Victor64 on the basis that "because your account is being used only for vandalism". It was clear from his edit history that the account was not only being used for vandalism. User:Philippe knowingly trumped up the charges, and over-reacted. This was a new user to Misplaced Pages that within the space of 5 minutes did a couple of dumb edits. And was given an indefinite block. This isn't the appropriate action for a first or second offence. And this is not the way to welcome a new user to Misplaced Pages. User:Philippe's action and User:Equazcion's request for such action were clearly out of line with Misplaced Pages policy. At worst, User:Victor64 should have received a short block - the actions taken was completely unproportional and an overeaction. User:Philippe has lied to User:Victor64 and the community and needs to applogise. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure this situation was handled as well as it could have been, but I tend to agree with Nfitz that this was an inappropriate block. I believe Equazcion was in error: the first warning should not also be the final warning. Aside from egregious vandalism, I would have at least tried a couple warnings. Furthermore, a 24-hour block, not an indefinite block, would seem to be in order. I don’t think there is any precedent for requiring an apology after a couple episodes of minor vandalism (and noncompliance resulting in an infinite block). I would suggest removing the block, and applying blocks of increasing length should the vandalism continue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this with Nfitz right after the block when his rhetoric seemed to be escalating, and proposed much the same remedy as Philippe: an appropriately-worded unblock request would be regarded with favor. At the time, Nfitz indicated that he had no particular issue with Philippe, but demanded that Equazcion be sanctioned somehow for reporting Victor64 to AIV. Since then, the word "lies" has been used freely (and without substantiation). The issue has become centered around a grudge, rather than a constructive remedy, which is easily available if Nfitz chooses to pursue it. Acroterion _(talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me say clearly, again, that an unblock has been offered, that the unblock-l address has been offered, and that although there were a couple of early constructive changes, 100% of the recent changes had been vandalism, including blanking the 5 pillars and replacing them with "this is retarded". I honestly feel like I've bent over backwards to help this user, and gotten nothing but abuse from Nfitz. But... preemptively unblock them without any expression that they're sorry for their vandalism? Someone else will need to do that, because I won't. I would also remind all that this is an indefinite block, not a permanent one. Should Victor express some remorse and ask to be unblocked, I remain happy to do so. - Philippe | Talk 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)You've got to be kidding me. This user has a total of 4 edits half of which are clearly vandalism, and Nfitz is actually complaining about an indefinite block and that Philippe "lied to the community" about being a vandalism-only account? Give me a break. I would have done the exact same thing that Philippe, and I think he is being more than generous in even considering an unblock. Jauerback/_dude. 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am commenting on is the block of Victor64. I have not examined Nfitz’s comments in detail as their appropriateness or lack thereof is not relevant. My concern is the rash blocking of a new user. This is not the way to welcome new members to our community or show them how our procedures work. I also take exception to several of Philippe’s statements here. I could easily invert your statement to “…although there were a couple of recent vandalism edits, 100% of the earlier changes had been constructive…” And you’ve “bent over backward to help this user”? The only “help” I see is an indefinite block, the indefinite block boilerplate message, and then the message saying you’ll unblock him if he pledges to change. That’s not helpful. What would be helpful would be removing the block.

Look, new users who stumble upon Misplaced Pages often don’t fully appreciate its nature. The novelty of being able to edit the web site and see the changes live is irresistible to some, and they often don’t grasp the significance of what they do. Look at this case. A new user edits to fix an error, and receives a welcome message. The next minute, he fixes another error in the same article. Four minutes later, he vandalizes one of the links in the welcome message. Incredibly, he receives a final warning! And then two minutes later, after he vandalizes another page, he is indefinitely blocked. It is likely he hadn't even gotten the "new messages" box yet. This is no way to treat new members of the community. However, since you state it will be acceptable for the block to be removed, I will do so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, with Philippe, being the editor who made the warning and the AIV report. Stepped vandalism warnings are meant for situations where it is unclear whether or not the user had intentional disruption in mind. The option to give an "only warning" is meant for other scenarios, when the intent to disrupt is clear from the get-go. I see no reason to "bend over backwards" for people like that, and saying that the temptation to see edits occur live makes it simply too unbearable to resist replacing content with inane and disparaging comments seems like quite a stretch of "assume good faith". I don't think removing the block was proper, Knowledge Seeker, at this point. Next time kindly wait until it seems like you've got some agreement before you act. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:15, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Incivility bordering on Wiki-Hate Incident from Randy_Blackamoor

--VS 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I previously expressed concerned to Randy B that he mis-quoted me (actually, he falsely quoted me), and I asked that he apologize. He did so by adding considerably more uncivility to the dialogue, and I consider his new actions to show wiki-hate. Judge for yourself. He has been warned and warned and warned. DanaUllman 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have left a strong warning re WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA on user's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I blocked before I saw your warning, but since you left a final, I'll reverse the block. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the response on his talk page to your warning... I'm leaving my block in place. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think a week shows remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I would argue his username alone deserves an indef block for its derogatory overtones. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask admins to review Randy's history of uncivility, abuse, and now hatred, despite many many warnings. DanaUllman 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His record is poor indeed, and he has been blocked on three previous occasions. Personally, I wouldn't object if he were blocked indefinitely as I believe these people on balance do the project more harm than good. I would see what result a one-week block produces but would anyone else here like to review the situation? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone taking it to indef, but since I've already signed my name to "one week", I'd prefer that I not be the one to extend it. - Philippe | Talk 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a week block seems the appropriate thing to do here. While there have defiantly been some civility issues with this user, I also see some good contributions. Tiptoety 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think Randy's behavior is terrible, can we please ask that Dana stay off his talk page after he returns and stop baiting him? Two editors already commented on the page about this behavior. It's been well established that Randy will respond to these things negatively, so barging in and demanding an apoplogy seems disingenuous, at best. Let's not indef yet. Baegis (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without more research, I'm not inclined to condone the language that Dana is "baiting". It's possible, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I would think it would be courteous for Dana to stay off the talk page, yes. - Philippe | Talk 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is not Randy_Blackamoor a racist username? See Randy Blackamoor. 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are other indications of overt racism, I suggest it is best to make a good faith assumption that it is not intended as such. If you are still suspicious, then you should ask him about it. Ronnotel (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF is why i asked a question. I just read thread and the first thing i thought was the name was a bit dodgy, thats all i'm saying. 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackamoore returned 141,000 ghits - being a term for jewelery, tropical fish, statues, and also a placename and surname. It may have had origins in a descriptive term for black people from a time when there was less sensitivity, and can still be used pejoratively as such, it seems to be not inappropriate - it may even be the editors real name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)*I was about to block indef under the following reasoning:

"You have persistently failed to work constructively with other editors, considering it appropriate to insult and attack on numerous occasions, and previous blocks seem not to have brought it home to you that this is unacceptable. In particular, you have been made fully aware of the ArbCom's recent ruling on Homeopathy and related articles and still fail to grasp that however strongly you feel about content of articles, your behaviour towards other editors is expected to be civil. I would say that if I had any doubt about your conduct, your username would have tipped it, being offensive, in my opinion; however, after a deep review of your contributions, there is no balance to tip, and whereas I earlier considered a week's ban lenient, there is nothing in your entrenched attitude to make me think that you are going to change your behaviour as a result of it."

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable assessment of the situation? Yes, some of the contributions are good, but I balance those against the long-term history, and find they are insufficient to outweigh the disruption and lack of respect for other editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not defend RB's "go fuck yourself" sentiment, but arbcom has made no ruling whatsoever on homeopathy, recently or otherwise. I would urge an in-depth review of the situation on Talk:Homeopathy and elsewhere before deciding to indef him. There has been baiting and extremely bad faith from both sides in the dispute. Skinwalker (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was referring to this community decision which is of comparable weight, in my view. As to who's baiting whom, it matters not a whit to me. Any editor brought here in breach of policy is at risk of the consequences of their actions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed some of Randy's diffs here. They may be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've grabbed this bull by the horns and extended it to one month--and also left a "next time it's gonna be indef" message. Blueboy96 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy has a serious civility problem, but is unfortunately baited and poked constantly by a pack of tendentious editors. I'll speak to him privately and see if I can help with the former. A week-long block seems quite appropriate, but a month is just too much. Will you drop it back down to a week if I keep an eye on him and provide a guiding hand? east.718 at 03:10, March 9, 2008

Done ... though looking at the history, I'm not too optimistic. Blueboy96 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Thank you for looking at this openly, Blueboy96. It's worth noting that of the two people pushing hardest here for Randy's exit, one has the worst conflict of interest possible for an editor in this area, while the other is a proven edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. east.718 at 03:17, March 9, 2008

I support that if you would be guiding him. It is a suggestion that I have made in the past, as he doesn't seem to understand. Anthon01 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think baiting is the main issue. Randy believe that homeopathy is bunk, and that that POV allows him to trash anyone who believes differently because homeopaths are murderers. Anthon01 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

East: Sockpuppeteer? Are you talking about me? Anthon01 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I would support an even more lenient block or no block if an admin takes the responsibility of guiding him. And of course you too East.718 have been blocked for Edit-warring. Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't keep half a dozen accounts around for a rainy day. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

I believe that FT2 determined in that case that Anthon01 made some experimental edits with a non-logged-in account on one day and stopped. There was nothing that indicated that Anthon01 had any additional accounts, though I could be mistaken about that, in any case Anthon01 apologized and FT2 didn't think it was such a big deal. —Whig (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One other account used on one day for 1.5 hours and never used again, as an experiment. I didn't understand the need for it. So I tried it out and decided it didn't fit me.

East718: You linked to FT2's original suspicions, but not to his final determination. From FT2's final determination

Here is the link to his full final determination. Now East.718, do you intent to continue to mis-characterize the situation? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One more point. FT2 noted multiple IPs, however he was able to find all those IPs because I always log in as Anthon01. IOW, One account using Multiple IPs. I post from home, work and the library under Anthon01. I occasionally post if I'm on the road. Anthon01 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure if that would work. He's been blocked three times prior for persistent incivility and personal attacks to those who disagree with his viewpoints. He's made that quite clear before. I could care less if you fall into the "anti-science" or "pro-science" camp, incivility and personal attacks is incivility and personal attacks regardless, and telling others to "fuck off" and etc. is only asking for trouble. He's been warned many times of this; a week's block (as it currently stands) is sufficient and should open up a line of discussion regarding his behavior. If it resorts to trolling further, then I support a longer block of a month (as it was earlier). seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That illustrates what I feel is a major problem: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

It looks like only some of those are admin stuff. TE, SOCK, DE. The others are content disputes. Are you really saying that admins should decide matters of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE? That looks like a major re-arrangement of WP.

I recall that Randy once stated he wasn't going to knuckle under to calls for civility. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if his POV were otherwise he would be indef blocked. He has accused me and other editors of bad faith and has not supported that claim. He has said he will not assume good faith in the future. I can supply these diffs. —Whig (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to comment on Randy's page, but when he showed bad faith for misquoting me, I simply asked him to reference his quote from me or to acknowledge his error. I take great offense when some people above said that I "baited" Randy B. I simply expressed concern that he made up out of thin air a quote from me. Two editors (one of whom again made this "allegation" of baiting above) deleted my comment from Randy's page because they worried about Randy's reaction to my legitimate concern (Randy's comment to me actually acknowledged his error, but then, he went into his tirade). Ironically, one of the editors who deleted my comment of concern was an admin, Jehochman, with whom I have had content disputes. It is my understanding that homeopathy articles are under probation and that all parties have been warned about this, and yet, these community concerns have not diminished Randy's uncivility and even hatred. I wish Randy well (I really do), though I wonder if he can be rehabilitated. DanaUllman 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the rules as I understand them, allow editors to blank comments to their own user talk page. Edit warring to reintroduce a message that was blanked is often considered disruptive. Addhoc (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It's worth noting that clever people can turn Misplaced Pages's own rules against it. The process is something like this: choose your victim, preferably someone who already has been blocked for incivility and thus is susceptible to the tactic; persistently needle them while being careful not to display obvious incivility yourself; persist until they reach the end of their rope; when they finally snap, shed crocodile tears over the resulting block for incivility; repeat ad infinitum. The neatest thing about the tactic is that there's almost zero risk for the person (or team) doing it. Quite impressive really. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuuuuuuuuuse me...but I wish that Addhoc and Raymound Arritt would avoid re-writing history. Randy B did NOT delete my comments on his user-page (Jehochman did so and so did you, Addhoc!). Randy B admitted his error AND apologized for it, but then, he became venomous enough that he actually wrote that he hoped that I would die. If editors feel that it is OK to wish death on other editors, then we have a serious problem here, Houston...serious. Ironically, while Randy B is given a silly week's vacation, the anti-homeopathy editors are trying ban (!) Whig (primarily due to content disputes), despite his extraordinary civility. The anti-homeopathy forces may be a tad out of control. DanaUllman 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy's comments in this instance were plainly unacceptable. No one has said Randy's comments in this instance were acceptable, so it is disingenuous (at the least) for you to imply that they did. Some of us are pointing out that there are further aspects to the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and avoiding re-writing the present as well. Whig is NOT facing a ban over content issues. East718 summarised the problem exrtemely well: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. Whig is extremely good at the sort of gaming to which Raymond refers, and whilst he is scrupulous in following WP:CIVIL, he is also incredibly disruptive, shows no signs of improving, and has thoroughly earned the sanctions he faces following his repeated violations of his editing restrictions. Dana, you might consider what it means that only two editors (including you) have voiced support for Whig. Hint: it isn't that you are all being victimised by the big bad anti-homeopathy boogeyman. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block of Randy, and hope that upon his return he will endeavor to comport himself. I think it's reasonable to consider this a "last chance", however, and further inappropriate behavior may merit and indefinite block. Relatedly, however, I expect those with whom RB has consistently feuded to drop the gasoline and matches, and quit the subtle and not-so-subtle baiting that has been painfully obvious. — Scientizzle 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle and others, I'm a tad confused. I am not at all clear why you think that I have baited Randy by asking him to acknowledge that the quote that he attributed to me was not true. We all make mistakes. A simply apology would have put this all behind us. It could have been so simple. In this case, however, Randy went way way over the line (again), and I am shocked, even very shocked, that his desire for my death would warrant a simple week's vacation from wikipedia. To whom can I register this real concern because I do not feel safe, nor do I feel that Randy's repeated offenses and his unrepetent tendencies are adequately acknowledged or dealt with. DanaUllman 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I was already familiar with the entire situation, including the thread you reference immediately below. My statement was, however, not referring solely to this instance. There's quite a long and obvious history of RB behaving questionably, and others (several editors) poking RB to seemingly exacerbate the situation rather than defuse. At this point, every interaction between RB & his antagonists has a chicken-or-the-egg feel to it, and rarely does a participant in these flame wars have a monopoly on the proverbial "high road". I hope that is clear. — Scientizzle 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor who is normally antagonistic to homeopathy has alerted me that he didn't see the original posting by Randy B about which this Incident was reported. Here is that seriously offensive statement that Randy wrote: "I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)" I cannot help but sense that other admins and editors didn't see this posting. Being called a "monster" and wanting my imminent death has NO place on wikipedia. Does this deserve a simple week's punishment? DanaUllman 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely unacceptable, and if I read the above thread correctly, the block has already been extended to a month. In the meantime, you are expected to stay off his talk page for any reason. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

yes. it is very easy to lose ones comprotment, especially ona controversial subject such as homeopathic technology. Randy_Blackmor does have a temper and it is definitely bad that he chose to take it out on you like that, but there is no need to get more draconian on him. one weeks ban and a timme to cool off should be enough to give him a chance to cool off, get his bearings back, and return to continue his productive work on wikiepdia. I say this as someone who has clashed with him many times in the past on Homeopathy and elsehwere that while he can be abrasive he is a decent person who sometimes makes mistakes.

One thing that we can do to minimize the concerns that have led him to lash out the way he did at Dana Ullman is for people who have content disputes with him to try to not go on his talk page and bother him there since even though they mean well he might not take it htat way and might get upset.

of course something should be done about what he said to Dana and once he gets back he can apologize and we should put this behind us for the good of the Wikipeida Project. Smith Jones (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be confusion regarding the block, it was refactored to one week. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed Randy's edits for even a small amount of time will realise that his normal behaviour is to shock and brow beat. No one is baiting him. That's just what he does. True he does not edit war to a great extent but he is vey disruptive on the talk pages making no effort to be contructive. In my opinion he should get a minimum of two weeks off. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this diff shows that the user needs to be indefinitely blocked for harassment. Since they appear to be blocked at the moment, I will leave this for discussion. I would also ask the usual homeopathy partisans to refrain from commenting, and let uninvolved administrators discuss this. Jehochman 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it your diff is linked to and ? seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From the link posted by Jehochman above:

I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. This is my talk page, it's not the homeopathy article. If he wants to come here and complain, I can respond. Furthermore, if Misplaced Pages now has a "please be polite to murderers" policy, link me to it, and shame on Misplaced Pages if so. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remind me again, why are we not extending this to an indefinite ban block? Just how productive does an editor have to be to excuse such behaviour. I'd suggest quite a bit more than Randy currently contributes to this project. David D. (Talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When we deal with similar editors who make veiled threats and make consistently poor behaviour, we usually endorse an indef block. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't, especially based upon the DIFFs given above. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the question I asked. Since we are here on the noticeboard, if an indefinite block is agreed, it will be a community ban. Jehochman 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be absolutely thrilled to extend my block to indefinite. I'll give it a couple of hours and then check back, and if there's not significant opposition, I'll do the block myself. I used a week because it looked like it was a heated argument, I didn't know the back-story, and I was trying to follow an escalated block procedure. If my block was too conservative, I'll gladly extend it. - Philippe | Talk 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly anti homeopathy and dislike the stance of some of its proponents on wikipedia, but we can't have an editor calling those he disagrees with "murderers". Would we allow it on other articles? That is worth an indef block, IMHO. On the other hand, it seems wrong to keep changing our minds about his block.:)The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his Talk. I'm sympathetic with the idea "quacks selling fake medicine to sick, gullible people are murderers" but that all homeopaths are such quacks is plainly wrong, and we certainly can't endure such a standard for murder here. It would be akin to calling all the people who voted for FDR "murderers" because he led us into WWII. That's just too far afield from the actionable felony. Pete St.John (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block and/or ban, or whatever we're calling them these days. There's enough trouble on homeopathy without this editor's continual flame-fanning, and the two quoted comments above are completely unacceptable. MastCell  18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that when I went over to block him on Saturday. Ban indeed. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

!vote for ban. Jauerback/_dude. 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) ... so anyone willing to do this? I would, but a few editors would look at it as me being in the bed of "anti-science" editors as I am currently a mediator at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to see if there's enough consensus ... I'm certainly willing to pull the trigger. Blueboy96 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing, too - I'm avowedly pro-science, but we need to distinguish between pro-science editors who are defending NPOV and those, like Randy Blackamoor, who are only around to insult the anti-science types. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• No further discussion needed from my perspective - I am not involved in any way with this area. Having read through all of this thread I have blocked for gross incivility as detailed above.--VS 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Random weirdness, potentially disruptive editor

• Mhsb (talk · contribs)

I don't understand what's going on, but this editor is doing some very strange things. Like edit warring with himself on White Brazilian (add afd, removing it, re-add, re-remove). I suspect there was an attempt to "change username" to Opinoso (talk · contribs) (see ), perhaps to make it look like Opinoso was removing the AfD tag? Dúnadan (talk · contribs) (an admin on ca:) seems to be involved, so I've asked them for input here. In short, I don't know that there's been anything concrete, but it sure looks really weird. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that he be blocked for 36 hours, and warned that if he continues being weird that he'll be gone for good... it is very strange, and his edits really don't merit the trouble I suspect he's going to cause!! User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have been involved in other discussions with Mhsb, I was not aware of Mhsb recent edits. He is a fairly new user, mostly unaware of the policies of Misplaced Pages. At first, he seemed to be a very disruptive user at Talk:Mexico, but eventually, after a very long discussion, apologized, and agreed to reach a compromised consensus.

Based on the links above, he inserted/removed/inserted/removed the tag in 4 minutes which to me, suggests that he didn't know what he was actually doing. Trying to change his name to "Opinoso" is indeed a very weird and possibly disruptive behavior, but I don't see that he was warned or asked to explain his actions neither in his talk page nor here. A temporary blockage may seem appropriate as long as he is explained the reasons and also be given a chance to explain his actions. --the Dúnadan 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:Mhsb inviting him to join this discussion. Without deep investigation, one can observe that his User talk looks very strange. You can tell that a number of editors have already been very patient with him in a variety of situations where his behavior caused some puzzlement. One of those trying to educate him on WP policy was User:Dúnadan, who is an admin on the Catalan Misplaced Pages. Checking Talk:Mexico you can notice Mhsb using up a great deal of space and receiving some well-informed advice that didn't seem to make much impression. I think he is in the process of running out of good faith very soon now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he and Opinoso have been edit warring on Model (person), which resulted in protection on the article, it would be exceptionally strange for him to try to change his name to Opinoso.Kww (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenic99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Arsenic99 appears to be on Misplaced Pages solely with an agenda of denying the Armenian Genocide. In the last few hours, he created Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists and added it to several BLPs, including that of Taner Akçam (to my knowledge, the only person whose Misplaced Pages article has result in the subject's detainment by law enforcement). I've removed the category from all articles and put it up for CfD, but I remain concerned about Arsenic99's editing. This post to my talk page indicates that he doesn't consider the Armenian genocide a fact, only a "historical interpretation". Such an approach is ahistorical and unencyclopedic, to say the least. I think we should consider banning Arsenic99 from editing, or at least consider a ban from anything having to do with Armenia and related subjects. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in my talk page, User Talk:Arsenic99 that Akhilleus seemed to have a very hostile reaction (This link) to a simple discussion as to whether the Armenian Genocide is a fact or a historical interpretation based on years and years of research. I didn't deny the Armenian Genocide, nor is that the sole purpose of my account because anyone can see my contrib list, though I do have an interest in the subject which is clear. History changes all the time, which is why events and labels are not declared as facts in history, but simply interpretations based on CURRENT research on the subject. Sometimes research changes, an example would be the research at one time was that the Earth was Flat, but later research confirmed that the Earth was Round. I did not promote any POV, since it is OK to have categories such as Category: Nazi propagandists or Category:Soviet propagandists I thought it was OK to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists but a simple renaming to a better term, could have been suggested by Akhilleus, instead he has had an agenda to censor me by deleting my work and proposing the category for deletion and writing numerous incident reports about me rather than discussing the issue with me in a mature manner. He has acted in a hostile manner towards me which I don't believe I deserved, and if I did, please explain to me why. Banning me for simply making one category, while Andranikpasha (who has numerous incidents about him) has been able to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide deniers is simply unfair and excessive. Misplaced Pages is not a place for censorship or hostility, and I am hoping an apology will be in order, and a pleasant discussion for the category's deletion or renaming will continue. I would argue that declaring a historical name for an event a fact is like saying "Bob is a fact". — § _Arsenic99_ 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but User:Nat earlier closed this discussion because in his opinion, it appeared to be a content dispute. It's not--there is no dispute about whether there was an Armenian Genocide. This is about Arsenic99's disruptive editing. Therefore, I'm un-closing this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute in that the category in question is disputed. Besides, it doesn't seem to be like Arsenic is being especially disruptive. I don't think this is something that merits administrator attention, seeing as dispute resolution is intended for this very thing. But I'm not an administrator, so this is just my opinion as an uninvolved editor. --clpo13_(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:AE because of this ArbCom's remedies? Orderinchaos 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be more appropriate. I'll try to post there later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ban Arsenic99 from anything related to Armenian or the Armenian Genocide in a couple of hours unless anyone objects. WP:ARBAA2 is perfectly applicable here. Not sure we really need more tendentious editors like this. Moreschi (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I've speedily deleted the "Propagandists" category on CfD, per my earlier closing of the "deniers" category discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've banned Arsenic99 from Armenian Genocide, Talk:Armenian Genocide, as well as reasonably related articles and their talk pages. Logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

threat

A sockpuppet by user: Mmbabies made this threat here late last night. What should we as the community do, another guy I know has contacted the FBI, Texas Rangers, Houston PD, and various other people. I filed a abuse report on 3 Feb 2008, and the other guy filed a abuse report on 24 Feb 2008. Can somone please give advice or atleast foward this to Jimbo or the Foundation . Rio de oro (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia we get "threats" from users all the time, I suppose posting a thread on here about it, doesn't help because they will have possibly done that looking for attention! WP:DENY. AndreNatas (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon user has been blocked for disruption. If he continues, he will get extended blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Didnt Jimbo say if someone made a death threat , we should take action(ie. notfiy police...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never read anything like that, but I don't see any reason why individual users couldn't report it. Evil saltine (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked many times before (see Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Mmbabies). should read before commenting Evil saltine (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I herd that a school bomb threat that was reported here on ANI was reported to the cops , and also Jimbo stated clearly when ever people /person life is threatned we schold contact law enforcement. Should we ask Jimbo Walles or the Foundation. Can an admin or a steward foward this to the Foundation ASAP.--Rio de oro (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Threats of violence made on Misplaced Pages have been reported to various authorities, although not always law enforcement. Dealing with these sorts of situations is a judgment call and there are no hard and fast rules about how to respond. Some threats have been ignored, some have been forwarded to ISP abuse departments or school authorities, and some have been reported to law enforcement. If you reported this to law enforcement and feel that was the best thing to do, then that's fine. Natalie (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See for example WP:VIOLENCE, (also links to same place WP:SUICIDE for suicide threats). If you see a threat and aren't worried that it's at all credible, we won't make you do anything. If you're worried that it's credible, we feel that it's responsible and appropriate for you to take the initiative and report it to proper authorities. The Wikimedia Foundation also wants to know if you do that, and posting to ANI is also encouraged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School?

Someone posted at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Plano Senior High School about this edit. Thought I should repost here for some advice. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concern was dealt with by Bongwarrior, who was also posted by the same party, earlier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deliberate hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should notify the police in Plano,Texas. With all the school shootings VA Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine High School.The world isnt some happy place anymore.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just phone Mike Godwin. Right now. ASAP , about this. What happends something happens. Any you guys are left thinking , feeling guilty about. And , what happends if it a real threat. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy that posted this threat has broken USA law ; they posted a teroristic threat. A felony. So, its some serious bs . Rio de oro (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to notify the police in Plano,Texas, and the WM foundation.--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this: Would I send my kid to this school tomorrow morning with a good feeling? No. Do we Wikipedians have sufficient background knowledge to make a final judgement about the seriousness of such a threat? No. So maybe it's better to notify the police. Of course, we are in the danger to turn a mouse into an elephant (that's a German saying). On the other hand: What if...? And finally, if it was a hoax: Maybe it's a good idea to send a message to bored kids: Don't fool around with threats like this. --Abrech (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: School is in Texas, IP that made the threat is from Pennsylvania. However, this is a major offense of US law, and does need to be dealt with seriously. ---CWY2190 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's today's featured article just increases the likelihood that this is a poor taste of a bad joke. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. Metros (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What we always do contact the autorities. Anyone in texas?Geni 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certainly a joke... and has anyone notified the police yet? Sethie (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some shit you absolutely do not joke about. This is an example. HalfShadow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got the phone number of the Plano police; I'd be willing to call, but I'm not sure they'd take the words of a 16-year-old Misplaced Pages admin from Canada too seriously. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a licensed EMT and public safety professional, I'll volunteer to make the call. Bstone (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call has been made. I have informed them of the threat, time and location. Bstone (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BStone; I wish I'd spotted this thread earlier. I've now lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has arisen, and how it has not been dealt with seriously and expeditiously. Jimbo Wales' & Mike Godwin's positions has always been (to me, at least) that we are not qualified to judge the cogency of these incidents, the law enforcement agencies are, and they should always be reported for them to make the appropriate decisions. There was an addition to WP:SUICIDE to deal with this sort of thing, and every admin, at least, should be aware of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The second you even attempt to make a 'joke' like that, you deserve exactly what happens to you. HalfShadow (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone; the last thing this site needs is a real version of the Benoit incident. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got a call back from the Plano Police Dept in which I spoke to an officer. I sent him the diff with the offending post and a screenshot. I walked him through how to read it and he took down all the information and said they will investigate. The officer gave me a reference number, which is 08-43705. In case this ever needs to be brought up again this reference number can be used. Bstone (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the anon used a proxy to make that threat. Not much that can be done.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Cary Bass; the foundation is dealing with it, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this gets sorted out quickly. --Sharkface217 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we let this slip by, what happens if people actually got hurt then it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS.--Rio de oro (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We didn't "let this slip by". The authorities have been informed, as clearly discussed above. Good job, Bstone and MoP. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get the original IP address that did this. The proxy IP resolves to two CGI proxy websites- one of them says that all activity is logged, and anything against their TOS will result in a ban from the proxy. I'm betting that if we e-mailed them, we could get the IP address from them that made the threat. Especially if it was from a wikimedia.org e-mail address. There's two domains that I believe I found (I'm behind a filter right now, so I can't check)- enjoylearning.com and clanzhost.com (or clanzhosting.com, not sure). I'll be able to tell for sure once I get home. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you figure it out please post it here. I have an email address for the police dept and can forward them any info. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bstone, for making the call! and h2g2bob for reporting this. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anything happend or was there a report , or did anything unusal happend at the school. Rio de oro (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the domain registrants for the proxies behind the IP. So now, we wait and see. And for those interested, the domains I found behind the IP are enjoylearning.info and clanzhost.com, so if you find any more, please let me know, so I can contact them as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, did anyone contact the school? They should investigate on their end, in case someone made the threat from inside the school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for a moment that the police informed them, but I can't WP:V that. Bstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news! I got the logs for one of the proxies, and I'm looking at them right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, from the logs, there's an IP address I'm currently investigating. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your email just now and am logging in on Lyn's laptop! Checkuser says that's a direct match for user agent, tho' it's a reasonably popular one - Alison 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - there's a new proposal at Misplaced Pages:ThreatsOfViolence - intended to avoid having to cover similar ground repeatedly at noticeboards - take a look if you're interested - thoughts welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PatW

PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned numerous times for personal attacks, and talk page disruption (WP:NOT#FORUM, and WP:NOT#SOPABOX). Despite the warnings, PatW continues misusing talk page discussions with long diatribes, baiting editors, expressing personal opinions about the subject of the article, etc.

The user, upon my last warning, says that the warnings are "inappropriate and a corruption of honest values. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this."diff

Note: the user does not make edits in article namespace, only commenting in talk pages, and only about this subject.

The article in question, is on community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation (See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Probation)

Diffs, in descending order:

• Describing editors as "shameless servants". Diff March 9, 2008

• User was warned about article probation. March 4, 2008

• User_talk:PatW#Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks Feb 24, 2008 - for this comment

• User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3 Feb 9, 2008, for this attack: You horrible, HORRIBLE bunch of liars are all going to hopefully be revealed as the shameless dishonest, immoral brain-washed creeps you clearly are

• Previous warnings can be seen on his User talk:PatW

I kindly request an uninvolved admin to review this user's behavior, in the context of WP:NPA, talk page disruption, and the article probation, and his own request to assess if his behavior is constructive or disruptive, and assess the imposition of restrictions if warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I would endorse a block just for the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks alone, such as this, this and this if it continues on. Asking for banning with a smiley face is still pretty much assuming the worst. His comments reek of much incivility, and his personal statements against you is much unwarranted -- at Jimbo's talk page, article space and wherever. He's only attention-whoring and seeking as much of it as possible, hence why his talk page is nothing more than a winded soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A block certainly seems warranted; such personal attacks have no place here. — Coren  00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I also endorse a block. This user does not seem to have any intentions to civilly contribute to wikipedia. No user should have to endure the attacks as Jossi had. Disclaimer: I have not been part of any of the above disputes, infact I have never seen the Prem Rawat article and I have never met Jossi. (I mearly notice a message at Jimbo's talkpage that led me here.)--Sunny910910 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is some kind of fair trial I am amazed. Perhaps some of you might like to look at my boiling over' comments (which I have apologised for) in context before pronouncing judgement. I think you will find I have made civil contributions to Misplaced Pages too. I am not perfect but there are two sides to this and I question how well-considered the judgements are here so far. Come and take a look at the actual arguments over at the Prem Rawat article. Your opinions on that I assure you are welcome. Jossi and I have a history of mutual baiting by the way which is not actually as venomous as it may seem. For a start we know each other and I have qualified my attacks re. his perceived COI with some acknowledgement that my animosity is actually intended to be restricted purely to arguments here. I actually like Jossi as a person though that may not come across in my heated objections to the way he handles the Prem Rawat article. Please don't block me I'm going to be good! And I am not seeking attention but am passionate about drawing attention to the article- not to 'me' I hasten to add! Thanks.PatW (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about being blocked or not, Pat. It is a matter of a recurring behavior that it is not helpful to the aims of this project. WP:CIVILITY is not an option. Not making personal attacks is not an option. You have been warned many times, and you always respond with a "yes, I will not do it again", "I apologize", or worse, with a "Obviously we have different interpretations of what constitutes civility". And then you continue with the same behaviors. Some people never learn, PatW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say I am used to having very heated arguments with people which have room for a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Maybe it's a British trait I don't know. All the same I would prefer that people who rush to judgement about my intentions exercise a little more investigation into the article and my arguments about that before accusing me broadly of bad intentions. Not to do so seems also plainly rather uncivilised. PatW (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Not applicable, Pat, and not a good excuse. These issues have been explained to you numerous times, such as recently as Feb 26, 2008 here], in which User:Will Beback said to you that WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a recommendation. People are blocked and banned from this site every day for incivility towards other editors. To put it bluntly, you will be too unless you stop making negative personal remarks. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not therapy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am among several editors who have warned PatW to refrain from personal attacks and negative personal remarks. He or she has made little attempt to stop them. On that basis I endorse a sanction on this user. However I disagree that PatW has been especially disruptive on the talk page aside from the personal attacks. Jossi appears to condemn PatW for being a single-puspose account, though there are several of those involved in the article, and for only contributing to the talk page, even though he is also only contributing to the talk page (due to a self-identified COI). I urge Jossi to take a less aggressive approach to policing talk:Prem Rawat in order to reduce tensions. Will Beback NS (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, can you tell me something please which I am unsure about? That instance where I called you and Momento 'horrible liars' etc. (for which I have apologised). Did I not delete that straightaway? If I did, wasn't a bit mean to drag it out of the bin to use against me? If I didn't delete it then I owe you another apology. But could you just confirm this as I find it hard to see from the history page?PatW (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded in your talk page were you asked. Please do not cross post. A copy of my response, below:

Here, to which you did not apologize, btw. In any case, an apology on its own will not do, Pat, as you have continued with your personal attacks such as in here]. A publicly made commitment never to do that again is what is needed, accompanied by an acceptance that if you do that again, you will accept the consequences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi you were Prem Rawat's personal webmaster and web PR guy. I am a critic and grateful escapee from Rawat's cult. Do you understand how unpalatable it is for me to lick your boots over this because you demand it under threat? I get the impression you are salivating over making me 'apologise'. What is wrong here is that everyone wants to make me apologise for not only my occasional outbursts but they don't want to look into whether I have actually spoken the truth (ie whether you have actually encouraged or turned a blind eye to heavy POV pushing and lies from followers of Prem Rawat), or to what extent your 'aggressive policing' (which is by no means just my judgement) amounts to thinly disguised baiting on your part. I am happy to pledge politeness to everyone on Misplaced Pages ad infinitum. I will not however disguise or desist from strongly opposing anyone who appears to be wrongly stifling discussion that is perfectly germane to the article. As I am attempting to argue with you about. Problem is you have such an antiseptic revulsion for ex-followers of your Guru that you apparently won't even answer my questions. (Visa Vi your comments about Sylviecyn and myself) I notice also someone on Wales' page suggested you might want to answer some of my questions instead of just archiving them without any decent response. That would certainly be a step towards less heated complaintsPatW (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, some people never learn, and Misplaced Pages may not be a place for them if they cannot WP:KEEPCOOL. As per all editors that have commented in this issue, sanctions may be the only way, given your last comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlong block of 90.200.0.0/16

RIPE query block log

A full year for 1/4 of an ISP seems extreme, we have had an OTRS query about the block and I was hoping it could be reviewed. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, as a checkuser on enwiki, I've seen this range show up again and again and again at RFCU. The fact that it's blocked AO/ACB is the least disruptive as it allows other, established editors use of this range. Furthermore, without saying too much, checkuser results show that that range is surprisingly inactive apart from one seriously disruptive editor. I'm not in favour of rangeblocks unless they're totally necessary and I'm not in favour of long blocks but in this case ... well, I can certainly see the rationale for applying it here. Would you be willing to share the ticket # here, by any chance? I also have OTRS access and can take a look if you like - Alison 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

#2008030810014496 - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like a pretty standard account creation request. You could simply request a username and create the account for them, as we do all the time on the unblock mailing list. That way, they can get to editing through the block without any problems. I wouldn't be in favour of lifting the rangeblock at this time, though, whatever about shortening it - Alison 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather extreme for a well-known IP. Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking seems rather extreme for one account request, given what Alison said above. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Bot action on 9-1-1

The bot denies reversal of scrambled latest version of 9-1-1. This is the incident code:(267521) .

The previous version defended by the Bot is scrambled and needs to be either reversed or cleaned up. --OCTopus-en (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Expressions

I haven't seen this immediately, so I'm reporting this with a delay. However, this must be reported. On 8 Feb 2008, User:Kukar wrote: "You must be on some serious hallucinogens Kubura " . This is not a way of communication. I don't find these messages pointed to me as funny. Kubura (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given the editor a level2 warning for failing to AGF. I can't do more since the incident is a little stale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries and its AfD

again, more of an eye since the current vandalism has been reverted. User:Bg357 has 'dealt with' the situation by removing the AfD in the name of vandalism. This article has been apparently host to a number of shenanigans in the past, some of which is quasi-explained at the talk and may ( I don't see or get it) be explained on this blog. User:Rlmmedia may be involved but in an odd way. I think this needs an eye on it more than anything at the moment, with possible admin looking into logs to see if we're rehashing previous issues from other incarnations of this article (which was speedied, I believe). TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ETA warnings are disruptive edits. I'm not engaging with that user anymore as I don't need agita, but it's worth watching TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools and harrassment by User talk:JzG, harrassment by user:TenOfAllTrades

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

JzG (aka Guy) first used his admin status to threaten and intimidate in this diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196068061&oldid=196066345

This was then followed up by TenOfAllTrades, mocking me on JzG's talk page seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=196068724&oldid=196032343

I then discussed comments left on my talk page by users, which JzG didn't like. Note, I did not discuss these matters on reference desks on other public pages. The discussions were on my talk page which others initiated, and I responded to. Regardless, JzG used his admin status to block me since I responded to comments left by other users, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196151165&oldid=196115180

The harshness of Guy and TenOfAllTrades has been commented on by user:Lomn as too harsh, seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196106752&oldid=196102864 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You again? Stop being obnoxious, and you won't get blocked. Friday (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The last diff is misrepresented. Lomn actually says the opposite of what has been asserted. The first few diffs reference sarcastic remarks, nothing improper, and have also been presented in a false light. This IP appears to be trolling and should be blocked if it will not stop. Jehochman 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IP critcising JzG, 10OAT. Nothing needs to be said, really. Marking resolved. Will 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this IP was beating the same drum liast week at AN: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130#User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten. Apparently he didn't get the message then that his trolling was unwelcome; perhaps a block is necessary at this juncture, as he is now ignoring the good advice offered to him by multiple editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This user was mocking me in the diff posted above. It is a violation of civility rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:STICK covers this nicely, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the complaint is against you, that would be a natural retort. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Canvassing

Can administrators please interfere — User:Kuban kazak is advertising on the message board an AfD with an attempt to influence the vote, which is contrary to WP:CANVASS. I tried to modify the entry and of course with this user it evolved into a revert war. An outside intervention is very welcome. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a gentle notice. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how putting up a notice and a personal thought about the deletion request on a public portal is an act of WP:CANVASSing. Is that what the portals are there for, so that you can inform the community about such developemnts? On the other hand by altering someone's talk page entry, that is certainly bordering on WP:VANDalism? --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled too by Bearian's "gentle note". I see the allegedly offending diff and I fail to see anything at all even remotely resembling canvassing. This thread seems more like an intimidation attempt and should be noted as such. ---Irpen 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilock posted saying only "*This article Donbas secessionism has been listed for deletion here. " But then Kuban added to it: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." I consider that canvassing for a particular opinion. Much better to just say where it is, and make the argument at the Afd. I think the very mild note Berian left, which was essentially just telling him of this discussion, was appropriate. DGG (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock posted nothing. See below. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has clearly crossed the line by adding his biased opinion to the original neutral note. Bearian acted correctly. Irpen's accusations of intimidation seems to be an assumption of bad faith, and should be noted as such. Martintg (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who wants to add a comment to an issue get the facts straight first.

1. This was Kuban's "original note".
2. This was Hillock’s editing of the Kuban's note, not the other way around.
3. This was Kuban's restoring his original comment.

I've seen enough of Hillock to not have to resort to "assumptions" of what he is doing. You, Martin, may note what you like. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock et al., it is not the purpose of this board to try to stir up trouble for those who disagree with you on content matters. Kuban, it is better that you keep your own opinion to yourself when posting poll information on noticeboards ... gives those guys ammunition against you. Bearian ... my commiserations! Marting ... Irpen's not speaking from bad faith born of bad faith; the persecution of Kuban by certain users on wikipedia is something that is well-established.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I just witness this: Irpen doesn't consider this comment: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." even remotely resembles canvassing, then proceeds to attack Hillock's motives and questions Bearian's judgement. Amazing. Martintg (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, don't put words in my mouth and don't distort facts, especially since they are in plain view. This is all I am saying. I posted the diffs above. They speak for themselves. --Irpen 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I've seen enough of the cabal's circling of the wagons ... How about dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think many have again acted first and failed to question. Kuban kazak is a well established editor and does not need this "attack". I think caution should be taken in the future when reporting things to this board. Please read ALL relevant pages before posting "based on half the knowledge." I will apologize for everyone, sorry Kuban Thright (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Trolling IP

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

IP has been used almost solely for trolling talk pages, although I can entertain the possibility it's just an idealogue who doesn't appreciate NPOV. However, in the latter case, I'd expect more mainspace edits to try to "fix" this. Seems most likely s/he's just here to cause disruption. --Infophile 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed yet another warning on the IP's talk page, but I will not yet block, as the edits are not technically vandalism. Bearian (talk)

This IP has edited tendetiously for some time, and has started to attack other editors. Given the pattern of edits, this is obviously a single-user IP, and I would fully support a multi-month block on this IP if the incivility does not stop NOW. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a handful of IP's who consistently troll and abuse article talk pages but don't vandalize per se (the Vermont Public Library editor being another prominent example). I think it's reasonable to have some limit on how much we tolerate such (non-)contributors, and agree with Jayron. MastCell  18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The level of disruption and trolling we put up with here is absurd. This person has nothing worthwhile to contribute to this project and has stated their disruptive intentions on the IP's talk page. This IP need to be blocked Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours after another disruptive edit and various threats to change IPs on the talk page. If they evade by resetting router I recommend a rangeblock as appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Halo2nutter

Can anyone see what User:Halo2nutter doing? Special:Contributions/Halo2nutter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just fooling around, I guess. Only 3 edits today, nothing serious. Just leave it alone.--Atlan (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Irredentism vandalised

I have posted information about disruptive behaviour of the user:VartanM on page Irredentism. New user stpped forward and making aggressive unacceptabe commments and removes sourced information. pls. see his comment and his constant removal of sourced information --Dacy69 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• What have these two edits by User:Azad chai got to do with User:VartanM? Are you insinuating they are the same user? If so, suspected sock puppet reporting is this way. Black Kite 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would like to draw attention now to incivil comments by User:MarshallBagramyan - . This comes after similar comments earlier User:VartanM - . Note that both contributors, along with now third contributor User:Azad chai are being incivil and attacking contributors along national lines and simply for editing/contributing references to articles. I wonder if the problem with this group of users pushing pro-Armenian POV either by reverts , , or by attacks are ever going to be addressed. I think the only solution is to define more strict definition of WP:AGF and require contributors to concentrate on topics rather than other contributors. Atabek (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This attempt to associate me with some other editor smells of dishonesty. I've been reported here three times under a week now. Azad chai is obviously yet another strawpuppet. We've been habituated of this dishonest method. Azerbaijani Irredentism in Iran is much more documented and would have been legitimate to think that it was a matter of time it would be added. So associating the position to a sockpuppet to later justify its removal would have only benefited Dacy not me (it is not the first time such a thing was done). Adil should find better term than Azad chai to make it sound Armenian. Or next time, a strawpuppet is created, better not call NK, Qarabaq like here from an Azeri variation, which no Armenian will call it. I won't waste my time answering Atabek. VartanM (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs); no connection determinable to any other accounts. Thatcher 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I gotta note that the whole Azeri "baboon" thing is quite alike this, or this. I bet if it was Ehud Lesar or Adil Baguirov name found in that link, they would have been immediately charged as sockpuppets, banned indefinitely without any questioning right away. But I see TigranTheGreat posting at VartanM's there, with expressed admiration of "baboons". Atabek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe when Azerbaboon first came up I checked Tigran and they are from very different geographic areas. Not to rule out a friend or maybe just a jerk with too much time on his hands. Thatcher 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist Eliot Spitzer

At least for a bit. Eliot Spitzer has been apparently outed by the NY Times for being some part of a Federal prostitution sting, and the attacks/BLP issues are already underway since Drudge broke the news on his site back to the NYT. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and there is a WP:RFPP on him right now. Tiptoety 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, we need more admins on Eliot Spitzer. We have allegations of BLP violations going now. Lawrence § t/e 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on David Paterson, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, looks like someone has redirected Client 9 to Eliot Spitzer, there is a request at WP:RFPP that states that somehow Client 9 is linked to Mr. Spitzer, but I cant find much. Tiptoety 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been reported that "Client #9" in this ring's files was Spitzer. However, I fail to see how this is a valid redirect - who's going to search for that? Natalie (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the edit warring begin *sigh* Tiptoety 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

I need help at Amanda Baggs; I'm not an admin it's moving faster than I can keep up with. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute has spilled over to Wiki, there are COI issues, and I'm removing personal attacks, attempted outings of Wiki editors, and BLP violations from the talk page at a rate I can't keep up with. I'll come back and add some diffs in a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, this editor was previously blocked for linkspamming this blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More, the COI spills over into the Mark Geier, Seidel controversy; Dave Seidel is apparently an involved, COI editor. I'm unwatching. URL REMOVED SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Baggs editors aren't autoconfirmed, I've semi'd that for a week. Moving to look at Geier. MBisanz 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity at Geier, so no admin actions taken. MBisanz 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to direct you to all the pieces, Mbisanz. I became aware months ago of the issues at Mark Geier, and when I waded into Amanda Baggs, I didn't realize there was a connection. Apparently, according to that blog, there is. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets better: apparently (according to someone posting on the talk page there) there's also a link to the Wiki chiropractic mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be most parsimonious to note that these articles (Geier, chiropractic, etc) have significant problems with off-wiki recruiting and importation of outside disputes, and to take a fairly stern line with editors who fit this profile. MastCell  22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to blacklist the blog links people are trying to add? There's basically no way they're going to be allowed, nor will they be particularly appropriate anywhere else, so the blacklist seems like a neat solution. Natalie (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one has objected, I'm going to add the blogs to the spam blacklist. They can always be de-blacklisted if a good reason for including them surfaces. I will also remove those links from the talk page so there is no confusion. Natalie (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no idea how the blacklist works, but endorse adding things such as this. MBisanz 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apparently failed, so I've asked an administrator who knows how to help with this. Sigh. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This SPU has started posting on talk: Quebec (I've since reverted his post), an article he is banned from editing. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I request a decision

As to what to do with Azad chai (talk · contribs), who seems to be a SPA/sock stalking Dacy69 (talk · contribs). I'm tempted to block indefinitely right off the bat. Moreschi (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Six edits all in the same topic area... Hard to call that stalking necessarily, but it does include two reverts of the same user. OF course, if they hit the same topic with different opinions and the topic isn't high traffic - that again would argue against stalking. SPA after 6 edits is a bit hard to conclude, too ;-) Let me take a closer look at the edits (shouldn't take long) and come back with more if necessary. Avruch 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Same user as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), doubtful this is a good faith editor. Thatcher 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban evasion by Shankbone's stalker

DavidShankbone's harrasser is back and making innocuous and constructive edits. But a ban is a ban; could someone please block him? Sockpuppets are listed here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ACLU

63.3.10.1 is continually removing referenced material from American Civil Liberties Union with "interesting" edit summaries such as 1, 2, and 3. The IP's sock account (63.3.10.2) is doing the same thing with the same interesting style of edit summary. (1) The first IP has a last warning message on his/her talk page, so is a block in order now or should some other action be taken. I'd suggest using the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be the way the anonymous user wants to handle the situation. There is probably a need for semi-protection on the page, if a request hasn't been made somewhere else already, and the discussion for that is here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind about the first IP, I see someone has just blocked the user. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of user using his User space to CANVASS for AfD warring

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has apparently heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept, even going so far as to say that policy should not be followed () and saying that "policy is not binding" (). He's created User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight and linked to it from his User page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We really need to have a word with Kmweber. The RFA opposes are in good faith, but now it looks like he's picking a fight. Will 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did this administrator put out a call for on-wiki disruption? Link? Lawrence § t/e 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called for "disruption" and its on WikiEn-l. I don't think there is a problem with putting a list of AfDs you're interested in on a user subpage, and if this wasn't Kurt with his history at RfAs there wouldn't be an AN/I thread about it. Avruch 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw Corvus write, "heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Misplaced Pages can be kept", and that did not sound good. But thats why I asked. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been actively discussed on Wikien-L for a couple of days now. This is entirely appropriate - canvassing for a particular AFD issue is questionable, but calling attention to process issues writ wider is completely legitimate community activity. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: Kmweber is pretty much exactly the wrong person to be encouraging to use Misplaced Pages as a personal battleground regarding deletion policy, given that he -- literally -- believes everything, without except, belongs on Misplaced Pages. Witness this and his arguments here (like this claim, this claim, and this claim. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I claim no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Kurt reads wikien-l and will use it as a launching point to go off and be Kurt - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Whats wrong here? It looks like he may be taking WP:IAR a bit far, but policy is not the end all solution to everything here, and if it gets in the way of a constructive project then go around it. And as for the links to AfD's, I know a ton of users who have those, just a list to watch, and it is not canvasing if it is in his own userspace. Tiptoety 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's call for AfD warring is at and following discussions on that thread name. This has nothing to do with Kurt Weber's history on AfDs, I don't even know what his history is on the matter. It wouldn't have been an issue if David Gerard hadn't begunt his campaing and Kurt hadn't followed along. What would you call Kurt's vote to keep articles on non-notable bands which violate a LONG-standing guideline at WP:BAND except trying to turn AfD into a battlefield to keep garbage? Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"AFD warring"? This is a perfect example of the problem with AFD: it's hopelessly inbred and inward-focused, with active hostility (which has even been noted in Third-Party Reliable Sources) to anyone perceived as an "outsider." AFD can not seriously be claimed to represent community opinion if its regulars are "reporting" people to ANI for pointing this out and asking people to participate in it, which I did indeed do, so help me Dawkins - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not a call for AFD warring - if the community is concerned about the way AFD has been going of late (and I for one am, and was long before this Wikien-L thread) and we're motivated to get involved, this is entirely legitimate community process. Corvus, you may not like what we think about things right now, but please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets WP:AGF here, no policies have been broken, and no damage done to the project (not yet at least). Tiptoety 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. That an AFD regular can react like this at the prospect of the community they claim to represent actually showing up fails to demonstrate that AFD is fine and dandy and non-pathological - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no claims of representing anyone but myself. I do feel a bit of dismay when you, or anybody else for that matter, start posting calls for war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that what I actually said was (to quote the message in its entirety): "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?", I am completely at a loss to make sense of your bizarre characterisation as other than seeing yourself as defending AFD against invading forces. That the invading forces would be the community that AFD claims its mandate from seems to have completely escaped you - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing a different side or something, but as of late, AfD seems to be improving. Whenever I've nominated a questionable article, it's either accepted to be deleted due to no sources after a couple people looked, or kept after being vastly improved. Doesn't sound so bad. After reading the mailing list I don't see anything about it making it a battleground. In fact, I'm not positive what they want. To quote David: "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there." Now, what attitude he means I'd like to know, this way I'll knwo whether I'm for or against this. Wizardman 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to the general AfD attitude of deletionism that has been turning into a battleground against "outsiders" interested in real discussion. I haven't seen what Wiz has sen in an improvement, personally, in fact I think it's getting worse. ANI threads like this only add to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WEll, whether circumstances are betting better or worse, I have no idea what Kurt is trying to prove with his edits other than a point. Wizardman 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to that, closing admins are encouraged to use their best judgment. AFD is allegedly not a vote, so if Kurt is proposing things that don't have consensus, what's wrong with that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, our deletion processes suffer from a lack of sufficient participation and are often dominated by two groups; AFD regulars and the authors of particular articles. Neither are a good gauge of wider consensus, I feel, and David's attempts to encourage AFD participation are praiseworthy. Note that he has explicitly encouraged those who disagree with him to also go to AFD and participate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, getting different users to look at different AfDs is a good idea. Hopefully this will continue, since I do tend to see the same editors pop up every so often, though I do see occasional new afd users. Wizardman 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there even are "AFD regulars" shows something is seriously wrong around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is barring you from participating. Corvus cornix_talk 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If only everyone was an AfD regular. Tiptoety 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an admitted "AfD regular", as nominator, participator, and now more recently as closer, I would be more than thrilled to see wider participation. I probably relist for consensus more than I close as either keep or delete because nobody (at least whilst looking through the older debates, seems to be chiming in. Just an observatin. Every editor, regardless of how they arrived there short of being a SPA or canvassed, IMHO, is welcome. Also, IMO, Kmweber was not canvassed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a secret that I consider the general atmosphere on AFD severely problematic and damaging to the project's internal workings, let alone its public relations. (When you get written up in The Economist, you've, ah, arrived. The people on WT:AFD who dismiss the article as merely a pissed-off deletee are just ... rather too highly focused on AFD itself.) The best possible way I can think of to get it fixed is more community involvement - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic posts from an IP editor

Could someone please take a look at 70.132.25.45 (talk · contribs)? I guess we normally don't block IP addresses but this one has engaged in long-term abuse with no productive edits ever. Nearly all the contributions are either strongly anti-semitic , uncivil , contemptuous of Misplaced Pages's rules, or all three. Given how passionate this person is about Misplaced Pages issues in their very sporadic contributions, and with a single-minded focus on what's wrong with Jews, I wonder if this is an IP sockpuppet of another editor. Thks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what other sysops do, but I will block racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and sexist comments without all 4 warnings. I have blocked this IP for 24 hours as noted at User talk:70.132.25.45 and in the block log. This is not to punish, mind you, but to avoid further Wikidrama caused by the trolling, vandalism, and edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So will I. If ever there was a case for WP:IAR, in my book, this is it, and hang the consequences. It's not just the rules here, it's the general rules of society at large. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boru is awesome

This user, Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · logs), keeps slashing messages I appropriately gave him last year concerning a few of his unconstructive edits. ASAIK, users are allowed to remove legitimate warnings, comments, etc., but not alter them. Since I don't want to get into an edit war with this guy over this, can someone revert and step in? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left an amicable note on the user's talk page about the general practice of removing talk page messages. I hope that helps somewhat. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Posing as admin

User:Gordon24fan is apparently posing as an admin - see this edit on my talk page. It's apparently a disagreement over uncited info on the Eliot Spitzer article. Nesodak (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a query on the user's talk page. - Philippe | Talk 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here, my guess is that it was a typo since "Im an admin just to warn you now" is bad English, he probably meant "Im an admin just to warn you now" although his grammar makes it hard to understand. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he just told me that he's a "hide" admin - a "secret agent admin". - Philippe | Talk 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right...... one of those "secret" ones..... that only he knows about. Tiptoety 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm...He added an Admin template to his usrpage 29 February 2008, but not an Admin--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)WP:AGF is pretty hard here. User has a history of blocks and questionable edits, while Nesodak didn't make any edit summaries I would consider anywhere near the realm of being "smart alecky". I would guess he really was trying (!) to pose as an admin. Looks like Phillippe is taking care of it, tho. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, never mind that comment. Blocked one week for disruption, feel free to tweak my block. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess we'll see socks from this one, based on his history... - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the admin userbox from his userpage, explained why on his talkpage. He removed (from his talkpage) the section about admins. I reverted it back once, but I'm leaving it alone now. (it's his talkpage). If he adds the admin userbox back again, I would support a block of any length of time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This young man has quite a history of edit warring and misrepresenting himself. If the pattern continues, I'm thinking we may want to consider something a little longer term. If he is to be blocked again in the future, it should probably be indefinite. – ClockworkSoul 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would support any length of time as well, the admin template was added 5 days after creating the account.--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and deny his SECOND unblock request if nobody beats me to it. – ClockworkSoul 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict form a mysterious anon placing a "request accepted" template on the talk page. Anybody have checkuser? – ClockworkSoul 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant edit is here, lets run a checkuser and if its possitive or likely we extend the block to indef. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It quacks. I blocked the IP and protected the user page. I'll also extend the block to indef. - Philippe | Talk 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for checkuser when it's blindingly obvious. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

76.178.89.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) possibly User:Thechroniclesofratman--Hu12 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, plain and simple, no need for a checkuser. Tiptoety 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef it is. – ClockworkSoul 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Philippe | Talk 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why I wanted a checkuser, that is that when the one week block was placed the autoblock was used, wich means this may be him editing from another PC wich may host several other socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Gordon24fan is also Crackerstackerman (talk · contribs) and Bronxkingmeez (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Man...not enough to be a sockpuppeting, admin-impersonating jerk--but did he have to bring NASCAR into it? It's not like us fans don't have an image problem already....:)Gladys J Cortez 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There must be something in the air. Here's another user posing as an admin - five minutes after creating the account! -- Zsero (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd gallagher (talk · contribs)

User:Todd gallagher does not feel that WP:NPA applies to him. Gallagher continues to game NPA by using rhetorical techniques such as similes. He has referred to me both as a "racist" and a "Neo-Nazi". Could an administrator please warn him on his talk page? Also, the user redirected his main account to an unused account with an alternate name (Todd Gallagher instead of Todd gallagher) The result is that when anyone tries to check his contributions or block log from his user or user talk page, there is no link in the toolbox, and when one plugs in the name that appears, it has zero contribs since it has never been used to edit. This could be confusing for people not familiar with Misplaced Pages, making it seem like his contribution history is hidden. If one pays attention to the name, his contribs can be found with the lowercase version of the name, but this isn't immediately obvious in user space. Can someone fix this? —Viriditas | Talk 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the possible NPA yet, but did leave the user a note about their userpage. If he does not fix it in about a day I will move it. I have also directed him to WP:CHU so he can change his name if he wants. Natalie (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have given warning about personal attacks and notified him of this thread. Natalie (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's use of the term "Hawaiian" racist is not wrong. I was citing a Supreme Court decision that also called it racist. Specifically, it deals with an issue in Hawaii where state law attempted to define only people of Polynesian-Hawaiian descent as "Hawaiian," and thus restrict their access to certain ballots. The High Court struck this down based on the 15th Amendment. I stated that several people were Hawaiian, and Viriditas got his feelings hurt and stated that I was wrong because they were not "Kanakas." That is racist. Plain and simple. A comparison would be for me to say that some Americans were at one time slaves. Then another person might say that no whites were slaves. That is racist because no all Americans are white--many are black, Asian, etc. I know what racist means and his statement was racist. As for Neo-Nazi," that is clear as well. We have a group of people who are trying to racially exclude others. That seems neo-nazi to me. If not, I would like a definition.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Viriditas' comments were racist and whether or not he is a Neo-Nazi is still your personal opinion, and thus a personal attack. You are welcome to think whatever you like, but personal attacks on your fellow editors are not allowed. Natalie (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a personal opinion? He specifically said that they had to be a certain race to be called Hawaiian. That is racist. The Misplaced Pages definition even states that is racist: "the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." He does not deny that he believes that. If he denied that I could understand, but he specifically states that he believes race should be the determining factor.

A perfect example can be sexism. We live in a sexist society today. Is it wrong? Not necessarily, but many aspects of it are sexist. VMI, the last all-male school, was sexist. But federal law allowed it to be sexist until the federal law was struck down in United States v. Virginia (1996). I supported Virginia being able to maintain an all-male school and the right of Congress to legislate that. But it was sexist. Single sex bathrooms are sexist, but commonly accepted by society. In contrast, Viriditas believes that race should be allowed to determine classification in the state of Hawaii. That is racist. I really do not see what is at dispute. Maybe since it has a negative connotation, but it is racist.

However, obviously he denies being a racist or else he would not complain (even though what he said meets the definition provided by the United Nations). I will abstain from calling him a racist or Neo-Nazi. Let his own comments show him for what he is. As a great document reads: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Todd Gallagher (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd is a good wiki editor, and as such, gets attacked from single and groups of editors who do not agree with his edits. If I may suggest, take no action against Tood, but maybe ask Todd to take a wikibreak of a few days. This will solve the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I hold none of the beliefs that Todd as ascribed to me, and I fail to see how his attacks upon me, where he calls me a "racist" and a "neo-nazi" constitute an attack upon him. You have a unique way of seeing the world, User:Thright. Please feel free to attack me in reply, since according to you, that will be an attack by me upon you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, I will not attack you, nor discredit you. Maybe a wikibreak may help? No need for wikipedia to cause anyone stress. Hope this helps, take care.Thright (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Admin has apparently retired from Misplaced Pages

Not sure if we note these things or not, but I see that an admin has apparently left the project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't note them because it happens so very often. Use WP:MW if you like. In this particular case, I imagine she'll be back before all that long... Splash - tk 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Secret. He's done this a few times before, so we'll see if he remains gone I guess. Wizardman 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something like the 15th time he's retired. Neıl ☎ 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck (disambiguation)

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

Thright keeps up putting speedy tag on the article and ignores the fact that the tag is invalid. Some admin seriously needs to step in. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to watchlist it; if he adds it again I'll decline it and have a chat with him. -Jéské 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I left him a warning about this; he deleted it. Incidentally, I tried to report this earlier, but the spam filter kept rejecting my attempts to do so, claiming that I was hyperlinking to a banned site (hatingautism.blogspot.com). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because the site got blacklisted as you posted. In any case, he

Well, accusing a good edit as vandalism is vandalism itself isn't it? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No; that's called an assumption of bad faith. —Kurykh 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, he seems to have stopped tagging the article; I'd suggest we all just wander away from his talk page. We don't need him to admit he was wrong, we just need him to stop tagging the damned thing. Further tagging of the article would be cause for a short block, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I readded both TBM's and C1k3's concerns; he reverted them again and called them vandalism. Sarcastic, I'm a bit concerned about this user; he removed three concerns about his behavior and called all three "vandalism". -Jéské 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And if he keeps this up, he'll be blocked; I just don't think that continuing to revert his deletion of content, even good faith content, from his talk page serves much purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the blacklist thing, I apparently failed at that. I reverted myself, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Natalie (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect a prod or a AfD notice soon: --NeilN 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow even -- Longhair\ 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's rude to accusing the messages he gets to his talk page as vandalism. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect the AFD to be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Thright of the existence of this thread. -Jéské 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

? I placed two tags on the page? Second, my talk page is being flooded. Third everything has been backed up according to policy. 4th I have not attacked anyone, all I have done is questioned the content of the page TWICE!! I ask that this be deleted. Furthermore, it has been asked to stay off my talk page and several still change it. Jeske who started this claim keeps flooding my talk page. PLease delete this. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

I never started this thread; User:TheBlazikenMaster did. I merely responded. -Jéské 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you, the page does not fall into any of the criteria for speedy deletion, which is the process you were attempting to use. Those particular criteria are very narrow on purpose. If you want to the article deleted you will need to start an articles for deletion discussion which is a longer process and covers more issues than speedy deletion. The issue here isn't with your desire to have the page deleted - the problem is that you are going about it the wrong way. Natalie (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, repeatedly adding speedy deletion tags after they've been declined is considered disruptive. No matter how right you think you are, please don't do it. Second, you did not cite a single one of the rationales for speedy deletion when you tagged it; those are the only reasons pages can be speedily deleted, and I haven't yet seen you claim that any of them applied. Third, you cannot order people to stay off of your talk page; you can request that they do so, but if they have something important to impart to you, that's the place they're going to do it. Fourth and finally, it is poor form to remove content from conversations that are ongoing, unless there is compelling reason to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"repeatedly" as in twice! All this over the page entitled "FUCK"! In anycase, I attacked no one, nor was this justified. I am sure if you have seen your child reading the page "FUCK" you would act in the same manner. Now please, stay off my talk page. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright.

Not at all - we'd actually parent. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors or morality. -Jéské 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Given that you are permitted to re-add the tag zero times, twice is twice too many to be undisruptive. As for the children thing, people have repeatedly referred you to WP:NOTCENSORED, but you've yet to show any evidence of having read it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As a heretofore uninvolved admin, I concur with Natalie and Sarcasticidealist. You'll have to find another way to approach this issue, because consensus is overwhelmingly against you. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its time for everyone to let this go. Why the need to keep adding to this? The tags were placed over an hour ago and some - who are admin - keep trying to add comments. I have not added, nor am I going to re add a tag. So why keep this up? I am done, so you should be too! If anything some of your actions towards me were not admin like and maybe you should think about saying sorry. In any case, it is clear that most dont have children. In that event, I will let time take its course. I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion. I hope you reacted the same way when your child watches porn on the internet and googles the word fuck. Take care, and please there is no need to respond.Thright (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Yes, apparently there is a need to respond, because you are not getting the gist of this noticeboard. Moralizing at us and trying to gerrymander Misplaced Pages to promote your worldview are going to get you in trouble here double quick. If you hit a beehive with a stick, this is what happens. You have to assume good faith in discussions. And what does "I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion" mean? Statements like that end up making the issue personal, and that behaviour has to change. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

really let it go. Are you trying to start a fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:DEADHORSE. --NeilN 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually gave notice to Thright's talk page in regards to that actually. It's becoming tiresome to have to deal with the nagging that goes along with it, at various user talk pages and here. It's a dead issue. And with that... seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherine de Burgh

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

Please delete User:Catherine de Burgh - it is an offensive anti-British sockpuppetry hoax (possibly by User:Giano or User:One Night In Hackney). Radoninspector (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. I would suggest if you are going to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry that you provide some evidence. Natalie (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, these accusations are coming from someone who has a grand total of four edits, yet knows where AN/I is. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. That was one of the funniest pages on Misplaced Pages. Whoever was running it had extremely sharp wit and was not doing anything harmful. I recommend undeleting the page. People need to lighten up and not take offense at harmless jokes. Jehochman 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice of Rms125a@hotmail.com to post with his latest sock to ANI where it makes it easy to block. Anyhoo, back to the wikibreak. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance that 75.3.150.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Rms125a@hotmail.com? Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NO!!! R.M. Sieger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.81 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as Robert says above, that's not him! :) - Alison 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ahoalton is requesting impartial admin to review block

See User talk:Ahoalton. Do what you want with him, but be aware that he is using multiple accounts and IP addresses to dodge a block and continue to disrupt at Order of the Arrow and Talk:Order of the Arrow. Thanks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikzilla warning - long term vandal threatening escalation

Wikzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making some interesting vandalism threats (see for example threat to disruptively edit ). User is using widely separated IP ranges (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wikzilla and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wikzilla ). They have been very predictable to date but are now threatening to vandalize widely and more anonymously. I will also add to long-term abuse cases when I get a chance, but if you see him hanging around, block away. We've escalated to indef on sight on accounts and six months on the IP addresses (after much gentler warnings and shorter blocks were tried). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again?

He seems to be trolling articles and users consistent with V-Dash. I don't really care who he is, he needs to be taken care of. Note that this is at least three socks tonight by now.

List of socks

• AceBanditX (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BadBonesBan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BirdyVonBirdy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stinkerwinker (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• VeryCleanSoup (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A few example diffs

• diff to user talk
• diff to mainspace page. Edit summary implies 3RR baiting

—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Alison; I've been blocking and transcluding his pages on sight. -Jéské 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's close this thread; all are blocked. -Jéské 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Annnnnnd -  IP blocked - Alison 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Misplaced Pages takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have one of those: see WP:VIOLENCE and WP:SUICIDE . You should redirect yours to that one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE does not include threats against high schools and other buildings and institutions. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Both links redirect to the same location. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just corrected the above when it ECd. My text: WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE, is same as WP:VIOLENCE. In my opinion, there needs to be a policy which clearly states all threats of violence are to be taken seriously. Bstone (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. The essay is the old WP:SUICIDE essay I did, adopted to include threats of violence but otherwise structured and saying the same. It covers this topic. If someone (you) want to make a policy I don't think anyone's going to object strongly, but as this documents what everyone has agreed is the right thing to do and is doing, it seems like just formalizing the essay into policy would be the easy and correct path. But I'm biased, as I wrote the starting essay. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII article, AFD, and sock puppets

Hello. A short while back I started work on an article for a Famicom pirate cartridge, based off the original article User:FightingStreet had started, and another user, User:Wiki22445 nominated it for deletion. That in itself wasn't unusual. However the account holder nominated several articles in his short time here and did nothing else, and additionally as his contributions will show he vandalized the page, breaking the tags for several citations.

Additionally another account, User:Foxit22, appeared and placed a vote on the page. However the poster was completely new and hasn't posted any changes with the account since. Additionally the username of it seems to imply "fox it", a term for copyright holders to hand copyright infringing projects a cease and desists kill.

And then there's User IP:68.209.235.149, who oddly fired accusations of sock puppets under my control as the only possibility of anyone voting Keep for the article, and I'm led to suspect he might have set up some for himself. After speaking with one admin regarding what could count as notable online sources and validating those cited in the article, I posted that, and a short while afterward a user posted another comment, 68.209.235.149 claimed he was a sock puppet I was using, and then in rapid succession 4 IP only posts shouting delete appeared...the strange part about which being though is that all 4 either had no prior posts or the ones they did were entirely vandalism. Yet they suddenly speak in the same tone. There are additional factors as well, such as the user using a shield of "good faith" and posting such on the talk pages of myself and User:FightingStreet, but not practicing such as his attitude clearly shows on his own talk page.

Lastly, User:Ham Pastrami stepped in on the discussion page and pointed out he'd learned of it from someone "bemoaning its existence", which shows someone is attempting to play this situation unfairly.

I'm certain there is something going on regarding the deletion discussion for the article and disruption of said discussion, and would ask that it be investigated by an admin. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code (film)

• The Da Vinci Code (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody like to take a look at the last score or so of edits on this article and knock a couple heads together? I also asked for page protection. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit as the info is not reliably sourced, and I don't think it belongs in the article anyway. The first source is (going by the url) self-claiming ownership of some "copyrighted" idea, ans the 2nd source ends in *.exe. I didn't actually go to either one as the whole idea seemed like a tangent to the article anyway. R. Baley (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor making the addition also appears to have a conflict of interest (see User talk:Neights). R. Baley (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The conflict of interest is beside the point. Both editors are edit warring ridiculously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not beside the point, but ok, I'm done with this now. R. Baley (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The warring editor has been blocked indefinitely. Black Kite 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuban artist mass linkspam

Reinadesaba (talk · contribs) and IP User:200.55.139.212 are adding a large number of links to cubancontemporaryart.com to various articles. The link had perviously been removed per consensus at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Category:Cuban_contemporary_artists as a spam link and added to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/cubancontemporaryart.com. I've reported to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Cuban_artists and asked User talk:Reinadesaba why they are adding these links, but they have not responded and continue to add them. Since I'm now an involved content editor, I cannot use admin powers to revert or block and would ask an uninvolved admin to review and act as they feel appropriate. MBisanz 07:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

24.19.237.50

I left this message at WP:AIV, but no action yet, so I'll try here for a response. I noticed the conversation a few topics above on this page where Bearian and Rodhullandemu mentioned that sometimes several warning aren't necessary, so here you go.

• 24.19.237.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Racist and homophobic language on three articles today. 1, 2, 3, 4. The IP has received three warnings, but this kind of language isn't acceptable and a short block is in order to send a message. The IP has a history of using hateful language and only making vandalization edits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the report from WP:AIV. No edits in three hours so a block now would not be preventative. Apologies for an inattention, and thanks for reporting the vandal. Pedro :  Chat  08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards