Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:24, 20 February 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Stop archiving! in re RunedChozo

ref: I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"
ref: RunedChozo Blocked

I returned less than 24 hours after posting a comment, see above (permlink), and the discussion has already been archived. That's a problem. I consider myself fairly active and I come to Misplaced Pages at least once a day, so to have a discussion I started, archived before I got a chance to come back and see what people said in response to my complaint is completely unacceptable.

Even worse, I didn't get a response to my complaint. Please consider this my opening a complaint on this board. I'd like a response from the people involved in the incident, and a comment on what will happen.

I don't know much about RunedChozo's past behavoir. But, after reading everything on this page I am under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most warnings and notices on user space can be removed, and that's effictively, the response that RunedChozo got here--except that while people here were SAYING that, there were also reverting his edits to his user page to keep warning there and protecting his userpage so that he couldn't edit it. Those are some pretty conflicting signals to send.

If in fact users are not allowed to take warnings off there user spaces, then all administrators had to do, was make that clear to RunedChozo here. They didn't need to go and revert edits on his userspace--they could have waited for him to and if he didn't move from there, and they didn't need to protect his userspace. These actions were hostile and provoctive, especially since that wasn't the information he was being given here. Administrators knew that there was something going on here, they came from this incident report and went to his userpage and took action, and did so without leaving clarifiying messages as to policy. There were a lot of messages about the user, and the user's behavoir on several other issues, but nothing about what the user actually brought up.

This user's user page and discussion page are still blocked, and the sockpuppet warning the user was trying to get removed is still on the userpage. These discussions have been archived riduclously quickly and I haven't gotten a response to any of my concerns. I'd like to know exactly what the policy is about the removal of warnings on userpages and I'd like a response about the action take on the userpage that was provocative and contradictory to the messages that the user was getting here. I'd also like to know what administrators plan to do about the locked status of the userpages and the sockpuppet warning on the userpage, and why all of these discussions have been archived so quickly.

Please do NOT prematurely archive this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, consider this comment my filing an incident report in response to what I consider the overall gross mishandling of this situation and I'd like a reasonable opportunity to respond. Everyone else, please don't turn this into another fight over whether or not RunedChozo is or is not a ______. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is done automatically by a bot when no discussion has taken place for 24 hours, correct? Issues on this board aren't meant to drag out for weeks and weeks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last two "archives" done on sections concerning RunedChozo were done by editors, not bots. --Onorem 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch that because only two bot-archived incidents were linked up at the top. But my below point still stands on solid ground :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the place for a formal "incident report". As you can see if you'll read the header, this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department and this page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to RunedChozo's initial complaint, the discussion on whether or not to ban him, and, in my first paragraph I linked to my own discussion that was still on this page, but that had been closed by administrators. (There's an in page link and a permanent link there, because I knew it would soon be archived). The discussion on whether or not to ban RunedChozo, as well as my own discussion were both archived early by administrators. My comment was created because I didn't get to comment on the ban, and my comment was closed to discussion not 24 hours after I'd posted it, without giving me an opportunity to comment again. It also had degenerated into basic squabbling and finger pointing and was ridiculously off-topic.

The reason I posted again here was two-fold. One was that this whole long thing has stemmed from RunedChozo's first incident report here. I was not commenting on that--I did not really get an opportunity to because the discussion had moved onto his ban, and that discussion was closed rapidly. But I and others still had concerns that we wanted to express there and so we opened up new comments here. We would never have had to do this and we wouldn't be having an issue now of where do I post if administrators hadn't terminated discussions far too early.

The other reason that I posted here is that I'm not the only person involved in, or concerned with this, and I knew that the people who were, were watching this page and the previous discussions. Some of them also posted their own comments in their own sections after something earlier got terminiated prematurely and they didn't get to comment, or reply to a comment. If administrators strongly believe that halfway through an issue it should be moved to a different forum, that's fine; tell me where post and I will. And I'll provide a link here to let the people involved in and following this issue know where it is being taken up. I also want to thank everyone who did post here for not turning this into another fight. I got to come here and read nice succint opinions and get new informations and know where everyone stood and it was really refreshing. Thanks. Miss Mondegreen 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reread the information you directed me to and I'm really confused where I should go. I don't have an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assitance, I require administrative assitance. And I don't really need dispute resolution either. I don't need an Rfc, and I don't need mediation, particularly as the people involved are on the arbitration commitee.

There was an incident, and just because it involves administrators doesn't mean that they themselves can't fix it. First, MY discussion was archived prematurely, and second, no where on here does it say that I have to be directly involved in something to report it. I saw an administrator insult someone and then add a banner to his userpage after he came here to request that administrators let him not have the banner, when apparantly policy is that the banner shouldn't be forced, and I saw a lot of other abysmal behavoir, and I can see a person with an indef block and a locked page so they can't say that they want to come back, and the banner still forced up there, and I want to report this. Please don't tell me to go somewhere to report "an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assistance" or to get dispute resolution. I can't have a dispute if no administrator will answer me, and I'm not having a dispute--I want to report an incident and get someone to do something about it. That is what this board is for. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual count of permablocked users is three...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but, I am concerned that neither RunedChozo nor Miss Mondegreen have received direct answers. RunedChozo did not handle the situation well, and perhaps this user has been disruptive in the past, however, I believe this user came here with a legitimate concern and was provoked into crossing the line. RunedChozo was perhaps not the best editor to try and make this point, but the question still has not been adequately answered. So, I will ask one more time: Must a user leave a Sockpuppet Master warning up after they have returned from their block? Yes or No?--DSRH | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I am obviously not going to get a direct answer to my question so it is withdrawn. C'est la vie.--DSRH | talk 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share this view. I don't have an opinion on the block because that is for sysops to decide on, but the user did come with a complaint and I was hoping that it would have been looked into first. If he had spammed, then he would be stupid to come here with a report which could well incriminate himself. If he had not, then this was the correct place to come to. Unfortunately, due to his past behaviour, the discussion got nowhere - and now he has one more excuse to complain. x42bn6 Talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I supported the indef, having a sockpuppet notice forced on one's userpage like a brand is harassment, plain and simple, and should not be tolerated. - Merzbow 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And when one of the same admins who did the branding is the one who made the indefblock, using the excuse that he'd managed to provoke the user into saying some bad things on their own user page?

The same admin who blocked PSPMario indefinitely has now locked and redirected his talk page to the user page, removing the unblock request in the process. How much more out-of-process adminpower abuse will there be in this case?

Nonsense. It is not improper to do such. The user is a blatant sockpuppet per both contributions and checkuser, and has been blocked accordingly and properly. --physicq (c) 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks cannot request unblocking (hence the word: indefinite). x42bn6 Talk 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can request unblocking, but this specific block on the RunedChozo sock is non-negotiable. Indefinite, not permanent. --physicq (c) 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fake block and fraudulent RFCU claiming PSPMario is a sockpuppet was never investigated, as is part of the entire thread here. But whatever, coverups are coverups, and this is obviously one going on. Admins aren't supposed to do what Mimsy Porpington did, and his claim of "trolling" in his summary for his reason to lock the page is a clear lie.

Then again, for pointing out when an admin abuses his power, there will likely be a block coming and they'll remove this comment to hide their abuse further. After all, that's what an abusive, incestuous, cronyist setup does.

Then again, you have resorted to nonsensical ranting instead of civil discussion. You have now frivolously accused us of conspiracy plots instead of admitting your own mistakes. But let's follow WP:DFTT, shall we? --physicq (c) 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Three users are indefinitely blocked based on what is likely a falsified CU report, multiple threads here have been deliberately "closed" or "archived" early as documented by Miss Mondegreen above, and nobody is giving an answer, satisfactory or not, to questions raised. That you are so blind as to continually try to defend the obvious wrongdoings AND obvious coverup is amazing. If anyone's a "troll" here, it's you.

Talk all you like. But I'm more inclined to trust the CheckUser more than your words. --physicq (c) 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're more inclined to trust a tool that lists uncertain results, and people who don't give a user-by-user result but instead just drop blanket condemnation? I don't. I think it's being abused, and that it was abusive in this case. I think you're showing your own hand, trying to protect someone for some ulterior motive; perhaps you think it'll make you more likely to get elected to arbitration committee or something if you can show how you can abuse people and stand up for those who abuse power. Perhaps you're just a troll. In either case, you're wrong.

I trust CheckUser more because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments, unlike your words with no backbone. And conspiracy accusations are the telltale signs of users that are deservingly blocked, in case you didn't know. --physicq (c) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments" - which is why users can't even see their own results, why results aren't listed name-by-name but all at once, and why there is no provision for appealing that it be doublechecked? You're setting up a real laugh riot here.

As for the "conspiracy accusations", I'm calling it like I see it. When something fishy is going on, something fishy is going on, so why don't you just go trout.

Problem is, the only thing fishy about this is your own rampant sockpuppetry. And I'm calling it as I see it. --physicq (c) 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could always stop lying, but perhaps that's too hard for you to do. Multiple users, not just me, are seeing what's going on and can see the abuses clear as day. The fact that you're so deluded that you can't realize the abuses have been exposed is amazing, you must really be sucking down the kool-aid pretty hard.

Multiple? I see one, maybe two. Since when is two "multiple"? --physicq (c) 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading all the threads that your abusive buddies tried to hide by "closing" and "archiving" far prematurely. And lay off the kool-aid, it's bad for your health.

The fact that you won't even address the concerns, but spend your time attacking me for bringing it up instead? You're showing how trollish you are. Shooting the messenger is an age-old tactic used by those who know they're in the wrong but are too drunk on power to care.

More farcical analogies. If I'm shooting the messenger, then User:Miss Mondegreen would have been blocked long ago. Problem is, I'm not just shooting the messenger; apparently, the messenger is also the recalcitrant disrupter. --physicq (c) 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely enough. I've given the IP a 48-hour block to stoke the fire some more. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, abusing your power is a really good way to show that you act in good faith. That makes TWO "admins" who abused their power now to try to silence any criticism of their behavior.

"Go trout"? JuJube 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an expression we Brits sometimes use...

Let me leave a final comment on this matter. The most important fact is that RunedChozo has lied throughout the above thread and engaged in numerous falsehoods and distortions. He used several sockpuppets and was blocked accordingly. I've reviewed the evidence myself and there's really no question about it. As to whether a user is required to wander around with a scarlet letter prominently displayed; where the user has not been blocked permanently CheckUser has traditionally left this matter to the judgment of the wide community to be determined on a case by case basis. There is no hard and fast rule nor should there be. He's right, though: administrators do have an odd habit of "silencing" banned users by blocking them. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see for the diff. Please see for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article (), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts , and discussion ), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts )

He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits , and the discussion ). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is .

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" . Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit ).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" .

On the article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits ).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See , , , and . Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• I have had a lot of trouble with Patchouli's edits just recently, so I'll be adding my findings as I go along. For one, see Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link. Very misleading to link to a terrorist opposition group's claims as simply "some background." The Behnam 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, note this series of revert warring. Someone removed an undue weight POV issue about some magazine's opinion of Ali Khamenei (see for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: , , , , , , , (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),, , , , is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here when justifying his edits to another user. The Behnam 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A POV re-introduction without any regard for the discussion on talk page . The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem , with edit warring , , . The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A 'Patchoulic' article , combining some editorials with OR to make negative assertions about those demonstrations. Perhaps a workable article, but Patchouli's style does not involve neutral writing and presentation. The Behnam 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added a link to a strongly anti-Islam website , on the Religion of Peace article, which talks about the use of "religion of peace" to describe Islam. Adding a link to a very biased website in the article body, as its own section, is very POV. Afterwards added an external link in addition , so nothing was even slightly improved. I can't help but consider the possibility that it is misleading to say "Official Website of Religion of Peace" in the article where Islam is being discussed as a "religion of peace." In any case, the entire addition of that website to the mix was rather POV. The Behnam 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Further POV & OR together ... in general, Patchouli's edits at Mutaween page . The Behnam 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I edited a page authored by Patchouli to remove POV . He soon reverted it, no reason given . The Behnam 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli is a very interesting person: His edits does hit one's raw nerves! I used to improve his edits on Iran related topics, but he has accused me of being a spy:

• "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"
• And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:

"Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Misplaced Pages in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Misplaced Pages."

But on the plus side, his edits has helped me to campaign for filtering Misplaced Pages in Iran :-) --Gerash77 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also one of the editors that has had to deal with Patchouli's sneaky POV pushing attempts. This is definitely a pattern of behaviour that he has on all articles related to the middle east. I am asking for your help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses and his sabotage of wikipedia middle-east related articles. Please take the time to read the following links for information about his history of misconduct. I now feel that there's no reasonable chance to reach a resolution with him and therefore I'm seeking to present his case at the ArbCom or an RfC for user conduct. Please see User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing - Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits - User_talk:LittleDan#hello - User_talk:Alex9891#Khatami's reform protection Barnetj 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written about Patchouli many times before, and I don't want to repeat myself. He is not a good contributor and, in my opinion, should be banned. LittleDan 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated whenever I see AN/I reports like this. One side, Patchouli, is vehemently ANTI-Iran, but then I see the other side, or a faction thereof, like Gerash77, who seems to have a long history of agitating against WIkipedia and actioning for it's censorship in Iran. I wind up feeling like if we deal with only the one issue brought to AN/I, but ignore the revealed OTHER problems, we're really not much better off, and possibly worse off. Can we address Gerash77's actions against what he calls a 'patchopedia', and brags of helping to censor it on his User Talk? ThuranX 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at a different ANI. This particular ANI is about Patchouli's POV & OR editing, as well as unwillingness to compromise with a number of different editors. I don't think these different editors comprise some sort of anti-WP "faction;" the whole reason that Agha Nader started this and others, including myself, contributed is because Patchouli's disruptive edits are hindering the project. So I think it is unfair to characterize all of us as an anti-WP group just because one member of this group claims he convinced the IRI to filter WP. Anyway, this ANI hasn't really gone anywhere significant, and we are thinking about moving to an RFC or ArbCom. Most of the people who have had these unpleasant experiences with Patchouli consider ArbCom the best choice, including editors who haven't posted here (saving for ArbCom), so I intend to apply for ArbCom once I finally figure out the confusing process. The Behnam 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't just Iranian who protest against "Patchouli". For example LittleDan neither Iranian nor Muslim. He's an admin of wikipedia. Please look at his comment on Patchouli's talk page few months ago:

"Hi there. Some people have told me that you've repeatedly violated the rules of NPOV in a number of articles that you have edited and created. I just want to tell you as clearly as I can that no article in Misplaced Pages is meant to convey a particular message or opinion, only the truth which has been agreed-upon by basically everyone. When you write an article that criticizes or advocates something or someone, this must be balanced by an opposing viewpoint in the same article. One user wrote on my talk page that you have created issues with the following articles:

*Mohammad Khatami's reforms (POV fork to bash a living person, just look at the introduction and how biased it's worded)

*Mohammad Khatami ( Please see the evidence of some of Patchouli's abuses at Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits, it includes links and refernces to his personal attacks on other users' talk pages calling them agents of foreign governments etc)

*Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (adding Mullahcracy which is political epithet, jargon and neologism, as an alternative to the title of the article by citing political editorials! Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mullahcracy)

*Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (POV fork)

*Khomeini's Islamic leadership (POV fork)

*Government-organized demonstration (POV fork)

If you continue to do things like this, I'll be forced to block you. Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial page, and when you do this, it just makes more work for other editors who have to delete your articles and revert your changes. If you keep doing this, I'll have to block you from Misplaced Pages or bring this case to the arbitration commit. Another important thing is, Don't delete posts from your talk page. You should let others see what people have previously written to you, even if it isn't always positive. LittleDan 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Upon reviewing Misplaced Pages policy, this should actually be refered to the Arbitration committee. I will do that now. LittleDan 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)"

--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well just have to say one thing about this user that he keep changing OBL lead with The Honored Sheikh Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, I do not think majority called him The Honored Sheikh and it should have any place in the lead of the article but changing it back again and again is not understandable to me. --- ALM 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee.--Sa.vakilian 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposed, please give your opinion below

Adding new header to turn this thread into a proposal for a community ban. Note that LittleDan has already posted above that he supports a ban. Please give your opinion below if you haven't already. Bishonen | talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, good grief. "POV-pushing" is surely too weak a term here, and the user has been around long enough to get a clue about encyclopedic editing if he's ever going to. I suggest there's no need to bother the arbcom. How about a ban for exhausting the community's patience? I know mine got exhausted just from reading the above, especially LittleDan's comments. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, we are aiming for a ban. If this can be done without having to go through ArbCom & all of its formalities, that is better. I think this ANI lays it all out very well, and this isn't even all of it. The more I look, the more I find. It is completely disruptive, and I'm tired of finding bad edits, undo/correct them, and then fight his successive blind reverts and attitude. The Behnam 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Sa.vakilian on my page. Briefly, a community ban doesn't involve the ArbCom, it's performed by the community. It should be proposed right here, preferably in a new thread. See WP:BAN:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as part of the review process.... Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users."

This sounds to me like a case for a ban like that. But if there doesn't turn out to be consensus that the user has exhausted the community's patience, I suggest you ask somebody previously uninvolved to make a good-faith effort to reach out to him and make him change his approach to editing. If that fails, go directly to arbitration. From the links and quotes already posted, I don't see the sense in wearing out everybody with a formal mediation process and/or an WP:RFC which would only turn into a flameout anyway. Requesting arbitration isn't in itself difficult or formalistic. It's the RFC's and the more or less "official" mediation venues that are the big time-sinks. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Mikakasumov made a good-faith effort to reach out to him and make him change his approach to editing on July 2006:

then User:LittleDan on October 27 then User:The Behnam did so on February 8 2007, and then User:Grcampbell on February 11 . ::Certainly all of them haven't affected him. I can list some of his violations against WP policies and guidelines and because of being fair I told him to defend himself. --Sa.vakilian 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian... no. Those aren't efforts to reach out :-( Vandalism warning templates, and fair-use image upload templates are not dispute resolution, they're the exact opposite. Please ask an experienced user to do the reaching out thing, because the examples you give are the wrong kind. Of course they didn't have a good effect on him, warning templates never do have a good effect. The only posts anything like good faith dispute resolution are LittleDan's, which are in human language and a more conciliatory tone. (Though since they double as block warnings, they're not exactly mediation attempts, either.) Also, did you read my response to you on my page, for instance about not listing policies ? Bishonen | talk 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I think that this by Agha Nader is a good example . Patchouli's response? . The Behnam 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• i would agree with the sentiments expressed by Bishonen. some of the edits he's made on Mutaween are simply outrageous. ITAQALLAH 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have mildly tangled with this editor myself and when I did I had a distinct impression that I was again dealing with a currently community banned editor: DAde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I haven't followed this editor's behavior extensively but if this editor has continued to edit along the lines of user DAde (talk · contribs) then I too would support a community ban. (→Netscott) 15:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support community ban, per Bishonen. This user has been around long enough, is showing no interest in doing anything productive, why waste more time? If the user were acting in good faith I could see the point of it, but that is not the case SFAICT. KillerChihuahua 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposals now go to the community noticeboard. --physicq (c) 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but 15 minutes ago they still went here, per the WP:BAN policy which you have only just edited. Does it really have to be moved, now that it's been (appropriately) started here? I agree with the policy change—I can certainly see the point of it—but this noticeboard is still where people are likely to look for such things, and the move itself halfway through would have a bad effect on this attempt. I propose that since it was started here while proposals here were still policy, it should run its course here. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

• The recurring pattern is that of me adding information and certain anti-knowledge users shouting, "WE DON'T LIKE THESE EDITS. WE DISAGREE WITH THEM. LET'S CENSOR THE STUFF. LET'S GET THIS USER BANNED."--Patchouli 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your idea about making an entry in Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard and redirect it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Sa.vakilian 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC/Personal attacks

I've been under constant personal attacks recently from User:Worldtraveller (, , ), who is currently editing only to launch such attacks and to work on his essay of much recent note about Misplaced Pages's failures. Additionally, he's opened up an RfC against me, which has gone two days of spamming without certification, and I would like to see closed. Though these are clearly personal attacks, I of course would not like to simply deal with this behavior myself, and would appreciate other admins looking into this (I have thus far been unable to receive any input on the situation).

On another note, my now closed RfC is still being edited, and I've been unable to receive any comments on what to do there, either. --InShaneee 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(I confine myself to the procedural questions.) The more recent RfC has remained uncertified for well more than forty-eight hours and so can be deleted straightaway by any uninvolved party (the endorsement of the statement of the dispute by an uninvolved party ≠ a certification of that which underlies the dispute inasmuch, most notably, as the former does not reflect the endorsing user's having tried to resolve the dispute). On the latter issue, an RfC, to my understanding, is generally not formally closed, such that there is not after some period erected a bar to further participation (beyond, of course, the abiding WP:CIVIL, etc.); one can safely divorce him/herself of an "old" RfC, though, I imagine, when its constructive potential appears exhausted (viz., when a consensus of editors has been borne out and contributions tend only to represent unsubstantial endorsements or restatements of expressed views). Joe 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, we have an issue here in that several individuals express frustration with InShaneee. Much of this is sour grapes. Can any uninvolved party give some insight as to whether InShanee might need a bit of support, or if a proper RfC (as in: not a list of grudges) would be worth doing? My feeling is that InShaneee is just an admin who does hard cases sometimes, with predictable results, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There actually were some good comments from uninvolved users in the last RfC, and there was some good progress made on many sides of the issue, I think. --InShaneee 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are personal attacks. I left a civility warning for this user just a couple days ago, I have left another. InBC 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They're not personal attacks. "If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator" isn't even the same as calling Inshaneee a terrible administrator — see the "if" in there? I would object strongly to Worldtraveller being blocked or in any way intimidated over such posts. I think it's important for the healthy functioning of this site that criticism of admin actions, even strong criticism, is allowed, nay, encouraged. There is nothing personal about criticizing somebody's admin actions. If I have anything to do with it, nobody'll ever get blocked for calling me a terrible administrator, with or without the "if". Bishonen | talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

If you refuse to justify your actions, <personal attack>. Ummm, ya that is a personal attack, failing to justify yourself does not allow for personal attacks. Also, you can criticize without name calling, the personal attack in question was not needed to air his concerns. InBC 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I did not block this user, or even mention a block. It was just a polite request to be civil. InBC 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A request warning which mentioned a previous request warning. Yes. I'm afraid I found your tone threatening. Food for thought? Bishonen | talk 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

My thought was simply that there is a place, a time, and a tone. This happened more than a month ago, and I pretty much always consider "surprised you can string together a few sentences" to be an insult. Either way, I've now made another attempt to resolve this conflict, so hopefully this will end here. --InShaneee 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky personal attacks are still personal attacks. For instance, someone who says "If I were a vindictive person, I'd call you a <censored>, but I'm not vindictive so I'm not going to say that" is in essence gaming the system. Oh and by the way, I don't think we officially "close" RFCs, but adding new remarks to a page that is essentially abandoned is not a plausible form of dispute resolution. >Radiant< 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put. InBC 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this utterly astonishing. How is 'you're a terrible administrator' a personal attack? Did you notice it was prefaced with "If you refuse to justify your administrative actions"? Worldtraveller 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about "surprised you can string together a few sentences"? I completely agree with radiant that prefacing an insult with a conditional is just a way to attempt to get away with a personal attack. Besides, the behavior of others never justifies an insult, so that conditional means nothing. We are volunteers and failure to justify himself to you does not make him fair game. InBC 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading what I said because it wasn't that. The statement "If you refuse to justify your administrative actions, you're a terrible administrator" is just basic common sense. To read a personal insult into it makes no sense at all. Worldtraveller 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read it a few times, it still looks the same. To explain further would require me to repeat myself, which I try not to do too much. InBC 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

I don't wish to get blocked for 3RR on Waldemar Matuska, but other Wikipedians are not carrying the same fight as me. The talk page clearly states that the IP edits are unfounded, but I don't want to be found reverting the page a fourth time. Could someone please advise? Is this "simple vandalism", and thus exempt? Bobo. 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exempt. El_C 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And semi-protected for a week. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting the article, JzG. Bobo. 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

This article survived an AfD, unfortunately, because people felt it was necessary to expose this health fraud on Misplaced Pages. Nonetheless one editor, Heelop, keeps removing any reference this fabricated concept is not supported by the medical community. Despite the fact he can't provide any article from a medical journal he removes the disclaimer from the article that it is not described in medical literature.

His actions are not only in violation of policy, but since his only contribution to Misplaced Pages consists of removing sceptical passages from this article I am inclined to think he has a more than superficial interest in maintaining the article as advertisment. Could some uninvolved admin look into this and see if or what action is possible. (RfC? Block?). Nomen Nescio 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Heelop for disruption. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone feels like looking at the article, it needs serious cleanup. I tidied the lead a bit but it is still overtly polemical. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Is there any fringe medical topic so utterly ridiculous and unfounded that someone won't go to the mat to push it on Misplaced Pages? MastCell 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAR-WP:CIV

User:Gene_Poole

User:Gardener_of_Geda

-

--Doktor Who 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically wrong with those comments? Yuser31415 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacking my person and not my editions is not something that I would expect from someone with higher education.-WP:COI---Dr. Who 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, we have a policy against using famous people's names - are you the real Doctor Who? Please fax a copy of the Tardis to Wikimedia Foundation to arrive not later than last Thursday. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked editor User:Serafin

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made ~100 edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

--Jadger 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe no one cares. I mean, the case couldn't be more obvious:

Blocked users must not evade their block. If a user does, the block of this user should restart, restart with an increase in time, or made indefinite.

User:Serafin did not only edit a couple of times during his block. He has been spending the whole month in which he was supposed to be blocked editing articles and talk pages, including edit warring if he faces opposition.

He mainly edited with the IP 131.104.218.46. And surprisingly, he has never made a secret of the fact that this is one of his IPs (see for example this). He used new accounts, like User:Erudra and User:Snieg, to edit pages that were semi-protected at the time. And indeed, he has never made a real secret of his sockpuppets, either - these had the names of his proven sockpuppets in the German Misplaced Pages after in November 2006 his main account in the German Misplaced Pages - de:User:Aserafin - was blocked indefinitely. He didn't get his ends in the German Misplaced Pages that way, but he's pulling the same on the English Misplaced Pages and apparently with success.

Serafin's month of being "blocked" is over in an hour and he still hasn't been blocked again. Why does he enjoy some kind of immunity while others have to wait patiently if they have a time out? Sciurinæ 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Jacob Peters IP sock

I have blocked 69.110.129.127 (talk · contribs) for one week because it appears to me to be an obvious sock of banned User:Jacob Peters. In addition to the modus operandi matching Jacob Peters exactly (pro-communist POV, dismissing opposing sources as unreliable), the IP is similar to those he has used in the past (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). I post this here so others can review my actions and because I am told Jacob Peters often uses open proxies. Someone who understands this better may want tot check and see if this is one. Heimstern Läufer 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone's gotta take him to rehab. :) What does he have against wikipedia? Axiomm 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a spectre haunting Misplaced Pages, trying to subvert its bourgeois complacency and replace it with a revolutionary social consciousness. Sockpuppets of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your latest open proxy. Although for an admirer of Soviet jurisprudence, Peters complains an awful lot about the unfairness of Misplaced Pages's judicial system. To paraphrase the immortal Walter Sobchak, "Fair?!? Who's the f**kin' Stalinist here?" MastCell 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Blocks, one of them one week long, and he still doesnt get it....

I'm talking about User:LSLM. His blocks: , , . The reasons for all of them included personal attacks.

Yet, he continues. His personal attacks since his last block:

• "...FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR ADMINISTRATORS. LOOK AT BOTH MEMBER'S CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY ARE USING WIKI AS A POLITICAL PLATFORM OF THE MOST EXTREME RACIST AND NAZI PROPAGANDA...."

• This is the 3rd or 4th section he has made to "warn" people about my edits, usually with thinly veiled insults:

• Actually just reading Talk:White_people might be easier.

• His other personal attack section Talk:White_people/Archive_8#Watch_out_for_some_users_like_Lukas

• He seems to call anyone whom he doesnt agree with "pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki" whom "Never in" his "entire life" has he "sat at the same table with disgusting Nazis". See: Talk:Prehistoric_settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Another_User

• More: ,

• What's more funny is that he was the one making racial attacks, saying: ""People have also called the white race Stupid Whitey or Honky. Also the word Cracker" ,

• Lots of attacks on Americans, just see white page talk and archives, here's an example: "...I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the European themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off their growing inferiority complex(because of their view on white and non-white people). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what....."

• Besides personal attacks, he is highly disruptive, his bans range from vandalism to violation of 3RR rule and he recently caused the White people article to be fully protected again: Lukas19 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• He claims to be leaving Wiki, but many users leave Wiki and then return. User:Wobble had also left Misplaced Pages after extensive personal attacks and was back before a week. Please do not let some editors to distrupt Misplaced Pages and other editors without any consequence. Lukas19 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalized talk page: . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukas19 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

A Semi-protected article that "isn't"

Just a quick observation. The Great Depression article has a semi-protect padlock on it. But, somehow, an anon IP just vandalized it twice. The semi-protect is either not functioning or expired...obviously. Especialy since a very noble and trustworthy anon IP (me) just picked it off the recent changes list and had to revert it. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a nice day! 156.34.216.15 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection had expired. I removed the {{sprotected2}} padlock template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with expiring protections. The template doesn't automatically get removed. Would a bot to remove the templates from expired protected pages be workable? Corvus cornix 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

A user (Bbrcadu) just blanked a page. I warned him, but does anything else need done? This is my first time warning about this type of vandalism. Zbl 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, treat it like any other vandalism. There is a specific series of warnings for deleting content if you wish to use them:
{{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}
In fact I see you didn't use a warning template at all, you might want to check out WP:UTM for specific ('official') warnings you can use on vandals' talkpages. WjBscribe 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Go along with what WjBscribe said, for serious content removal cases like blanking articles, you can use {{uw-delete4im}} instead. If he ignores final warning, report to WP:AIV. That's how to do it. PeaceNT 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec. The page wasn't blank, but it lost over 10,000 char. See Mudchute DLR station‎ The article looks fine though, but the edit summary says, "blanked the page." What the heck? Zbl 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Big Boss 2

Could someone indefblock this account? It says it's a sock of User:Big Boss 0, but Big Boss 0 stated it wasn't his Thanks! — Moe 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He's already under a 48hr block. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Yuser31415 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What benefit of the doubt? If someone is claiming to be somebody else, and that other person says they're not them, why shouldn't they be blocked indefinitely? Corvus cornix 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Hello. I opened an ANI inquery into the actions of Admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, with a lot of details provided. It has since been removed and I have not been informed of the result. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Captain Barrett 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of this page very carefully, and you will soon know why there were no "results". - WeniWidiWiki 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, which section are you referring to please? On my previous post I did add "diff's" and did everything which was recommended to me. Captain Barrett 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He might be referring to this part:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. But this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

If no one acted on your request it's possible that no admin felt there was anything actionable under the charter of AN/I. That's just a guess, I didn't read the original entry. Hope it helps, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note this this user has no user page. Axiomm 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's because he himself deletes it from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, admins do sometimes do that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From time to time? It's been redlinked consistently since May '06. The only reason the log is so bloody large is because I keep having to redelete vandals and well meaning fools. And nothing says I have to have a user page either, rightly or wrongly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgent notice

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Misplaced Pages privacy policy. Dino 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even play the blame game , JzG did no such thing. — Moe 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person who originally posted that information was Prodego on January 15. This just compounds the administrative misconduct. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I see is JzG identifying another sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicagostyledog is probably a sockpuppet of Joehazelton. You may ask Gamaliel; he will no doubt confirm my suspicion that it was Joehazelton. Delete the post. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It contains no personal information whatsoever. Personal information is stuff like phone numbers, addresses, names, social security numbers, and the like, not what you are alluding to. No need to delete edit(s). --physicq (c) 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I revealed this connection first, based on the "from" header of emails from BryanFromPalatine. I did so to add evidence for Dean being a sock, since I had just blocked an employee of the WMF under edit pattern evidence. :). When Bryan complained I removed it, then contacted Fred Bauder, who told me that it did not need to be oversighted, so it assumedly OK to post it. I would like some external opinions though. Prodego 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JUST REMOVE THE NAME. Dino 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU DON"T NEED TO SHOUT. It doesn't take an rocket scientist to figure out the last name given it's in your username. If you didn't want your last name on Misplaced Pages, you probably shouldn't have used it in your username. — Moe 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, if you have problems with personal information, please visit requests for oversight. Yuser31415 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is even necessary. I mean I'm not even involved in any of this nonsense but even I could put 1+1+1 together and get 3. Nothing has been revealed in that post that a 12 year old couldn't figure out on their own from spending about 5 minutes at WP:AN/I on any given day since we seem to be discussing a certain set of editors almost daily. That said, I concur with Newyorkbrad below, "BryanFromPalatine" should be used here on wiki just so it is clear which editor we are talking about.--Isotope23 14:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. If you have a problem with something I've posted, hit my talkpage.--Isotope23 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A new Roskam based IP sock just hit JzG's page HERE IP 128.241.108.232 - FAAFA 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of protocol, we should refer on-wiki to "BryanFromPalatine" rather than his real full name, although I agree that under the circumstances nothing has really been disclosed. Newyorkbrad 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked DeanHinnen for 24 hours due to his continually removing other editors comments from this thread. Even beyond any privacy concerns, his edits are taking out non-privacy related information. Enough is enough.--Isotope23 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit the comments of others. If there is something OFFICEable, use the process to ask for it. But there, in my judgement, isn't. I see Isotope23 just gave you a 24 hour block for that and for the record, I support it. Use the time to reflect on trying to fit in here better. please. Your style isn't working very well. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To be nice, I've redacted the part that I suspect most offends him. I didn't restore anyone elses comments just because with edits here it would be difficult, but if anyone wants to add back what they said, feel free. The biggest issue I saw (and the reason I blocked him) was because he was selectively editing comments and leaving parts that completely changed the meaning and tone of the posts.--Isotope23 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

*Moe readds his comment (and the comment he was responding to) that was removed* I don't believe my reinsertion has violated anything, nor was my comment improper, so I have readded it. — Moe 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 (talk · contribs) won't stop POV pushing and blanking legitimate text

Not sure what this person's problem is. He keeps blanking legitimate and accurate information from an image caption (the text is not POV at all, it just mentions that China is shown to the North of North Korea on a map). He was about to break 3RR, so I VERY politely warned him on his talk page. His response was to blank the warning with the edit summary (fo). I'm sure you can guess that that stands for . This person is also causing a great deal of disruption on Denmark, as you can see from comments on his talk page, for pushing a lot of original research . He's also wikistalking me, as evidenced by THIS bogus revert to some copyediting I did on a Chicago Article of the Week (which is a project I'm a member of) . His edit summary there was "rv unsourced edit". This was obviously nothing but spiteful revenge. Can someone please deal with this person and his gross incivility before he really gets out of hand? TheQuandry 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.90.43.121 keeps reverting to POV language, no matter how many times it is taken out

67.90.43.121 refuses to stop adding POV language ("shockingly beautiful", "stunned by her delicate beauty", etc.) to the Susan Eldridge page. I have taken out their edits several times, and told them not to use POV language in my edit summaries, as well as on the discussion page, but they will not stop. --DearPrudence 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I added a request to WP:RPP; that's where things like this should go. I also noted that the anonymous user's talk pages were empty. JuJube 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who does that guy think he is, a poet? What you need for this problem is a tablesaw, a toothpick, and whole lot of dedication. I hope you're a fan of "carpentrial topogrophy."I Like You, Yes I Do 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Carpent-" what!?CharlieWantsU 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 3RR. Sasquatch t|c 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stopping User:JeromeJeromeJustinn

I know this guy personally and he has behavioral issues. He also happens to be my 13 year old son and I will surely put a stop to this unacceptable behavior.DadddyO 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no user of the name JeromeJeromeJustinn exists. Perhaps you have made a typo? Yuser31415 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review on Big Boss 0

I've blocked Big Boss 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for what I believe to be continuous disruption. It began with a lot of fair use images being used in user space (see his upload log). There became more issues like using Misplaced Pages as a free webhost. And now recently it's been a terrible obsession with Ockenbock (talk · contribs) who's been attacking me. Big Boss 0 is convinced he can bring the sockpuppets down. This was slightly annoying on Misplaced Pages, but now he's spread his war to Uncyclopedia (see the contributions here, here, and here). Big Boss 0 doesn't realize that doing that only caused Ockenbock to come at me (and Big Boss 0) with more attacks. There also appear to be a bunch of issues today regarding the appropriateness of his user page and user subpages. All this combined into a 48 hour cooling off block.

What does everyone feel of the appropriateness of this block? Too long? Just right? Not enough? Not needed? Feeedback would be appreciated, Metros232 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your block, but don't you feel this message would be more appropriate on AN? Yuser31415 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, endorse, but it might be better to bring it to an univolved admin via WP:AN or this board if it reoccurs. Proto ► 12:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox...disrupter

Not sure if this has been posted before, but there is a persistant editor who has been making questionable edits to infoboxes under various IP addresses:

• 74.12.155.186 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.247 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.131 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.95.145 (talk · contribs)

There might be more out there, but these are the one's I have encountered through Peter Jennings. It's definitely disruptive (although there are good contributions here and there), and the editor has certainly been warned before on his older IP addresses, but has shown no sign of heeding the advice of others. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gzkn 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Restarted this old thread since no one responded. The IP is still at it (this time under 74.12.155.51 (talk · contribs) (some diffs: )). The pattern is always the same. The IP persistently:

• replaces Actors infoboxes with Biography infoboxes
• has something against the {{birth date and age}} and {{death date and age}} templates, as s/he constantly replaces them with simple dates.
• deletes the "image_caption" parameter to infoboxes if they exist
• deletes the country name in birth place/death place parameters Gzkn 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfacts in various pages

Facts not in line with reality, misspellings, and human error have been littering the Wikiscape lately. "Anyone can edit" has it's drawbacks. Any ideas? For my .02 I say hire a factchecker.Pooddy 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unfacts"? --bainer (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspeak. Anyway, this looks like an untopic for ANI. Pooddy, please go to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) instead. —xyzzy_n 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking is done by everyone who visits wikipedia. Statistics has it that most people are good by nature, and so society in general will tend to correct more problems on wikipedia than that they cause.

Do your part! If you see an unfact, please correct it! --Kim Bruning 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras, the sequel?

An anon user has been targeting several pages associated with the LGBT project, on the basis that "WP:LGBT is an agency for pushing a political POV." (see example diff). The anon has used several IP addresses, all from the same city and ISP:

• 71.34.20.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.34.19.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.228.54.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It is suspected that this anon user is User:Nkras, who is editing anonymously to avoid an indef block. Could we get a checkuser on Nkras and compare it with the anons? If this is Nkras, is there a next step that a regular editor such as myself can take, or does this need to be taken care of by admins? Justin Eiler 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just these IPs. I will round up a full list of them and submit them to checkuser, hopefully within the hour. Also, if we have not already done so, I propose a community ban on the individual behind the Nkras account, as he has made repeated threats of meatpuppetry on Talk:Marriage and seems to view his indef block as simply an opportunity to take up new styles of trolling. — coelacan talk — 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And has now taken up the cudgel aginst WP:GS because he claims that they are trying to "sanitize" Misplaced Pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure if CheckUser is necessary. It says it's only for non-obvious cases, but all of these are clearly Nkras. I've just added the IPs to Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Nkras instead, for anyone who needs them. The threats of meatpuppetry that got 63.228.46.229 blocked along with the disruption at WT:LGBT, should result in a community ban. — coelacan talk — 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just noticed that this is now handled at WP:CN so I'll take it there. — coelacan talk — 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe some admins who are feeling left out will want to go to Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard and join the party! Nkras is having aball there, evading his blocks and laughing at the entire community. Great fun, for those who enjoy anarchy. Jeffpw 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged

... that is all. —Dgies 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still backlogged. We have some nasty personal-attack vandals still running loose. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleared now, lots of not-warned/not vandalism reports. However one of those did lead me to an abusive sock, so I guess thats all good. Viridae 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Backlogged again. Defcon 2. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Better now. Not backlogged. Vandalism has also slowed down. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brunei-Darussalam article vandalized

Here's the part that seems to have been vandalized.

"Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, whose [[List of Sultans of Brunei|titl'Bold text'Bold textass ass ass ass ass ass ass assIn September 2004"

Sabzavot 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not 'Brunei-Darussalam', it's 'Brunei' (name of article that seems to have been vandalized)

Sorry for confusion

Sabzavot 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it: thanks for pointing it out! By the way you can get quick action on this kind of thing by reporting it at the administrator intervention board. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking revert of move

User:Huaiwei made a null edit to block revert to his undiscussed move of Macao Light Transit System . While there is no official policy or guideline, he insists the spelling of Macau/o must be standardised across entire Misplaced Pages. Is blocking revert of move ever allowed on Misplaced Pages? (Cf. an an earlier AN/I discussion in which the same wikipedians were involved.) — Instantnood 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As per User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Macau.2Fo, it has been long established by community concensus that the spelling of Macau should be "u", and for consistency sake, should be standardised across wikipedia. Is it not something of my own design, as Instantnood allerges (all subcategories in Category:Macau has similarly been standardised and renamed accordingly through community concensus many months back). Instantnood has consistently attempted to ignore concensus by reverting the Macau article and made similar changes elsewhere. His blatant disregard for community concensus is clearly a cause for concern as well.--Huaiwei 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate why and in what way did those discussions constitute a community consensus? (If I read correctly the first and second links, which are in fact pointing at the same thing, affected only the title of the Macau article.) In what way are the titles of categories comparable to titles and contents of articles in the main namespace? And why should official names of institutions like the Monetary Authority of Macao be affected? — Instantnood 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, names of institutions and structures are left untouched as of now, if you did not realise, so I doubt there is a need to explain the latter. As for the former, I do not think I should be explaining the existance of community concensus when all evidence points to this fact. Consistency across article titles, contents of articles and categories (Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_24#Macau_categories) need no explaination, because the only explaination is consistency. You were personally involved in many of these discussions, and I am sure you are aware that the issue of consistency has been constantly raised. Yet you chose to deny this, and you chose to feign ignorance as an excuse to continue your reverting exercise.--Huaiwei 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You had been applying your rule to proper names until your drive was halted. In what way did I deny anything or did I feign ignorance, while I actually asked " In what way are the titles of categories comparable to titles and contents of articles in the main namespace? "? And afterall, AN/I is not for content dispute. This thread was started to address your edit that blocked revert to an undiscussed move. — Instantnood 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see some evidence in your first comment. Your continued claims on the non-existance of community concensus is evidence enough, including your attempt to disassociate titles of categories, titles of articles, and content. Just as you claim I am blocking your page move, you are abusing this page to impose a block so that you can continue to revert war, which also makes your gulty of WP:3RR immediately as you are clearly gaming the 3RR rules.--Huaiwei 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I invited you to elaborate on in what way did the three threads of discussions you mentioned (you quoted four links at user talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Macau.2Fo, in which the first and second are pointing at the same thing) constitute community consensus and should be applied undiscriminatively to all entries across Misplaced Pages. You then jump to your conclusion that I claimed the "non-existence" of whatever sort of consensus. Could you please focus your response to addressing your blocking of revert to undiscussed move? — Instantnood 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a need to explain to any user who persists in disregarding community concensus. If you form a different opinion form the above, you are most welcome to elaborate on this in support of your behavior, instead of constantly expecting the other member to explain his actions. Unless, of course, you realised you have nothing to support your actions in the first place.--Huaiwei 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that our naming conventions specifically provide:

• "The current title of a page is not intended to imply that either the title name is preferred or the alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. The article title should also not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another."
  

and a big part of the problem here is that this is not being respected. Gene Nygaard 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei insists that consistency has to be maintained throughout Misplaced Pages (and he also claimed there's policy against linking to redirect). He has yet to produce any reference to any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy, however. — Instantnood 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If one may refer back to the specfic policy, it clearly states that this provision applies "where editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name". This has hardly been true for the case of Macau/o, where every single name request change has ended up with a preference for Macau. This is strong concensus. The majority of wikipedians has adhered to this, resulting in the majority of articles being spelt with the "u". Only a handful of wikipedians, chiefly Instantnood and a few of his sympahisers persist in using the "o".

It is untrue to argue that there are no guidelines pertaining to spelling consistency in geographic names, which Macau is one. Naming conventions (geographic names) specifically states that The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. When combined with previous RFR , and CFR , this means that collectively, the spelling of "Macau" should be applied in all instances of article names and category names, and should be consistently used within the articles themselves.

It is clear from the above that I act based on exiting conventions and the result of community concensus. So I would be quite amused if Instantnood's anti-community behavior is actually vindicated. I certainly hope this is not going to set a negative preceedent for all other similar cases here.--Huaiwei 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole "Macau"/"Macao" and "PRC"/"Mainland China" stuff has, frankly, gone on too long. It gets resolved in one forum (or does not, as the case may be), and then simply spills over into another, either immediately or after a brief "lull". It's especially vexing that this is now affecting template-populated categories, like {{China-geo-stub}}, since each one of these reverts then shoves about 1000 articles onto the job queue. These naming and categorisation issues need to get wider input, get consensus one way or the other on an actual convention of one sort and another, and remove the excuse of "lack of guideline" from poor behaviour on both sides. Alai 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put a request for Instantnood to be on 0RR at ArbCom for his part in this behavior and the rest of his hundred reverts over the last day. 2½ years of this edit war is enough. There isn't any excuse for Huaiwei to pre-emptively change the spelling of Macao, either. 2 previous ArbCom cases mean both sides here know better, but 'nood is by far worse.

FYI, existing consensus for the Macao spelling issue is for article title preferences and category names only. The preference is: 1. actual spelling, 2. the u spelling. Inline text is treated like any other spelling difference (Commonwealth vs American, etc) where either could be correct but generally should be consistent with the title or other text. SchmuckyTheCat 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems almost overkill to have Yet Another Arbcom Case over this; I'd have hoped that this could have been resolved via community-supported action, if necessary with reference to the previous Arbcom outcome. YAAC seems likely to give us a none-too-speedy, and probably fairy heavy-handed resolution of the whole business. However, I suppose that die is now cast. Alai 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban of Miss Mondegreen

This user is engaging in trolling and personal attacks on this page. They are also acting delusional. We can not afford to waste our time, dealing with ranting. I am proposing a Six Month Community Ban of this user. Geo. Talk to me 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bans go to WP:CN for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, though, I can't find any evidence that you've actually tried to communicate with this user. --InShaneee 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SpyMagician

I have been trying to clean up and find references for comedy-related articles, a number of which I have noticed are for non-notable groups or are being used for self-promotion. SpyMagician (talk · contribs) is arguing that these articles don't need references, or that non-notable groups are important to someone and therefore are appropriate subjects for articles, and is removing or changing all references tags I am putting on these articles wholesale. I hope this is the right place to seek help; it's not really content dispute, as much a disagreement on the goals of Misplaced Pages and need for verifiability. Am I doing something wrong? If I am, please tell me. Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future Fun Jumper (TIC), you have greatly simplified the issue and completely ignore the way you have gone about edits that caused the contention with me and many others as well. You are simply dropping into many comedy related threads and demanding a level of citation that simply cannot be provided in many examples. And in many of the articles you have flagged, references do exist as external links which would simply mean a quick amount of editting and rewriting to conform to Wiki style is what is needed. The most baffling aspect of what I have seen in your edits, is the concept of WIki style as a way of resolving this issue seems to be something you are consciously avoiding. It seems that Future Fun Jumper (TIC), is donning the hat of an editor just to chastize and berate others and not much else. A quick review of his edits shows a strong disregard towards any other approaches to improving articles. My apologies to other Wiki admins if posting in here is inappropriate, but I'd like to think the role of a Wiki editor is to do more than siimply tag articles for deletion while dismissing the work of contributors who have helped the articles grow.SpyMagician 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have oversimplified this. I do not want to present admins with a giant block of text to wade through. I am tagging these articles as I work to find references for them, in the hopes that others might be able to work on it with me. If there is a more preferable to way to go about doing things, I would appreciate opinions from editors not involved in this disagreement. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is a couple doors down, and I think would be more helpful here then an AN/I thread. If it's just between you two, you can seek a third opinion, else you might want to look at requests for comment or mediation. It's also generally helpful to provide specific diffs with the behavior you find disagreeable-rather then just saying "X is doing this all over the place!", say "X has repeated this many times (diff), (diff), (diff), (diff)." You two may know the nature of this debate, and where it's happened, but no one else looking at it necessarily does! Seraphimblade 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Spambots (was: External links....)

(spam removed) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanjaharlock1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Tanjaharlock1 seems to have contributed nothing but spam to Misplaced Pages; I've given a level-3 warning. It's kind of ironic that they're attempting to spam on some of the most watched pages in Misplaced Pages (George W. Bush talk, an RFA subpage, and AN/I); I would have thought placing spam on AN/I would be one of the best ways to make admins aware that you were spamming! (By the way, all external links are nofollowed nowadays, so spamming won't help a search engine rank any more.) --ais523 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Special:Contributions/Robinrossam (currently on AIV); it's possible that they're both spambots. --ais523 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And if we're keeping a list in this section, Normancliffe has only added links and created one of the pages, a talk page to a nonexistant page, that Robinrossam added her spam to shortly after. --Onorem 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Normancliffe claims to be a spambot in the edit summary. They're all clearly vandal-only accounts (and should probably be blocked), but something doesn't seem quite right about this. They're changing their behaviour sufficiently that I'm wondering whether they're bots or not after all, or merely someone pretending to be a spambot. The pages that they're hitting are the /search/? sort (sometimes), and things like AN/I, CSD talk, and an admin's talk page; maybe it's a human pretending to be a spambot because they want to cause an autoblock on their own IP? --ais523 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPSPAM is a good place to report this kind of thing. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprintable characters

Wasn't account creation with unprintable characters shut down by the devs? I've found several accounts which have a lot less (or no) visible characters. Seeing as this computer can play up, are the visible characters boxes just for me or is it for everyone.

• User:えへた
• User:さおても
• User:ネルサイル
• User:縮殴侵
• User:奨改
• User:るぬぬねれよえた
• User:となはちへせ
• User:コホテニヲコルコ
• User:ほおて
• User:クヘハタエチラ
• User:おふほるとらゐ

-- Mgm| 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see them. I am guessing they are chinese or something similar. Viridae 12:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see them, they're definitely Oriental characters. I will not betray my ignorance by guessing authoratively whether they are Chinese, Cantonese, Japanese, Klingon or whatever. Proto ► 12:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see them ... two look Chinese ... the rest I don't recognize. I strongly suggest installing all of the language packs ... it makes life easier when you may potentially come in contact with names that use other character sets. As for policy, WP:UN at one time completely forbade names with non-Latin characters (now, it is just suggested) and once single signon happens, enwiki won't have any control over that anyway. --BigDT 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Two Chinese, the rest Japanese. x42bn6 Talk 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... and for those curious, the fourth and fifth ones down are the Chinese ones, with the others being Japanese, as stated above. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the fourth and fifth ones are Chinese, but Japanese kanji are borrowed from written Chinese, so they're essentially the same thing. The others are Japanese hiragana, though there may be some Japanese katakana present too. A Japanese text set should cover them all. Leebo 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign characters have to be allowed to support the upcoming Single User Login, since many wiki users natively operate in other texts. Once SUL goes live, there will be literally tens of thousands of such names imported on to Misplaced Pages. So in short, foreign scripts in usernames are something we just have to learn to deal with it. Also, per foundation direction (and as noted above) one should not be blocking such users, though they are strongly encouraged to add a latin version of their name to their sig. Dragons flight 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as the link to the user name is clickable, we'll just have to live with it. □□□□□ 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me the link to the foundation direction allowing non-Latin character usernames? I might need it for future reference. ----physicq (c) 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• MediaWiki only disallows usernames that mix character sets. That's why, for example, I can't have the username "Tiтохd", as it is half in Latin, and the other half in Cyrillic. Titoxd 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• It would be a good idea to suggest to users with non-Latin usernames that they provide a transliteration of their names with Latin characters by editing their Preferences, as a "patch" to accomodate those who might be unable to read their usernames, which can just appear as a row of small squares otherwise (as they do on my screen). Tyrenius 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what WP:USERNAME is actually saying right now. I'm not sure though whether that will still work under single login. Will signatures be something that a user can set separately for each project? If not, such a policy would in effect mean for us in en-wiki to be dictating Latin-only signatures to all the other wikipedias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • IIRC, all preferences will be locale-specific. Just login/password are the same. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona

User:Schwnj removed my post on Talk:Arizona! Could somebody look into this? - Patricknoddy 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Randomly posting a blue map serves no purpose please be more descriptive in your messages. Nareklm 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the map because (a) it served no purpose (b) gave no context (c) upon investigating the poster's other contributions, when asked why he was posing maps everywhere, he replied that he didn't want his images orphaned. As a result, I concluded that the post was akin to spam and removed it. I'm not in the habit of editing discussion pages, but I thought it was justified in this case. -Nick 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LSD

This article is undergoing extensive vandalism at the moment. Not sure why but could I ask for a few extra eyes on it to watch for any further vandalism? --Spartaz 13:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Nareklm 13:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried keeping an eye on it, but the colors were too intense—it was freakin' me out. I semi-protected the page for a day...see if that helps.  :-D —Doug Bell  16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Always keeping an eye of this important article. I'd unprotect it after a day or so as well. I believe this article is watched by many wikipedians and most of the time vandalism is dealt w/ very quickly. So no big deals here. -- FayssalF - 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was only that I had to go back over around 4 or 5 vandalism "reverts" to get back to yesterday's correct last saved version that made me post this. Thanks to all for backing up on this. --Spartaz 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Catalan problems

Maurice27 (talk · contribs) seems to be going on a one-man show against Catalonia articles. S/he has breached 3RR on a number of occasions and seems unwilling to abide by WP:AGF in his/her edits, dispite warnings. I would really like to have another admin look at this case, which is also concerns WP:NOT. If there are no takers, I will have to go to ArbCom, which doesn't really seem like the best solution. Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is premature. Please try all the steps in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. I have warned him and another user he was edit-warring with in the past. Regards, --Asterion 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a 3RR vio since the warning on 10 February? If so, then report it to WP:AN3. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Cause for concern? This user appears to be a sockpuppet making POINTed removals of gallery links and images from articles. Based upon an edit conflict on the La Défense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (review the history) it seems pretty obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of user JulienD3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who's also impersonating User:Gonioul). Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What links do you want me to post!?Charlie Gets It 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I confirm Netscott analysis, this is clearly JulienD3 which was reverted by several users for only adding links to his gallery.

Please note he vandalised MF 2000 and deleted my question to Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles

Gonioul 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: I had requested this user to stop their pointed removals (as a likely sock) but this user continued to edit in the same manner even after my message. (→Netscott) 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing continued libel on Paul Staines

This is also on WP:AN, not sure if it was the wrong place (see there at the top for details/info on libel threats from article's subject). Someone should *urgently* protect Paul Staines - User:Pogsurf is repeatedly adding libellous content back to the page. This user is the same user that added libels anonymously (as User:62.136.238.65). I have reverted a few times, but he is very rude and abusive (see his contributions), so his attacks are likely to continue. Can someone revert whatever his latest edits are, if applicable at the time, and protect the page. Also the libels need to be purged from wikipedia. Nssdfdsfds 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you found the correct place to discuss this.--Pogsurf 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IP revert-warring, tendentious edits

83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs) is revert-warring and making tendentious edits on Republic of China and People's Republic of China. I'm not sure he's a sock of permabanned Devout Christian (talk · contribs), but he's just as bad. --Ideogram 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warned. He is about to violate 3RR. --Ideogram 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evasion or unblock request

See . Zoe is currently unavailable and I’m not sure what that is, so I’d appreciate it if somebody who knows that editor handled it. Background information at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#Somemoron_using_sock. —xyzzy_n 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

off wiki calls for systemic meatpuppetry

it has become apparent that Arrow740 (talk · contribs) has been attempting to recruit meatpuppets on off-wiki fora such as faithfreedom.org, a website known for espousing extreme anti-Muslim views. here are some examples of these posts under the pseudonym "Google=Misplaced Pages":

from here

"Well here's something you guys can do. Spend 5-10 minutes a day on revert-warring, i.e. go to Islam articles and revert them back to the most anti-Islam one you see there. If you do this a few times you'll know which users to revert back to. If there's an edit war going on you can really help that way."

"... It's a really, really small group of people! There is a group of 5 to 10 hardcore Muslim apologists who are constantly slanting the articles toward pro-Islam! This is so dangerous. When people use google they're going to be reading what a handful of Muslim apologists have to say about the subject. There are some people fighting for good but we really need some help.

Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!"

from here:

"... There can be no formal organization there to promote a particular point of view. We could organize things from here."

"If you really care about stopping the spread of Islam you'll work on wikipedia."

"We get articles of theirs deleted all the time. Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. Misplaced Pages is fair, but it requires work and dedication. Isn't getting the word out about Islam worth it? The only reason this matters is because, as my name says, Google=Misplaced Pages. YOU can help shape what google has to say about Islam and you're not doing it."

"We need to find historians (Islamic studies people would be best, but any trained historian will do some good) that say bad things about Islam and Muhammad and quote them in articles. "

"I would tell you my username but one of the Muslims might try to use my advertising over here to get me blocked."

from here

"OK so we know that wikipedia can be a battleground. Here's something easy (and fun) you can do to help...

...Help the good guys and hurt the bad guys by simply reverting to the last version by a good guy. Check back every few minutes, you can use three reverts per 24 hour period, after that you will get a temporary block.

Here are the lists:

Good guys (in alphabetical order): Arrow740 Beit Or Hypnosadist Karl Meier Merzbow Proabivouac Sefringle Str1977

Bad: ALM scientist Aminz Bless sins Itaqallah Kirbytime Nielswik Striver Strothra Truthspreader"

the quotes speak for themselves, more can be seen upon further analysis of the threads. evidence proving beyond doubt that the user involved in this is User:Arrow740 is as follows:

• "Google=Misplaced Pages" was a main participant in a dispute on Muhammad's slaves as can be deduced from this post: . he says:"Muslims got the lists censored because they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" - this is a reference to the discussion between myself and Arrow740 on my talk page and on the article talk page. in particular, "'they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" refers to my comments here.
• Arrow740 shows interest in and awareness of the Faith Freedom International forums, on which Google=Misplaced Pages posted. Arrow also significantly participates on the Faith Freedom article.
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" lists a number of articles he wishes for FFI participants to blind revert on (Jan 25), naming the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (as quoted above). incidentally, these are almost all of the articles on which Arrow740 has been involved in substantial disputes, many times heavily edit warring. here are a selection of diffs provided:
  • Dhimmi:
  • Robert Spencer:
  • Islam and slavery:
  • Women in Islam:
  • Islamist terrorism:
  • Criticism of Muhammad:
  • Criticism of the Qur'an:
  • Criticism of Islam:
  • Muhammad's slaves:
  • Muhammad and the Jews:
  • Banu Qurayza:
  • Banu Qaynuqa:
  • Banu Nadir:
  • Constitution of Medina:
  • Faith Freedom International:
  • The relation between Islam and science:
  • Aisha:
  • Jihad:
  • Islam and antisemitism:
    • the most significant point here is that on a number of these articles, there have been an extremely low number of editors ever involved in them. for example, on Constitution of Medina, the activity on the article remained rather low until mid-Jan when Arrow740 made a series of objectionable edits, and that was the start of the first actual dispute on that article. as so few people were involved (and as the articles are hardly visited), or even aware of the dispute (i.e. pretty much only myself and Arrow), highlighting such an article in an off-wiki appeal becomes extremely significant. exactly the same applies to Muhammad and the Jews, where controversy only ever started during mid-Jan when Arrow740 started editing the article. the same also applies to Muhammad's slaves.
    • furthermore, the posts on FFI seem to have been made during the same period when Arrow740 was warring across several of the above articles (mid to late January), as many of the diffs provided above are similarly from around that time.
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" describes eminent historian Montgomery Watt as "a stupid Christian minister who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired", which correlates with the antagonism displayed against him by Arrow740. some sample diffs, among others: . in particular, the statement: "who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired" corresponds with this sarcastic comment: "God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!"
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" reveals extensive knowledge over the newly formed Criticism of Islam taskforce (of which he is a member): "Of course I know about it. The task force is for anyone who wants to improve articles discussing criticism of Islam. You see how vague that is. There can be no official group whose stated purpose is to promote an anti-Islam point of view." , and also states his frustration over how the group isn't active enough "Where do you get your information about this? The group serves no purpose. It's founder hasn't contributed in over a week. I assure you that I am already fully participating in the struggle to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam.", a group to which Arrow has been one of the very few contributors. the quote also shows that Google=Misplaced Pages has been active and actively in disputes for a while, as can be seen by Arrow740's contribs during Jan (and this month in fact). the last point is also exemplified by the quote "Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." (i.e. extensive edit warring, as demonstrated in the diffs above)
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" holds an extremely reverential opinion of Robert Spencer, whilst understanding that he is not good enough for citation on wikipedia "In the history articles you need to quote historians, not (great) guys like Spencer. In the criticism articles you can quote the critics." this opinion stems from the numerous disputes Arrow has been involved in regarding Spencer (i.e. Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Robert_Spencer, Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri). the last sentence of that extract corresponds with:
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" indicates that he has communicated in the past with relatively new user User:Matt57 - "Our paths have crossed a few times", as has Arrow740
• "Google=Misplaced Pages" states "Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. ", indicating he was aware of the relevant AfD's related to Ali Sina (AfD, DRV) and Faith Freedom International, the last of which Arrow740 was a key participant.
• such behaviour is not out of character, as Arrow was recently found to be votestacking in an AfD.. he is also known for recruiting like-minded editors on-wiki to enforce changes on articles, example diffs among many of this nature. considering the above, it is reasonable to consider that privately contacting numerous editors sharing his viewpoint may have been similarly inappropriate:

i would appreciate administrators' opinions and any appropriate intervention. thank you.ITAQALLAH 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused as to what difference there is between groups like this being organized and what looks to be a very organized group of editors that work together with Itaqallah who take an opposing point of view, and why Itaqallah and his friends are not also called meatpuppets? And if so is this not something that should be addressed with relation to both of them? It looks like Itaqallah and Arrow740 from the link to each of their contributions have long histories around each other and that this may be just the latest attack from one to the other. I will be open and admit that I find many of Itaqallah's edits to be less than helpful or possibly factually incorrect after reviewing the various pages he links to that he himself has edited on repeatedly.

Also, wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is it not? If there is a serious bias problem going on, it seems one acceptable solution should be to invite people to come in and fix the offending articles. When Itaqallah links to a page that I think means there is a debate on when an article might be deleted, and says Arrow was "vote stacking" by inviting people to view it, I am unsure of whether there is any difference between Arrow sending messages on here and what would happen if people sent messages to each other privately or on another forum somewhere. There are comments on that page that if I am reading them correctly indicate Itaqallah may have been doing this.

I do not know all the right terms to describe it but I hope I have made my points and questions clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by One Elephant went out to play... (talk • contribs)

Tsk tsk tsk. InBC 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on Islam related articles, but based on the fact that this individual, whomever he or she may be, is outright asking people to POV revert war, I consider that trolling for disruption and personally I would suggest taking a fairly hard line against it. Despite how One Elephant went out to play... (talk · contribs) is trying to portray this, this was not a request for "people to come in and fix the offending articles". This is absolutely a call for individuals to show up here and create a problem complete with instructions on how to game the 3RR system.--Isotope23 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A déja vu. It reminds me of this back on October 2005. Shees! 18 months later? It is so clear that it consists of a systematic behaviour. Whenever someone would need help they would just go to Faithfreedom.org and gather supporters. I am not sure who is behind this but this should be fixed. -- FayssalF - 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that it is "Arrow740". First of all, he must be in the list of "good" guys "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977". Well, I have had interaction with all of these editors and I can say with certainty that it can be only Arrow740. His editing style is unique. For example please compare "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" from FFI website with this comment of Arrow here "By the way, a co-religionist of yours is being attacked. See Robert Spencer." --Aminz 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz and I have an acrimonious relationship, and his "example" is obviously wrong. In fact I never use such gushy language as "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz must have an exceptionally good ear for language, since I cannot spot any common patterns in the two phrases above, no matter how hard I try. Beit Or 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking others to come and fix an attacked article. And of course, Arrow would be a little bit less free outside wikipedia. --Aminz 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With the standard of proof set so low, one can conjure up "evidence" against any editor. Beit Or 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, among the "good" guys "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977", only Arrow740 has edited all the articles named by "G=W" in FFI website. In fact, this user is supposed to be very active: From FFI post:"As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do. All it takes is perseverance. Some of the worst Muslim editors have been banned in the last few months. It all works out. Right now we have the upper hand and I think we might be close to critical mass over there. If you have a good secondary source (i.e. a book by a historian) then there's nothing they can do. If it's a website then they can get it censored. But in the "Criticism of" articles, the standard is different, and you can put in as much Spencer, Ibn Warraq, and Bat Ye'or as you want. "--Aminz 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how the evidence presented could have been "conjured", Beit Or. i don't appreciate musings implying that it has. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that is false. Itaqallah in his zeal for the truth only copied articles I had edited, if only once. Please read my response. Arrow740 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

those on which you did edit less on seemed to be lower down on your priority list. i have already explained why the other two articles you listed would be typically so. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow is also involved in some of these articles only recently (the FFI comments are not very recent). --Aminz 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

absolutely. many of the articles Arrow listed below were ones where he has only recently become "heavily involved", or likely was not "heavily involved" in when appealing on FFI. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• in response to the comment below that it could be any other wikipedian sharing Arrows view ("there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views")
  • a) what kind of wikipedian would relate a dispute, in detail, which he wasn't even involved in? b) there aren't many other editors who insult Watt as you have. on-wiki, you called him "senile." off-wiki, you called him "stupid." in fact i don't believe i've ever seen an editor insult Watt like that. c) there aren't many other editors (almost none, in fact) who have knowledge of such articles like Constitution of Medina that they'd list it among the articles they're inviting puppets to, especially when they're revert warring at that exact same time. d) there aren't many other editors who are actually aware of the FFI forum as you were. e)yes, as you boast below, you are "one of the most active", which is exactly what G=W boasts. i could go on and on... ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true. In fact, Arrow is the only editor here who insults Watt and holds a greatly postivie view of "Robert Spencer". --Aminz 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to the pre-emptive response to my response

a)Anyone. b)I am not as restrained on WP as I should be, but there can be no doubt that every anti-Islam editor shares my feelings about Watt, our FFI poster included. I personally find Esposito to be even more objectionable. c)Obviously, the fact that articles were listed (on FFI but not mentioned here by you) in which I am not involved but others are proves your argument to be hollow. d)Anyone who uses a search engine about Islam comes across that site and others like it eventually, including, apparently, you. e)There are a few editors as active as me. Every such person no doubt does it for a reason. Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

a)not likely in the least, especially when they list other articles which are similarly visited very little b) your ridiculing of Watt on FFI matches your comments on wiki at around the same time. c) as i said, it is totally understandable why you'd be aware of Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. with the first, there was an edit war raging between Proabivouac and an IP during mid Jan when you posted. with the second, you're an "anti-Islam", Indian editor. such an article would be of prime interest to you, non? ITAQALLAH 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

That person is not me. I am not active in many of those articles and am active in many articles that are not on that list (which User:Itaqallah did not copy in full, see below). The person posting there could have been any of the other wikipedia editors with an anti-Islam POV. I am one of the most active members of that group, and it seems likely anyone undertaking such an endeavor would see what articles I have been working on, and would have seen User:Itaqallah's talk page where he and I have what he is characterizing as private conversations. I am by no means the most active editor with my POV at

• Women in Islam
• Islamist terrorism
• Criticism of Muhammad
• Criticism of Islam
• Muhammad and the Jews
• Faith Freedom International
• Aisha I believe I've edited this one once,
• Islam and antisemitism same here.

Itaqallah neglected to include here the full list he linked to, conveniently leaving out two articles I don't believe I've ever contributed to: Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. The purported list also does not include articles that I am heavily involved in, such as

• Battle of Khaybar
• Islam at which itaqallah tried unsuccessfully to get me blocked on a spurious charge of 3rr violation
• Bat Ye'or another critic like Robert Spencer, but I am even more involved at her article
• Ma malakat aymanukum
• Ma malakat aymanukum and sex in the last two I am the only principle editor with my POV
• Reforms under Islam (610-661)
• Muhammad as a diplomat which I have been involved in since I began wikipedia and which I am trying to get deleted by participating in the discussion at its AfD,
• Prisoners of war in Islam
• Islam and modernity where I have been substantially involved in nasty edit wars.

In short, this poster to Faith Freedom International is not me, there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views, and it could easily have been User:Itaqallah himself setting me up. I wouldn't put it past him as he's had it in for me for months, and has obliquely threatened to take an action of this kind against me before, in User:Proabivouac's now deleted RfC. Arrow740 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• this response is a non-sequitur. why don't you try addressing the actual evidences? please re-read my report, i said "almost all articles listed." it is entirely reasonable to assume you'd list other articles that you were aware of but had not participated upon . the other articles you list: maybe you didn't list them in the FFI thread because you weren't revert warring in them at the time? in response to new user "elephant" and yourself, indeed we have a history. i have a "history" with numerous other editors, yet they haven't been meatpuppeteering as you have. i "obliquely threatened" an RfC, so i don't know what "an action of this kind" refers to. dismissing it as a "set-up" is ridiculous, and you know too well that that's your only line of defense. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have proven that none of your arguments are convincing, rightly so because it wasn't me who posted those things. Arrow740 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your only retort until now has been to bluntly accuse me of fabrication, or to 'respond' to the evidences with comments that are not actually responses. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to report me based on this suspicion as well? I'm sure you could find an appropriate noticeboard somewhere. Arrow740 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And why don't you file a checkuser request for me and User:One Elephant went out to play...? He's new, it must be me in disguise, right? Arrow740 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's a simpler way to prove or unprove ITAQALLAH's allegations. I'd be tempted to email the moderators of FFI and ask them for your IP address, then ask for a checkuser to be filed on you and ask them to release your IP address. If they match, it's not my problem. Yuser31415 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt users involved in the whole Arab-Jew-history of Islam quagmire are stupid enough to solicit meatpuppets. The "proof" against Arrow is quite flawed and nothing links arrow to the meat-caller.Bakaman 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, that might work but please remember that the FFI website is a propaganda website against Islam. If that editor also contacts the director and tells him the story, he *might* give us some random IP. But it of course worth trying. --Aminz 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A possibility of impersonation should not be discounted, too. Beit Or 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, we will have the IP. It seems to me to be very unlikely, e.g. see this comment on FFI: "If you google something, you get the wikipedia article. Please become a wikipedian, find good sources for information about Islam, and put it into wikipedia. If anyone has "sword of the prophet," please quote extensively from it and put it into the Muhammad and Islam articles. Also the "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Muhammad," and "Criticism of the Quran" articles don't say much about Muhammad's violence. Can someone put Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq and any other notable critic into those articles?! There is a little Spencer in the Criticism of the Quran article. Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!"--Aminz 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what? Beit Or 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow has written most of "war-and-violence" section in Criticism of Qur'an mostly using Spencer. --Aminz 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, on closer observation, his listing of critics as G=W corresponds with . ITAQALLAH 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

*Nice* observation. --Aminz 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Aminz, why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do? And itaqallah, this is, again, not proof of anything. You have taken bits and pieces of this FFI poster and bits and pieces of my posts and tried to fit them together. It is clear that they do not. Arrow740 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• "why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do" ? you mean revert war..? seemingly not, as you have replicated such "recruiting" on-wiki as well as off. yet again, i see similarities with your comment above and:"Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." ITAQALLAH 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It would behoove you to read before responding. Regarding the language, this:

Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!

is clearly not me. Arrow740 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

don't ask me why you wrote like that. there are plenty of reasons. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrrow740 is right. For one thing, I don't remember him ever using exclamation marks. His style is much more restrained. Beit Or 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

try these, Beit Or. and that was after one minute of searching. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When I am trying drive a point home to an obstinate editor, I will occasionally indulge in an exclamation mark. The fact remains that the two of us have different styles. Arrow740 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While there is some circumstantial evidence here, there is no smoking gun per se and I'd hesitate to block anyone based on this at this time. However, the FFI post is serious enough that I'd suggest acting agressively against revert wars on these articles. WP:AGF on new editors, but I don't take kindly to individuals who are just here to disrupt the 'pedia whatever their POV is. If somone shows up and starts reverting to earlier versions they should be warned and then blocked if they do it again. 3RR allows for blocks before they hit 4 edits and I will call "spade if I see disruptive edits.--Isotope23 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit ironic that User:Arrow740 mentions the Reforms under Islam (610-661) article. I actually witnessed what User:Itaqallah is mentioning here myself back in mid November. I even mentioned how an editor didn't need to be blocked and still rely upon sockpuppets (and now that I think about it meatpuppets). (→Netscott) 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On any of these pages, I think we should immediately block for disruption anyone who shows up and reverts. We really need to discourage this kind of thing. I just saw a similar but less overt example on the 9/11 talk page: 9/11 Research's Guide to Misplaced Pages on 9/11. Tom Harrison 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Arrow740 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Such behavior is as common in this space as it is intolerable.Proabivouac 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but all of that has nothing to do with Arrow740. Beit Or 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see we have about 250 links to faithfreedom.org. I bet we could get by with a good deal fewer, especially in article space. I'm not much inclined to use them for anything that we can get elsewhere. Tom Harrison 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why, in amongst all of his lengthy accusations, User:Itaqallah refers to me as an "editor sharing his (Arrow740's) viewpoint", and states that it would be therefore inappropriate for Arrow740 to e-mail me? On what basis does Itaqallah add this claim to his lengthy and growing pile of other claims? Exactly what "viewpoint" is it that Arrow740 and I share? Jayjg 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you are correct. amongst the diffs, that one shouldn't be there. i have rectified that accordingly. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about misbehaving bot User:VoABOT II

I have a concern about bot User:VoABOT II because I got a message from it saying I added a link in the "flash flood" article showing a video of a flash flood. I don't ever remember adding a video link ever. Since I'm new, did I unknowingly add a video link or is this bot misbehaving? -Weather333 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it was definitely the user after you who added the link . That's odd. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It would appear that User:Rf1smith added the link, as shown in the diff that VoABOT II left you. Did you leave a note on User talk:Voice of All? I think that's who you need to tell. Leebo 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Seems it was the user after you, User:Rf1smith, who added the footage. Possibly the bot is malfunctioning. I'll let the author know. Thanks for the report. Shimeru 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot was turnef off by prodego. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Andrew Chumbley " post.

Its to report a poster who is making unfounded allegations against me. The poster Lulubyrd asserts that i have "vandalised" posts pertaining to the Children of Artemis thread and the Lon Milo DuQuette thread has well. I have not engaged in vandalism of any sort. I had removed the accusations but Lulubyrd seems to have an axe to grind. I would appreciate some moderation/mediation on this matter. Thanks.--Redblossom 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see any record of Lulubyrd ever editing your talk page. Diffs? —Dark•Shikari 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism on Talk:World War II

User:Haber persists in using racist insults (specifically, referring to French people as "frogs") on Talk:World War II (), repeating the behaviour despite being asked to stop politely and then more firmly (but still civilly) . The second incident was compounded by a personal attack as part of Haber's generally flippant and dismissive response- . I don't see any need or justification for such language here on Misplaced Pages, and I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. Badgerpatrol 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Please let me know if he carries on. Proto ► 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Badgerpatrol 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Maharishi International Publications Department

This was very recently the introduction to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi : "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the founder of Transcendental Meditation. He is widely regarded as the foremost scientist in the field of consciousness, and is considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." You read it here first. A new user, Maharishi International Publications Department (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has begun to edit, and staunchly revert, the MMY article. The user has been welcomed (rather surprisingly, I thought), and has duly received NPOV warnings on his/her page, but me, I'm thinking just the account name is enough for an indefblock. Surely? There's an RFC/Username going on, but do we need one? Especially since the user seems as unaware of the function and purpose of Misplaced Pages as the account name suggests. Would somebody like to write to them and explain? Of course it's not the first such case. Do we perhaps even have a suitable template? I've reverted and sprotected the article for now. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User name is indefblocked per WP:U.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon

Can someone have a chat to Moe Epsilon abpout editing oter people's user pages? I have done nothing to him to warrant his vandelisim. Thanks. WackadooXanadu 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They're in the userpage History, J. Smith. Sorry, no, WackadooXanadu. Those are appropriate edits by Moe. I have removed your claim that Moe vandalised your page, because it's a personal attack and is not true. I think you must have misunderstood what he was doing. Please don't revert my removal. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I hate coming to AN/I to find a thread called "Moe Epsilon", third time this has happened I believe :( — Moe 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently added to the instructions atop this page: "Also, as a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." Moe's comment reminds us we should make sure that's happening. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing Stuff going on at White people

I recently saw a 'shouting' post about stuff at White people. I thought it was just some oversensitive or anti-White user complaining. But I posted something at White people, and got a very disturbing response :

It is OR to use those pictures as examples of white people unless reliable sources explicitly indicate that the pictured people are indeed white. The Behnam 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nordic man is the most exemplary specimen of the white race who passes all definitions of white. As early as 1914, Madison Grant considered the Nordic to be the "white man par excellence".The Passing of the Great Race Modern anthropologist Arthur Kemp also realizes that the Nordic has retained racial purity over the Southern European who has miscegenated with the Arabic stock.white people Even dictionary definitions claim that a white person is a light colored person.dictionary definition of white The Nordic people as a whole are the lightest people on the planet.skin color charts Today, Hispanics in the US and Southern Europeans in Australia are not seen as white people, but Nordics are always seen as white people. Every conception of white people agrees that the Nordic is white. The Spaniard and the Italian cannot stand up to such test; they are the questionable ones.--Tea 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you still can't put things together like that. Just because so-and-so says Nordic peoples are "exemplary" whites, and you believe these people to be Nordics, doesn't mean you can advance (on WP) that these people are whites. The source itself must say that those people are whites. The Behnam 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that I would have to verify that he was a real Nordic by citation? If I understand your argument correctly, then there can't be any exemplary pictures classified by a Wikipedian; they would have to be classified by an outside source. If it really comes down to a strict citation, I feel we would have to include Arthur Kemp's Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean grayscale pictures found here.white people--Tea 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscegenation? White man par excellence? It just keeps getting creepier. I'm seeing geniune Nazi views now, with division of white people into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. Also his main source is some sort of white supremacist site.

What should I do? The Behnam 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that you can't have a picture of someone on this article because there's no source explicitly stating that the person is white (are you going to next ask for a source explicitly stating the picture is of that person?) seems WP:POINTy. Even though he's stating potentially disturbing racialist views (he hasn't claimed that any race is superior or inferior to any other though), you seem a bit disingenuous too from these comments - can you explain in more detail how this debate started? --Random832(tc) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop abuse and use of my and my spouse's real name

WIll an admin please stop this continued harassment by Ted Frank? He is using both my and my husband's real name on WIkipedia, from information he got from one website which I do not frequent. I did not even know my or my spouse's name was there as "guest editors". I have told him that I do not want him to use my name here or anywhere else. I have also asked him to stop harassing me. It is unbelievable. He first used my real name on the talk page and I can't find the diff now,. But he would not let it alone. He continues to bait and harass me.

Digging up the past Here he "apologized" for using my real name (with which I have NEVER "advertised" anything) But continued to harass me using or linking to my real name, and making clearly false claims:

I have told him adamantly to stop:

Another admin recognized that he was baiting and harassing me and asked him to stop.

Ted calls me "biased" but he not only slanted the article on Fred Baron but even linked to an entirely separate article solely on the controversy re this attorney, that he has written presumably to advertise his tort reform agenda. ] Regardless, it is in my opinion inappropriate.

What I do know is that his harassment of me must stop. He also has used my husband's real name. We are both private on the internet, with the one single exception he found on a website I do not frequent. I did not even know our name was there. He has linked this in several places which I deleted. We did not provide bios as "guest editors" which he well knows. I have asked repeatedly that he stop and don't know what else to do. Jance 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though I support a block on TedFrank for harassment, (Take this back for a while) I must tell you that Misplaced Pages does not tolerate legal threats made against other users. x42bn6 Talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. So what exactly can be done about continued abuse, when Ted will not stop? ANd just exactly why would you now not support a ban - because I threatened to take action if he continued his invasion of my privacy and harassment? What kind of logic is that, pray tell? I do not have time to defend myself against someone who is clearly intent on smearing and harassing me, because he does not like my views. I do NOT actively blog on political sites -- he does. And evidently, he wishes to continue his propaganda here. Evidently, he now thinks he will be supported in invading not only my privacy but also that of my husbands by linking to a website neither of us frequent. We did not even know our name was there as guest contributors. Ted has continuously mischaracterized my statements, positions and has tried in every way possible to smear me. I am surprised he has not hired a private investigator in some perverted attempt to dig up dirt. So WIkipedia does not tolerate legal threats, but will tolerate this? Good grief. One does not have to look far to see what this editor is doing.Jance 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

These accusations are false. All of the instances that Jance complains of happened before she asked me to stop using her name. I stopped using Jance's real name. I never used her husband's real name, other than to link to the webpage the two of them set up where they advertise themselves as "civil justice Misplaced Pages editors" after Jance falsely claimed that she never used her real name and falsely accused me of stalking her. (I would link to it again to prove that Jance is misstating the facts, except Jance apparently considers refutations of false accusations to be further harassment.) I knew of that webpage and the real name before I knew of the username, and didn't know that the username was anonymous. (I learned of the webpage, because someone pointed it out to me when I mentioned to them that I was surprised how one-sided and biased civil-justice-related Misplaced Pages pages were: the fact that an anti-tort-reform website has two editors who advertise themselves as "civil justice Misplaced Pages editors" who don't reveal their COI explains why.)

This is a flat lie. He linked on his talkpage, on Sarah's talkpage, on my talkpage, links to both m y husband's and my name.Jance 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I have agreed to stop using Jance's real name, the only reason for this AN/I is an attempt to preempt my complaint about harassment from Jance, which I have documented on the dormant Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jance#Outside_view_by_TedFrank (though that needs updating with the last 16 hours of harassment). Jance has been systematically reverting my NPOV edits, and has been systematically deleting any pro-reform statements from civil justice articles. NPOV requires both points of view to be expressed, not just Jance's. In articles like Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Jance has reverted edits where I simply corrected statements of federal jurisdiction and replaced a strawman pro- argument with the actual argument used by supporters of the bill. I recognize that I have a conflict of interest, and have done my best to be NPOV, even AfD'ing an article I created as a compromise when Jance complained about undue weight for a notable event in another page. I welcome administrator intervention, because this is not the first time Jance has vociferously violated WP:CIVIL and attacked others she disagrees with.

Jance, under her previous username, was about to be banned from Misplaced Pages permanently for repeated violations and threats of litigation, and avoided that ban by agreeing to voluntarily delete her account. It seems problematic that she gets to start fresh and then continue with the same tactics that would have gotten her banned before without any administrator intervention.

I would like to request that Jance stop using my real name, which she continues to do after I asked her to stop. -- TedFrank 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have selected your real name as your username. On Misplaced Pages we refer to contributors by their usernames (what else would we do?), so there is no alternative but for people to continue to use it. If you wish, you may change your username to a pseudonym by making a request here. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Never ever, ever, give out personal information about any user without their clear permission first(this is directed an whoever may have done this). InBC 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with HighInBC. This is a core policy here. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stay calm, civil and away from each other from articles and user talk pages for quite some time. I am appalled that a content dispute can escalate to something that could warrant deletion, oversight and RfC, if not more. It's best a sysop comes and sorts out this mess. x42bn6 Talk 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used her full name. I referred only to her old username (which is what several of the above complaints are about), which is relevant under the circumstances, because she was editing the same article under several different IDs, and I (now I realize mistakenly) used her first name in response to a personal attack on me using my personal information. -- TedFrank 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what Sarah wrote, and yes, he linked to both my and my husband's name, that we didn't even know was on the internet. He continued to link to this and brought up every and anything he could to smear me. Here is what Sarah said:
Yes, we all know that Jance is Jgwlaw. Please stop baiting and harassing her. If you don't, you will be the one who gets blocked. And I'm serious about that. Harassment campaigns are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. I removed your report from the noticeboard because those matters were dealt with a long time ago. No admin is going to block or sanction Jance for matters a long time in the past and for which she has already been blocked or faced RfC over. If you have a problem with her, follow Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution but trying to contaminate the process by conducting a campaign against her is not on. Sarah 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of your own behaviour. And I don't see what me thanking Jance for giving me a barnstar has to do with anything. Just because I try to be nice to people when they are nice to me, and just because someone gives me a picture to put on my page doesn't mean that I can't see straight anymore...I certified and endorsed the RFC against her for petes sake. As I've told you, if you have an editing dispute with her, use dispute resolution, request mediation, 3 opinion, whatever, but don't campaign against, harass and abuse people because you will be blocked. If you think your edits are being reverted without explanation, calmly discuss it on the article's talk page. What I saw of your discussions was you flinging around personal abuse and accusations. Also, please read over the actual policies and guidelines, such as WP:Undue weight because trying to weight an article is unacceptable. You need to deal with the present instead of trying to punish Jance for the past and using it as an excuse for your own rotten behaviour. 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

MOREOVER:
He is using Misplaced Pages to promote HIS agenda, in Overlawyered where he actively posts, and Point of law . So now he hopes that by getting me off WIkipedia, he will abe able to promote his hateful tirades against lawyers and tort law. Can anyone possibly think of any other reason for his continued assault?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs).

Please WP:AGF. The problem here is that I would like articles related to civil justice reform to reflect both the points of view of reformers and anti-reformers, and, as I documented, Jance has been deleting anything that supports reformers. The civil-justice articles all have NPOV problems, and I would genuinely like to see them fixed to reflect both points of view.

The administrator in question that Jance is citing is the one administrator who supports Jance, and is personal friends with Jance is real life. Again, I recommend looking at Jance's history; this ANI is an attempt to get administrators to say a pox on both their houses by throwing a lot of noise on the victim.

Overlawyered and Point of Law are respected websites that have been cited in law review articles, books, the Wall Street Journal and other magazines and newspapers. Because Jance has linked to my website, may I link to her inflammatory anti-reform website run by a plaintiffs' bar-funded left-wing think tank where she and her husband advertise themselves as "civil justice Misplaced Pages editors"? -- TedFrank 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is asinine. Now you are calling it "my" website? This is the most stupid statement I have heard in a long time. I welcome others to look there and see just how often I have contributed. What once or twice? And Ted knows full well that we did NOT advertise ourselves as anything. We didn't even know our names were there. Now is someone going to stop this? THis is exactly what I have been saying. This does not stop. I have better things to do than to waste my time on this lunacy. I can't believe this. Have a good day all, and Ted, I hope you have fun continuing to rant alone. NExt time I won't threaten. I agree, that is dumb. And I apologize.Jance 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, you have no right to give out personal information, this will lead to a block very fast if you do it again. It is something we do not negotiate. I don't think Jance violated this policy by revealing your name as TedFrank as it is your username, thus not a secret. InBC 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found the diff regarding User:Jance's real name but not going to put it here because that wouldn't be helping at all. But again, please stop attacking each other. x42bn6 Talk 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jance, please hold your temper, if this user gives our your personal information after this point, tell me on my talk page and I will block him myself. InBC 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I "brought up to smear" Jance were Jance's own edits on Misplaced Pages. In contrast, Jance has been regularly insulting me (including in this very ANI), e.g., Jance writes: Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't on my talk page.

I will happily honor the Misplaced Pages policy, but there seems to be a real fairness problem when Jance can accuse me of a COI, but then hide behind her non-anonymous anonymity when her COI is at least as problematic, and arguably more so. Can I get any relief on Jance's wikistalking and personal attacks? -- TedFrank 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted's link shows all that should be needed. If no admin stops this, then Misplaced Pages's vaunted neutrality and fairness mean nothing.. This is ridiculous, and a continuing harassment. He has already linked to my personal information, and I have shown diffs. Good night all. Ted, I hope you enjoy ranting alone, because I have better things to do tonight.Jance 02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid each other. InBC 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been asking all day for him to just leave me alone. If you can effectuate that, I would be most happy. Jance 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This applies to you, too. x42bn6 Talk 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You already made that abundantly clear. What I want to know if you are willing to stop his abusive behavior? I didn't want to get into all this in the first place. I had no choice - why don't you read his talk page? His conduct speaks for itself. Or is that true only for some users, and not others? Jance 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, but... I think that if we allow this user to claim that identifying one account (User:Jance) with another (we'll refer to it here as "the account in question"), violates the privacy policy, in order to prevent it from being made clear that there is a past pattern of POV or whatever (which TedFrank is alleging), that's a very dangerous precedent to set. Edit patterns are one way to identify sockpuppets (indeed the PRIMARY way, checkuser is a last resort), and if the claim that one user is a sockpuppet of another is quashed on this, frankly ludicrous, basis, that opens the floodgates. Basically there can be NO accusations of sockpuppetry if a blocked user waits long enough for checkuser data to expire, and ironically all one has to do to _prevent_ one's past actions from being considered is to _admit_ to them. There is no presumption of privacy in a username. If you don't want your current account identified with the name of the account in question, get that account's username changed so we can refer to the account without saying that name. Log in to the account in question and go to WP:CHU. Otherwise this whole exercise is nothing more than a smokescreen to allow you to continue making whatever contentious edits you're making and silence anyone bringing up your past edit history. --Random832(tc) 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

I have a strong feeling that the one main contributor is either Palumbo himself or someone working for him. There are two actual users (one being the IP User:204.62.68.23, the other being an actual registered user named User:S noone) but the unregistered IP has referred to himself as S noone a couple of times, and being that their edits are strikingly similar I have reason to believe that they are the same editor.

Anyway, prior to my edits the entire article read like a publicity fluff piece rather than an encyclopedia's article; the article at that time can be seen here. Palumbo is basically an amateur fake snuff film director who is very controversial in the extreme amount of violence and the use of actual children in his films. None of his controversies were present, instead there were uncited claims that he founded the "Splat Pack" that later become Hostel and Saw; "Palumbo is considered to be a founding member of the Splat Pack due to the graphic violence and extreme misanthropy found within Murder-Set-Pieces." So far, no one has ever verified this besides claims from Palumbo himself; for example, Eli Roth or Rob Zombie have never said that Palumbo influenced them. Some examples of the more 'fluff'ier edits read "It seemed everyone involved with the film were ashamed with their involvement and hoped that it would simply go away. Everyone that is except for Nick Palumbo. This was his dream, and he was not going to let it go down without a fight." and "This was as gentle as a droplet of rain compared to the maelstrom to come with his next slasher film." and so forth. It just read like a really bad press piece.

I tried adding some sourced criticism. Nick Palumbo often spams the boards and is pretty much reviled. I added this, as well as a reference to a board which he frequented with subsequent reactions, and the anon ip removed it. I also made reference to the fact that Palumbo often twists negative reviews to his own being, citing quotes that he often uses in his promo pieces in comparision to the finished review; "Nick Palumbo often posts clips from reviews on his films, sometimes changing the material of the quote to suit his own purposes. For example, on his site he quotes the New York Post as saying, "The disturbing "Murder-Set-Pieces" is a highly stylized exploration of the mind of a serial killer, a gory, bloodsoaked snuff film, reveling in its own shock value as women are stabbed, strangled, raped and mutilated in every conceivable — and a few inconceivable — ways" when in reality the quote went "Aspires to be a highly stylized exploration of the mind of a serial killer, but it's nothing more than a gory, bloodsoaked snuff film, reveling in its own shock value." He's attempted to remove that a number of times as well.

Another point of controversy was Palumbo using a real infant in one of his scenes, in which a bloody toddler is crying and clutching her real life mom, who was a corpse in this scene in the film. I added that "Critics have pointed out that, unlike other scenes in the film in which the actors and actresses knew they were in a fictional film, the toddler was very frightened and confused and had no idea of knowing what was real and what was not." This has been brought to light numerous times in numerous reviews as an example of Palumbo going too far with his 'art'. This was reverted as well, only this time the anon IP wrote to me "Cyberghostface, stop adding non factual things to the entry. Your input is not needed. IE. The baby's state of mind is unknown to anyone including a poster who writes biographies for fictional characters like Worm man on the X-Files.", a reference to my Flukeman article.

So I have a feeling that this is going to keep on continuing unless something is done about it.--CyberGhostface 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see some edits from a week ago, but nothing more recent, have I missed something or are they editing different articles ? -- Heligoland 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would remove your edits too. They blatantly fail WP:BLP (claiming he used toddlers in a slasher film with no source?), except for that one reference to a forum (which is of rather questionable importance, and it doesn't really show what you're saying). -Amarkov moo! 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there is that Rotten Tomatoes reference, but that does not say what you put in the article. -Amarkov moo! 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is THIS a decent source that shows he used toddlers?!--CyberGhostface 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the New York Times bit...he constantly throws around the edited version whenever shilling his film out on the internet, and the Rotten Tomatoes link has the full excerpt.--CyberGhostface 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to one of his many attempts to advertise his film. He posts the edited version of the New York Times review. This, along with the REAL review on Rotten Tomatoes, should be more than enough to show that he deliberately edits reviews.--CyberGhostface 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've provided sources now. I admit that they look pretty good. It really would have been better if you used them in the first place, though. -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have cited my facts before I brought them here. Sorry for any trouble I caused, and thanks for your help on this.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

I am little concerned by developments in this case. I have taken a break from discussing this topic because of attempts to bait me into attacking the other users by Vsion and Huaiwei. These 2 users have engaged in the discussion, but have failed to provide any good reason for not accepting the edits suggested. Recently, Vsion gave an example of Huaiwei's previous editting style , which coupled with his latest hint of some geo-political reason behind his refusal to accept the compromise suggested, seem to suggest that Vsion and Huaiwei are the recognised owners of the page and that I should back off. Since in effect Vsion's argument is that the edits are unacceptable because they go against whatever political reason said user is hinting that he/she holds with Huaiwei. In effect, the argument is that the edits are unacceptable because they would make the article NPOV.

• In summary, I would like as many editors and admins to have a look at the argument and make comment, because the current protracted non-discussion is a waste of time when invested users can so adversely affect the collegial atmosphere of the wiki. I would also like to know what action can or should be taken, because I still think the proposed edits should be made.--Shakujo 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Registering

Hi. I just registered an account and my brother showed me this page so I can ask, what is the deal with the "typing the word in the secret box" thing all about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hallibrah (talk • contribs).

Answered on user's talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

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