Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 13 March 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?

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauer ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Misplaced Pages. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.

And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.

In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.

A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.

There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.

ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen hasn't edited since the 8th, this shouldn't be archived untill he has a chance to respond. Seraphim 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Misplaced Pages admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And SSP case was opened in this instance, here, but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JA here, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection. Seraphim 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editors for the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns in this case. The evidence and rationale behind the indef block is way too thin, or there is a serious lack of transparency. Either way, more process is required to substantiate an indef block. I'm also disturbed by the actions of Ryulong in reviewing the block with such apparent superficiality. —Doug Bell  07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, couldn't agree more. Seraphim 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathunder's admin abuse

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Page returned to state at time of freeze. Good faith assumed in that admin may not have realized page was move-protected as there was no {{Moveprotected}} tag. Further discussion as to proper name should occur on article talk page. -- Avi 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Jonathunder keeps moving Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag, stating that the most common name for this author "here in Minnesota" doesn't contain a diacritic in her name. I've been moving it back stating that her correct (and official name according to the covers of her own books) contains "á". I requested move protection for this article in order to bring the matter to the talk page, and it was effectively protected by Arjun01. Still, Jonathunder used his admin ability to edit protected pages to move it back to Wanda Gag after the protection. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you.--Húsönd 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an objective (?) third-party, I do notice that the usage of the diacritic is not consistent within the article and should at very least be changed to be internally consistent and consistent with the page title. Ryanjunk 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a first obvious sign that something's wrong. The name had a diacritic throughout the article since its very creation. The title also had a diacritic until Gene Nygaard decided to move it to a non-diacritic version two days ago (disrespecting a community probation).--Húsönd 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that Gene violated his community probation here - it was a non-contested move per the MOS and therefore ok. Once the move was contested, Gene stepped aside and asked an administrator to look at it. See Gene's talk page for more. --Duk 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this situation, but I just read the terms of the probation, and they clearly state that he can only move pages where consensus is clearly in favor of a move, NOT simply when there is no consensus not to move. They're two different concepts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In absence of any dispute, a move in line with the MOS is per consensus. --Duk 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,

1. This move by User:Tevildo was undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus.
2. It remained undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus in this move by User:Husond. Gene Nygaard 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've gotta say, regardless of who is right or whatever, an administrator involved in the dispute moving it after it was move-protected and the protection log admonished all involved to use the talk page is a blatant violation of the protection policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've notified Jonathunder of this thread; please remember to leave a note on users' talk pages if you start a thread concerning them, as instructed in the header of this page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My bad, sorry. --Húsönd 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 13:25, March 9 2007 Arjun01 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wanda Gág: Continued moves without discussion. Please use the talk page. )
  • 13:57, March 9 2007 Jonathunder (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag over redirect: Use more common name.)

Has anyone asked the user about this? Jkelly 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mind you, we do seem to be the only one of the top Google hits that uses the diacritic... Guy (Help!) 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, although that could be attributed more to the fact that a good number of people on the internet have no clue how to actually insert a diacritic. As an example, here is an Amazon.com page listing one of her books for sale; the page lists her name without the diacritic, but the cover of the book itself (which, I think, would reflect the spelling of her own name, would it not?) clearly has it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. The issue here is an administrator clearly using his powers to gain a leg up in an edit dispute. What's worse, it's actually worked: he's gotten off with a warning, and no one is reverting him in order to avoid wheel warring. As he clearly knew that what he did was wrong, I would say he should be told to move it back or face a 48 hour block. I've had enough of seeing administrators who know better manage to get the upper hand because no one is willing to castigate or undo their actions. If any uninvolved admin has guts to do what's right, please do ask him to move it back or block him if he won't. Part Deux 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it was an honest mistake, done because he didn't realize it was protected. Has anyone asked that? -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've notified him of this thread, but he hasn't been active since the move. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Husond is everybit as guilty of edit-warring and tryig to gain an advantage without discussing the issue as Jonathunder is. The article should be moved back to its original name, and if Husond or Tevildo want to move it, they can make their case for a move through {{WP:RM]]. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand, are guilty of perpetuating this kind of edit-warring. It is you who have caused so much trouble that had to be given a community probation regarding unilateral moves, the same probation that you have been trying to dodge. It is you who are most obliged to list move proposals on WP:RM. No WP:AGF for you, Gene.--Húsönd 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond, you specifically claimed that your reversion of my move was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because, in your words "You may not do so according to your community probation". Therefore, you were not making your move based on the merits of the case; something that was further evident from the fact that you already knew that the previous move had been objected to as being unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial--yet you provided no discussion, no references, no nothing for making your move. Therefore, if the only thing you were objecting to was me making the move, which in fact you explicitly claimed to be the case, then you have absolutely no cause whatsoever to complain about any other editor looking at it and making that same move, whether it be Jonathunder or anyone else. You had certainly provided no reason not to do so, had you? 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Regardless, Jonathunder should not have intentionally moved it after protection. Now, it is possible that he did not realize that it was protected, as I don't see a {{Moveprotected}} tag on the top of the article, so it may be accidental and not malicious, but I would think the article should be returned to the state it was in at the time of the freeze (albeit that too is the the wrong version ) and the discussion continued from there. -- Avi 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page back, and I'm going to assume that Jonathunder didn't notice the protection. As we all know, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Khoikhoi 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Certified.Gangsta

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

This is a content issue. Take it to the talk page of the article or WP:DR. Nothing belongs here.--Doc 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely had it with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In his latest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.

In this edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.

You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness over the deceptive banner on his userpage. It took only four editors and three months to get him to stop. --Ideogram 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want us to do? --physicq (c) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but "absolutely had it" is a little ... strong, perhaps :P? Yuser31415 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a revert-warrior. 3RR is an electric fence, not a quota. Limit him to 2RR. --Ideogram 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric fence may be the wrong analogy. Try minefield. :) --physicq (c) 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer machine gun crossfire, actually. Yuser31415 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now edit-warring on multiple pages. Just look at his contribs. --Ideogram 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Michelle Marsh (model)#English vs. British for an example of his debating "style". --Ideogram 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no (substantive) interest in Michelle Marsh, but his persistent, unrepetent, and endless edit warring on that article has come up on my radar. Since I've reverted him, there, it's not appropriate for me to intervene administratively. But someone uninvolved should definitely take a look. Nandesuka 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user can be assumed good faith anymore. He denies any sort of communication, and insists that his opinion is the only correct one. User have been edit-warring rather inappropriately for half an year. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AQu01rius. This user's disruptive editing and edit-warring has gone too far. I think it is time to file a RFC. LionheartX 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True name privacy outing

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it. I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deleted, restored without 4 revisions with personal information, request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody re-added it.. Xanthius 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Err- nevermind

Sorry to bother you again.. is it possible to just remove that section where it talks about me knowing "Adam"? That reveals a bit too much personal information for my liking, information about people I know in real life, and announces my personal identity in an indirect way. Xanthius 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erk, now they would need to scrub this page too. But how's a newb to know? AFAIK, info that might spread the out should be put into email at the address available at WP:RFO. Milo 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user-page?

Can user-pages be used for attacks on Misplaced Pages, Jimbo, Arbcom and former editors? Please see this --Mardavich 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, in this case, yes. The user is upset and wants to let off some steam. We should let him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to violate restrictions listed in WP:UP, so I think it's fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh no the sky is falling.</sarcasm> _InBC 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Little to the rescue! --AAA! 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this user has taken to attacking the user linked, and has made numerous other attacks against other editors of the 300 (film) article here, here, and here. From his talk and user page, he has been up to all sorts of nonsense, trying very hard to distract or remove editors who disagree with his POV (pro-Persian) and OR edits in the article. We have been trying to hold off on filing an AN/I complaint until the 300 (film) article was finished, but this f"ine gentleman" has seen fit to see our ignoring him as a further insult and simply renewed his efforts. Clearly, he needs some time away. User:Bignole, User:Erikster (trying to enjoy his Wiki-SpringBreak), User:Bignole (as the other people he has been harrassing) could offer heaps more information about the guy, being more well-spoken than I.Arcayne 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

For the last few weeks, I've been (I thought) trying to moderate two warring sides at Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to reach a NPOV compromise. I think I am failing to do that; moreover, I've been accused myself of many things on Talk:Goguryeo. This might not sound like an appetizing situation for anyone to get in, but I'd like to ask for some help here in trying to resolve the situation. The article cannot remain permanently protected, but as soon as it is unprotected, another edit war will surely erupt due to the parties' inability to compromise and inability to be even civil to each other. Help would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to join the discussion. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi

The article on Phi Kappa Psi is being vandalized by multiple accounts to remove referenced material:

• corruption by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona)
• deletion by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona; warned)
• deletion by SCollie76 (warned)
• deletion by 155.247.166.31 (Temple University, Philadelphia)

(The section involved reports a conviction and an on-going investigation of a gang-rape.) —SlamDiego 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update:

• deletion by 70.233.137.158 (SBC Internet Services)

—SlamDiego 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

File a request for protection at WP:RFP.--TBCΦtalk? 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a request for semi-protection, and it was granted. I hope that this action will prove sufficient, but I fear that as soon as the semi-protection expires the section will again be deleted in the same manner. If anyone has a thought as to what should, in that case be done, I hope that it will be offered here. —SlamDiego 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delarion97 (talk · contribs)

I'm a little confused by the form to submit sock puppets, but I suspect this is one case. In any case, the user is engaging an agressive behaviour towards other editors (and admins) based on the fact that his page was speedy deleted.

In any case, he appears to be using multiple accounts:

• The capitalization pattern between Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) is similar to Delarion97 (talk · contribs)

• In all three accounts, 172.163.78.145 (talk · contribs) Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) and Delarion97 (talk · contribs), there's a strong assertion that Over The Hedge 2 was announced.

• Consistant edits among accounts: Jay-G7 has while 172.163.78.145 has three diffs restoring the same edit. .
• This diff seems to be clearcut proof where the user sort-of admits to sockking.

While this is on the early side for posting this request, I'd like to prevent any disruption as soon as possible. --Sigma 7 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal, Delarion appears to be a sockpuppet of the UPN Vandal per his choice of username. Jay-G7 appears to be a sockpuppet of Delarion, due to their similar patterns on contributions. The 172 IP falls into the UPN Vandal range. Logical2u_{Review me!} 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so if someone could look into this...? Logical2u_{Review me!} 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's the UPN vandal, alright; due to his name similarities and how he's writing is similar to the other socks. Looks like he/she is doing something new. --AAA! 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JB196 back again

Today he's editing as SPmilkshakeGuru8, and is doing his usual trick of self promotion on Rob Zicari, Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling. A quick check of the recent history of those pages shows nothing except him spamming and being reverted then pages being protected, then as soon as the protection wears off it's back to square one with whatever new account or proxy IP he's using. He has a long term abuse report, so can anyone please semi-protect these pages for a reasonable amount of time? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and added his sites to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to undo the blacklisting, as the OWW site is used in many articles legitimately. One part of it is already blacklisted, but it would cause too much collateral damage to blacklist all of it. He's basically a long term problem who uses open proxies frequently, right now he's now back with his second IP since his user name block. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could blacklist the Barber path, though. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is blacklisted on meta. A week ago he was adding the link in this diff, now he's having to link to the front page as the columns/jonathanbarber path is blacklisted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many other pages use OWW as a source? beginning to wonder if it's benefits are outweighed by JB's tendency to use it as a spam target. Since he's using a combination of IP addresses and accounts... any chance that he's found new proxies to abuse? SirFozzie 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a broader debate there, namely whether a wrestling fansite is a credible, reliable source for an encyclopedia in the first place. Simply having a domain name and being reasonably well known doesn't change the fact it's not really any different to a geocities or tripod site in terms of reliability. He's been using open proxies for a while now, but I post them all for checking on the open proxies Wikiproject for checking and blocking. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, we might want to look at the fact that OWW may just not qualify as a valid WP:EL. If we're agreed that it doesn't, then we may want to fully blacklist it. SirFozzie 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Aksi great

I am reporting Aksi great for his abuse of power as an administrator. It all started on a Vote in regards to the Category:Tamil_Americans here. I had noticed that both user accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were used in this voting process. These two users have been confirmed by another administrator by the name of Dmcdevit that they were both the same user here. I then posted a comment on the vote page about these two users here that these two user accounts were used to vote here. After posting that, I received a warning to get blocked by Aksi great here. Furthermore, Aksi great has went to the extent to accuse me of having three sockpuppets here, here, and here without any userchecks for proof against me.

Background

Sarvagnya has been a trouble maker for some time now pushing his POV on wikipedia. I have reported him on numerous accounts of misbehavior, vandalism, trolling, and confirmed sockpuppeting here in which nothing has been resolved. That report also talked about the sockpuppet issue of Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti. Sadly, these user accounts have another administrator Blnguyen who backs them up biasedly. When I reported them, instead of Blnguyen dealing with the issue like a responsible administrator, he started picking on me about images I have posted on my page in which I have respectfully replied him and took care of the issue. In the end, nothing was resolved, and Blnguyen did not do a thing about my report. I have placed a report on Blnguyen in the past for his abuse this favoritism towards certain users here. And, once again, nothing happened.

This problem goes even further when I was having problems with ARYAN818 in which I have reported his incivil and intollerant behavior towards other ethnic groups here. After this user was blocked here. After that, I have received a rather odd message from Bakasuprman here about how the Hindu editors on Misplaced Pages were upset that ARYAN818 was blocked.

Conclusion

It seems that there are a group of editors with the backing of a couple of administrators who are working together in regards to POV pushing using Misplaced Pages as their propoganda tool. I am being ganged up on by these particular editors for opposing their POV. This is really uncalled for and un-democratic with all this bias and bullying going on by certain administrators. I respectfully request for this matter to be looked into and my name be taken off those sockpuppet templates posted by Aksi great. Thank you. Wiki Raja 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see what the problem is. At the very least, Aksi great should file a request for checkuser if he suspects sockpuppetry, but I can't really see where anyone did anything wrong. ARYAN818 was given plenty of time to find a new username, and regardless of how it's used in one part of the world, it would still be a valid username block due to its other uses. --Coredesat 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to ARYAN818, he has also been engaged in a lot of incivility and trolling towards other users. Not to mention intollerance of other people's ethnic and religious backgrounds. As far as his name is concerned, that wasn't the issue with me unlike the others. Sorry to put all this in for you to read, but there are a group of biased editors backed by similar administrators who are just basically ganging up on me since ARYAN818 was blocked. Also, all of this is due to me disagreeing with their POV and voicing it. But, apart from all that commotion, Aksi great should not jump the gun and just slap my name on a sockpuppet template without proper confirmation. Don't you think that is a little irrational on his part as an administrator? Wiki Raja 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I spoke to soon. This group has eyes everywhere. Take a look at this post titled Ani report by Wikiraja. Wiki Raja 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to examine this at the moment, but the instructions for this page very clearly instruct you to notify someone on their talk page if you post about them on AN/I. Rama notifying Aksi that you started a thread on him/her is just cleaning up after your mistake. Don't imagine conspiracies that aren't there, please. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet case(here) filed by Wiki Raja (talk · contribs), has just now been closed with the conclusion "All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja". - KNM 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant conclusion having done no usercheck on me and only basing this on suspicion. Wiki Raja 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this. What? I don't understand... What? I said I don't understand... What? There is nothing wrong... What? I said there is nothing wrong... What? There is nothing wrong in informing Aksi great that there is a discussion/complaint about him on ANI. There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy against Wiki Raja or any other user on Misplaced Pages. Nobody is trying to gang up on anybody. What? Let's just build... What? Let's just build... What? I said let's just build an encyclopedia please. Rama's arrow 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Maybe you need to relax. Harassing me with a bunch of Whats would not solve anything. Come back and reply when you are ok. Wiki Raja 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

cant..er.. 'can't' Sarvagnya 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing now? Stalking me? Wiki Raja 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This was a simple mistake already taken care of here. So stop stalking me. Wiki Raja

Reply by Aksi - I don't know what all this fuss is all about. Dravidian Warrior and Tamilguy07 were not blocked by me. They were blocked by Nichalp. The only editor I blocked was Jhnnyrj. I put up a suspected sock template. Nowhere does it say that the sockpuppetry has been confirmed. It is within my powers to suspect some account for sockpuppetry and block them. I have not filed a RFCU as the vote was not over yet. As per the rules of RFCU a request must only be filed after the vote is over. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when does this vote end? Wiki Raja 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err it's not a vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter complaint against Will3935

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Greetings all, I want to file a counter complaint with the administration here against user User:Will3935. I have been a Misplaced Pages contributor for years now and I have contributed quality content to many articles as my busy schedule permits. I have never met such a threatening and arrogant user as Will3935 until now. He has flaunted his "credentials" with his very first entry in order to override opposing POV and despite his non-admin status he has threatened me with "blocking" when I disagreed with him. When another user challenged his flaunting of credentials he became even more irate, suggesting that he is being "attacked" when one person simply asked to identify himself. He clearly has no authority to "block" users yet he is implying this to end-users and threatening them with those actions in order to get an upper-hand in pushing a certain POV. Whenever I pointed out his ad-hominem attacks and language he always reverts to his "diabetes" problem!

Only once he has made numerous and substantial changes to Brian McLaren did he seek to collaborate with other contributors. Once I disagreed again with his "shotgun" approach he became irate and brought in numerous personal attacks, of which I quote below, some of which are of extremely personal nature, such as my health.

• "Frankly, I'm a little concerned about your health" (what the hell do you know about my health?)
• "makes me suspect you are a young man" (wikipedia is age-discriminating now?)
• "It's either Virgil's way or he goes and complains to admins" (I have never complained until just now)
• "it just shows how poorly read Virgil is" (pure ad-hominem attack)
• "Your ignorance should not limit the scope of this article" (another ad-hominem attack)
• "act more mature and quit picking fights" (implying another user is not mature)
• "if you feel a tantrum coming on just try to act normal" (implying another user is not normal)

Frankly I only expect fairness from you folks so the entire history of his attacks and interaction is in Talk:Brian_McLaren. You can read for yourself how this user has inflamed the situation and how he is now manufacturing attacks against himself in order to promote whatever agenda he has.

I am using my real name here, unlike him I am not hiding behind an IP address or a wall of anonymity. I never broke any Misplaced Pages rules, and I am simply asking that someone would intervene and stop an out-of-control maniacal user who apparently thinks no rules apply to him because he claims to have "credentials" that exempt him from participating in the collaboration process. Thank you all for keeping Misplaced Pages running! --Virgil Vaduva 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think about why his report was ignored before you posted this. —physicq (c) 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I never filed reports before so I have no idea how this works. I just wanted to make things clear. Sorry...--Virgil Vaduva 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's all right. However, posting here is often a double-edged sword, with both the reporter and the person being reported being scrutinized. --physicq (c) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand. All I want is to write quality articles, make corrections and participate in the Wiki process. Never asked for anything else. Have a good night. --Virgil Vaduva 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'all (on the article) should be really nervous about a 3RR block. Regardless, the article is now protected; please work out your differences on talk. Thank you. -- Avi 06:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikistalking by annoynmous/anon IP 66.227.137.56

After I had a disagreement with annoynmous (who is also IP 66.227.137.56 as this diff clearly shows ) on Kurt Nimmo and another page, he/she has started wikistalking me. Over the last couple of days, the editor followed me to the following articles I have edited recently: Six-Day War and Islam in the United States (both articles the user had never edited before, where he appeared shortly after I had made an edit there), systematically reverting my edits on those pages: I have warned the editor about wikistalking, but he persists. Isarig 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous block on the user was just a week ago, so re-block should not be a problem. However, the warnings on his talk page does not seem to include the recent wikistalking, but only his questionable contribution to Kurt Nimmo. Maybe you should warn him about his recent wikistalking to see if he responds. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User removing image tags, after multiple warnings

User:Hatto continues to remove {{Replaceable fair use}} tag from images he uploaded ( , ) despite multiple warnings ( ). Recently, an anonymous ip removed the warnings from 3 of his uploads ( ), raising suspects of sockpuppetry. He also removed a {{no rationale}} tag once. --Abu badali 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After I left a message explaining this user why a I believe "Discography" section in an artist's biography shouldn't consist only of a gallery of unfree album covers, he replied in my talk page asking me to f* myself.

Could someone help me in communicating with this user? --Abu badali 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

24h. We generally have less tolerance for those who drop the F-bombs quickly; and add to that he was repeatedly warned for removing the template. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User have long history of disputed behavior. If he is willing to communicate, things should be fine. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This user keeps adding unsourced information to Brigitte Gabriel and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages in direct violation of WP:BLP. This user has been repeatedly warned about this but is not getting the message. (→Netscott) 04:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User contributed to Brigitte Gabriel only, I don't know what you mean by "elsewhere", or is it simply an emphasis? It seems that the user have stopped re-inserting dubious information ten minutes before you made this message, and have tried to express his opinions in the talk pages since. The user is seemingly willing to communicate, but did not know how. I think you are in too much of a hurry, and is biting a little. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this user was warned by not only myself but another editor and despite these warnings continued trying to re-add the info. I'll concede though that they did finally straighten out after I further explained that personally experienced information could not be added to the article. The other areas that this info was being added was on their talk page and the Brigitte Gabriel talk page. (→Netscott) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the warnings were issued within an hour, so expecting a newbie just started editing to understand it is a bit tough. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c - was going to tag as {{resolved}} myself) - It appears to be resolved at this point. I'll take the biting counsel more into consideration in the future. Thanks for the helping hand with that. (→Netscott) 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Money

An anonymous vandal who was vandalising several articles including money was just blocked. It (the money article) iswas now being vandalised in concert by at least new three registered users, leading one to the obvious conclusion that they are the reincarnation of the anon editor. Maybe some block on account creation is needed: this seems a little complex for WP:AIV. Notinasnaid 12:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The nest seems to currently contain

DDDee92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Btr2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Djb2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nateisthestuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tyfoof40 is a pimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some have been blocked, some not. Notinasnaid 13:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are now all blocked. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:WikiLoco

This user is continually making changes that are inappropriate. He has been warned on several times. This is the second posting to ANI, Previous posting resulted in 0 replies on the issue: McKay 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:superaids

Inaproppriate user name Bloddyfriday 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Already on AIV--VectorPotential 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I am reporting User:Dahn for his abuse, stalking, harassment and personal attacks on User:Icar and others. He has a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in the targeted person (User:Icar) and others for the purpose of intimidating him/them. User:Dahn has been a trouble maker for some time now pushing his POV on wikipedia (e.g. his last edits), numerous accounts of misbehavior, vandalism, trolling. It seems that there are a group of editors with the backing of a couple of administrators who are working together in regards to POV pushing using Misplaced Pages as their own POV propaganda tool. One of them is also User:Dahn. Some people say that Dahn is a reliable contributor, and I ask you “is this model of reliable contributor?” Some other say that he’s a regular edit warrior. here and also are just 2 examples. To conclude, User:Icar was blocked for saying "vandal" to Dahn, but Dahn was never blocked for the same calling. I ask Admins to say their opinion. HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope that administrators will understand why deleting valid and sourced information is vandalism, and why tweaking a lead to make it look like a Romanian citizen was not a Romanian citizen is POV-pushing. I am not responsible for whomever else got blocked. I strongly object to the notion that I was engaged in harassment: I have significantly contributed to all those articles (some of them I have virtually authored), and it is I who is being followed around with POV-pushes. As for the reliable contributor issue, let others see what I have significantly contributed to, and how much reliable and sourced-based text I added to wikipedia. That is all I have to say. Dahn 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a similar case as Alexandru Nicolschi article where User:Dahn wants to hide that that person had dual citizenship and had a clear foreign allegiance (that person declared himself which one was his true country, however that's not enough for Dahn to be worth mentioning). By pushing his POV he accuses other people of POV pushing, he constantly does that by nasty behavior, calling people vandals or not smart enough to understand his posts (by allusions and insinuations) and by basically bulling everybody into accepting his POV. He also doesn't wait for other opinions (on my repeated calls for that) which basically works against consensus building of Misplaced Pages. I was accused of many things by User:Dahn only because I changed 2-3 minor things to make the 2 articles more accurate. If you want to witness his modus operandi take a look and his discussion with me on Talk:Alexandru_Nicolschi#My_2_cents and Talk:Securitate#Rom.C3.A2nul_Boris_Gr.C3.BCnberg.3F and see for yourselves how he bullies people around by accusing them of things they didn't say and assuming unintended meanings of words only to start wars. In one occasion he even drove me to be plain uncivil -- this is something that he does very well, he bullies people around till they snap... My guess is that's exactly what happened with User:Icar. -- AdrianTM 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In case someone is interested in this, my comments have been given in full on the talk page, where I have presented basic and reliable proof of why the AdrianTM's edit is POV pushing. Misplaced Pages's goal is reliable source-backed information, not consensus over how to manipulate facts. Dahn 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but constantly having a nasty behavior, calling people vandals (by allusions and insinuations) it's really a bad thing! While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane. A little compassion can help, although one's initial impulse is to strike back. Don't. It's a sign of strength not to retaliate, and a peaceful response may actually do some good. Try to be as tolerant as you possibly can regarding edits by established contributors. Should you need to revert one, leave as polite an explanation as possible, with room for compromise: and if they're simply wrong, don't rub their nose in it. The risk of losing long-established contributors due to avoidable conflict is one of the greatest the project faces. People who have been here a year or more, and made thousands of contributions to the project, are its greatest asset, and this cannot be overstated. The consequences of reverting a good-faith edit with a vandalism-reversion tool or "rvv" edit summary are unpredictable, and unlikely to win you friends or trust. As a general rule, do not edit when you are angry. Wait until the feeling has passed, and you are yourself again. This was my view. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? One would have to get you to clarify this comment. Dahn 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you stalking me also? You stalked Icar, Dptop, AdrianTM and...now also me? --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more unfounded allegations. For starters, WP:STALK implies that I would have to erase good edits you make by following you around and intimidating you. Secondly, what you have done over the past hour or so does qualify under WP:STALK. Thirdly, I have Icar's page on my watchlist (past history has shown that he has my page on his watchlist as well), and it is my right to view any page I see fit. Again, I do not answer to straw men. Dahn 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a rule: People who have the insatiable need to retaliate for perceived wrongs should be removed from the project as quickly, but gently, as possible. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you folks looked at WP:DR? _InBC 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to speak with him. Next step will be WP:DR. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He just called me "straw man" As if his situation couldn't be worst than that..--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I called your argument a straw man. Dahn 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You implied me as as scarecrows, combat training targets, swordsmiths' test targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do continue. Yours is the exact definition of a straw man argument. (I would suggest you click the link before starting over with the allegations.) Dahn 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also maintain that Dahn is carrying out a campaign of harassment, with the intention not of improving the article(s) in question, but of making my participation as an editor sufficiently unpleasant that I will will leave the project. Please note that there have been numerous complaints by other editors against Dahn for carrying out similar activity, complaints which have fueled a debate about the practice of "WikiStalking," and a request for action by Dahn that is presently under consideration by the ArbCom as I've written an email. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. I urge HIZKIAH to present what point of the harassment policy I have broken and where. As an addition: on most of the articles in question, I have contributed most information (all sourced), before other users came and deleted parts of them. I haven't even seen this user before he engaged me in a debate over an article that had been subject to massive deletion of content and started leaving comments and suggestions about my character on my talk page. I did not follow him around anywhere. As for suggestions and pressures to quit wikipedia, you have an instance of this occurring on this very page ( - I note that this also qualifies as infringement of WP:STALK, under "threats"). Dahn 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, guys... Remember: "this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department". I also invite you to bring the issue to WP:DR and calm down. Imn particular HIZKIAH, starting with things like "It seems that there are a group of editors with the backing of a couple of administrators who are working together in regards to POV pushing using Misplaced Pages as their own POV propaganda tool" rarely helps obtaining simpathy, as it tends to forget a thing called WP:AGF. And anyways, I doubt anybody will be blocked now.--Aldux 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

POV parole

Dahn should be placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Dahn should be banned for 30 days for wasting everyone's time with this frivolous accusation, like the one he did to User:Icar. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof by verbosity. Dahn 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with trolling or revert warring takes time and effort, and may scare off new contributors. If lots of people have to 'warily watch' an editor, then that editor probably isn't suited to work here in the first place. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that with disruptive users, in this case User:Dahn, in perpetrating this particular edit User:Dahn, has used trolling techniques perfected by User:Dahn, including the use of misleading and abusive edit summaries, discussions-by-edit-summary, and ignoring and deleting talk page requests. I therefore request that Misplaced Pages's admins place this disruptive editor under close observation until such time as his behaviour is appropriately modified. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

attacks on editors from User:Dahn

The attacks on editors take the form of accusing the editors of being vandals, e.g. on User:Icar in an attempt to poison the well in terms of those editors' reputations. He engages in seemingly endless arguments on the Talk pages, so that most editors eventually get worn down and give up http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Section_for_Dahn.27s_rant_over_other_editors_who_try_to_understand_what_happened_with_the_User:KhoiKhoi_account_on_ro.wiki. He is known to had caused problems for editors with very different political views and editing styles. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I was implied in this discussion, which in fact started here: Misplaced Pages talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#What d'ya all think?. To be short, User:Dahn interrupted a discussion with huge amounts of irrelevant text, accusations of antisemitism, a.s.o. In that particular discussion, he was opposed in a way or another to all other editors involved. Dpotop 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support the remark of User:HIZKIAH concerning the existence of behind-the-doors agreements. Just take a look at User:Dahn's block log, and you will see that his 3RR blocks are always overturned (even when he is blocked for 3RR). Dpotop 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The ugly part is that User:Dahn adds interesting material, and in large quantities. But once he starts editing an article, he behaves like some sort of landowner (bad one). I guess there are policies against this, such as WP:OWN, but they were never applied in his case. Dpotop 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Admins, please note that Dpotop is another victim of this user:Dahn. User:dahn has been uncivil, continues to revert those changes, and to be honest I have found this editor somewhat abrasive myself, particularly in terms of WP:CIVILHIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these characteristics in an editor (like User:Dahn) tends to advance the goals of the Misplaced Pages. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Monopol on some pages (User:Dahn's pages)

User:Dahn appears to have decided that his pages from his watchlist deserves the same protection from outside editing as a geocities account. As a result he has accused other users who've made simple changes of vandalizing his pages. He has since equipped his pages with a notice which claims that edits made without his authorization are vandalism. Can someone else please ask him to go get a free web account someplace if he is interested in maintaining a personal web presence? --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn if you want a homepage, go and find a webhost.--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if he's a regular edit warrior, but the problem is that his blocks are always overturned --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC against User:Dahn

Your input please here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dahn --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Edits from 216.20.13.226 (Merrimack Education Center and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution); seems to be vandalizing pages. Example: Page "Jet Engine": changing "History" to "the history daaaaaaaaawg".

See Special:Contributions/216.20.13.226 for other pages vandalized.

83.52.24.18 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked 6 months by User:Yamla. --ais523 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same people reverting back each other's changes

Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same people, and Nikodemos has been reverting back to Ruad's versions in articles. Compare their dates of their edit histories. Both are absent and present on the same days. Ruadh: Nikodemos: Proof:

Nikodemos was gone from December 30 through January 12. There were no edits from Ruadh during that time.

Nikodemos and Ruadh take an extended leave, not making any edits from January 19 through February 19. Both arrive back on the same day, which is February 20. Both names make edits on February 20 and February 21.

Nikodemos and Ruadh don't make any edits from February 22 through Februrary 25. They both arrive back on February 26 and start making edits.

Nikodemos takes a break, not making any edits after March 5. Ruadh also stops making edits after March 5 as well and has not made any since. Nikodemos arrives back on March 12 to revert back to Ruadh's version of the article Economics of fascism here: . I revert it back with the commont "you really think I'm that stupid Ruadh?" In aother article Anti-capitalism he uses the Nikodemos name to revert back to a Ruadh version there as well pretending that he's a third party coming in to stop some kind fighting. Nikodemos/Ruadh realizes he's been found out and leaves a message on user talk page accusing ME of being a double user of someone else.

This IP 66.6.107.236 has also been making edits to the Anti-capitalism article, which I think is Nikodemos/Ruadh as well. . Billy Ego 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know exactly which policy I am accused of having violated. Although I have indeed reverted back to two versions written by User:Ruadh, that was 7 days after that user had stopped editing the two articles in question. I have reverted to Ruadh's edits, but he has never reverted back to mine, thus there can be no question of two accounts working in tandem. I also never pretended to come in to mediate anything, since User:Ruadh is obviously absent. I claim to have no one's support other than my own. I have repeatedly attempted constructive discussion with Billy Ego on my own, which he has refused. -- Nikodemos 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets to revert back to versions of your other sockpuppets is showing that you support that changes of your sockpuppets. It's creating the illusion of agreement with you. The only reason your Ruadh sockpuppet has not made an edit since you got back from your 7 day break is because I caught you. Billy Ego 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry says "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." You're obviously violating that policy because you have been creating an illusion of broader support than exists by reverting back to the versions of your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what I would or would not have done. I have explicitly stated that I do not claim to have any support other than my own; how exactly was I trying to create an illusion that goes against my own words? Sporadic editing by two users a week apart is hardly an attempt to show broad support for a position. -- Nikodemos 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough of your games. You don't have to say explicitly in words that you support another user's version. Simply by reverting to that version you are showing support for the version. You are creating an illusion that someone else supports that version of the article besides you. It was an ongoing act of deception by you. 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing? Unless I am very much mistaken, I reverted to User:Ruadh's version, but he never reverted back to me. -- Nikodemos 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter which sockpuppet reverts to which? You were reverting to your Ruadh sockpuppet's version, which was creating the illusion that more than one person supported that version. You were also using your "69.6.107.236" sockuppet making versions the same day as your Ruadh sockpuppet on February 20. Billy Ego 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Following a prompt by User:TexasAndroid, I realize that the above argument was unnecessary and disruptive. I wish to apologize for getting lost in the heat of the moment. I will now cease editing this page until a third party comes in to comment. -- Nikodemos 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Paul Hartal

User:Paul Hartal has repeatedly accused me and other editors of libelling him, his alma mater (Columbia Pacific University) and other alumni (see Rochelle Holt, among others). He has been asked several times to stop referring to editors' actions as libel. In response to an AFD discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Rochelle_Holt he has begun crossposting a rant accusing myself and others of libel to his talk page, as well as Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I would very much appreciate it if an admin could look into this situation - Mr. Hartal does not seem to understand that accusing editors of libel constitutes a legal threat, despite numerous admonishments. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only two admins involved, myself and Will Beback have are also too involved (that is, have also received legal threats) to make a block. If someone who is uninvolved would look at this, it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a job for either an RfC or a community ban fro all articles related to CWU. The overt legal threats were a while back, and these days he is only foaming at the mouth, not actually threatening people, I think. It is very hard to assume good faith of someone whose major activity on Misplaced Pages is whitewashing a diploma mill and attacking those who resist him in doing so, but let's play it by the book. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, the threat on the BLP noticeboard was yesterday. JoshuaZ 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal threats were made as recently as yesterday on the BLP noticeboard. I have blocked the user indefinitely for legal threats. Any other admins feel free to post you agreements or disagreements with the block below.--Jersey Devil 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. This user has dealt with other editors by making threats and attacks while using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. He's been warned several times but does not seem to listen to other editors. -Will Beback · † · 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

paradocks3 (talk · contribs)

Obvious and self-admitted block evasion. Vassyana 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack page deleted as CSD G10, and user indefblocked as sock of blocked user. -- Avi 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Crown Copyright

There's been quite a bit of talk at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 7 (see primarily Image:Ct4e.jpg section) and Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems (see New Zealand Crown Copyright section). I nominated a few New Zealand Crown Copyright images for deletion, as Crown Copyright has long been recognized as too restrictive, and no claim of fair use had been made. No fair use claim could be made, either, for a few of these images, as there are free alternatives already available on Misplaced Pages.

Quite a few users, however, are arguing that we overlook the "ideological" restrictions, or that we start a new category of images with "icenses that aren't free, but won't be subjected to either the fair use rationale test or the replaceability test." There's not really a grey area for this — either images are free, which we'll allow, or they aren't, for which we'll argue fair use (though there's not much of an argument for a lot of these images) or delete. Anyone with a bit more "credibility" than me have a better way of explaining this to them? Thanks. — Rebelguys2 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Misplaced Pages skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see , User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I have restored this incident report again, as nothing has been done the previous two times. The user has admitted to being a sock of the blocked vandal, saying "Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself." The article has been protected since February 19, but Lobster Blogster's account was created on 3rd March - he's clearly referring to his previous vandalism as the permabanned user Pogsurf. Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see Nssdfdsfds getting in a tizzy and telling tales out of school here. It's perfectly true that after Pogsurf was blocked by Persian Poet Gal as a "Vandal Only Account" I created the "Lobster Bloster" account. However I object strongly to the label "Vandal Only Account" which I assume is being used perjoratively, and not as an obscure reference to my Germanic ancestry. If Nssdfdsfds bothered to discuss prospective changes via talk pages I don't think so much hot air and wind would be generated. Please feel free to ban me again if you feel that is the right thing to do. There are many more names and IP addresses I could adopt, should the need arise. --Lobster blogster 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are now blocked. IrishGuy 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If only you'd stop trying to reference known libellous material, there wouldn't be a problem. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there would still be a problem. Indefinitely blocked users shouldn't return under new names. As such, I blocked him as a sockpuppet. IrishGuy 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak's incivility & personal attacks

Some recent comments by Bosniak (talk · contribs) merit some attention by administrators:

• 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC): "Dr Mitov, you are just sad case of Srebrenica genocide denier. I honestly feel sorry for you ... due to dirty Christian world politics"
• 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC): "mass scale massacres committed by Serbian Christian Orthodox terrorists and butchers who slaughtered ... Dr Mitov, like most Serbs - are brainwashed by"
• 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC): "Of course, in serbian propaganda historiography, you will find all kinds of garbage - according to them, they survived 100 genocides."
• 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC): "It's just a great feeling to watch Albanian Kosovo become independent. It's a wonderful, fullfilling, satisfying, feeling. It's like an orgasm, in political sense of the word."
• 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC): "You might to more research before starting to defend those scums."
• 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC): "Those Serb individuals who recognize genocide in Srebrenica are good people, and those who don't are scums ... holding fascists accountable"

Best regards, Ev 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, look what he said to me a short while ago:

• 22:05, 12 March 2007: "You are sad example of sorry little Serbian propaganda."

--Domitius 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours. I would have made it a simple warning but the user's block log indicates that he has been blocked for week long periods in the past for WP:NPA violations.--Jersey Devil 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Faznar (talk · contribs) marketing/spam

2 years here, and his few limited contributions seem to be solely to promote a couple of websites. I'm restoring this comment because it was for some reason deleted yesterday along with several others. .--Crossmr 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to not have been warned up until the report was filed, and has not edited since being warned by two people. If he comes back and continues, list on AIV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Troubling technical glitch on AN/I

I just received a very troubling query on my talk page. I made a simple post here a few days ago, but it now appears in the diff as if multiple other posts were deleted when I made my post. I have sporadically seen something similar result from edit conflicts, but some of this text appears to be on AN/I before my post, and gone after my post. Since it's not a good feeling to be accused of blanking, I hope someone can help get to the bottom of this. Sorry if this is a dumb question with a simple explanation; it's troubling. Thanks in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:VP/T#Edit_histories_temporarily_scrambled.3F--VectorPotential 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whew, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That diff shows a lot of deleted text; is there anyway to restore it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just paste it in. —Quarl 2007-03-13 10:02Z

Edit war

Broun Baronets is under attack by User:Vintagekits and User:One Night In Hackney. Please block both 48 hours. - Kittybrewster 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be part of the edit war. Demanding the blocking of those who you war with isn't exactly kosher. IrishGuy 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm! thats an interest account of what is happening Kitty. Kitty feels aggrieved becuase he has to actually reference the material he wants in an article. If an article is not properly referenced or uses peacock terms then it is going to attract attention.--Vintagekits 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly an edit war. The initial edit I made was to remove a clear peacock term. When I edited the article the second time I did fail to notice that is was a direct quote admittedly. The quote is of unclear attribution or neutrality so I added the peacock tag and posted a polite message on the talk page explaining my reasoning for it, then you subsequently removed the tag without explanation, and I have not edited the page since and have no intention of doing so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also this diff is quite revealing. It seems that the article was copying the source word for word rather than being re-written in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone, and the subsequent quotation marks have been added to allow the use of a clear peacock term. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps even more revealing is that according to an online version the phrase "glorious history" doesn't even appear in the text, the quote being attributed to the book does not appear at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If the online version is accurate, the actual quote is completely different. IrishGuy 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked Kitty to attribute the quote but he evaded answering, I think that there could possibly deception here and I will check the hard copy of the book tommorrow, if this quote is not in the book I would take a very dim view of this.--Vintagekits 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have answered every point both as you reverted and once I persuaded you onto the talk page. - Kittybrewster 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have now, after another editor found the book on line.--Vintagekits 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the ref was always there. He found a different edition is my guess. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? - Kittybrewster 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)If the online edition of the book is devoid of the relevant criteria, personally, I'd leave it out. In the interests of confirming this, you could always take a photo of your edition of the book with the sections visible and newspaper or something to confirm the date and e-mail the image to me and I'll confirm either way. -- Nick 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful. It won't be tonight. - Kittybrewster 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Take your time. Obviously, the sooner the better to end this particular dispute, but there is no real rush. It isn't the end of the world :) IrishGuy 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chirchona

User:Chirchona is constantly disrupting the flow of the Disney Channel articles. He creates massive amounts of episode articles with little to no info. He constantly messes up coding to tables in lists of episodes and uploads massive amounts of poor quality screen shots which are most often left with out copyright info, and some even being orphaned and not needed. Me and another user have made many attempts to contact this user but he will not respond. He is a suspected sock puppet of User:TSLcrazier who was blocked for editing in much the same manner. It would be helpful if an admin could step in. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection needed at Brian Wilson and Talk:Brian Wilson

The same person that has been vandalising the above pages is back again. He moves around alot to different IP addresses. We need semiprotection at both of those pages for a reasonable amount of time to insure that he doesn't come back. This problem has been going on for a long time. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been happening off and on for over two months, so any help would be greatly appreciated.--piper108 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:RFPP? —ptk✰fgs 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This vandalism really doesn't look that bad to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has already been semiprotected since 2007-02-24. —Quarl 2007-03-13 10:01Z

disruptive editing/3RR violation by User:D323P

I'm requesting some kind of assistance in an edit war that has gone on for several weeks at Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

User:D323P initially took the tone of trying to improve the article, with notes on the "talk" page indicating his/her perception of bias in the article. He/she subsequently added several paragraphs of "criticism" of the book to the page, each of which drew objections from multiple editors.

Other editors, including myself, have attempted to engage D323P in dispassionate discussion, in order to reach a resolution. He/she has, however, resisted numerous editors' efforts to improve the text and remove the effect of POV pushing. Rather than engage the arguments raised, he/she generally calls other editors' credibility and motivations into question, and raises the emotional tenor of the discussion.

Please note that D323P violated WP:3RR several weeks ago, after I had warned him/her of it, and I notified him/her via talk page afterwards. He/she has violated it again today, again after a warning.

Please consider blocking this user, or attempting to engage him/her in a discussion. I believe he/she is no longer responsive to the concerns of the editors currently involved in the situation.

-Pete 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second this. There are four editors taking issues with D323P and his edits, and he won't relent or work to build consensus. --DavidShankBone 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for 48 hours. The user Peteforsyth has a clean record of no blocks and no incivil/personal attack activity that I can see. Furthermore, the consensus was clearly against the reported user's edits, so I won't issue out any 3rr blocks regarding this matter. However, for future purposes please send the matter here or request protection at WP:RFP, because if I see it happen again I will be forced to block. Looking at the talk page I also see several personal attacks made by the User:D323P. I will warn him/her against using such attacks but I won't block him/her at the moment either to try and see if something can be done to resolve this without such measures.--Jersey Devil 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I received your note. Thank you. Pete wrote, "Other editors, including myself, have attempted to engage D323P in dispassionate discussion." I'm sorry, but I do not agree with that at all. Discussions happened only after my material was deleted without discussion (violation of WP policy). They were also not "dispassionate." I rightfully objected to the way my material was misrepresented (as seen on the discussion page) and how I felt I was being unfairly treated. D323P 04:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Need some help at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

A shouting match has erupted here. It's not really a discussion anymore, as creating a new section with an incivil heading seems to be the preferred way of making a point for many of the participants. I was involved (back when it was a discussion), so I hesitate to try to rein it in myself. Help appreciated. --Ginkgo100 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If this wasn't such a serious post I'd feel a WP:BJAODN coming on. (→Netscott) 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. — MichaelLinnear 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

hehe _InBC 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Terry Shannon

After the travesty of a first AfD, I've renominated this for deletion. I've been told that there will be a story on it in The Register. Just watch out for that. -Amarkov moo! 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kscottbailey

I do not appreciate his comments on the talk page of my now-closed RFA, nor his repeated reversions of users who are kindly removing the thread. Please do something about it. Cheers. – Chacor 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I'd appreciate it if someone who opposed the RfA would step in here if it continues to be an issue... I don't really believe in kicking people like this when they are down. This has little to do with my support of the RfA, and I'd rather not appear to be too biased. Grandmasterka 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He has restored it with a third revert and is defending his reverts by saying that those who're removing the thread are ganging up to avoid 3RR. – Chacor 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has since been protected due to the edit war, but Kscottbailey has been continuing to assume bad faith when dealing with editors who were involved in either the war itself or stopping it. He posted this rather incivil comment on my user talk page after I reverted his last edit and was considering protecting the page. He left a similar bad faith comment on Viridae's talk page here (Viridae ultimately protected the page). --Coredesat 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And now he's wikilawyering over the definition of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --Coredesat 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure Viridae acted with the best of intentions, reverting then protecting a favoured version was always going to result in protests. Anyway, reasoning with Kscottbailey seems to have calmed the situation down, but I wouldn't count on a support from him in any future RfA, Chacor. Rockpocket 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets and apathy

I find it upsetting that absolutely nobody responds to messages I leave here on the board . I'm trying to draw attention to a certain situation. I believe I have been acting correctly and with restraint in the face of clear misconduct, but if I can't rely on the support of other administrators, I end up feeling like an idiot. Why even bother. Here's the situation, one last time, as clearly as possible. After this, if no one chooses to respond, I throw in the towel:

• Tracking the edits of a user I suspected to be the sockpuppet of a banned user, I read two newly created articles regarding subjects I found to be just barely notable, and heavily laced with advertisement-like hype.
• Rather than deleting the articles under CSD-A5, I nominated them on AfD, for the benefit of the doubt. (I really and truly don't feel that either of them are notable topics for the English-language Misplaced Pages, and find it significant that neither of them have articles on the Hebrew-language Misplaced Pages. But that's just my opinion.)
• The banned user I had originally suspected of starting the article published a long anti-wiki rant off-wiki, publicly ridiculing me personally and Misplaced Pages in general.
• Both AfDs were visited by several brand new users, who with as few as three edits to wikipedia all "discovered" the AfD and came to vote "keep" (namely user:Israelgeeks, user:Kinnernetgal, user:Jerusalemgold, user:Dervish8, and the suspected puppet I was originally tracking, user:Mhltv).
• I added a note asking above-mentioned banned user to please stop using sockpuppets, and was accused of being "toxic" . The reponse did not surprise me and the style was familiar, I blocked this user as a sockpuppet.
• The new user votes and chorus of criticism continue, unchecked. Voters protest my labelling of new users, claiming these are "ad hominem" attacks: ; and in one case, simultaneously denying that new users are sockpuppets, and demanding the unblocking of the suspected sockpuppeteer:
• Just for the record, the banned user I suspect of being a sockpuppeteer was blocked indefinitely after making legal threats, and veiled threats of what he "could" do to my children if he weren't such a nice person. He has never retracted any of these threats, and indeed to this day repeats the legal threat off-wiki. Every deletion vote that has somehow been connected with him has attracted "brand new users" (See Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Israelbeach).

I honestly don't care if the Kinnernet article stays or goes, the notability is borderline, but that's no skin off my nose. I care that Misplaced Pages processes are being corrupted, but only to a point - I can just shut off my computer and it goes away. I care more than that when I feel I'm being ganged-up on with little or no support. That's all folks, thank you and goodbye.--woggly 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From my initial survey of what you've described, I agree that Mhltv (talk · contribs) is likely to be a puppet of banned user Israelbeach. It is a shame that the results come back as inconclusive from RFCU. In the meantime, as a non-admin, I've removed a handful of instances where israelnewsagency.com was being used as a source. It seems I was going back over JZG's own work in that area (which was reverted by an anon IP). I have dealt with another banned user once who was persistent and incorrigible. Don't let it get you down. While WP:DENY is a good idea, sometimes it burns you out faster than it eventually gets to them. Those times, I step back and realize that sometimes junk can exist in a Misplaced Pages article for weeks before it's noticed. If they get away with a day or two of vandalism/PoV before you come back and clean it up, it won't be the end of Misplaced Pages (and it may even garner more attention by others since you weren't there to wipe up the mess immediately). Good luck. ju66l3r 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely. I think I'll take a wikibreak, but it would be nice if someone kept an eye open afterMhltv (talk · contribs), who is testing the limits of what he can get away with. --woggly 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Ban Evasion

I believe this user: User talk:72.88.165.163 is clearly the same person as this user: User talk:72.88.162.57 who simply started using a slightly different IP address in order to evade a block appropriately placed by Crum375. In fact this Anon-IP user should probably be permanently blocked from Misplaced Pages as the edits are very biased, without discussing why-- and lots of edit warring. If you are not sure that it is the same person, the contribution histories ] vs. ] should serve as very strong circumstantial evidence. --ProtectWomen 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted urgent

Over the past few months, significant problems have developed on a series of articles concerning disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Several editors, many from that region, have become involved in edit wars and feuding. Dmcdevit, who had been keeping an eye on these articles, ultimately filed an arbitration case, which was accepted and is pending. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and its evidence and workshop pages.

ArbCom has enacted a temporary injunction putting all participants in the case on 1RR parole pending resolution of the case. Dmcdevit had been using this as a basis for trying to restore some order on these articles, and Thatcher131 had also been keeping an eye on things. However, right now both of them are on wikibreaks.

I am receiving talkpage notes pretty much daily from parties claiming that someone else has violated the injuction or otherwise misbehaved. There have also been personal attacks and misuses of personal information. See my talk for some of the flavor. As the only arbitration clerk active right now, I have my hands full keeping an eye on the case pages themselves, plus would prefer to be able to respond neutrally to the parties' procedural questions rather than be in an enforcement mode at this time.

If an uninvolved administrator would kindly roll up his or her sleeves and help out with this situation, I will be very grateful and so will the good-faith editors of these articles. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried directing them to WP:AE (or WP:AN3 for the revert situations), with a specific note that there's an ArbCom 1RR injuction in place, much like the one that happened? I'd just tell them you're the clerk for the case, and therefore won't get involved in any disputes anyway. (I'll have a look though, guess this is what I signed up for right?) Seraphimblade 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. AE is a good idea but is usually pretty backlogged (especially with Thatcher131 away, who's done a lot of the work there), and I'd rather have a little more continuity in the situation that AN/3RR can provide. Thanks! (P.S.: Your editor review is over now, update your sig!) Newyorkbrad 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might make the whole mess a lot easier on enforcement, if the arbitrators could be talked into passing it, is that any content revert made by any party must contain "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary. A lot of those articles are getting edited a hundred times a minute, and the revert edit summaries look a whole lot like the normal mudslinging in any of them. (P.S. That was my editor review, not the RFA, which is still open, but RFA tends to be editor review to the tenth power anyway.) Seraphimblade 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good God, now there's an edit war going on the arbitration page itself! Does the 1RR apply to that? Seraphimblade 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does. We were told that 1RR applies to Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles, and I did not know that it applies to our arbcom case as well. Recently a person got blocked for trying to add a party to the arbcom case, while others were trying to remove it. I think it would be really helpful if the admins explained the procedure for adding new parties rather than blocking. I filed a formal motion for adding new parties after I was explained the procedure. Could you please look again into User:Atabek's block? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

Myself, and User:Erikster, User:ThuranX, User:Arcayne have been experiencing some harrassment from a fellow user:User:Mardavich. He cites Misplaced Pages rules in an effort to force us out of the 300 page. Initially he left "warnings" on users Erikster, ThuranX and Arcayne's page about violating the 3RR, which they didn't. In truth, these editors were cleaning up the article, and were removing original research that had no citation, or rewording for NPOV. Offended by their changes, he "warned" them. Later, as Arcayne was cleaning up the page, Mardavich reported him for 3RR violation. He cites the diffs and claims that Arcayne has been acting as if he "owns" the article. Arcayne was initially blocked, but when I asked the Admin responsible to go back and look at the diffs more carefully, and compare with the previous versions (which Mardavich did not supply) he did and then unblocked Arcayne, as it was clear that it wasn't real 3RR violation. Since my defence of Arcayne, Mardavich decided to basically wait for me to actually edit 300 (since I had regulated myself to the talk page the entire time), and he picked out the only 4 edits I had that actually removed information and reported me to 3RR committee. I have yet to see the outcome of this, but I responded on there to look carefully at the diffs, because Mardavich again did not supply an "original version" for comparison. All the diffs are completely different, 1 is removing 2 images that have nothing to do with the film itself, they were pics of real life statues that couldn't be used for comparison; another was removing duplicate information; another was removing more duplicate information. My point is that Mardavich is harrassing myself and the others to the point that he's trying to have use blocked so we can't "oppose" his views on the 300 page. I forgot to mention that the 300 page has become highly controversial because of all the reviews about it's possible "racism", and Mardavich is one of the many editors pushing to include every bit of information that calls the film and it's makers racists, withouth any NPOV. Can anything be done about this, or do I and my fellow editors have to worry about never cleaning up any article wikipedia for fear that Mardavich is going to pick out 4 edits and report us for 3RR, or something else?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated, but your signature is awfully long. And doesn't look like it'll wrap correctly at the end of a line. -- Nick 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, politely reminding users who are in danger of violating WP:3RR is not harassment, it's an essential part of the process. Rules and safeguards like WP:3RR are there for a reason, to prevent edit-waring and ownership of articles by a few editors, which is what's been happening at the article in question. --Mardavich 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please note that User:Bignole has been spamming the talk pages of his friends, inviting them to come here and support him. The individuals in question have been WP:owning the 300 article, in an organized fashion, and they've made no secret of their goal to WP:OWN the article in question by tag-teaming as evidenced by the following statements: "We should be watching each other's backs, like making other editors aware when we need to tag out and let someone else jump in". or "if you are running out of reverts or move into target territory, it might be helpful for us to watch each other's backs. Either way" --Mardavich 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But, throwing around these "warnings" to make editors leave an article so that you can push your POV is not part of the policy. You have been deliberately manipulating the rules of Misplaced Pages to try and get your way, as was seen when you tried to have Arcayne blocked, but failed.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DR and change that signature please. -- Nick 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you reconsider your decision in this matter. I am one of the users Bignole referred to as being essentially wiki-stalked by this POV-pushing user. Dissent in Misplaced Pages is normal, but Mardavich is not one of those users who relents after losing an argument. He has disrupted the 3RR noticeboard on two separate occasions with baseless, empty accusations. Simultaneously, he has worked to tie up admin resources in filing this baseless claim. Even a cursory edit of Mardavich's own user and Discussion Page indicate his strong identification with any causes surrounding Persia and specifically Iran. I would be kind and suggest that his bahvior is a simply hyper-sensitivity to issues that concern Persians, but his actual demeanor is in practice very proactive in removing those editors he sees as interfering with his view of Misplaced Pages. That three editors (two of them highly respected memebers of this community - I am not including myself as I am still learning the ropes) have had to essentially spend their time away from contributing positively to Misplaced Pages to fend off these empty yet time-consuming complaints is just wrong.

After a heated conversation on admin User:Bakharev's Talk Page, seen here, wherein you can note from the history how Mardavich repeatedly modified his argument to reposition and escalate his charges against myself and the other users named above, we contemplated whether or not to file an AN/I complaint. At the time, we decided against it, as we were more concerned with fixing the issues of the 300 (film) article. As well, admin Bakharov asked us to stop focusing on each other and instead focus on the article. Clearly, Mardavich was unsatisfied with admin Bakharov's attempt to de-escalate the issue, and then went on a Wiki-bender, filing 3RR reports and AN/I reports to beat the band.

User Mardavich is a pariah on the Wiki community. His edits are POV-motivated, he refuses to work with anyone or tolerate edits of any viewpoint that differs from his own, and attempts to remove those editors who - following good Misplaced Pages policy - choose to oppose POV and unsourced edits. Lastly, and most importantly, I am personally troubled by his wiki-stalking tendencies. This is not healthy editor behavior.Arcayne 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Mardavich's "update", one man's spam is another man's email. As we the accused in the complaint, I find it extremely appropriate that Bignole brought this complaint to our attention. Mardavich perhaps thought he might be able to sneak this complaint by, as he didn't bother to notify the other people listed in the complaint - again, an example of Bad Faith and wiki-working the system. The fact that he is even able to offer an "update" clearly shows he is watching everyone's traffic instead of, y'know, contributing to articles. This person needs to leave Misplaced Pages for a nice long time. Arcayne 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please note all the personal attacks in the above postings by User:Arcayne, calling me a "pariah" etc, the user has also called me "a creep", "unethical", "devious", "POV pusher" on several occasions, all in total disregard of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. --Mardavich 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinions of User:Mardavich have not been discussed in an open article Discussion page and only in other user talk pages as well as in official forums (although not in Mardavich's talk page). I think the guy is a pariah and an unethical, devious creep. His behavior utterly contradict Good Faith, Civility and No Personal Attacks. He is a wiki-stalker who only seems aware of these descriptors because he is following user edits and making comments where they appear. Kind of the definition of a wiki-stalker.Arcayne 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it is worth noting that while Mardavich has been trying up the time of the editors who have been wroking on the 300 article, he has since helpted contribute to the article ending up like this overnight. He's using this noticeboard and the 3RR noticeboard to distract folk. My opinion of Mardavich has not changed.Arcayne 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot issue

The MetsBot has improperly fixed a double redirect. This page has an incorrect title that I am not able to change. Also, I'm not sure if there was more info on the page that was removed, but it was the more commonly used page. Please refer to the page's discussion area for extended info. Thank you. Tweeks Coffee 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lysdexia / 69.238.129.55

Continuing from here (archive). - Banned User:Lysdexia is active again from 69.238.129.55 (talk · contribs). Even if there are some useful edits, we don't have to put up with this: ("illiterate freak"), denies/removes warnings ("accurate, not vandalism") . Is there any 'thruthe hating ignorant admin scum' around here familiar enough with the case to decide about a long-term block of the IP? Femto 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months, and undid a few of the more egregious edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly offensive comments at the Humanities Ref Desk

Can I draw admins' attention to the following diff () and subsequent edits to that section, as well as at the user's talk page. --Dweller 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: . I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Assistance needs on AI6 articles

Could we get as many people as possible watchlist the American Idol 6 pages? Specifically, Antonella Barba and Sanjaya Malakar. All of the finalists articles are being hit but especially those 2. I'd rather not protect the articles if possible. --Woohookitty 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn

I would like to report the inappropriate behavior of User:Dahn. There was a complaint about him yesterday here and User:Khoikhoi banned the editor who initiated it and then dismissed the complaint. I am troubled because it was precisely User:Khoikhoi who assisted User:Dahn in reverting in order not to break the 3RR. The attitude of User:Dahn towards other editors is becoming intolerable. Could some Admins (not User:Khoikhoi please) look into this issue. Thanks. Icar 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn admits watching my page here. I do not follow his changes, while he immediately reverts all my changes (except when he fears the 3RR). I would like to ask an Admin (not User:Khoikhoi please) to check also whether User:HIZKIAH was rightfully banned or not.Icar 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest" claims in several football articles.

I'd like some advice or a ruling on this situation. The main conversation relating to it is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Other conversations are on my talk page and on various talk pages of the articles concerned. They are Johan Cruijff, Pele, Diego Maradona, Puskas and a few others. Previously the articles have stated variously that the player is "the greatest", "one of the greatest", "widely regarded the greatest" or similar. I believe this contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Those policies are specifically mention situations like this. Several editors have reverted my changes to reinsert the claims and an edit war has ensued. I fully realise I have broken 3RR. However as I believe I am following policy I've ignored the rule. Other editors have as well and one is using several (suspected) socks. Namely User:Marlon.sahetapy, who I believe is also User:Le Professeur70, User:PanteraNegro, User:Brasileiro1969 and User:Dr.Sauerkraut. This user has breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I feel. See my talk page and User talk:Marlon.sahetapy. Stu 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statements should be removed if they aren't attributed to verifiable sources, but after a quick glance...

You edit warred to keep the statement in the George Best article. Then, when that didn't work, you edit warred to remove it from other articles. Then, after 10 days of edit warring, you come here with a complaint about other editors? --Onorem 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Everyone is the greatest! _InBC 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree w/ Onorem. -- FayssalF - 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was inserting it in the George Best article for consistancy with the other articles it was included in. I didn't actually think it should be there in the first place. Stu 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems on National Council of La Raza

I am concerned by what is going on here.

I have been checking the sources offered by the anonymous contributors, and it does seem to paint a pretty grim picture of what the NCLR actually is. Instead of honestly debating this, however, multiple administrators have both reverted and locked the page, user:Evrik stated that trying to get it locked was a "legitimate" method of trying to force someone to register (I was under the impression that registration on Misplaced Pages is not compulsory in any fashion), and the other side offers no citations of their own but attacks the messenger and sources without anything to back up their own attacks. This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to operate. I am going to paste this concern to WP:ANI in a moment.

My primary concern is that administrators are locking the page, one administrator reverted the page before locking (which is a no-no and borderline abusive), and yet none who do this seem to be offering any response to the anonymous sources other than dismissive attacks upon the person of the anonymous contributors.

My secondary concern is user:Evrik's statement , "Excuse me, but asking for semi-protection is a way to make whoever is forcing these changes to register so it can be discussed."(emphasis mine)

I was unaware that it is ever required that we "force someone to register" in order to have a discussion, that seems very counterintuitive as talk pages are available to every contributor, registered or not.

I would appreciate some guidance on this matter; it seems Misplaced Pages is not a place for apologetic propaganda, and the existing article on NCLR (after spending some time investigating them and reading the sources provided, as well as hunting down my own sources) indicates that NCLR may be a duplicitous organization with a real position somewhere between what the current page is and what the anonymous contributors were offering. One Elephant went out to play... 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive behavior by User:SlimVirgin

I am going to briefly provide the context for my request, since the matter is complicated, and User:SlimVirgin is bound to attempt to put her own spin on it. There are two editors, User:Dking and User:Cberlet, who in my view have been consistently editing against policy by attempting to dominate the content of a number of articles in violation of WP:OWN, by excessive self-citing in violation of COI, and a pattern of personal attacks. There are also WP:BLP issues involved, since these two are published authors who specialize in "attack articles" on living persons. This is presently before the ArbCom and I am not asking for intervention on this particular problem.

However, SlimVirgin has been acting as a partisan on behalf of these two, bullying and threatening anyone who disputes their edits. I won't list the entire history of these incidents, only the most recent. On March 11 I posted four questions on the talk page of "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche," asking SlimVirgin to explain her positions. I found her answers to be evasive, particularly when she accused me of "promoting LaRouche," and I asked for clarification here. She refused to respond, and archived the page to hide the discussion (diff). I restored the page, asking her to please edit in a collegial manner (diff.) Her response was to threaten to ban me (diff,) saying that I was "causing disruption." I would like to ask that some administrators intervene. She should be reminded of WP:CIVIL, and admonished not to routinely ban people who disagree with her, as it appears to me that she does, by simply branding them as "troublemakers." --Tsunami Butler 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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