Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 10 April 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)

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

Problem regarding the article OmegaT

On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Misplaced Pages author.

The ticket number is .

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Misplaced Pages user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Misplaced Pages is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

User:Coelacan and User:Alison's repeated harrassment of User:PatPeter

These two users have bombarded me with more posts than humanly possible to answer, they continue to harrass me, give me not even the time to reply resulting in edit conflicts, talk about me behind my back on as many other pages as they can, please someone please help I cannot explain my actions to every post, watch I bet you anything that one of them will delete this post, someone please help me. -PatPeter 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is somehow related to this.--Isotope23 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have checked your userpage and the above AN/I report and can see no evidence of harrassment whatsoever, beyond Coelecan, Alison, and WJBscribe telling you that your actions rearding wikiprojects in userspace and random campaigns against categories are inappropriate. Being repeatedly edit conflicted is not a policy violation. Could you support your allegations with diffs please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dev920 (I was just reviewing the reporter's usertalkpage as well) and I don't see anything from User:Alison and just a few posts from User:Coelacan in regards to the fact that User:PatPeter edited another editors's userpage userboxes.--Isotope23 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• How can I reply to all the posts that they have made about me? It is like they are recruiting an army against me. I will try to find every point where they have bombarded me. -PatPeter 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should think about why they are bombarding you instead of merely shouting out "conspiracy!" Of course, I'm just being figurative, but disputes are a two-way street. —physicq (c) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

• User talk:PatPeter#Subpages - They sneak in remarks under other replys, I have no clue which are new, which are old, etc.
• User talk:The Boy that time forgot#Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Source to Short - Why would I check this? You can see how coelacan is directing yet another user to hate me.
• User talk:Coelacan#Subpages - now they are calling me sinister
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree - I just found out today that this has been going on.

And as much as I would like to take the time to find the diffs and more pages, I have other things to do. -PatPeter 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter, regarding your concerns: 1) replying in a non-linear fashion is a common way to do things here. I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, but rather to put comments where it is obvious what I am replying to. 2) I left a note to The Boy that time forgot to tell him that your requests were not policy and not something he needed to act on, because you made it appear that they were. 3) That user asked me if I thought there was something sinister in your actions, I replied that I thought not, that your actions were rather well intended but heavy handed; you act in good faith, but with biting. 4) Blast San began the above thread on this page because of a legitimate concern about your actions and more biting. No one is out to get you, but this page needs to be a place where people can bring issues that they feel might need administrator intervention. They don't always need administrator intervention, but it's better that there is a place to raise concerns, just in case.

Now, my discussion with Alison amounts to us agreeing that you have good intentions and poor execution. If you are upset about this discussion, I'm sorry to hear that, but it is necessary sometimes for editors to discuss other people's actions. You respond, yet again, by saying that we are trying to discredit you, in a way that suggests you are very stressed. We are not, and I personally am troubled by your reaction. Perhaps you could benefit from a wikibreak. I am trying to do some damage control around some of the pages you've used lately, but I want Misplaced Pages to be a place you can enjoy spending your time.

Finally, I have to wonder, how do I tell you that I think your Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Source to Short and Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Category Cleanup need to go to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion, without you taking this personally? I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think these particular ideas are ill-conceived, and full of instruction creep. — coelacan — 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've invesigated this thoroughly now, and the conclusion I've come to is you are a misguided editor who means well but doesn't really get what we're like at Misplaced Pages (I won't comment on the separate issue I found of your campaign against gay categories, which I suspect is why so many members of WP:LGBT are involved in this). Your main objection seems to be that people are replying to your comments with indents, a typical practice here to enable people to follow discussions, whereas you want them to use section headings and line dividers. The message Coelcan originally left on TBTTF's page didn't mention you at all by name, and was correcting misinformation you had sent him. TBTTF called your actions sinister - by contrast, you have accused him and Coel of bombaridng you and conspriing aainst you, as well as telling Coelacan and Alison to "shut up". Finally, while it may have been polite to inform you you were mentioned on AN/I, they were certainly not obliged to do so.

Basically, you have been pushing your own interpretation of the rules, editing other people's userpages (a BIG no-no here) and quoting a redirect (WP:StS) which leads to your own userspace. When Coelacan, as well as several other editors by now, not unsurprisingly informed you that this wasn't allowed on Wkipedia, you got defensive and started arguing incivilly and shouting "conspiracy" anywhere you could. Dude, you made a simple mistake but blew it out of all proportion. Accept that and go edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dev, the WP:StS page is now in Misplaced Pages namespace, without the misleading title override. That's better. It just means now that the community needs to evaluate whether we want it in Misplaced Pages namespace. — coelacan — 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean whether such a project should exist at all (I have no opinion on the matter). —physicq (c) 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Dev920's assessment. From PatPeter's talkpage and some of the "rules" and requests for things not to move forward without him, I'd say he doesn't fully get how things work here at Misplaced Pages. That seems to be the root of the problem more than anything Alison or Coelacan have done here.--Isotope23 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Physicq, that's what I meant. — coelacan — 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango

• Your complaint is not clear.

1. What did you do?
2. What did they do?
3. When did this incident begin?
4. Have you warned them?
5. Have they warned you?
6. What in your opinion needs to take place to correct the incident?

Your explaining an unclear one-sided version. I've looked at this and its not clear what if anything happened. --Masterpedia 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

PatPeter has put up notices on his userpage and talk that he intends to commit suicide shortly. Do we have a specific policy to deal with userpages of known deceased Wikipedians? Would it be appropriate to delete or blank the page, or maybe create a tasteful template for these eventualities? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue as to what to do here with the userpage. Any ideas, anyone? Moreschi 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My idea involves someone with checkuser access contacting Oregon State University and trying to help them figure out which one of their students is planning suicide, before it happens. Thoughts? — coelacan — 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need checkuser access? Call the uni and tell them to look for a Patrick Peter who's a talented musician. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he appears to still be in high school. So call the high school and ask for a boy, possibly called Patrick, who is studying Latin and Western Civilisation. Can't be that many of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

His userpage says he's against suicide prevention (or was it intervention?), so I think that would be a gross invasion of privacy, unfortunately. My personal opinion (harsh though it may be, sorry if I offend anybody) is that threatening suicide on an anonymous internet messageboard is the worst form of emotional blackmail. People who really want help should seek it somewhere accessible. Anchoress 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideals are very nice, up till a point. Hoax or no hoax, it is better to be safe than sorry. Somebody'd better make a call. Valentinian 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has threatened suicide and you're planning what template to affix to their page when they're dead?! Are you serious?

What did we do last time? Handed it over to the office I think? --kingboyk 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

The template isn't for suicides, it's for all dead Wikipedians. This guy's threat raises an issue I don't believe we have addressed yet - what to do with the userpage of a deceased Wikipedian? My proposal wasn't lighthearted, but I'll go propose it at the bottom of the page instead of here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why checkuser? If you know the educational establishment, why can't anyone do this? Having said that, judging by the userpage, shouldn't the place to contact be Marist High School (Illinois)? Moreschi 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the guy should be left alone on that count. His userboxes suggest he has issues with depression and, as someone who's acquainted with both matters, I suggest we be as sympathetic and kind as possible. As I said on WP:AN yesterday, even jokey suicide messages often have an underlying something to them - Alison 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh no. Not Freud... —physicq (c) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This shouldn't be taken lightly, but this guy hates suicide intervention and talking to him would just make things worse. Tread lightly. {PTO} {speak} 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously. It's not funny. Been there, tried that - Alison 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Look, I might be harsh, but we're not here to be intimidated. I'm not saying take a laissez-faire approach, but threatening suicide to get one's way (whether true or not) is the most despicable form of blackmail and the most abhorrent form of morality. Misplaced Pages is not therapy. —physicq (c) 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yep, agreed with that. We simply can't be intimidated in this matter. Moreschi 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's saying we need to let PatPeter create his strange rules? Aren't we discussing whether to contact his school to get him help? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being intimidated by the guy. I'm just concerned right now that he's okay. I notice that he's been putting up and taking down his suicide message over the last few days or so. He's obviously not in a good place right now - Alison 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We're here to create an encyclopedia anyone can read or edit. If there is someone involved in this discussion who believes that getting involved in this editor's personal RL drama (or suffering if drama is too pejorative) will further that goal, then that person should do so. Anchoress 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about being a Wikipedian. It's about being decent human beings. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can be a decent human being by going and doing whatever your conscience dictates. But that doesn't require discussion on the AN. Anyone can send this user an email, leave a message on her/his talkpage, or track down some RL help. Anchoress 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am respectfully requesting that anyone with the needed authority takes immediate action to share relevant information with appropriate authorities to protect this user. If you have this authority and do not feel that this action is correct please review this immediately with anyone available with higher authority. Thank you. 71.82.88.117 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I did not take the time to sign in before. Edivorce 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the user page to "I told you I was hardcore." Vodak 13:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:Alison

Hi all. I just found out about this now, sorry for the delay.

Ok, the first time I encountered PatPeter was on Coel's talk page where he made this comment re. title overrides. I replied with a gentle reminder of AGF. In return, I got this message from PatPeter. I replied here.

I then found out that PatPeter was using WP shortcuts in an unorthodox manner (and with the whole override thing) and this concerned me . I brought the matter up on WP:AN here without mentioning the editor's name. I wanted advice, not more eyes at that point. There, I found out that the editor was already mentioned on ANI here and here. I found out that PatPeter had put Category:Cub Wikipedians on CfD here. As you can see, I commented there but recommended that the CfD stay open until PatPeter returned. As it was ruled that PatPeter orphaned the category himself and previously tried to have it speedied, the CfD was closed anyway. PatPeter posted another CfD the next day which I decided to keep out of in the interests of civility other than asking one question. His response let me know! This eventually got closed for being inappropriate to CfD (should be WP:UCFD).

I'd like to point out that I *am* a member of WP:LGBT, as it happens, but hadn't made the connection until now. User PatPeter has an "Anti-Gay" userbox on his page which I find offensive. It was speedied for WP:CSD#T1 by another admin and immediately re-created by PatPeter, with a snippy comment on the userbox page. I have left it alone other than commenting on someone's talk page that I approved of their T1 deletion decision.

Since then, I've been largely trying to keep out of the guy's way. I did comment on PatPeter's WP:RFD here where I suggested deletion because of their misuse to-date. As you can see, I offered to help the guy with his WikiProjects and explained about the contrib log function. Like I said, I've tried to keep away but he's been posting on my talk page again this morning. I replied and asked him why he was bringing up the AGF thing again.

I have no doubt that PatPeter is editing in good faith and means well for the project however, I have certain issues with his approach around WP:BITE and how he's handling edits to other people's userpages. I'd rather help the guy than get into a battle with him as this is in nobody's interests - Alison 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Email sent to school

I may be out of my league here, but just to be bold in a non-wiki kind of way, I sent an email on behalf of myself and only myself to the school's counselor. For the benefit of all, I've reproduced it here:

Sorry if this is the wrong person to email about this, but I did not see another Department thats apt for it. Im a user of the http://www.wikipedia.org website, and it has recently come to my and others attention that a user on the site, who is a high school student and spends a lot of time editing the article on your school, has make public notices that he intends to commit suicide. The user in question goes by the name PatPeters, leading me to suspect the student is named Patrick Peters or something close to it. The public notices can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540 and at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PatPeter&oldid=120797919 and there is a discussion coing on among the major contributors at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide

The only other information that seems to be useful to you is that he has expressed a paticular interest in Latin and Western Civilization as well as claiming to be a talented musician.

Thank you for your help, if I can be of further assistance, just let me know.

-<name redacted>

-M 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

edit: it was sent to

Guidance Staff Bro. Vito Aresto, FMS - Department Chair aresto.vito@marist.net -M 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was out of line, and it's probably better than unending debate about whether or not to get in touch with anyone. Natalie 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... just realized I outed my name too, but I really dont care too much about that. -M 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Name redacted from above. See WP:OVERSIGHT if you want it removed from the page history. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

naw, like I said, I dont care too much. Brandt allready has it. -M 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope Mr Brandt doesn't see this, you'll be on his website next :) More seriously, I think that's fine. Not sure there's too much more we can do bar a possible phone call to someone. Moreschi 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He already had it. He sent me a message, and just to prove not everyone was as batshit crazy as him, I sent him my name, birthdate, hometown and a picture. Take a look at our correspondance at User:AKMask/Brandt. -M 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. Even if it is just a namby-pamby boo-hoo for attention, the last thing we need is for this kid to kill himself and then have the press descend upon us with stories of "Misplaced Pages Administration Did Nothing As User Follows Through With Threat Of Suicide." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Contact the Foundation, maybe? After that it's all really out of our hands. Moreschi 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also contacted the school to provide additional information found on his userpage - the fact that he is on the school math team and takes Latin must narrow down the search considerably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Forward a copy to cbass (at) wikimedia (dot) org as well, with a short explanation, to keep them abrest of what people send out. -M 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's easter friday The school will be closed. Contact the local police. Andy Mabbett 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone volunteer to do that and reply here? - Alison 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Is there anyone IN CHICAGO who can call 3-1-1 and report it to Chicago PD there? I've spent 10 min looking on their website for an externally accessible number and I haven't found anything useful. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I am aware of Bro. Aresto since I am catholic and have friends in the Chicago area. I will forward that email to the Provincial Office of the Marist Brothers (email: info@maristbr.org) and let them know. They should be able to contact Br. Aresto over the weekend. Thor Malmjursson 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not a "email someone" situation; please try and call in to Chicago PD. I just found and tried a 312-747-6000 contact number for Chicago PD but it hangs up when I reach it, seems broken. Anyone in the Chicago area, please make the local 3-1-1 call... (And then report doing so here so they don't get 10 calls...) Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am aware its not an email someone situation. I thought to try and get hold of Br. Aresto a bit faster than mailing the school and waiting till Tuesday. Anyone who can 311 Chicago PD go ahead and do it. Thor Malmjursson 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • • • According to (312) 744-5501 is the right number? I live in the UK so I don't know how American numbers work. I would try it myself but I have no credit on my phone for long distance calls and have no idea how to call abroad anyways. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Tried it. The source does say that's who it is, but it turns out to be the scheduling assistant for Chicago's mayor, not the Police Department. Everyone keep looking if you can help... Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
            • According to that source you could try (312) 744-5000 which appears to be a 24 hour emergency number. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
              • And failing that, contacting just about any public department in Chicago and explaining what you need might work as they could point you in the right direction. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The number is (312) 746-6000 or one of the other numbers listed here. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what Information told me, too, but Georgewilliamherbert just tried it and it doesn't work. He's pursuing another lead... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Status update: (312) 744-5000 worked to get their emergency operations center, who sent me to the police communications center. Who politely declined to take a report, and instead asked me to call my local PD and have them send an electronic report to Chicago PD. *beating head on door*. So I'm doing that. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If all else fails, maybe try the 3-1-1 or 9-1-1? But they're emergency numbers... --KZ 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those only work if you're in the same city as the problem. Otherwise you get your local police department. Which is what I ultimately did, but they haven't finished getting the report info to forward to Chicago. This is bizarrely difficult. Georgewilliamherbert 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be someone around here who lives in Chicago... --KZ 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's contacted his local police and they are on the way to his location... anyone knowing anything should go to the #patpeter IRC channel. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with a suicide note in December, looked up the IP address, and contacted the Pennsylvania state police. It took the dispatcher a moment to understand why I was calling but once he caught on it was straightforward and businesslike: I advised him to forward the IP address to his tech department to determine the street address and supplied instructions for how he could confirm the information I was reporting. A suicide note is one of the very few situations where I think that sort of action is not only justified, I'd regret if I hadn't followed through. Durova 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay... Danny's police is forwarding the information to the Chicago PD, and they'll try to find him there. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard the police came and have filed a report, hope Danny will update us all soon on this page. Salaskan 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The local police were at my apartment, and they have promised to send all the information I gave them to the Chicago police department. That is about all we can do right now, but if anything else pops up, please contact me and I will relay the information. Thank you to everyone for helping with this. You may have saved someone's life. Danny 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Right after Danny posted, I got a callback for my local PD to take my report; at this point, since Danny's is on the way, we both agreed that it seemed like that was good enough and we left it at that. I would also like to thank everyone who helped. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww...I'm too late. I was busy when Veesicle contacted me...thus, I never received the message. Gosh, I'm so sorry guys. I would have been able to get the information in sooner. :( Ed 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Would we be better off if we had a policy for these things? If so, I think that I'm going to be bold and create a policy page for this...--Ed 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense :) El hombre de haha 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He's editing again, so presumably he's still alive. His IP is 67.167.255.36, and he's now saying "PatPeter is currently sleeping and will be for 8-10 hours, or the rest of eternity." on his talk page, so I guess the cops didn't get to him yet either. --Rory096 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• He's logged into his account right now. Someone should leave a message on his talk page, let him know we're all concerned for him & offer what help we can - Alison 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a wild goose chase if his name isn't Patrick Peter... The "rest of eternity" part doesn't sound too comforting either. --KZ 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a good chance he/she (Pat could mean Patricia) is just being dramatic, however on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. I'm agnostic, so I could be wrong, but doesn't that guarantee one a straight ticket to hell? If there really is a hell, killing oneself in order to improve their situation is a pretty big mistake. Anynobody 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of a girl named Patricia calling herself "Pat"... I doubt the person will take that into account...I didn't even think about it till you mentioned it. But its worth a try if we have a volunteer... Oh and I nearly forgot...how coincidental that you mentioned it today. --KZ 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Many females have used "Pat". Pat Kennedy did. IrishGuy 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proven wrong. Yet again.... Well at least I know something about JFK's sister now.... --KZ 07:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, my original reason for pointing it out was that SNL character "Pat". Later I realized I have an Aunt who goes by Pat. Anynobody 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any editors who claim/have Catholic credentials and if unknown what would be the best way to search? I really would mention my point to the editor directly, but I can't even tell you where in the Bible it says that (plus if he decides I'm right in my beliefs he could decide to roll the dice). Anynobody 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

From my recollection of the bible, I don't think that it actually states that suicide is a one way path to hell, but people simply assume that it is... But then again, I am Protestant and maybe they have different interpretations? --KZ 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC):

The Catechism lists suicide as a mortal sin, and if you do without confessing a mortal sin you get a one-way ticket to hell - kinda difficult to confess suicide... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not give theological advice to suicidal teenagers. This is a Bad Idea. -Wooty Woot? contribs 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Like I said before there is a big chance this is just drama, if it isn't what would you have us do? I realize this isn't exactly a Brandon Vedas situation, but it seems to me if we do nothing it could make Misplaced Pages look bad. Anynobody 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying nothing should be done, but it is way out of our league to try to convince the kid not to kill himself ("owever on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. ") and may very well actually turn out to be worse than doing nothing if it is real. "Misplaced Pages does not give X (medical, legal, whatever) advice" was created for this very reason. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand you aren't saying nothing should be done, and I also understand you are saying what shouldn't be done. "...what would you have us do?" It's a Catch-22 situation, say nothing to him/her and risk them following through. Say something risk them following through too. I don't mean for this to sound like rhetoric, but seriously try to imagine what news outlets and people like Bill O'Reilly would say in either case. Anynobody 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesser of two evils principle. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a catch-22 situation at all. Misplaced Pages contributors are not qualified to give psychological advice. It's the equivalent of having somebody post on the refdesk "help there's a suspicious object outside my house", somebody calling the police, and then some doofus stepping in and yelling "YOU SHOULD GO UP TO IT AND TAKE OFF THE COVER AND CUT THE GREEN WIRE OKEY". Not only does this set the Foundation up for one big-ass lawsuit, it could be dangerous and irresponsible. Let the professionals (police) handle this, please. Would you rather have a T.V. news outlet say "Teen commits suicide after he posted on Misplaced Pages, contributors contacted authorities but it was too late" or "Teen commits suicide after he posted on Misplaced Pages, contributors may have accidental role in the teen's death? I can certainly see someone responding negatively to a post saying LOL THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T KILL YOURSELF: CAUSE GOD HAETS SUICIDE LOL, and that coupled with the instability of someone that may commit suicide may push them over the edge. -Wooty Woot? contribs 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is qualified to do anything, I certainly wouldn't advocate a layperson trying to handle a possible explosive device. Respectfully, your analogy is not truly descriptive of this situation. To sum up this situation in an analogy:

You're standing near the edge of the Grand Canyon, resting on the safety barrier which itself is about three or four feet from the edge. Out of nowhere a man climbs over, walks to the edge and says "I'm going to kill myself!"

You:

A) Ask him not to.

B) Say nothing.

If I understand you correctly, the answer is B unless you the observer happen to be trained for suicide intervention? The police probably aren't going to make it in time to stop the guy in my example so waiting for them is consigning him to succeed. People can be figuratively compared to bombs, but in this case a literal comparison is not accurate. We have no idea the police were successful in locating this person, until we do know it's us (Misplaced Pages) and the person in question. Anynobody 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys still talking about that? Hopefully we wouldn't need to go to Arbitration (Joke). In another issue altogether, is there any recent news of the Chicago police? --KZ 08:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Many of the comments left in this section are shameless and shameful, and I don't only mean the ones that treat things as a joke. FNMF 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but some are very responsible. Next we need to create a page on how to respond to a suicide note. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't treat things as a joke, FNMF. It's my attempt at softening the mood of the grim situation that we were in. May you enlightening me about how my comments are shameless and shameful?. --KZ 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Some levity is called for. But obviously, it's a very delicate situation. --Otheus 12:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. Obviously, my comments aren't exactly the best, but they are still a long way from being classified shameless. --KZ 12:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Get of your high horse. You do not have the market cornered on how to deal with every situation. People deal with things differently and it is not up to you to critique others on how that is done. You have no right to label anyone shameless and shameful--Looper5920 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, and I stand by my right to say what I said. FNMF 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rights in calling other editor's comments shameful to Misplaced Pages? I don't think so... --KZ 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first instance of someone saying they were going to commit suicide on wikipedia and sadly it's unlikely to be the last. Things appear to have been handled resonably well. Even if it may be unlikely that an editor is serious, we should generally take such threats seriously and contact people as required. As I understand it in this particular instance it doesn't appear the person was serious and appears to have thought the whole thing was a bit of a joke. It's rather sad that this person thought saying they were going to commit suicide was a joking matter. It appears that this person was previously involved in hurtful comments as well and perhaps they similarly didn't thought it mattered. Hopefully the person has now learnt that things on the internet aren't just a joke and can be quite serious. At least then one good thing would come out of this whole sorry mess Nil Einne 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive, please?

May I suggest we archive the whole school and suicide section of this. If and when User:PatPeter returns, this is the last thing he's going to want to see. Leave the other sections, by all means, but this may be embarrassing to him. It's served its purpose & the guy is obviously already upset. Let him make a fresh start.

Thoughts? - Alison 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That would seriously impede our ability to handle and discuss things, and no matter what we do we can't let the actions of a user interrupt the normal operation of Misplaced Pages. If and when the school and/or Chicago PD contacts one of us, then yes, do it, but until then it is an ongoing matter and should remain up, regardless of his feelings. -M 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree with you both, I think we should wait for the Chicago PD to call or something like that, or perhaps even PatPeter himself to leave a message, until we archive this. He may indeed be very embarrassed when seeing this and we should just archive this if possible, but that's not really possible when it's still an ongoing issue. Salaskan 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The police department will contact the foundation, I doubt they'll leave a note here. Nothing is getting accomplished in this discussion, higher authorities have already done what is needed. For the benefit of the reputations of all involved parties, I support the archival of this thread. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly should we care? If he wants to kill himself, that's his prerogative. HalfShadow 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• With regard to suicide threats, they should be taken seriously, as it could save someone's life. It's better to take it seriously than not worry about it, as suicide is a worry. --SunStar Net 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter returns

Given PatPeter has returned and started posting abusive messages to people telling them to shut up and he never intended to kill himself anyway, I think the police found him. Now we know he's safe, can we please block him for abusive attacks and removing of warnings from his talkpage? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• He's now been blocked for 48 hours by User:Cyde so that's that. I'm just glad that he's okay - Alison 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, it's nice to know. Anynobody 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems the block has been upgraded to one year. - auburnpilot talk 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_bold_solution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have known....another discussion split between several places. ;-) I can't say I disagree, Pat seems to have caused more than his/her share of trouble. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Maybe he can take some of his new found free time to visit Wikisource.--Isotope23 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BassxForte, Uncivility, 3RR

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has been very uncivil in almost all encounters in talk pages. Completely unwilling to accept consensus, even though it's currently 7 vs 1 on Talk:Organization XIII. Has edit-warred multiple times, especially on this article, over the past month. If you want diffs, try the page history and his contributions page.

I have been extremely tolerant on this user in this duration, as his user page states that he is a reformed vandal. A recent edit on his talk page has changed the following text:

"I am very stubborn, both in real life and all other situations, if you get into a argument with me in a talk page, you can be assured the conversation won't end until you give up or an admin decides the discussion closed, heh. Arguing with me is a lost cause, almost everyone I know in real life knows this, *evil laugh*."

Administrator input is definitely required. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that, after giving Organization XIII a once-over, that almost the entire article is original research and does not have one single reference to a reliable source (because all of its references are to the subject of the article itself, not a published secondary source). The best thing to do is cut the article down to a stub and moot the argument with BassxForte. A Train 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried mooting the argument a number of times already. He simply does not agree with us. Also, the concern I'm bringing up is not the article, but rather BassxForte's conduct. Despite multiple people directing him to pages with common policy(WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, especially WP:3RR, etc), he continues to ignore it. He also makes many comments which I consider to be personal attacks. Also: discussion, another discussion, .

Diffs: , , - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Go to Zero (Mega Man) and many other talk pages i've put my points in, you will see that not only am I ready to admit flaws in my argument, I have an honest desire to improve wikipedia. BassxForte 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And the quote which you claim came form my page was never on my page to my knowledge. BassxForte 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing text out does not change the fact that you added it, and that it was on your userpage for a month (Note the dates), along with other inflammatory remarks that are still there, including "Although I try my best to be civil with other users, I admit that almost all of them are a bit... off." (Diff here.) Nique talk 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This remark is very worrisome. "Motto Never Give Up. (This motto has... regretabbly gotten me into some edit wars since I refuse to have parts of articles I like taken out, although in all said wars the other person was just being unreasonable.)" He put that in in January. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time they are acting unreasonable, the only time I have ever gotten angry about the way another user was treating the page was on the talk page for Metal Sonic. BassxForte 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And by "off" I meant that most are kinda weird by my standards. (and keep in mind my standards are very eccentric) BassxForte 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you've been aware of your habit of getting into edit wars for at least 4 months, and to appear to have not changed in any way since then. Calling people you've been in edit wars with "unreasonable" does not appear to be very polite, or have any assumption of good faith at all. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he's also threatened to continue an edit war previously (I see that as a threat of vandalism). Recently, in direct response to this ANI posting, he has stated that he will respond in a way that "won't be pretty" if an admin intervenes. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Block upon warring, then block longer, then block yet again. He's welcome to disagree until he turns blue as long as he doesn't get into a war over an article's actual contents... at which, we WP:BLOCK. --Auto 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your taking this way to far, the notion that I have done something extreme, that I have acted harshly/rudly/incivily seem to be all incorrect notions, might I suggest looking at the good stuff i've done, rather then just the bad? Considering that they outnumber the bad things i've done by a 10 to 1 margin. BassxForte 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying that I'm taking this too far, show something that counters my claims. Provide diffs. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that that doesn't change the the fact that you have been doing some negative things as well, as recent as just yesterday, and you have shown to be aware of these negative actions for at least four months. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that on Talk:Metal Sonic I admit the flaws in my argument, and let the guy I was arguing with take the win, also, check out the talk page for Onaga and Brotherhood of Shadow. BassxForte 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you do good, too, doesn't change the fact that you have been doing, and have been aware of doing, and have been continuing to do bad as well for quite some time. Nique talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

However the good far outnumber the bad, you gotta think positive, especially since all those "bad" things are done with the intent of improving wikipedia. BassxForte 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Letting someone "take the win" is not how we do things here. This is not a competition on whether you win an argument or not. Doing positive things is not an excuse to contribute negative things to the project, to "balance it out," especially if you are contributing negatively right now. Even if you want us to ignore it, it doen't change the fact you're doing it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of all that, as for "take the win", thats just the way I phrased it, the main thing i've been arguing here is that you act like i've not done a single good thing for wikipedia, and went as far as to claim I acted uncivil in all talk pages I have been on. BassxForte 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble at all about what good things you're doing, which is why I haven't mentioned it. I am concerned about what bad things you are doing. I suppose I should bring up the fact that you appear to be trying to use your good edits as a way to dodge this subject. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also bothered by this fact - you have expressed awareness of your bad contributions for a fairly long time, (and if you haven't, we have mentioned it to you multiple times, even just here.) and you have never explained why you haven't changed your editing habits. Please clearly explain why you have not made an attempt. If you had tried and failed, why have you decided to continue contributing this way? - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few examples of "bad" edits I have made, and we'll go from there, furthermore these "bad" edits you speak of seem isolated entirely toward the Org XIII page. BassxForte 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you're doing it, it's what you're doing in the first place. And you haven't answered my question. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't tally scores with the good things you do and the bad things you do, as far as I can tell. Making 100 good edits does not give you the right to vandalize 1 page, and trying to take advantage of the fact that you have made good edits in the past shows that you refuse to take resposibility for the edit war on the Org XIII page. Your comments on the talk page of the Org XIII article also show me (and I'm sure others) that you will not accept your own mistake, no matter how many times and to what degree your mistake is invalidated. Which is why I don't get the feeling that you will stop doing things like this. You can't always be right on Misplaced Pages. I haven't been here very long, but I do know that. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what i'm saying, im saying that you can't call me a bad user over just a few isolated incidents and some edits that may or may have not been in violation of one of wikipedia's rules. BassxForte 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I understand that you haven't gone into every single article like a hellbird and totally demolished it. I understand that you have tried to be civil in most situations, accept some degree of criticism and fallacy, and help the project in a respectable way. But it seems that this is a specific issue about specific violations, and no amount of good Samaritanism could possibly undo a breaking of the rules. Think of it the way you would at school: If you have a perfect attendance throughout your entire school career, and then you decide to skip an entire week of school, unexcused, should the school waiver all of their truancy punishments because you had a perfect attendance before you started skipping school? I'm not sure what exactly the administrators want you to say, but I'm more curious about why you believe that your logic defeated the logic of seven other people, and you felt your conclusions had more weight than theirs. I understand that the majority is not always correct (I'm an atheist, so I happen to have a thing for prefering logical evaluation over what the general population believes), but in something that is so black and white as what goes into an article, I would think that it would be easy to see where seven logical, thinking people would have more weight of word than one logical, thinking person. However, because that is not really the point of this thread, I suppose I will try to leave the rest of the discussion up to the moderators and hope that my arguement has somehow clarified what the moderators have been trying to explain to you. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do firmly believe that I am right involving the thing about Roxas, although I feel i'm acting too similar to ogre. BassxForte 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it's not necessarily the actual topic (which was really rather menial and neither helped nor detracted from the article itself), but simply the fact that you 3RR'd the page several times and used what some people considered to be personal attacks in your arguments. Poster by: GDR of the Moon 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

• Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision#Artaxiad
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision#Artaxiad banned
• commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#24.34.77.145_and_NOPLEASE

This user has been continuing to stir problems as mentioned on the RfAr page. Although the case is not yet closed, the user continues to cause disruption of various sorts in my opinion. User was recently blocked form commons for vandalizing by using sockpuppets. -- Cat 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Got any evidence of disruption on this wiki?--Domitius 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For example or . -- Cat 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he means on Misplaced Pages. //PTO 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He is committing similar behavior here:

• Removing copyvio notice:
  • Same behaviour as on commons
• Afding Turkish provinces ,
  • User "attempts to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground along national lines"
• Revert waring on Greek War of Independence: , . Revert waring on Skanderbeg: ,
  • User is on Temporary injunction by arbcom and is "restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page". I see no comments on the talk page

-- Cat 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Any block should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log of blocks and bans -- Cat 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the rest of the situation, but I've blocked Artaxiad 24 hours for violating the 1RR injunction at Skanderbeg. Seraphimblade 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If this user is still actively editing, and is not indefinitely blocked, why has the talk page been repeatedly deleted? It was my understanding that a talk page is only deleted when a user is no longer editing. Have I missed something? - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad asks for speedy deletion for his own pages. The last one: . I don't know why Artaxiad does that. deniz_C 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that this might be irrelevant to English Misplaced Pages, but Artaxiad (talk · contribs) was involved in repeated vandalism of my user pages in Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedias. It is the same IP that was identified in commons as belonging to Artaxiad. It just shows what kind of disruptive person he is. Grandmaster 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a longer block is warranted, perhaps a year long one. -- Cat 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's too much deniz_C 10:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He will be blocked for that long as per arbcom ruling. I see no reason why we should tolerate such disruption any longer. -- Cat 10:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad removed an earlier comment from this page, and I reverted that edit. Not a good thing. --AnonEMouse 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dobbie

Peter dobbie (talk · contribs) was determined to be the real Peter Dobbie, a BBC news anchor. Unfortunately, after being informed that it was inappropriate for him to edit and add content to the page about him here on the Misplaced Pages, he continued to use his account solely for this purpose. I have blocked him for continued violations of WP:COI. I will also let the foundation know about my actions due to this user's status in the media world. --Yamla 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell ComCom, too. //PTO 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just fired off a message to them. In fact, rather than the foundation. If you believe I should still inform the foundation as a whole, let me know. I think the communications committee (and this noticeboard) is probably sufficient. --Yamla 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

COI situations are best avoided, but there is no outright prohibition of an article subject's adding accurate, notable biographical information about himself or herself. Was there any particular problem with the editing beyond the identity of the editor? Newyorkbrad 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem if he's adding unpublished information where before all the information was at least available from the BBC website. There is a problem when he's adding an enthusiastic narrative that reads like it was written by himself or the BBC. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked and I'm going to follow up with User:Peter dobbie by email. I've read the correspondence that he has already received and will make sure he understands our policies related to content. Patient editors are invited to help me edit the article and discuss problems with content on the talk page. :-) FloNight 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the prior text added by an anon 21 January 2006 is copied directly from the BBC website, so the whole page is a copyvio back to that date. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly wish you luck. The last thing I want to do is to tick off a BBC news anchor, but Mr. Dobbie has seemed unwilling to listen to my and other people's efforts to inform him about Misplaced Pages policies. The best solution obviously would be to have him unblocked and abiding by our policies but I completely failed in these attempts. Note that I attempted to point out our policies on image copyright and fair use, our policies on conflict-of-interest and verification, and our policies on article ownership. I provided both a link to the policies and a hand-written brief interpretation of these policies. The only response was that there was no problem and I should make sure nobody else changes the text of the article once Mr. Dobbie had incorporated what he wanted. --Yamla 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has now issued a legal threat via email, in response to my message about his violation of WP:COI:

OK then what say I take Misplaced Pages to court for publishing information

about me to which you have no right, copyright or access. It seems to me that you are totally missing the point which is (1) the article is about me (2) if it's inaccurate you're now saying that I don't have the right to change it because (3) you decide and (4) who the hell are you to take

that decision anyway.

Mr. Dobbie appears absolutely unwilling to abide by WP:COI and there are substantial problems with the images he has been uploading. I would like someone else to review this and consider blocking him indefinitely under WP:NLT. --Yamla 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT says it's a straight reason for indef block, and I don't see him turning around any time soon. Indef blocked for legal threat. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably useless at this point, but I don't see any real problem with the edits he was trying to make this month. He provided several photographs when we didn't have any (asserting a plausible copyright claim in light of his identity), made a few minor changes to the article format, and edited his job title. All of those are permissible under WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you, no? -Hit bull, win steak 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the photographs he uploaded was a screen capture from BBC World News. The copyright for that would be owned by the BBC, not by him. Additionally, his edits were greater than a few minor changes, see . Now, this could be debateably permitted under WP:AUTO, though not Mr. Dobbie's refusal to let anyone else edit the article once he's got it how he wants it. Anyway, his threat to sue has lead to a block. --Yamla 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it certainly looks like a screen capture, but given his level of access to the set, couldn't it also plausibly be a picture taken by a friend/colleague for his own use? As for the edit you highlighted, I agree that the addition of info about the other show (and the link) are not minor changes, but if you re-check my statement you'll note that I said "this month", while the edit you highlighted was in March. -Hit bull, win steak 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That diff also looks a lot more extensive than it really is, due to longstanding bugs in the diff tool. --Random832 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Earlier today I blocked Giza E (talk · contribs) as a sock of User:MagicKirin. The user is now claiming that I should not have blocked, stating I am in a content dispute with him/her. Further, by email, Giza E states that the original block was by Essjay who has been discredited and "Ergo there is no sock puppet violation". I am in no dispute with MagicKirin other than the continued attempts at disruption via socks, but a review would be appreciated. The Essjay comment is a bit ridiculous, and basically confirms Giza E is a sock. - auburnpilot talk 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. If we have to unblock everyone who was blocked by Essjay, I quit right now. Natalie 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Giza E is clutching at straws here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Past that, I've been treating MagicKirin/Decato as banned for some time, now. There's been plenty of discussion on unblock-en-l about it, and the user's brought up a painful number of socks, refusing to recognize even the most reasonable of policies or requests from any fellow Wikipedian -- it's always "my way or an army of socks highway." I haven't checked who set the original block, because it doesn't matter at this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, I blocked Giza D as a result of a checkuser, and the unblock request reason is nonsense. Daniel Bryant 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

management speak bullshit (Personal branding)

Hi - we have an editor who we cannot get to understand the Manual of style and persists in adding some godawful management bullshit speak stuff about personal branding (linked to a site flogging the stuff of course). You are the Brand and the Brand is You! A personal brand consists of everything that makes you exactly the individual you are.. and so on. Can someone sit in before we have an edit war, there are only a few of us working on the page but the rest of us agree it should not go in - or at the very least should be discussed on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Omegalion I just gave him a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation. IrishGuy 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again. The material being added is unacceptable. Can someone with more time and patience than I please inform this guy what he's doing wrong? Moreschi 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to and will continue to do so - as with most of those things, it's get them to the talkpage that's the problem... thanks for the assist. --Fredrick day 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've watchlisted that page: if he tries to add the junk anywhere else please let me know and I'll try to sort things out. Moreschi 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, bad revert on this page back to the spam. Moreschi 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has bothered to actually leave a message on his talk page discussing why his edits have been reverted. That's a much better first step that coming to AN/I, Frederick. A Train 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really fair, given the attempts to communicate on the article's talk. Moreschi 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember though: for true noobies, edit histories (where edit summaries would be visable) and article talk pages may be a total mystery. It's always best to go to the user talk page first. That orange bar can't be missed, no matter how green the user. A Train 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A Train: I've tried to explain it to him too, both on the article talk page and via e-mail (he contacted me at some point). There have been several elaborate (from my side) e-mails sent back and forth. I somehow didn't manage to get through to him, maybe the block will help. Didn't want to block him myself, given my involvement in the editing earlier. --JoanneB 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And we did do this when he was editing via an IP address and also on the article talkpage where he left a couple of comment - plus the edit summaries asked him to come to the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for jumping to conclusions. For what it's worth, I left the user a talkpage message. A Train 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes what a rubbish page. I've removed the bad sources and promospeak and the copyvio (surprise surprise) bits, rewritten drastically for tone (using the one academic source), provided a requested citation, and removed the {{tone}} tag. It got a lot shorter, but I can't help that. :-) Please don't let the editor in question revert back to the rubbish, see my edit summaries for all the specific things that were wrong with it. Bishonen | talk 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, it looks (and reads) a lot better now! I can't believe I didn't spot that copyvio, was too busy keeping the Adam and Eve stuff out :)--JoanneB 09:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the copyvio was mine - it was meant to be a quote but with all the changes, I must have missed the right tags - I have have of course given myself 6 of the best. --Fredrick day 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no please keep the masochism off ANI! What with all the suicide drama, we don't need more gloom and pain :) Seriously, I think the page does look a lot better now. Cheers, Moreschi 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lilkunta

Could another set of eyes head to User talk:Lilkunta and help the user out? The problem is that Lilkunta uses a horrendous "chiller" font, in green, in size 2 through HTML code. Well the issue is that Lilkunta never </font>ed an of the posts, therefore, the entire talk page is green now, in that horrendous font. I've fixed it several times, as has another user, but Lilkunta refuses to take help from either of us because apparently we're jerks. This is how it looked after I repaired it, this is how it looks after Lilkunta's 6 attempts to fix it (note that several sections of talk and warnings have been removed in the process by Lilkunta).

Can someone else stop in there? It's getting really disruptive that Lilkunta insists on refusing help and that, despite our warnings and requests not to, the user still uses the ridiculous font on everyone's talk pages (s/he's stopped using the chiller font on my talk page and now just simply bolds everything which is equally annoying). Metros232 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this user to be absolutely impossible to deal with. Joie de Vivre 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joie I find u impossible. Again, u r not to post to me or about me.Lilkunta 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean? Joie de Vivre 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joie, u & I have previous history so u r bias. Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have the power to tell people they can't post about you. Nobody does. Having said that, if you want to have unclosed font tags on your talkpage, people really shouldn't be trying to remove them. -Amarkov moo! 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

@ Amark: What about repeated posts that are unwanted. I receive unsolicited posts & I have to deal with them.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank U. I get that they dont want it on their pages, but they all changed my page which dont like. Joie is to make no comments bc we disputed about a page but she is.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"She"? This is a completely separate issue from the "content dispute" (if "Lilkunta ignoring policy and being really obstinate" should be called that). I can comment here freely, stop making decrees. Joie de Vivre 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

R u a he? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue, Amarkov, is that Lilkunta wants the page to be fixed. In fact, when s/he discovered the page was all green, s/he posted this vandalism accusation. So, we're all trying to help, but getting shot down. Metros232 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was fixing my own page. Cascadia offered help. U metros just changed my page without my permission even after I asked you to stop.

I've nuked all of them and gave Lilkunta a stern warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt ask for Metros' help. I do not want it. I dont know y Metros is watching my page. I have asked repeatedly 4 Metros to cease contact. I am fixing my page bc it is afterall my page.Lilkunta 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a really annoying font on that users' talk page hopefully that explains literally what some users are having to deal with here. BTW: I like different fonts but some really makes your eyes sore. -- _Hdt83 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you too had a font preference but I c u r just bullying me like the rest of them.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of incivility floating around due to something as simple as <font> tags. Lilkunta, the problem would be solved if you agreed to close your tags on your talk page, and not use them at all on other pages. Leebo /C 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But you do realize that this is what people are seeing?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I c Chiller fine but now understand you all dont have browsers that do. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And that's generous because the image is so large. It looks a LOT smaller if you look at it in a normal browser (that image seems pretty "blown up"). Metros232 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I dont know or talk to any of u. Just as u want ur page ur way, I want my page my way. I dont want any of u all to help me. Pls stop changing my page.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If having your talk page configured in such a manner that some editors wanting to communicate with you have severe difficulty understanding the words because of the font you are using, then this is disruption. You don't get to disrupt any part of Misplaced Pages. Not even your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do others get to have many diff things on their page but not me? I just want to be in charge of my disc page.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing.-- Joie de Vivre 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt realise that nt every 1's browser supports Chiller. Leebo was civil & much nicer than the rest of u & showed me. I'll use Chiller only when I must. Thx again Leebo.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That is completely unacceptable. Lilkunta must stop this. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently using hideous fonts and colors is vitally important to this user while typing in complete words and sentences is not worth their time and effort. I would advise Lilkunta to reassess their priorities and their reasons for participating on this project. Philwelch 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the incivility that Leebo mentioned earlier? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If they want to use that font on their own talk page, bully to them for it. However, using it elsewhere is problematic. Luckily, as a Mac user, I don't have that font (I'll classify that under "Viruses don't work for me" :D), but that really is disruptive to use elsewhere, especially if the user doesn't know how to use it properly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will maintain my font & colour& my disc page. If a user says a post I make is unreadable,I will gladly change it. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I rcommended that Lilkunta use her font/design talents in creating userpages and infoboxes instead of talkpage fonts. I hope s/he is willing to take me up on that offer, because well designed userpages are assets. — Deckiller 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have to say I can't believe you had the gall, Lilkunta, to reformat this discussion and apply your new font. And you contributed to the incivility too. Leebo /C 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Leebo I was told this new colurfont type id ok. It is still hard to read? Lilkunta 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I support a block. He is clearly being disruptive. IrishGuy 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had to remove Lilkunta's formatting of their messages here (and they used a font I did have installed); this isn't the user's talk page. Grrr. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use a colon, Lilkunta, instead of your green font. It makes it much easier to read...and makes it less of a annoyance. --KZ 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all the indenting in this section is gone. This happened on my talk page and on the article Talk pages that Lilkunta blessed with their Midas touch. Joie de Vivre 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

For edits like this one in which s/he changed the font and the entire formatting of this thread despite being warned not to do that only a couple of hours ago, Lilkunta have been blocked for 24 hours. I strongly suggest that when the block expires that s/he does not use different fonts at all as it is clearly causing annoyance to a good percentage of Misplaced Pages members who have been involved with it. Metros232 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I... so, yeah, it's like this: I want to think you were a bit heavy-handed, but yet, I just can't bring myself to disagree with it...
I still think that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to on their own talk page and only on their own talk page, but I will most certainly agree that editing the formatting (and, in the process, destroying the indentations) of this conversation, to put it delicately, showed poor judgement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and the fact that s/he had been warned not to use the font, the fact that others had tried to help but s/he kept ignoring advice, the fact that we've all spent way too much time talking about fonts and formatting, it all leads up to disruption block in my mind. I'd appreciate any other comments on my action, but I do feel it was justified based on sufficient warning that was ignored. Metros232 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All seriousness aside, you have my full endorsement on the block. I completely agree that such blatant disregard for the overwhelming consensus that their font styling was disruptive is problematic (and I agree again that all this discussion has been a waste of time and energy). Hopefully a short block will help cement the whole "don't do that" thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I question the necessity or utility of changing fonts even on your own talk page (though I wouldn't block over it), but seriously, this was becoming beyond ridiculous. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I believe that the font shouldn't be used anywhere as it is disruptive, but if as a consensus we are going to say that it's fine on user's own talk page, I won't have any objection is this case. But certainly, endorse block for disruption on ANI after warning. Daniel Bryant 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Block endorsed and unblock request declined.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I have to say her attitude leaves something to be desired, too... HalfShadow 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

i found what happened

I found what happened. This is the version of lilkunta's talk page that is in Google's cache from 11:53 on 4 April: . But this is Misplaced Pages's version of the events: . Notice something? The two versions are different.

This is sample wiki code from the page at that time:

<FONT COLOR="green"> O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come & help u?'''] 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)'''.

==Archiving==

This is a sample of the raw html code that is sent to browsers by Misplaced Pages now if we read the version from that date:

<p><font color="green">O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come & help u?<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lilkunta&action=edit" class="new" title="User:Lilkunta">Lilkunta</a> 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)</b>.</font></p>

<p><font color="green"><a name="Archiving" id="Archiving"></a></font></p>

but in Google's version, this is a sample of the raw html code that was sent to browsers then:

<p><font color="green">O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come & help u?<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lilkunta" title="User:Lilkunta">Lilkunta</a> 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)</b>.</font></p>

<p><a name="Archiving" id="Archiving"></a></p>

Sometimes between 4 April and now, the Misplaced Pages server software was updated to allow <font> tags to span multiple paragraphs. --Mihai cartoaje 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be updated to disable those tags entirely. Philwelch 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<font> should be disabled, but since the tag has previously been allowed, people have probably been <font>ing stuff here and there and everywhere. We'd need a giant bot operation to convert <font>s to <span style=...>s, autoconvert everyone's signatures at database level... uh, this is going to be tricky. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let it break. That's kind of the point of disabling<font> tags. Philwelch 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user space?

From User:Maestroka:

• This user is against the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history.
• See Denial of the Armenian Genocide or in other words, a closer version of the real history.

I think these comments are a wee bit provocative. What do you all think? Khoikhoi 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there are relevant policy? Seems to me that having users be up-front about their biases is useful to the community. Dicklyon 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

While provocative, he isn't pointing to some off-wiki activist site, he's pointing to the Misplaced Pages article about the issue. At worst, he's a jerk, at best, he's up front and honest about his biases. A review of his talk page shows that he acknowledges that there were massacres, but that he doesn't think the turks should have to pay reparations and such. He's not looking to be aggresive about it, and not looking to provoke a fight. I'd say it falls under 'nothing to see here'. ThuranX 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (as an added comment, consider as a good example of geniune problem denials)ThuranX 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally think that it is rather brave to be able to admit one's personal biases up front. --Iamunknown 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a problem with it. This user is against the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history is quite inflammatory; if I were Armenian, I'd be ticked. Heck, I'm not Armenian and I'm ticked. If he does not believe in the accepted account of the Armenian Genocide, fine, but that statement goes too far. For someone working on articles related to Armenia, it is highly inappropriate for him to post a viewpoint attack like that. I also have an issue with his second comment; rephrasing it might help some so it, again, does not sound as derogatory. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think it's great that a person working on articles about Armenia makes his POV so transparent. That should be helpful to anyone wanting to remove anything he writes. So be ticked, but so what? You didn't answer me whether there's a policy about being provocative on user pages. Is there? Anybody know? And is there a policy about non-admins like me commenting on this page? Dicklyon 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Non admins (me too!) are welcome to comment. Come join the fray. :-) --Iamunknown 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon - this is a user page that's at issue, not an article. It's inflammatory, but it helps provide context in which to assess the user's edits of substantive articles.Simon Dodd 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to your first question, see WP:UP#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. In response to your second question, no; you can comment here. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this be classified as a polemical statement? I'll admit that my knowledge of the Armenian/Ottoman situation is minimal at best, and mostly comes from an Armenian friend down the hall of my dorm my freshman year of college, but I would classify it as such. Is this incorrect? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Khoikhoi's and Tariqabjotu's comments: if he simply said "this user believes the 1915-1923 period must be more closely studied/reexamined" or "this user supports Armenian-Turkish dialogue on the events of 1915-1923", it wouldn't be problematic at all. To just characterize all diaspora Armenians as simply having a bone to pick to against the nation of Turkey or say atrocities by Armenian terrorists towards the innocent Ottoman people seems to go too far. His position should be known but he doesn't have to use language that will guarantee to elicit a (negative) response.--MarshallBagramyan 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a polemical statement, and inappropriate. Fadix asked Maestroka to remove the statement, and Maestroka responded that it wasn't polemical: User_talk:Fadix#Requesting_you_to_remove. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's inappropriate. I have removed it.Proabivouac 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been better if Khoikhoi informed me of this discussion beforehand, but I would like to add my opinion to this debate any ways. First of all, I changed my talk page, to make it clear that:

• I support dialogue between Armenians and Turks,
• I agree with historians that a tragedy has taken place,
• I am not provocative,
• I do not have any bias neither on the Armenian issue, nor Armenians,

I have many Turkish Armenian friends, who share my opinions or insist on calling the events a genocide, but they are still my friends and I am still theirs. A different opinion should be seen as a plus, especially on an issue that is currently being debated by historians. See quote below, from Armenian genocide article:

A number of Western academics in the field of Ottoman history, including Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Gilles Veinstein (Collège de France), Stanford J. Shaw (UCLA), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Roderic Davison (Central European University), Jeremy Salt (University of Melbourne), Malcolm Yapp (University of London), Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham) and Edward J. Erickson (retired U.S. Army officer) have expressed doubts as to the genocidal character of the events. They offer the opinion that the weight of evidence instead points to serious inter-communal warfare, perpetrated by both Muslim and Christian irregular forces, aggravated by disease and famine, as the causes of suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. They acknowledge that the resulting death toll among the Armenian communities of the region was immense, but claim that much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers in eastern Anatolia. On May 19, 1985, a total of 63 scholars from various American universities sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives opposing the House Joint Resolution 192 which defines the events of 1915 as genocide.

Misplaced Pages should be a place where multiple views are embraced. A heated debate by historians cannot be ruled out by just a POV of one side, as we have mostly seen on Armenian genocide article. If you just search through the references of that article, you will see that more than half of the references are from Armenian sources (authors or websites), nearly no Turkish sources (I didn't see any), nearly no foreign historians, who are not of Armenian ancestry. So this is not POV, but my views on my user page are? Do you know what POV stands for? --Scientia Potentia 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are totally skipping the problem, you make charges on an entire people, claiming that they are attempting to rewrite history. I don't much care of what you think of the genocide. You can bold and take your entire userpage and claim it is fake. Your belief is your belief, your other sentence on the other hand is prejudicial, you have the right to think that, but keep your belief of what you think the Armenian Diaspora is attempting to do to yourself. As for the said 63 scholars. You should be informed that Israel Charny has published a followed, in which it was made clear that many of them recognize the genocide and that they signed it by believing it was a request to open the archives. This of course is out of subject. Fad (ix) 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a provocative and polemical statement. The key is not the fact that he mentions his beliefs, which is fine, but his provocative manner of stating them and his clear polemical intent. This is against the username policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as provocative. So called "Armenian Genocide" is only the title of interpretation of the events of 1915-1923 by one of the sides. The content, extent as well as intention of the communal warfare and massacres with participation of Turks, Kurds and Armenians in Anatolia during World War I and following years are a subject for historians to study and set the record straight in. It's sad that the single-sided interpretation, often ignoring the victims of either side, is enforced as "vision of history" but remains mostly a speculation for political goals on both sides. But provided the substantial amount of POV by one of the sides, insisting and implementing the "genocide" version and largely ignorance by the other side, I believe any user has a right and freedom to express position in regards to these events. And doing so in his own user space, should not attract such a major attention. In general, if the claim is strong and has any kind of basis, the counter opinion of one user will not be strong enough to question it. And the fact that there is so much sensitivity about any user posting his views in this regard, implies the weakness of the claim itself. Atabek 10:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi, Tariqabjotu, and Marshall completely. If Maestroka really supported a closer friendship between Turks and Armenians then why would he say things such as "there have been atrocities by Armenian terrorists towards the innocent Ottoman people" or that the diaspora is making "efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history" if he wasn't trying to be provocative? Also, Atabek, like it or not, there was a genocide and yes the Armenians were the victims. There are photographs by Armin T. Wegner, testimonies by Robert Morgenthau, reports from the New York Times and other newspapers, World War I posters, French, Dutch, and German testimonies. There are even Kurds and Turks who have come forward today and admitted what really happened. Also note that the reason that "there is so much sensitivity about any user posting his views in this regard" is not because the claim of genocide is "weak" but because what Maestroka posted is offensive to other users. It would be like a neo-Nazi posting Holocaust-denial solgans all of his user page.

For any Armenian, it hurts to see phrases like "so called 'Armenian Genocide'." The pain and suffering of the Armenian people is only prolonged by the denial of what happened in 1915-1917. I think one article from the New York Times put it best when it said: "To most Turks the events of 1915 seem distant, but in the Armenian consciousness they are a vivid and constant presence. Awareness of what is simply called 'the genocide' is acute in Armenian communities around the world. Often it is accompanied by fierce anger at Turkey's recalcitrance." -- Aivazovsky 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, whether it hurts you or not to call "so called 'Armenian Genocide'" is frankly immaterial to the discussion. You should also understand that it similarly hurts some Azeris or Turks, when the Armenian contributors concentrate solely on removing "genocide" or even "massacre" references from Western sources in regards to Azeri or Turkish victims. But again, "hurting" is a feeling and emotion, which is not a place for encyclopedia.

Highlighting Armenian victims as "genocide" while ignoring scores of Turkish victims massacred during Russian-Armenian offensive in Anatolia (Van in particular), is also a curse upon those whose families and dears were killed. So instead of concentrating on highlighting one-sided pain as the only one, I think realization should be clear that any conflict and war has two sides and there are victims on both. Simply because Armenians lost in Dashnak objective of carving out Armenia out of half of Anatolia, does not mean that today all Turkish, and Kurdish for that matter, victims of Russian-Armenian offensive in Eastern Anatolia should be simply ignored.

And here I would like you remind you that the state of Turkey was the one which built a monument for all soldiers, regardless of race, color, nation or side, which were killed in the Battle of Gallipoli fighting Turks, with the inscription:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. — Mustafa Kemal"

I wish those who use only Armenian massacres in Anatolia and fuel extreme Turcophobia to make personal or group business or political gains would ever pay attention to these words and understand the pain in a conflict is mutual. Thanks. Atabek 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Users engaging in personal attacks

At present, three editors User:Tom Voigt, User:Labyrinth13 and User:Zdefector are engaging in a series of personal attacks against each other at the Zodiac killer entry on this discussion page thread: "Continued counterproductive badmouthing". I have requested three times that everyone (myself included) should simply cease and desist and walk away, but I fear that things are only going to get more personal there. A warning or some sort of intervention by an admin before this gets farther out of hand would be a huge help. Thanks. Labyrinth13 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Imam Khamenei=Islam

Inappropriate user name? Corvus cornix 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt have a clue. but it could be. dwilliams 06:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny 20000 (talk • contribs). Corvus cornix 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at WP:RFCN. Does not require admin attention until the discussion has finished. --Kzrulzuall 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed it here, since RFCN has been listed for deletion. Corvus cornix 06:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized upon clicking the link. Well, the name doesn't seem too defamatory since Iman Khamenei is actually Islamic... I'm not sure, so you need someone else's opinion on it. --Kzrulzuall 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not over its being defamatory, but over its being argumentative. Corvus cornix 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's argumentative per se, but definitely not NPOV...that said, there's no guideline even that says usernames need to be NPOV... TShilo12 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean, other than in the ] page which says Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view ? Corvus cornix 07:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's controversial or potentially inflammatory about it. Would you take the same view of a username User:Pope=Christianity? It's not something everyone's going to agree with, but it isn't controversial (even if someone actually believes it, it's not going to cause an argument nor similar symptom of controversy) nor potentially inflammatory (nobody's going to start a war over it). Any "controversy" is only in the extent to which it leads to hyperrule-mongering. TShilo12 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The username is making the contention that Khamenei is the epitome of Islam, which many, including many Muslims, would disagree with. I am sure that many Protestants would disagree that the Pope is epitome of Christianity. Corvus cornix 08:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pope=Christianity would certainly be controversial and inflammatory, as is this username in question.Proabivouac 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are conflating some otherwise nameless imam with Ayatollah Khomeini, for starters, something I will concede my hypothetical example exascerbates... A better choice would have been something more along the lines of User:Pastor Anderson=Christianity. TShilo12 08:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on the point of view of the religion. I suspect if someone put User:Jesus Christ=Christianity, no one will complain much? But this name seems to have too much conflicts, so maybe we could put a kind reminder on his talk page about changing usernames? --Kzrulzuall 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. Usernames are not for polemical statements. The user should be asked to select a more suitable username. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Khamenei is not some otherwise nameless iman ( see Ali Khamenei ), as User:TShilo12 thinks. JoJan 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Make that three people conflating now. Tomer 09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So its settled. Ask the user to change the name, and if its a empty account, wait for a few days then indef. block. --KZ 09:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pope=Christianity would be strongly offensive to a great many Eastern Orthodox, who regard the Papacy as schismatic if not heretical, and to most Protestants. Similarly, this is doubtless offensive to many Sunnis. If Khamenei equals Islam, they are not part of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are more Popes than just the Bishop of Rome. Khameini/Khomeini/Khamenei/etc. is a very common surname in Iran, hence my above charges of inappropriate (and what I'm increasingly beginning to suspect is bias due to ignorance) conflation of imam Khamenei with "famous" people (ayatollahs, in this case) who happen to bear the same surname, and also why I changed my example from "Pope" to "Pastor Anderson"... In any case, I am clearly failing to impress upon you how wrong your thinking is, nor do I have the time to expend on convincing you, nor sufficient interest in standing up any longer for someone who has, thus far, not bothered to say a word in hir defense. Happy Easter! Tomer 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is blocked and is an obvious User:Patchouli sockpuppet anyway. The Behnam 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding user Skyemoor and Dispute Tag Removal Vandalism

Per WP:VANDAL

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the page. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:Consensus and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

User:Skyemoor has twice removed a POV tag in bad faith on The Great Global Warming Swindle:

Diff 1: 13:19, 8 April 2007

Warning: 23:05, 7 April 2007

Diff 2: 09:30, 7 April 2007, and his edit summary says in part "WP:SPS does not affect me"

There is an ongoing discussion about the issues that are harming the POV of the article on the talk page, and none of the users, Skyemoor included, have made any good faith effort to see if those issues are resolved - and I daresay they are well aware that the issues are not resolved and claim otherwise because they take personal offense that "Their" article has a POV tag on it.

I would appreciate administrator intervention and I must insist that no administrator who is actively involved in editing the GW pages can acceptably close this incident as there are many administrators who have shown to have their own WP:OWN issues with the GW pages. --Tjsynkral 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, User:Raul654 has just reverted out the POV tag less than one minute after I reinserted it. As he is clearly well aware the tag was removed from the page once before, he is also in violation of the general rule on removing POV tags. --Tjsynkral 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion is happening here. Natalie 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral has been exhorting disruption of consensus, pushing 3RR, and repeatedly reopening resolved issues. He has been abusing the use of tags in order to bludgeon other editors; hence when he abuses the tags, that is a form of vandalism, reverting of which is not vandalism or counted towards 3RR. --Skyemoor 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: Why does a dispute tag, for a dispute that is ongoing, bother you? It's because you claim OWNership of the article that it bothers you so much. There are several users in the talk page who do not consider the matter resolved. The only person who is being abusive is you, Skyemoor, by removing dispute tags improperly. Also, if I dug through your history, do you not think I would find examples of arguably disruptive editing in your edits? I believe the one that spurred this incident is already a fine example of that. --Tjsynkral 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also read the rule: Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. --Tjsynkral 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which also applies to your usage of the uw templates. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you purporting that I broke 3RR on uw templates? --Tjsynkral 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that you improperly used the templates in a case which did not involve simple vandalism ("placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism"), where it was incivil to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused in your reading of the policy. It's not vandalism in regards to 3RR, but it is certainly a form of vandalism. Otherwise it would not appear on the WP:VANDAL page (or it would be in the What Vandalism Is Not section). --Tjsynkral 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ITV News

An addition to the entry for ITV News keeps being deleted by Redvers. The entry is a list of the current on screen correspondents for the station. It has been placed under the anchors entry.

The entries for Channel 4 News, 5 News and Sky News all contain similar entries. The BBC News page has it's correspondents listed on a different page (probably because there are so many of them).

Should Redvers be deleting this entry but leaving the same list in place for all other stations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.44.247 (talk • contribs).

• This is not a matter for administrators. This is a matter for you and that editor to take up on Talk:ITV News. Neither of you have yet to do so. Note that if you both fail to take up the matter on the talk page and start revert-warring, the way that administrators will become involved will be by protecting the article to prevent you both from editing it in order to force you to use the talk page to communicate with one another. Uncle G 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I've been away for the weekend, so this blew up whilst I was mostly offline. I will now talk to the annoyed anon and tap him with the cluestick about listcruft and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

124.177.235.89

IP's contribs consist solely of abusing Riana and Moreschi. Block please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Let's see if any more pop up. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's been one every 2 days or so for the past 2/3 weeks (most of his stuff is in deleted revs of my userpage, I didn't feel like letting it lie around). Most likely the same person, under the impression that I am insulted by moronic trolling. Sad that they've moved on to other users, though, I was providing such a distraction for this fellow in his leisure time. – Riana 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're giving his life meaning. Natalie 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah! High five anyone? :p – Riana 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet "revenge" cases

Seen this happen a few times now, the latest one being I m dude2002 filing a revenge case against the user who caught him, with pages upon pages of "evidence" that show no real pattern whatsoever. I'm tempted to block him for making a WP:POINT, but I'd like some other opinions. Seraphimblade 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I block for that sort of thing. – Steel 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

eh...you block for POINT violations? or you block for blocking for POINT violations? Tomer 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations are essentially disruptive acts, which are blockable offenses. —physicq (c) 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you didn't see my tongue stuck in my cheek... :-p Tomer 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I did see both. I merely responded to the first part, because the second part didn't fit the context at all. —physicq (c) 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh...

...I'm tempted to block him for making a WP:POINT... Seraphimblade 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I block for that sort of thing. – Steel 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you still don't understand, then, in the words of Goldmember, "there's no pleasing you!" :-) Tomer 22:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then never mind my stupidity. —physicq (c) 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for now the SSP case is locked down, which seems to contain any damage. If they'd like to return as a helpful contributor and benefit the project, then perhaps all is well; if they'd rather continue disruption and going for "revenge," then maybe it's time they took a little vacation. That's my superficial read on this, at least -- a "wait and see" approach to see their next move. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nifty. I'm nearly outta here. Have a good rest of Passover, or a nice coupla days, depending on your perspective! :-) Tomer 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Luna's probably right, and hopefully that'll get the point across that disruption won't fly too far. Here's hoping! Seraphimblade 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This was not a revenge case. I think that the evidence I posted had a real pattern to it. There were many posts within minutes--even seconds--of one another. This is odd when the two users live eight timezones apart. There was also other odd behavior (which I detailed in my evidence section). You don't have to agree with the charges (and I'm not entirely sure that the motives behind its dismissal aren't political). But to say that I put them up as revenge is simply untrue. It was my intention to be a productive part of the wikipedia project by helping to bring the sockpuppets to justice. At any rate, it's quite pointless to block me. I'm just going to go ahead and work out the two editing disputes I'm in right now and leave wikipedia, probably for good. I'm incredibly tired of the prevalent anti-Israeli mainstream here trying every political means to shut me up. Well, I guess it worked. In a few weeks, you won't hear from me again. Maybe some time in the future I'll change my mind and decide to come back. But it certainly won't be soon. This "neutral" encyclopedia is far from neutral. Well, one day there will be an independent Palestine with or without my help. Until then, I'll have to think of other ways to hasten the coming of that glorious day. The best way to do that is by presenting neutral information, rather than anti-Israeli or anti-Arab propaganda. But this is the price I pay for being part of a tiny ethnicity which has no power in the world, when the power of the Arab world at large would like above all to silence Israel. That is not the way to achieve peace. I m dude2002 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban evasion

Banned User:Hahahihihoho is evading (again) his block. He edits as User:Alkalada. For one of his many sock-puppets, refer to User:Thunderman. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We need more admins... we need more admins desperately... --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason nobody has responded is likely because you haven't told us anything (other than "user x is a sockpuppet") or given us anything to go on. Can you provide evidence (contrib patterns, checkuser, etc) that links the two accounts? – Steel 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Does this constitute a legal threat? Corvus cornix 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any legal item called "copb" but does it really matter? He was told he would be blocked if he vandalized and he just did it again, and that's all he's ever done. Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a childish whine. Just ignore it. Now back to the show... —physicq (c) 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Before commenting, please read the brief explanations of the process below.

However well intentioned, it seems Naconkantari is going on a bit of a rampage at Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Naconkantari has deleted thousands of pages in just a few hours time, including pages that were inactive for less than a week, and in one case, less than 9 hours. The has also included alphachimp's monobook.js and User talk:Dakilang Isagani which shouldn't have been in the category. I pointed this out to Nackokantari and the only response I got was that there is no way to check each page. Clearly, Naconkantari isn't checking any pages and is frequently deleting at a rate of 45 pages per minute. As the deletions have continued, I'm bringing this here for review. - AuburnPilot 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A few on the list are not suppose to be deleted, however well intentional it is. Deletion of a monobook.js? Can you tell him to stop, wait for us to check the list then delete? --Kzrulzuall 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the problem with User talk:Dakilang Isagani was that he was blocked because of a previous bad username, and the Username Blocked template put the page in the category, and then when the user account was moved, so it was fine and no longer blocked. Pages like that need to be removed from the category. I don't understand how User:Alphachimp/monobook.js was and still is in the category. Anyway, most of the usernames are blatantly deletable, just have to be more careful. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The pages simply should not be mass deleted. There are pages in there that are sockpuppet pages and need to be retagged, there are pages that are 9 hours old and should be in there for at least, I would think, a week, etc. I appreciate all the work Naconkantari did, but I feel most of it should be reversed. --Iamunknown 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to remove all the socks from the category, although most of the users were indef blocked. --Kzrulzuall 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet issue is what originally pulled me into this problem. The talk page for User:Benjiwolf (a disruptive puppeteer) was deleted, leaving a red-link on pages I've been watching. I restored the page, pointed it out to Naconkantari, and yet s/he has deleted it again. - AuburnPilot 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For old accounts, what does it matter if the page is still tagged? Most of them aren't tagged in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care if it's tagged, but the talk page of a a current/active puppeteer should not be deleted. - AuburnPilot 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What's it matter? The block log should contain any pertinent information (see WP:DENY). John Reaves (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment, If you want to go through and review them, that's fine with me. I'm not going to do so as the pages are supposed to be temporary. There's just no feasible way to check every single page in that category, on Naconkantari's talk page is a bit perturbing. Since when do administrators run through backlogs blindly? --Iamunknown 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

When the backlogs have months of crap in them and haven't been cleaned since the category was started. There is no reason to keep 99% of the pages in this category. The other 1% of pages should not be in the category if they are in any way important. The editors have been indefblocked and their pages should be removed. If there is an issue with a sockpuppeter, then don't place the page in the temporary category. Use a different template or something. This huge mass of pages does not need to be kept and should be cleaned out as soon as possible. Naconkantari 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of the notice at the top of the category: "Please do not delete pages tagged as sockpuppets. They should not be in this category in the first place (...) but if they are, please leave them (....) a number of administrators expressed their concern that many were being removed, making things difficult for them, and have requested that this not happen in future." The notice freely admits that these pages are miscategorized, asks that they not be deleted, gives a reason why, and yet you continue to delete them? --Iamunknown 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do the sockpuppet pages need to be kept? —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence. In case they create a new sock. --Kzrulzuall 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Not everyone is an admin, and some of the most helpful users at WP:SSP are not, or were not until recently, able to view deleted pages. Deleting these pages leaves a mass of red links all over the place, leaving non-admins incapable of helping. - AuburnPilot 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What information does the userpage provide that the blocklog or a subpage on SSP could not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naconkantari (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A link within Special:Whatlinkshere to whatever page the sock is found. What makes you think users are going to bother adding pages to a subpage? Block logs aren't searchable, either. Titoxd 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use Special:Whatlinkshere on a deleted page, search sockpuppet names, or see a list of sockpuppets by puppeteer. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:44:17, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you understood something different to what I meant. How are those categories going to be populated, if the pages including sockpuppet tags are deleted? Titoxd 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The pages including sockpuppet tags are not deleted. The sockpuppet deletions in this discussion are caused by a script problem, not common practice. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:44:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, another example of an admin unilaterally using a bot or bot-like functionality to address backlogs with little regard for whether things get done correctly. If we had a reasonable adminbot approval process, maybe someone could write a proper deletion bot that would only clear out pages that are from accounts that are over a month old and not marked as sockpuppets (or whatever other criteria the community feels is important). I don't condone what Naconkantari has been doing, but I think the recurrences of issues like this is symptomatic of a larger problem. Dragons flight 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only "reasonable adminbot approval process" is a stamp with the word "NO" on it. -Hit bull, win steak 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If keeping sockpuppet pages around is so important, then why does the template automatically categorize to temporary pages? John Reaves (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The sock temps. don't categorize to temporary pages. It's the indef. block ones that do. --Kzrulzuall 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. Many editors will add a {{indefblockeduser}} because the {{sockpuppet}} does not mention an indefinite block in the same way that {{SockpuppetProven}} does. -- zzuuzz 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we need to make a new block temp. saying that their indef. blocked but are socks... --Kzrulzuall 00:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't Template:SockpuppetProven say that? --Iamunknown 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I forgot about that temp.... --Kzrulzuall 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, {{sockblock}} for the puppets. - AuburnPilot 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree the user pages need to be reviewed? Or will it take DRV to get over the inertia? Can we suspend all deletions from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages until we fix the sockpuppet issue? --Iamunknown 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that, although it will take a huge amount of time, given the 8000 or so users listed. I've only reviewed around 200...--Kzrulzuall 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no reason for them to exist. John Reaves (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think an analysis could easily be done by a bot. —Bbatsell 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A bot could just check for sock tags, however admin bots aren't allowed. I suppose it could just make a big list, that admins could click through. _InBC 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And the date they were added to the category (via whatever template). Yeah, I meant just prepare a report, not to actually do the deletions. —Bbatsell 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very minor thing and I'm surprised it was brought to this page where it has really produced nothing but drama. If some pages were wrongly deleted, they can be undeleted at the press of a button. If this is because they're being wrongly placed in the category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (which it shouldn't anyone to discover, is solely for pages that do not need to be retained), they should no longer be placed in the category. --Tony Sidaway 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree that it has produced nothing but drama. If a new process including a bot that can actually analyze these pages and make the deletions easier has come out of it, then it was very much worth while. We've also discovered what is causing the problem: people tagging the user as indef in addition to the sock tags. AuburnPilot 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, let's not forget about geniuses like me tagging their monobooks as indefinitely blocked users :) alphachimp 07:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That too. Although if you figure that one out, let me know. I tried to test a few tools from your monobook a week or so ago and it kept telling me I'd been {{schoolblock}}ed. Confused the hell out of me. AuburnPilot 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of old user pages has been discussed repeatedly, with the previous discussion at "User pages deleted by User:Pathoschild" on deletion review. The practice is well-established, with the reasoning laid out by Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition (which just explains the reasoning, and has no other meaning or enforceability). User pages belonging to sockpuppets, banned users, users blocked following arbitration cases, and sockpuppeteers should not be deleted, as these arguably serve a useful purpose; Pathosbot occasionally corrects the templates on those pages.

For all users tagging sockpuppets, you can help keep them out of the category by using the sockpuppet block templates. In particular:

• Confirmed puppets: {{blockedsock|username}}
• Suspected puppets: {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}}
• Sockpuppet masters: {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}
• Checkuser: {{sockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser request page}}

The problem here is not the practice itself, which is well-established, but Naconkantari's deletion tool. We appreciate the help, but some basic safeguards (such as not deleting anything in a sockpuppet or banned-user category) are needed. Ideally, this can be integrated into his tool and everyone will live happily ever after.

...except the vandals, of course. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:12:19, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I just deleted a chunk of userpages older than 15 days or so which were purely the indef block template. There were a couple that needed fixing, though: This seems to be the source of the issue; all it takes is a little bit of care to check if there's two tags, not one, on the userpage. You could even write a script which discriminates between this, and it'd solve the problem of "bad" deletions. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess all I can say to you admins is, "Hop to it!" I'd help out if I could, but I can't. :-( --Iamunknown 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is ongoing, he needs to be blocked for using a malfunctioning automated tool. However, this backlog certainly does need to be looked at. Maybe if we had more admins... --Random832 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The tool is not malfunctioning. It is working exactly as it is intended. The editors that place the incorrect tags are the ones that should be at fault. If editors can not place the correct tags on a supposedly important page, they should leave the tagging to someone who can properly tag pages. Naconkantari 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A tool that gives ordinary users the ability to have anyone's page deleted by putting a category on it is broken by design. It's the same reason we don't have cascading semi-protection. This is why you need to _check_ pages before deleting them. Even if it weren't broken, it's a violation WP:BOT, and while the community turns a blind eye to that when everything's working properly, consensus is that this is not proper behavior. --Random832 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oguz1

Oguz1 is evading his ban using different ips, they all link from New Jersey also. Artaxiad 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oguz1 (talk · contribs)
• 69.125.198.137 (talk · contribs)
• 205.148.53.200 (talk · contribs)

Check ban link & userpages; user is blocked, not banned. -- Ben /_HIST 05:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment and personal attacks by Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs)

Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs), who I suspect is the blocked user 81.62.5.51 (talk · contribs), is harassing other users by launching sexist personal attacks. While checking on some personal attacks from 81.62.5.51 (talk · contribs), I noticed a huge advertisement for an organisation added to the biography Mukhtaran Bibi, which I removed per WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. The Behnam (talk · contribs) added some maintenance tags to the page ({{cleanup}}). This caused the anon ip to launch personal attacks on me, The Behnam (talk · contribs), and Bakasuprman (talk · contribs).

Now, after the anon IP has been blocked for personal attacks, Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs) surfaces and pastes the same kind of personal attacks. Some of the comments made here are borderline threats. I request others to look into this.

For the record, my ONLY edit to the page in question was the diff I provided above. Thank you. --Ragib 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

She is quite clearly the same person doing the same attacks, and if you consider that the IP got a block already, it only makes sense to extend this immediately to Jenniferpowell. The Behnam 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that she vandalized this page too . The Behnam 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per this diff , there may be more to this situation than initially presented. Her edits, whih removed content somewhat strangely, also inclue indicating there's an content dispute on another article. ThuranX 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(editcon)Here are her attacks on me. pompous ass/wife beater , sexist pig, mischaracterizing my religion.Bakaman 00:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As mentioned earlier, the ONLY edit related to this by me was this removal of advertisements per WP:NOT. I don't know of any other edit by myself with anything even tangentially related to this article (which I've never edited before). Thanks. --Ragib 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody just block her before she causes more damage and throws around more insults? The Behnam 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave her a warning (which she promptly blanked) but we will see if she reigns in her behavior. IrishGuy 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course she blanked it. That is the same thing she would do under her IP a few minutes ago. At this point she has done nearly a dozen personal attacks and has already been blocked under an IP. I don't understand why she should be tolerated further. She is thoroughly disruptive. The Behnam 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given her another, quite firm and I hope reasonably polite warning. If she does produce one more edit like that, a diff here will be sufficient for the first in a series of escalating blocks. Splash - tk 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

After at least three warnings she continued to make rude remarks about other editors and then told me to stop drinking their kool-aid since I chose to not agree with her assertions. She now has a 24 hour block because she is clearly failing to get the message. Obviously, if anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock. IrishGuy 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. She probably should have gotten that for evading a block anyway. The Behnam 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but it seemed pretty clear she was going to earn this one on her own. Which she did. IrishGuy 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well earned, too. 24 hours is restraint on your part, if anything. Seraphimblade 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, yes. However, Irishguy, I don't think the template you used is ever so accurate. She was not blocked for vandalism, but for gross incivility. Splash - tk 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It has been altered accordingly. I just wasn't thinking when I put the block1 template up. Apologies. IrishGuy 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now she has requested to be unblocked, pretending to be innocent. The Behnam 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it has been rejected. The Behnam 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since she returned to editing as 81.62.54.135 while her block is still active, I blocked the IP for 24 hours and extended the block on Jenniferpowell for 48 hours. IrishGuy 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...and then she returned as 71.202.237.244. She doesn't appear to understand. IrishGuy 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous remark, backed by Admin?

I have come across an extremely serious breach of standards here on Misplaced Pages. It concerns one editor encouraging another editor to do an extreme deed. I don't know the depths of this dispute, but this remark under the circumstances is totally intolerable, and I may have to bring this to Jimbo Wales, and the way WP has dealt with the issue. The quote is or at least followup on your threats with decisive action, and the link is . It's for you to investigate. -86.42.153.154 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The user quickly realized the comment was unnecessary and retracted it. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it not enough just wipe out that extreme attack and everything is OKAY. An apology is called for here , and a blocking. -86.42.153.154 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what will the blocking do? I mean, it is the apology that matters, right? The Behnam 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the apology is implicit in the user retracting the comment. This is the Internet, this particular conversation was heated, we make mistakes, the user recognized his or her mistake and retracted the comment. An apology may be warranted and may be forthcoming, but dragging this out at ANI is unnecessary. --Iamunknown 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, editors are being blocked for much lesser attacks. This attack is ultra extremely offensive and should at the very least be challenged. It is the worst attack that I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages in my three years here. It's your call. -86.42.153.154 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Three years? This IP has only been editing today. Do you have another account? IrishGuy 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your whole comment, "No." --Iamunknown 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no continuing disruption and the statement was retracted, much like a fourth revert. I don't see any reason for a block, as these blocks are not meant to be punitive, last I checked. The Behnam 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Is the user disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT? No. Did he or she violate the 3RR rule? No. Is he or she deliberately comprimising the integrity of Misplaced Pages? No. On top of all that, he or she retracted his or her comment. --Iamunknown 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a isolated incident. The editors that have been blocked for much "lesser attacks" have received warnings and have PAed despite it. And they didn't retract their comments like he did. --KZ 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that I haven't caused any offense to anybody by bringing this issue to your attention. I really do believe that personal attacks where editors encourage self destruction to other editors should not be tolerated for one second. -86.42.153.154 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for brining it up. It is always good to engage in discussion and clear up any misconceptions. :-) Regards, Iamunknown 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there are no worries for me here. I would be concerned for the well being of others, whoever they are. I am not looking for punishment (blocking), as I mentioned earlier, but I did suggest it, as no amount of punishment can redeem some situations. I would like to take this incident up with Jimbo later.-86.42.153.154 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for disruption and probable sockpuppetry. Durova 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Extended to 1 month for additional sockpuppet block evasion. Durova 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:EuropeanLynx

I blocked this user for a week for edit warring on Nazi skinhead and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice after using an IP. Is this someone we've blocked before? He seems to know what he's doing. Grandmasterka 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the same editor that was username blocked as User:ProudAryan, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Time for a community ban? Ben Aveling 07:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bit early for that, although I can see that being a likely end result. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as too early, if the user is truly this disruptive. Take it to WP:CSN? ~Crazytales 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fake Sock Notice

This is a bad joke (obviously, no block log, but how many think to check?) rudra 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And this also today as vandalism, which was quickly reverted by an administrator, but only a short block on the user. Note that both of these incidents involve Hindu issues. Buddhipriya 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated, I'd think, unless Philosopher1 is (or is in contact with someone) in Spain. rudra 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this may be evidence of remote puppetry. I suspect that Philosopher1 is Maleabroad, who has been soliciting meatpuppets. See: This thread and this one suggest that there may be meatpuppets involved, too. Previous investigations of Maleabroad have determined that he appears to be at a Canadian University. For general information on Maleabroad see:. Buddhipriya 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, open proxies didn't occur to me. Inevitable, I suppose. rudra 05:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the admin who removed the sock tag that Philosopher1 placed on your userpage, and also blocked that editor. They got a 31 hour block for 3RR and vandalism but I couldn't definitively point to them as being a sock. The only connection, as you say, was Hindu issues - Alison 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alison, thank you again for your help the other day. Your quick response to he vandalism was great! I agree that the jury is still out on this potential sock. My antennae are tingling because of the fact that the last major sweep for Maleabroad socks resulted in some discussion about activating the investigation process to contact the Canadian university where he seems to operate from (as confirmed by multiple socks run through checkuser). After that idea was floated, his activity stopped, and now we see a pattern of edits that may suggest he has found a workaround for the location problem. All of this is theory, and more data would be needed before making a firm conclusion. Buddhipriya 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and threats from User:Isarig

I must once again report Isarig (talk · contribs) for his constant verbal abuse. He has repeatedly called me a liar despite my asking him to stop and despite the fact that he was the one misrepresenting things. I am really sick of his abuse. It is in explicit violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I asked him to stop several times in the discussion here, and he continued, ending up by threatening to report me to AN/I. However, he is the one being abusive, so I am reporting him. And this is far from the first time he has threatened to file phony reports against me. At the end of this discussion - in which he defended a particular version of the page - I gave in to many of his changes because I don't feel like arguing with him any more. Instead of celebrating his victory, he called me a liar and threatened me, and then made a massive reversion of the article, going back on the version of the page that he himself was supporting and reverting to a far more objectionable version of the page, deleting much sourced and relevant content without discussion. csloat 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another pot/kettle black situation. Yes, he did call you a liar, but I can understand his frustration. You have repeatedly made a claim which appears to be false. That is, you are claiming that a statement is not relevant because of the age of it. While the statement in question is indeed old, that does not make it irrelevant, because of the fact that it has been repeated more recently. Please try to respond to the issues Isarig has raised. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's false. I pointed out that the statement was about a 1996 interview and not a 2004 video. That is manifestly true; the source says it himself. The question is not whether it is relevant; the question is what is it specifically about -- it is about the 1996 interview. Isarig hid that fact by ellipsing out the part of the statement where the author specifically says he is referring to a 1996 interview. I changed that but Isarig deleted the change, again hiding the fact that it refers to a 1996 interview, not a 2004 video. I don't understand his "frustration." Please try to respond to the issue I raised here, which is the absurd harrassment and personal attacks by Isarig. Thanks. csloat 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember User:Durova contemplating an arbitration that would involve both of you. This posting is another step towards arbitration. I don't know what you think of this possibility, csloat, but I have a presentiment that you're unlikely to emerge from an arbitration with flying colors. Beit Or 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, this has been simmering for several months. What steps at dispute resolution have you tried? Durova 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried dealing directly with Isarig and asking him to stop. I have tried mediation on a couple of pages; Isarig withdrew from one of them and simply refused to participate on the other. I have tried contacting administrators directly (including Durova). I remember Durova was contemplating some sort of enforced mediation between Isarig and I, but he decided to block Armon instead (who was deleting sourced content with deceptive edit summaries at the time). I really don't know what else to do. I am not concerned about "flying colors" here; I simply want to edit in peace. I feel that I have positive contributions to make to this encyclopedia, but I don't think I can do it when I am constantly harrassed by another user every time I make an edit to a page relating to the Middle East. csloat 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what else to do? Let me make some suggestions: (1) stop using misleading and false claims against those who disagree with you. As an example, in the paragraph above, you claim I "refused" another mediation, which is simply untrue. (2) stop using the tactic of accusing others of what you are constantly doing - personal attacks, claims of deception, etc... Isarig 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed Poor tried to mediate the page and you did not participate. I don't think the claim was misleading; if you are willing to participate, I think that would be a great step forward.

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Ed Poor may have offered to mediate a certain page - he never asked me directly and there was never any formal mediation request - so I did not and could not refuse it. You know all this, yet chose to misleadingly describe my actions as "simply refused to participate on the other", when you know concede that all that actually happened was that an offer of informal mediation was made by Ed Poor to parties unspecified, and I did not participate. If you truly want to edit in peace, I suggest you look long and hard at how much your misleading editing plays a part in the problems you are experiencing. Isarig 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention that I have also tried RfCs on the relevant pages in the past, but I don't think anyone else wants to confront Isarig either. I am unilaterally backing off of the MEMRI page and letting Isarig own it, even though he has unethically distorted a quotation from Robert Fisk, as I have shown. I just don't have the energy or time to fight with this user. He has frequently noted that his main goal is to frustrate me or to get me blocked; he does not actually appear interested in improving the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, he is winning this immature dispute, since no admin seems willing to tell him that his behavior should be modified, even though he refuses to negotiate with anyone he disagrees with, and constantly violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have had interactions with editors I disagree with in the past, but never has it been this unpleasant. csloat 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And this is another example of the above. What I clarified to you was that my goal is 'to see WP edited according to its policies, and I want editors who flaunt those policies, and make a point of doing so, to be blocked.' - you omit this , and allege my goal is to have you personally blocked. You seem incapable of making a single contribution to the Talk pages without at least one misleading, false and offensive statement. Isarig 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. What you wrote was "Nothing would please me more than seeing you blocked for a long time for such blatant flaunting of one of WP most basic policies." I understand that you are offering a different interpretation of that statement; all I'm asking is that you stop personally attacking me with every post you make. Seriously. csloat 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My question regarded formal dispute resolution attempts. Contacting individual administrators or posting to noticeboards doesn't fit into the sort of thing ArbCom would consider when deciding whether to accept a proposed case. You're welcome to try other dispute resolution options. From the way policy and content issues dovetail at your dispute I suggest you take a serious look at WP:RFAR or WP:CEM. Community enforceable mediation is an experimental thing and, yes, I've started it. If either of you are uncomfortable having me as a mediator I could assign one of the program's trainees to take your case. Durova 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you as a mediator. I think CEM looks like a reasonable alternative. csloat 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can request a case at Misplaced Pages:Community enforceable mediation/Requests. Durova 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. csloat 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

strong-arm tactics from a group of editors, content revert and POV RfC

a few editors who appear to be closely working with each other have been acting rather hostile today, all swarming over my edits at once and reverting my inclusion of major verifiable English-language sources and other minor edits on various articles (Avicenna, Al-Farabi, Amir Khusro, and List of Persian poets and authors) and even completely modifying my Request for comment (RFC) for Avicenna article to make it one sided POV, (compare the wording here to see which one is more NPOV) and then reverting my attempt to bring back the NPOV wording. For lack of better word this appears to be a sabotage and arm-twisting by several older users, who stop at nothing by using everything from veiled threats by placing very "friendly" notes on my talk page to repeatedly pretending Misplaced Pages rules favor one particular user's POV and misinterpreting the Misplaced Pages rules. While the content dispute would be hopefully dealt by the RFC, the immediate concern is to have these users edit in good faith and cease from reverting pages and otherwise modifying words by making them POV and unbalanced. Weiszman 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, pure and simple. Regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies, I don't see either version as perfectly NPOV, in particular, your preferred version leaves out what appear to be important facts. That is, you keep removing a very plausible claim that the references you want to include are flawed. I've tried to find a NPOV voice. I suggest you try to address what appears to be the valid concern of your 'opponents' in this matter; it seems to me that they may have a point. Whether or not they are right or wrong, it is important that you follow wikipedia policy while you discuss the issue with them. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why I've included a diff for everyone to clearly see what is the dispute about and to verify independently each and every source. It's unfortunate that the diff is removed at the RFC page. Here are the four sources I've inserted which are all quotes and thus make misinterpretation (which is a later claim by those who opose this information) impossible:

1) Arab descent according to other sources, Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6 and

2) Acta Geneticae Medicae Et Gemellologiae, International Society for Twin Studies, Società italiana di genetica medica, Permanent Committee for the International Congresses of Human Genetics, Istituto "Gregorio Mendel", 1952, p. 268

3) "Ibn-Sina has been referred to as the Arab Galen." Philip Khuri Hitti. Makers of Arab History, 1968, p. 216

4) "In him Arab science reached its climax."Eugene A. Myers. Arabic Thought and the Western World in the Golden Age of Islam. 1964, p. 33 Weiszman 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Can an admin take a look at this PA - I had tagged one of his articles that he had created with a speedy deletion tag using NPWatcher. Baristarim 08:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And these - . Please look at the content of the posts, especially the second one and the first one.. Baristarim 09:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to be insisting on this, but can an admin take a look at these? Here is the latest post - all of these posts are grave violations of NPA.. Baristarim 09:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have tried to warn him...an admin needs to step in and apply an appropriate remedy.--MONGO 09:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave him a rather stern warning, in the form of a hit with the clue bat. --Golbez 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Baristarim 09:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorse the 24h given the Hitler comment. Daniel Bryant 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to say this Golbez...but your "warning" was so damn colorful...Also endorse the 24h block --KZ 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just on a sidenote, I had read the article five times over before nominating it for speedy. When I had looked, there were no references, no wikifications, no nothing and a claim that the guy was famous because he wrote "Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify'd". I know that he is not a living person, however I wasn't even sure if it was someone pulling a prank on his friend or something. I am sorry that I don't know so much about 18th century gay-rights activists. :) Baristarim 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Personal attack by IP, RPA reversion, block log, message. Review please. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse, for block evasion and new personal attacks. --JoanneB 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

I originally provided the references/see also section of a contentious AfD-deleted-on-DRV article to userspace at User:Fowler&fowler/HP References, per a request on my talk page. However, since then, another administrator (Dbachmann (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)) has copy-pasted the whole article's text into that page. Can an uninvolved administrator (ie. not me , and not Dbachmann ) please review whether this copy-paste move is GFDL-compliant, and whether it should be deleted; I'm suspecting it isn't (and as such, the latter revision should be deleted), but I think I'm "involved". Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that Dbachmann's comments on your talk page weren't particularly civil or assuming good faith. As for the licensing, you'll need someone more experienced in the area. --KZ 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Ask him to move ArbCom if he presses. There have been gross civility problems with him in the past, where he resorted to racist comments. Nothing a good long block wouldn't solve. Good day. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel.Bryant closed a 16 keep to 14 delete AfD as "delete". Is it surprising that I object? Daniel's concern whether my c&p was "GFDL-compliant" betrays a similarly poor awareness of GFDL as of his grasp of AfD procedure. As for my complaing to Daniel, seeing it contains "I know you acted in good faith", I find it difficult to follow Kzrulzuall's judgement that I somehow wasn't "particularly assuming good faith". If I read Sir Nicholas' comment correctly, he seems to be advocating giving be a "good long block" over my objecting to an AfD closure as if I was some troll account that arrived on Misplaced Pages last week. That's plain bullying, and I begin to get the impression I am being set up as the next Giano: Giano was mobbed out of Misplaced Pages because he dared objecting to an RFA promotion in spite of no arguable consensus. I am protesting a deletion in the face of no arguable consensus. Whatever happened to following the rules? I am aware of WP:IAR, but you cannot ignore the rules, and then clamp down on your critics based on technicalities, sorry. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

People admitted that they made a mistake with Giano, and he is currently editing, even though he most certainly did not get in trouble just because he disagreed with a promotion. You can't invoke a supposed martyr who isn't even gone to defend your actions. Also, saying "I know you acted in good faith" does not mean you truly believe that, and you had just finished complaining that he's stupid and deleted it because of religious crusades. -Amarkov moo! 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note one edit account visiting the pages of some involved parties . --Bhadani (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) For GFDL compliance, if that was the only issue, it might be sufficient to put a link on the talk page to the page from which content was copied, with a note that the page history there provides the authorship info on a particular section. This is routinely done in merges, and is generally noncontroversial. However, there is obviously more going on here than a simple question of how to comply with the GFDL. After all, any text posted to wikipedia is normally under the GFDL, and therefore available to be sued elsewhere, including elsewhere on wikipedia, with proper attribution etc. DES 15:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL was never the issue, and it is best known to Sir Nicholas himnself why he would choose to invoke "GFDL" as a reason for using his delete-button against my copy of the material under discussion in user-space. I ask people to look at the deleted material and judge for themselves if there can be any debate about its encyclopedicity (as opposed to its being precisely balanced, which would be a matter of debate, not AfD). AfD is not the place to complain about articles that are allegedly biased or that allegedly contain OR. This deletion is completely out of process and is a sign of the "trolls taking over": A bunch of single-topic accounts co-ordinated by a yahoo mailing list successfully getting material deleted from Misplaced Pages simply because it runs counter to their ideology. This is serious, people, and I would like to get a sober review of all this. I hope we can sort this out without going the painful route of RfC/RfAr: this is what we have AN/I for. I have spent three years on Misplaced Pages, people, and I can tell the difference between just not getting my way, and a flawed admin action, and I would not make a fuss here if I did not think the latter applies here. The only arguable outcomes Daniel could have chosen from under the circumstances were either merge/rename/redirect (taking a plunge), or no consensus (being non-committal). dab (𒁳) 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion review is here and I would suggest that a consensus appears to be forming. Addhoc 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm getting a lesson in AfD closing, as well as being told like a schoolchild what I can and cannot do with my talk page. I am unfamiliar with Dbachmann's history, but if it's anything like what Nick hints at, then I can see why Dbachmann doesn't want to send it to RfAr...he just has to look at the Billy Ego-Sandstein case for a replica. Daniel Bryant 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, he doesn't demonstrate civility with his edits. Dbachman, I find it hard to believe that you consider giving people "lessons" about this. It implies a huge amount of disdain on your part. --KZ 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a quick look (being impartial) and I know Dbachmann has suffered some trolling on ANI by a single purpose account , but I'm at a loss as to how the content that was undeleted and pasted into userspace can possibly be considered GFDL compliant - was it left there through finding the information that one particular user added into the article or just by copying and pasting the desired contents ? I'm also gravely concerned by the lack of civility and collegialism shown here by dab, calling other admins trolls really is not helpful and conducive to a friendly and harmonious editing environment. -- Nick 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

out of my depth/Copyvio (Bang Gang article)

Hi, hitting the random button as I do, I came across this article, the bio section (besides being entirely wrong in tone), seems to be a straight lift from one of those places. I removed it as a copyvio but it has been returned and an editor claims they have rights to it, I am a bit out of my depth with copyright stuff as I find wikipedia policy on the matter so complex, I'm unsure how to follow it up. --Fredrick day 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Left a notice on the user's talk page telling them to send an email to permissions-en and told them about WP:COI. x42bn6 Talk 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, even if they do have permission and release this under GFDL, this would need heavy, heavy editing as it in no way conforms to WP:NPOV. It's basically a marketing puff piece.--Isotope23 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks at WT:SPAM

Georgekenney (talk · contribs) is upset with deletion of external links to a podcast that he produces, which he added while editing as an IP, and is complaining here. I should probably not respond further to him, as anything I say seems to antagonize him. I also invite review of my deletion of the links, which I did under WP:COI concerns. RJASE1 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your actions 100%; this guy really needs to calm down. Veinor 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The personal attacks are continuing, I think he's just trolling at this point. RJASE1 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling range (83.24.0.0/13)

See the history of Talk:Poznań -- it seems a troll from pl-wikipedia has made his way here. I'm reluctant to range-block without knowing all of the details here (I don't speak Polish). I was contacted in #wikipedia-en by pl:User:Radomil, an admin of pl-wikipedia. Anyone care to investigate this further? --Chris (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an enormous range. It spans multiple netblocks which are claimed by the provider to be assigned to specific cities. --Gmaxwell 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Some edits have come from 83.16.0.0/13 too. It could be a commuter who has access from two different cities (83.23.0.0/16 and 83.27.0.0/16), so those could always be range blocked. --Chris (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki won't let you block /13 anyway, so you would have to block the cities. Even so, you're blocking upwards of 64,000 addresses, which equals loads of collateral damage (especially if the range is dynamic, which it probably is). // PTO 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A /13 is made up of 8 /16s -- a bit much to block under most any circumstances. Might be better off protecting the relevant pages, no? Neither solution is perfect, but if it's not a very active page, semi might involved a bit less collateral damage. Just a thought. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we "Assume Good Faith" with an editor apparently pursuing a vendetta?

(Moved from WP:CN Navou 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Preamble note: This post relates to an article which had an edit war 2 weeks ago - that had consequences discussed on this page. An administrator imposed an (apparently indefinite) soft ban on myself and two other editors. The majority of opinion on this page expressed the view that the soft ban was imposed far too prematurely - without exploration of conflict resolution. Even though I think the soft ban was a mistake - and should be lifted - that is NOT the reason for this post. I mention this merely in full disclosure. The editor I am asking for advice about today was NOT one of those banned.)

A new Misplaced Pages account started appearing on Misplaced Pages on December 30, 2006. After a few minor edits on other articles - the editor settled as a single-issue editor on the Pete Townshend article.

The editor gave him/her-self the name Wiki-is-truth.

The calm that had prevailed for 12 months on the article was over. An edit war erupted. Eventually it was resolved with a compromise and a straw poll set up by an administrator. The editor Wiki-is-truth signed off on the compromise:

Support the version above Wiki-is-truth 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

After that - the editor disappeared and did not make a single appearance on Misplaced Pages till today (April 9, 2007). And then just to involve him/her-self in the same Pete Townshend matter. So far - just on the Talk Page.

On the surface there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that. If a person chooses to be a single-issue editor - contributing to only one article or Talk Page - that is totally ok. If a person wishes to take a break from Misplaced Pages for a few weeks - that is totally ok.

The issue is this. Several editors believe (and have stated on the Pete Townshend Talk Page) that this person is present on Misplaced Pages for one primary purpose. To pursue a vendetta against Pete Townshend.

The evidence for this is in the multiple posts by the person on the Talk Page for the article on Pete Townshend. And in the history of his/her edits on the article.

Here is just the latest example fron the Talk Page - posted today:

"as a quick aside, I would rather call Townshend a promoter of child porn than a "blaggard" - Wiki-is-truth 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As editors - we are supposed to "Assume Good Faith".

How are we supposed to do so in the face of someone who asserts that Pete Townshend (who the UK police thoroughly investigated for four months and then decided NOT to charge with any criminal offense) is "a promoter of child porn"? Davidpatrick 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is assuming an editor means well until there is clear evidence to the contrary - which has been reached and passed in this case. There is no need to walk in on someone stabbing a dying body and screaming "die! die!" and try to assume they are innocent. There is no reason to assume good faith when inaccurate, harmful content is added to an article repeatedly after explaining BIO, and V or ATT. So the answer is, dont AGF in this case, it is counter to any comensense approach and would require you freeze the logic centers of your brain solid, which I do not recommend. KillerChihuahua 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding, if the editor has not yet edited the article and is not arguing for including unsourced defamitory content on the talk page, why worry? Upon more careful examination of the situation, I'm completely unclear on why you're here. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad again

Can anyone please check the recent edits of Artaxiad (talk · contribs)? In my opinion his edits to other people’s user pages are nothing but vandalism. Grandmaster 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He was warned, and he stopped. No action is necessary. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Grandmaster 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note here that User:AdilBaguirov, facing ban, is being blocked for a week(!) upon a simple revert violation, while User:Artaxiad, facing a ban, and proven with harassment and now outright vandalism on my page , is either being blocked for 24 hours or friendly warned. Don't you think this is only encouraging the behavior alike that of User:Artaxiad? Atabek 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The content on your page is not appropriate so therefore I removed it. Artaxiad 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You added <!-- Hi my name is Atabek, I am a asshole, I love guys. I also deny a genocide I'm a heartless guy. --> to User:Atabek here. I don't think we can really assume good faith after that. Veinor 16:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no way to assume good faith if we consider Artaxiad's edits generally.He/She wastes the community's valuable time.Must. 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad blocked 48 hours for user page vandalism . Under the circumstances, I consider 48 hours to be generous. This was deliberate provocation in the face of an ongoing arbitration proceeding. Thatcher131 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, it's clear he'll be banned for a year very soon, and this is precisely why. It's like he figures he's going away, he might as well go in a blaze of stupid glory. --Golbez 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ongoing harrasment

An editor continues to make disruptive comments.

4. Further, the edit summary does not explain any reason for the removal of text or references. Moreover, the editor is unwilling to engage in a discussion in a normal manner.
5. Here is the latested comment of harrassment and intimidation to try to stop me from commenting on the talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't those first three already get covered here on WP:ANI?--Isotope23 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind I found it.--Isotope23 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I've specifically pointed out to you before that the Misplaced Pages community redirect and comment were completely unrelated to you. The second diff was an issue already dealt with (I lost my cool, my bad, it happens, we laughed, we cried, we moved on). The rest is of your little evidence is me telling you to stop being disruptive (with very clear discussions on the relevant talk pages that show multiple editors agreeing that you are being disruptive). I guess you forgot to mention other people asking you to stop. Not sure how asking someone to stop being disruptive counts as harassment..

Talk:Essjay controversy, Talk:Misplaced Pages community, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Citizendium versus Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru, and.. well, heck, picking links at random from his contribs will give people a good idea of what I mean. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you just forgive and forget, Quack? Ned Scott really did already publicly apologise... --Iamunknown 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mkenshin10

Hi. I am a new admin and I am seeking help from other admins. When blocking Mkenshin10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the recorded entry in the block log states that the block is anon. only and I don't know why this happened. The anon. only box does not appear, so, it is impossible for me to check it anyway. If it matters, I am using Firefox 2 under Win XP. Can any one tell me why this happened? Thanks. --Meno25 17:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries; anonymous-only applies solely to IPs. This is probably a temporary display bug that got into the MediaWiki trunk. Unless the bug applies to blocking itself rather than how the block log is rendered, then the account is blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The discussion on the The Great Global Warming Swindle talk page is notable for extensive attacks on individual editors. I've removed a few of the worst ones from recent comments, but I wonder if a couple of administrators would be kind enough to take a look. Please see Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#POV_section_break_4. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And one of these persons has been abusing tags yesterday and today. --Skyemoor 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

When is it appropriate for someone to edit an article they nominated for deletion, if the {{afd}} is still underway?

User:PelleSmith instantiated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism.

While they said, in their nomination, that they would like to be proved wrong, in fact they are currently making extensive edits to the article which give the unfortunate appearance of trying to undermine attempts to improve it, so it will survive {{afd}}.

Among the reasons they originally nominated it were that it was poorly referenced. So, I wonder, is it really appropriate for them to be removing references-, while the {{afd}} is underway?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but articles can be edited while an AfD is underway, as long as the Afd tga is not removed. Tellyaddict 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Removing legit references in general is bad. Removing un-legit references, refactoring the text, and in general improving articles is good. Removing references during an AfD is not necessarily bad or good but certainly can, whether true or not, give the impression that the nom is trying to influence the votes. Anyone can edit an article at afd, even if they are the nom. Any rules against that would simply be instruction creep. So, are the references legit or not? Is the nom just massacring the text or is he or she appropriately refactoring it? --Iamunknown 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the nominators edits, both ante-{{afd}} and intra-{{afd}} give the unfortunate appearance of damaging the article so that their afd will succeed, rather than sincere attempts to improve the article.

We are all supposed to assume good faith. Is it possible that the nominator might think their edits actually improved the article? Well, they are already on record stating that the entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they could think they could improve an irredeemably flawed article. -- Geo Swan 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct regarding how I view the very idea of the entry. However, that does not in any way mean that I'm going to sit by while bad references are added to it like cheap makeup. Also see below. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I don't start an AfD with the "entire idea of the article irredeemably flawed". I start by assuming that (1) the article is not within the scope of an encyclcopedia or (2) the article is on a non-notable subject. If I impatient, started an AfD, and then later find additional information, I will most certainly add it. If anyone assumes anything other than good faith, then it is inappropriate on their part. --Iamunknown 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review the debate in question first. If you look at the AfD you will understand why the "entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed", because the entry name itself is WP:OR. There is no way to save it under its current name. I have for the last month suggested moving it or merging it with another entry so as not to create the illusion that "religious conversion" factors into terrorism. If you looked at the AfD you would understand. There is overwhelming support for delete based upon this exact reason so please don't jump to those kinds of conclusions.PelleSmith 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted, articles may be edited during an AfD. Any edit that weakens any article is inappropriate (absent cause such as a BLP issue) whether or not there is an AfD pending. If there is concern that misguided editing might sway an AfD decision, a user participating in the AfD may wish to link to his or her preferred version of the article, to suggest that the version a prospective AfD !voter might encounter right at the moment is not the optimal or ultimate version. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "edits" that are under dispute are the removal of bad references. Many of the bad references were removed prior to the AfD, and have been removed once again during the AfD. Each time I have provided detailed edit summaries as to why these references are misleading, irrelevant or simply unreliable sources. I stand by each and every one of these edits, since keeping bad references in an article lacking good ones is the worst possible solution since it simply masks one of the problems. It should be noted that the overarching issue with the entry is WP:OR which the very name of the entry elicits.PelleSmith 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think NYBrad's solution is the correct one. If you're concerned sabotage might occur, just provide a link in the discussion to an oldid of the "best version." Articles nominated for AfD don't necessarily get deleted, and obviously anyone nominating for AfD has serious concerns about the article, so it's certainly conceivable they might try to fix it in the meantime. (Obviously, if someone's being deliberately disruptive or vandalizing that's not acceptable, but if, for example, an article is nominated for deletion as a POV fork, and the nominator cleans up the POV as best (s)he can in the meantime, nothing wrong with that.) Seraphimblade 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article content is blatantly inappropriate, then just because the AfD is continuing, it doesn't imply the article should be frozen. Addhoc 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing legit references is not good under any circumstances. The fact that it's up for AfD doesn't change what is or isn't acceptable. It's simply a little more unacceptable if an editor is trying to undermine the AfD. Grandmasterka 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to edit an article you nominated for deletion. You're allowed to change your mind. Assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha being disrupted by sockpuppet of banned user

Hi, I am wondering whether or not to file a check user request on User:Osiris06 being a sock of User:Mykungfu. MKFU's main target is this article as well as NPHC related articles. I have been reverting his edits on the page, but I am unsure if this breaches WP:3RR so far. Real96 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Osirus blocked for repeated legal threats. You did not violate 3RR. ⇒ SWATJester 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block for DavidYork71

I've just blocked DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) indefinitly after a long debate (see his his talk page for more details). -- FayssalF - 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add this diff from my talk page and this section from User:Sarah's talk page. --Aminz 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this indefinite block. Per Sarah, DavidYork71 acts as if the community doesn't exist and has no right to demand any modifications to his behavior, where very substantial modifications are sorely needed.Proabivouac 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor has demonstrated time and time again that he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Given his heavy and chronically repetitive anti-Islam POV pushing and editing that corresponds to that and his other disruptive editing (ie: creating an article called "autosodomy" and insisting that it was a "yogic art" and linking that to numerous yoga articles) and now his sockpuppetry, the project is much better off without this editor. (→Netscott) 08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest sock of David: User:Anal Servitude; needs to be blocked. --Aminz 08:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear that this is DavidYork71 - username trolls have appeared on my user talk lately, such as User:Breien Pfeffers - but a username block is certainly in order. Given the avowed interests of DY71 it is at least conceivable; you might add it to the outstanding checkuser request ]. At least I would ask that users with disreputable usernames such as these not be allowed to post on my user talk, so request semiprotection.Proabivouac 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

David was interested in Anal sex and homosexuality articles. I'll add it to the list. Thanks anyways. --Aminz 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for username violation. IrishGuy 09:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NerriTunn (talk · contribs)

I'm fairly certain NerriTunn (talk · contribs) is behind the sudden explosion of users who are reverting all the regular editors on List of bisexual people. They all act like her, they all revert the exact same things, use snarky edit summaries that mock the summaries of those they are reverting, accuse me of being authoritarian on the talkpage for demanding we follow policy, and plead that we should use "common sense" - which mean we should list every single person who has had sex with both genders ever. She meanwhile, has conveniently vanished from the article history.

A lot of these accounts are SPAs. However, Nerri has apparently been trying to build up some of her accounts on different areas of the wiki - at least two users have edited exactly the same material, and one is adding vivien leigh to every list of ethnic people it can. But their contribs are all characterised by an obsession with old time Hollywood films and people who were believed to be bisexual of that period. I would appreciate if an admin could look into this because they keep reverting material which has been removed for the sake of BLP, RS and dammit, we shouldn't be listing so many people who were accused of being bisexual by this one person that one time. Here's a list of suspected sockpuppets:

• Ygr1 (talk · contribs)
• Svsvtkag (talk · contribs)
• M.A.Dicker (talk · contribs)
• Fjykbgv (talk · contribs)
• JadaDeville (talk · contribs)
• 62.64.215.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.64.214.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.64.222.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.217.206.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.217.208.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And I think the similarities of names and addresses speak for themselves... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, and I got the wrong noticeboard as well. Can I leave it here? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the list. Haven't looked into the sockpuppetry part. Durova 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

63.224.144.226

Constant vandalism of page cnc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KJS77 (talk • contribs).

You always get faster responses at WP:AIV, where I have reported the user to for you. x42bn6 Talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block review

ThepeoplefromNS (talk · contribs) began a campaign moving many (50+) articles from Article name to Article name is dead. I initially blocked for one week. The user contested the block and then "approved" the request. The editor requesting the block asked that I extend the block indefinitely in light of the user's statement. I agreed that giving the user's statement, this user shows no signs of ever being a good contributor to the project and will probably only continue his malicious behavior following the block, and so I extended the block indefinitely. I was wanting to get some other opinions on this block to see if this was the correct action (as I am also a brand new admin). Thanks in advance.↔NMajdan•talk 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Vandalism-only account = indef block. No problems at all with your actions (except to say that I would have skipped the 1 week block and gone straight to indef, but certainly can't fault you for that). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indef block is appropriate. Durova 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, total nutjob. Endorse block and well done on both doing it and asking for confirmation. We're a benevolent cabal.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Nothing more to see here. WP:RBI is your friend. Naconkantari 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with all above and endorse indefinite block. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise-- Nick 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, kind of reminds me of willy on wheels. You know, pagemove vandal, moved article name to "article name...". Coincidence? Are there many users like this? Should they all be indef blocked? Is there policy against pagemove vandals? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems covered by WP:VAND, WP:BLOCK, and general common sense. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctor11

Is User:Doctor11 a violation of WP:USER? Not a dog 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How would you think it would be in violation? Naconkantari 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be stating its existence is only to express a political opinion, rather than "facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". But perhaps I'm misunderstanding its intent. Not a dog 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume he means that the statement on the page saying I don't want to write pages and pages here so I will use this page solely to express my sympathy for the people of Iraq. is a violation of WP:USER, specifically the no polemical statements part. IrishGuy 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding. I though that you meant the username. The user page is not appropriate and should be send to WP:MFD. Naconkantari 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No need, I just removed the polemical statements and asked him nicely not to readd it. — Moe 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just wasn't sure if we could edit their page like that or not. thanks for taking care of it. Not a dog 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Universe

This article was moved to Earth's Universe today by another user and the history needs to be restored.--JEF 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems intact. User:Bbatsell fixed it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The user who moved it started a new article at Universe that had to be deleted to make way for the move. I (or another admin) will restore it somewhere else upon request. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Returning Devout Christian sockpuppet

212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs) claims to be a shared IP but is still making the same kind of edits as he was before being blocked as a Devout Christian (talk · contribs) sock. --Ideogram 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. --Coredesat 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous UNT vandals on euphonium page again

IP addresses from range 129.120.xx.xx (University of North Texas system computers) are vandalizing the euphonium page again (changing every instance of the word "euphonium" to baritone, just a day after a full protection was lifted. Last week, a single IP address that had done most of the vandalism (129.120.244.17) was blocked for 24 hrs, after which vandalism resumed immediately, and when the same vandalism started to crop up from other UNT addresses a system-wide block was put in effect, ostensibly for a week, but it's been less than a week and the vandals are back, so I guess somehow they got the block lifted.

I should also note that whoever is doing this has continuously posed as me (Robert McDaniel), even going so far as to post my cell phone number on the Talk:Euphonium page and then vandalizing my user page. I have absolutely no doubt that the vandalism will continue unabated until decisive action is taken. PLEASE institute a medium-term system-wide block of 129.120 IP addresses.

--NetherlandishYankee 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think we're going to block an entire college campus which has, besides the euphoniumisms and some other vandalism, dozens if not hundreds of legitimate edits from editors some of whom have contributions dating back to 2004. --jpgordon 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• This also came up on WP:RFP and I declined the request - Alison 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I guess that was a bit extreme. I just REALLY want to avoid the situation that developed last week happening again. I'll keep you posted if anything else happens.

--NetherlandishYankee 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal strikes again, warn them and then report them if they persist. If it gets really bad, we can review the semi-protect request. However, if they're posting personal info - report them immediately to WP:AIV and they will be blocked pretty sharpish. That kind of behaviour is harrassment - Alison 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burk Hale

Burk Hale (talk · contribs) needs a block. He persists in posting material in which copyright is claimed at the website that hosts the text at 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Burk Hale is also pushing extreme POV at the same article and others (arguing that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was never adopted; continuously referring to the US federal government as "subversive"). The blocking administrator might want to consider the POV pushing when blocking for the copyvio. I am not blocking because I have been involved in the dispute with Burk Hale at the Georgia Memorial article. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The text is an engrossed state law, isn't it? I'm like 99% sure that's unequivocally in the public domain. It shouldn't be in the article (wikisource is probably the better location), but I don't think it's a copyvio. A quick glance leaves me with no doubt that he is a POV warrior, but I don't have enough time at the moment to read everything fully enough to block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a state resolution. I have no idea whether Georgia claims copyright in its state resolutions or not; I suspect that this might be one of the few things that fall outside the purview of US federal copyright law, but I don't know for certain either way. However, the website that hosts the text in question does claim copyright in the text (I have no opinion on whether the claim is legitimate). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Err on the side of caution and keep it out for the time being. Besides, the article isn't the place to text dump that law even if it is PD. That is what we have wikisource for.--Isotope23 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV helperbot problem (possibly)

The WP:AIV helperbots removed Deathtowiki, Deathtowiki1, and Deathtowiki2 as blocked by MichaelBillington. The problem is...I'm not seeing this in the block log. Is the log backed up or did something get hosed with the bots? IrishGuy 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing them in the block logs right now, but then again it looks like the recent changes history is getting backed up again. Note that Deathtowiki 3-7 also exist and are on AIV right now - Alison 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just tried to block one of them, and couldn't, so the block log hasn't updated, which happens occasionally. The database was just locked, so it seems it was just a temporary slowdown. (I always thought they should come up with a better analogy than "slaves" catching up to their "master".) Grandmasterka 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I am simply concerned that if the problem is with the bots, then users are being removed that aren't blocked. The MichaelBillington's log shows that he blocked Deathtowiki3, 4, 6, and 7 but there is no mention of the other three which theoretically should have been blocked previously. IrishGuy 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Obviously the bots are getting feeds more up-to-date than the block log. Deathtowiki1,2,3, are blocked. Actually, it's come up about 3 times in the past month or so where someone blocked and it didn't show up at ALL in the block log, but the block was still there. It's either a bug or a database glitch where it lost some of the data. I don't think MediaWiki's queries are ACID-compliant, so it's possible that the user be blocked but an entry in the log be lost. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • OK. I had no idea this had been a problem in the past. Phantom blocks, eh? Strange... IrishGuy 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Seems to happen a lot lately... First the contributions was slow by 4 hrs, now its the blocklog. --KZ 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • I've seen that happen, too, and I was really confused the first time, too -- unblocking and reblocking tends to fix the visible problem (just trying to re-block tends to turn up the "already blocked" error, so I guess the master DB, at least, seems to be aware of the block). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't know this had happened to anyone else. A few weeks ago I blocked someone but it didn't show up in the log, and when I tried again it said they had already been blocked. Unblocking and reblocking fixed it, but now the log has an unblock first, which is weird. Natalie 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Big company spamming

Copied from WP:AIV: (Perhaps HP and team are not aware of the negative publicity associated with other big companies writing/influencing articles on their company/products.) How should this be handled? — ERcheck (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• HPOMteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account in violation of WP:USERNAME because it seems to Match the name of a well-known company or groups.... The account's only contributions are to HP Output Management Solutions, HP Output Server and Enterprise Output Management the former two which indicated in former revisions that the countent is copyrighted by Hewlett-Packard and used with explicit permission. --Iamunknown 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: An indefinite block was imposed. However, my question still stands. Is there a particular process for this/form letter to send to companies like HP? — ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it's necessary, notify the Foundation. They probably should handle anything like that. Seraphimblade 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the only page that wasn't speedied. Durova 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Systematic attack on Al Gore

Within the last 3 days, Al Gore has been vandalized by a bizzarre 5-edit method, Redirected to by the Sandbox, and redirected to from Stupidest person alive via Kensai Nakano. Related or not? G.O. 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I... I'm sorry, I have no clue what you're trying to say here. --Golbez 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just garden variety vandalism. The vandal's been blocked. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overarchiver

A strange user. His first edit was to archive Patricknoddy's talk page. Next he created a userpage which was taken from Patricknoddy's userpage and appears to be mocking Patricknoddy. Other than a comment on Patricknoddy's talk page today, he has no other edits. This appears to be a sock harassing Patricknoddy. IrishGuy 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a harassment-only account, based on the comment on User talk:Patricknoddy. See User talk:Overarchiver for further comments. Newyorkbrad 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Assumming he has another account, he can be autoblocked Brad, but with anon. only on. --TeckWiz Contribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks always risk some collateral damage. Since I decided to let him continue editing under another account, there was no reason to risk any. If there is further harassment from another account the next block would be more sweeping, but he says he's stopped. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the userpage be deleted or blanked? It is definitely harassment... --KZ 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang: Sockpuppet account?

This account was just created today on April 9 and responds to a 48 hour block I made on User:Bosniak back in mid-March. I'm not sure whom this is a sockpuppet account for but I thought I should just bring it to the attention of others here because I am not sure of what to do.--Jersey Devil 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really matter... The account would be blocked indef. in accordance to the username policy. --KZ 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Which part of the username policy? Anchoress 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The name "Mozart: doesn't really qualify as a the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person --Iamunknown 04:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wish people would read the username policy before reporting violations. _InBC 04:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To describe this as an inappropriate username is not sensible. Nobody would mistake this chap for someone who has been dead for 200 years. If he's being naughty, tell him to stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASSIST

I'm having trouble keeping some comments on the talk page. They keep being removed at WP:ASSIST.(direct link) --CyclePat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you want. There's a dispute about whether or not that stuff should be included, and as you know, this isn't the "Please take my side" noticeboard. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't see how this requires admin intervention. Please note WP:CANVASS before putting it on unrelated places. --KZ 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One should point out that the "comments" CyclePat is complaining about is a move poll that he tried to force on WP:ASSIST. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to me removal of his move poll, CyclePat posted a vandal warning template to my page, and wrote this dleightful comment: "You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group." We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.” In this case, the removal of comments from to the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate how desperate the members of WP:ASSIST and to what extent they are truly willing to do go. A further technique is being used by WP:ASSIST which is called bandwagon, inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience." The conversation and comments regarding AMA and ASSIST (move page/merger), even if it is not a successful conversation as portrayed by some, is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule and on top of that falls within the criteria of vandalism. I suggest the conversation be archived. Again, in short, removing it creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and again, violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

Someone who characterises a 100% rejection rate and several strongly worded warnings from various users as "desperate", "propaganda", and "advertising attempts to destroy AMA" clearly doesn't have the project in mind. I believe JzG said he would try to talk some sense in CyclePat - it appears to have had no effect whatsoever. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone who removes such beautiful comments, which are so very constructive in helping build and understand EA, clearly (sarcastically) has the project in mind. (Not really!) You may wish to read WP:AGF and to see my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:editor assistance#Request move archive talk page (if you or someone hasn't already reverted them)... here is the permenant link just in case.(link). FYI: it talks about harassment. --CyclePat 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I'm speechless. May I suggest that you check out Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith if you think that EA members are suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience"; additionally why is it bad that we are inviting everyone to participate?...hmm --Iamunknown 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is with the "gathered up and shot" comment? Seraphimblade 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here to complain about that comment. The fact that it's a 'metaphor' doesn't diminish its offensiveness. Anchoress 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone, CyclePat's "metaphor" was

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

This was during another of his attempts to force us to join AMA. To be honest, I can't think of such a post from someone who wasn't eventually indef blocked. Someone may wish to intervene before he starts trying to gather us up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A mutiny? So you have, in effect, an editor not just declaring ownership on a page, but on a group of editors? That's just nuts. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat is clearly being very disruptive and very silly. If he keeps on going, he should be blocked for a suitably lengthy period of time. The kid gloves have been put on for this guy far too often and it's gotten us nowhere. Please, stop. You're shooting yourself in the foot and bringing the day of the AMA's next MfD much closer. Moreschi 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would think that CyclePat's behavior is a perfect example of why AMA is a patently bad idea. It is obvious from the earlier MFD that there is no consensus for the continued running of AMA, and it is obvious from AMA's recent actions that they are quite unwilling to make any changes. They are way overdue for being shut down. >Radiant< 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• For em the fact that they let Pat join as an advocate was a sure sign that AMA was doomed. Not that I bear any malice towards Pat, but as you see above his skills lie more in escalating than in resolving disputes. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's moment of irony (OK, it is a few days old... but after seeing this I nearly couldn't believe what I was reading here)...--Isotope23 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Saturation2 (talk · contribs) - User:LegoAxiom1007 redux

As evidenced on his talk page, this user is having a lot of problems with stupid reports to various noticeboard. And I feel stupid, because I completely failed to make any connection until he claimed to be sir Lego's brother. So, anyway, can we do the same "stop editing projectspace or you're out" thing, and then can we formally ban him when it's violated? -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Saturation2 self-nommed a RFA that needs speedy closing. --Coredesat 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done enough IAR today, so can someone else please go do that? -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, left a warning on his talk, so if he does it again, he'll be whacked with a sledgehammer blocked. --KZ 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) RFA closed. Navou 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. New user. Using Twinkle a heck of a lot. Making a signature book. Appearing within two days of LegoAxiom's block. Does anyone else hear quacking?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but the duck dancing in front of my computer might be distracting me from it. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What's that noise?? :) - Alison 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a duck... though I could be wrong. Saturation2 seemed to have stopped editing now, but he definitely doesn't seem to be a newbie. Quack, Quack.... --KZ 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, someone block this guy, please. He's only here to disrupt. Brother - yeah, and my best mate's the Easter Bunny. Moreschi 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by vandal

User:193.188.12.20 has vandalized articles and has made personal attacks. Please see , and . Also, , , , appears to be vandalisim. This is user is at the very least a troll. Agha Nader 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

No activity since March 28. Follow up if problems resume. Durova 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is again engaged in revert-warring. I don't care enough about this particular article to continue this revert-war, but I strongly suggest close scrutiny of his overall pattern of reverting to his preferred version while pretending to be interested in discussion. --Ideogram 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Daniel Bryant 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM: A thin line between legitimate calling for attention and blatant canvassing

A similar case has been recently discussed at this board: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#AfD: is canvassing allowed?. This time I would like someone impartial to take a look at the developments of the WP:RM proposal, see Talk:Fântâna Albă incident#Canvassing_warning.

The poll was strongly affected by a hectic campaign of canvassing by one side. Here are some entries:

• Se votează
• The vote is on
• A poll is now being conducted
• you may find this poll interesting too.,
• would you like to weigh in here,
• By the way....
• Se votează

And, I especially liked this one:

• As an anti-Communist, you may like to cast a vote.

Additionally, as per this an unknown number of user were "mobilized" by email.

Several users unfolded a rage of incivilities at the talk page against the opposition to the move and were warned by an admin to stop.

I request an impartial look at the matter, the analysis of some user's behavior at the talk page and the conclusion of the poll to be made based on each side's arguments as the raw numbers here are certainly meaningless. --Irpen 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Pie_Man_360

Anyone willing to look thoroughly into the sole supporter's edit history? Highly uncivil and trollish support, and the userpage does not inspire confidence. Can anyone else find any really useful edits? – Chacor 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hi, did you want pie man to go through the process without receiving ONE SUPPORT? Well? El hombre de haha 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with that? —physicq (c) 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that rainbow blinking text before... On ED.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Issues

Ok, on my talk page, I've been having some problems with trolls from another site that I am affiliated with spamming it with rude comments and warnings for things I did not do. Since the Wiki guidelines state it is NOT prohibited to delete content on your own talk page, I did so, only to have people to keep reversing my deletions. Finally, I got fed up and put a message asking people to stop doing that. This seemed to work up until recently. An admin by the name of Hu12 kept reversing my deletions, giving me warnings about deleting talk page comments and warnings. I informed him about the fake warnings and also provided him with the quote from the guidelines that says my actions are allowed. Another individual also backed me up on this. He left another warning, not even responding to this message. I repeated it, and again he warned me. I asked him to stop, because it was becoming harassment, and he blocked me. I appealed the block, stating that I had done nothing that was against the guidelines. This block was turned down by an admin named auburnpilot, because of all the warnings I had got and because I had been blocked before. Not only is this unfair, since these things had nothing to do with my blockage, but she was also wrong. According to her, I was blocked three times, while, in reality, I was only blocked two. The first time was actually by her, and she did not even bother to post the three warnings until either after or at the same time she blocked me. The second time was after a mistaken warning that was revoked by the person who issued it BEFORE the block and the block was later removed. And most of the warnings were either the fake ones from the trolls or the equally-uncalled for ones from Hu12. Now, to top it off, my page has been locked from editing. I have been treated extremely unfairly by these two admins. The guidelines state specifically that a user can delete their own talk pages. I would like my talk page to be unlocked and for these two admins to be at least talked to for their rude treatment of me.67.163.193.239 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected your talk page since you are unblocked. I don't really understand why the users were so intent on reverting your talk page, there isn't any policy that forbids it. I also don't see why you were so uncivil and persisted on reverting. Seems like it would have been easier to just let it die down and deal with it later. John Reaves (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 70.23.199.239

by 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Nadine Gordimer (diff). user has been warned and blocked a couple of times before for incivility and personal attacks. Doldrums 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks by Frelke

Repeated reverts to include personal attack , ; also in edit summary at and refusal to comply with polite request to desist , including further PA in edit summary. Follows on from my earlier reversal of that user's attempt to remove my comment from the flow of a conversation . Andy Mabbett 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Islamic Hell of Imam Khamenei

Can someone please block this user because of its offensive username. This user is probably a sock of a banned user. This is suggested by his contributions (I guess it is User:DavidYork71. --Aminz 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recommend indef username block.Proabivouac 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a User:Patchouli sockpuppet, not an Davidyork one, as stated in an above discussion regarding User:Imam Khamenei=Islam --KZ 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. --Aminz 10:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peterhowitt (talk · contribs)

This user, who registered yesterday, is claiming to be actor/director Peter Howitt. While there may be obvious WP:COI issues (I did alter a welcome message to also suggest he take a few minutes to read WP:COI), I see nothing wrong with any of his edits so far. If I remember correctly though, his identity will have to be verified by someone up the wiki food chain, so I thought I'd bring it up here. --Onorem 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If he's claiming to be someone famous, I've seen from somewhere that you are suppose to block the account until identification is confirmed to avoid impersonation? Of course, that is more than likely to be wrong, and doesn't seem to be reinforced in any policy... --KZ 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, after close inspection of his edits, I don't see much wrong... Maybe a few notability issues but apart from that, he seems to be a genuine good-faith editor. He doesn't seem to be in danger of violating anything with an exception of WP:COI, so if an identification procedure is needed, I wouldn't advise a block until it is over. --KZ 11:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message suggesting Howitt to e-mail Misplaced Pages proof of his identity under this account and warning him of a possible block due to concerns of impersonation. Not sure about the necessity for a block, but there is probably some sort of precedent that dictates whether it's applicable. ˉˉ╦╩ 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is convention to block until the identity is confirmed. See the incident at User talk:George Carlin. Also, the article he created was a blatant ripoff of so I deleted it. He is editing his own article, but he seems to be pretty neutral about it. John Reaves (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony here is that this might be a rare instance where the copyright holder uploaded the text determined to be copyvio. I've undeleted the article sans the promotional blurb snatched from the website. ˉˉ╦╩ 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it still needs to be GFDL. Simply uploading it wouldn't irrevocably release it would it? John Reaves (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All text contributions are automatically licensed under the GFDL unless they contain copyrighted text. If Howitt was aware of this, he could have chosen to release this content under the GFDL via contribution. Of course you can't bank on that stipulation, so it would help if the copyright owner would actually make a note of releasing content under a particular free license. Deleting at least the copyrighted portion was obviously the right thing to do, in any case. ˉˉ╦╩ 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png

i'm personally feeling that User:Timeshifter is being seriously disrutive to "the discussion" via these: (1st), (2nd), -my resolve attempt-, (3rd)+"You are approaching a 3RR violation" threat - scroll down to see it - please have someone review the history of the talk page and give an opinion. Jaakobou 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing big chunks of talk? Archive it instead, leaving a note about what was archived and why, and a link. Ask someone if you don't know how to make an archive sub-page. Then maybe the two of you will be able to stop deleting each others' talk. Dicklyon 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon, obvisoult you did not take a good look at the issue. the talk allready exists on an older image before it was exchanged for the current one - i raised suggestions about the new one and User:Timeshifter copy pasted the info from the older image which is seriously redundant and only disruptive for anyone to contribute to the new discussion. i've tried placeing a link to it but User:Timeshifter insisted that "admins" (who?) wanted the information there. Jaakobou 06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

to make it more clear, i link to where the material was originally copied from - i.e. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image_talk:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png . Jaakobou 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

for a short while this seemed to get better (after an uncomfortable restructuring i've made) but issue seems to be repeating itself. -- Jaakobou 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Chidis (talk · contribs)

The above Sri Lanka specific user seems to be using Misplaced Pages as battleground and expound anti-minority views that too without WP:RS citations and is adding information in WP:Vand format. For example in the article Islam in Sri Lanka (see here) he/she wrote without any attribution However the Muslim community in Sri Lanka has been severly criticized by the other communities for not practising Family planning; which is an argument used by local communal leaders to suggest that Muslims intend to become the majority in Sri Lanka by the next century. Then on another Sri Lankn minority related article (see diff here) He/she wrote many derogatory terms such as lower caste without attributions. Further on a minority related political party (See diff here) he/she wrote that the party stands for super status for the Tamil minority. Other questionable edits bordering on vandalism are (see diff here),(see diff here), (See diff here) Please look into this to bring some sanity to the situation before all out edit wars begins RaveenS 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Patrollers needed for Scottish political articles

Just a note - I just spoke to a journalist about thhe upcoming Scottish elections (May) and vandalism to Scottish political articles on en:wp. He was wondering if it was at the sort of level we'd expect, particularly on Scottish National Party. That article has only suffered minor ravages; the situation probably isn't dire right now - but if people could watchlist Scottish political party, politician, etc. articles and get very WP:BLP on the arses of anything added to said articles, that may be a good idea - David Gerard 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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