Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 25 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?

Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again

I hope this would be the last time i'd deal w/ these childish stupidities. My stance on the matter of pointy and provocative userpages has been cristal clear. My question to the disruptors is Are you here to imporve Misplaced Pages?

Yes absolutely → Then you are more than welcome and many thanks. Your efforts are so appreciated.

Yes absolutely but it is my userpage and please don't censor it → then you move your ass and look for a web space provider.

The issue has been involving, for a relatively long time now, a few editors. I am talking here about User:Embargo and User:Matt57.

• User:Matt57's case: Level-headed editor Proabivouac had already spoken to him about the matter here after removing a quote of Hadith from his userpage before he reverted back under the pretext that not responsible for actions of other users.
• User:Embargo's case: I had already blocked him for a 24h period on December 11, 2006 because of provocative userpage after warnings. You can refer to his talkpage and userpage history for further info. Now and after the involvment of many admins, he is still posting a Sanhedrin (Talmud) tractate in response to Matt57's case (according to him).

So, what is the problem w/ both userpages? Well, Matt57 wants to make a pointy argument about the treatment of women in Islam by using such hadith. Embargo, on the other hand wants to make a similar point about pedastry in Judaism.

Please note that i've interacted w/ both users in the past w/ a relatively both positive and negative outcomes. My patience as an admin is almost gone (i hope not) and i think my n-time involvment on this matter would make things worse (i.e. harsh blocks). Therefore i hope some admin(s) can deal w/ this matter once for all.

P.S. I am not sure if there are more similar cases as i am not a policeman but please let me know if there are any. We are still dealing w/ This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!'s case above. -- FayssalF - 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both as violations of WP:USER. -- Avi 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. Is there an arbcom ruling on this, or is it obvious from WP:USER? -- Avi 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from the Talmud, even though user:Prester John still keeps his Hadith quote. I intend to keep my userbox supporting Hezbollah, if you have heard of the debate (scroll down), and to which user:Ryan Postlethwaite seems to ideologically object. Emбargo 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John's case is dealt w/. -- FayssalF - 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi and Faysal, let me clear this with you - Do you agree with me that ALL religious quotes should be deleted from user pages? See user Itaqallah's page. I'm not trying to be disruptive or proving a point or whatever - the issue is simple. Either religious quotes should be allowed on user pages, or they should not. Please also remove the religious verse on Itaqallah's page. It is unfair and discriminatory to say that one user can have a religious quote to express their approval of a religion, while another cannot have a quote to express their disapproval of the religion. The policies in Misplaced Pages must be applied uniformly. Besides this user, there are many user pages where religious quotes are displayed. They should ALL be taken down, irrespective of the language, context or nature of the quotation. --Matt57 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do w/ your cases Matt. We are dealing w/ WP:POINT here. You can quote whatever you want as long as it is not provacative and polemical or a campaign for or against anything or anyone. Read the quote below. I hope it is cristal clear.

• Polemical statements:

- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages co-founder

If you can prove to us that you were not making a point then that would be another matter. If you can prove to us that Itaqallah is making a point then that would be another matter as well. -- FayssalF - 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Matt57 - no religion prostelyzing or bashing. Misplaced Pages is not the Free speech corner in Hyde Park where everyone gets to take the megaphone and shout to the whole wide world their beliefs, problems, dreams, nightmares or I don't know what. Use Youtube people, it is much more fun and less stressful for that sort of stuff. Or MySpace or whatever.Baristarim 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide me w/ facts (policies and guidelines) re this? Also, where's the youtube stuff at Itaqallah's page? Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove the atheist userbox at your userpage or the Ataturk's Peace at home, peace in the world. stuf? No. Why? Do i have to repeat it again and again? Because they are just NOT PROVOCATIVE! Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove "This user supports the independence of Cascadia" which you were arguing against on another thread? No. So where is the problem? -- FayssalF - 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cascadia box is just for kicks :) Anyways, I will join in the conversation later. Baristarim 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Itaqallah's slogan is borderline. Arrow740 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Borderline or not. The issue is simple: Having religious polemical statements on userpages is not allowed. I can translate my statement into French or Arabic too and could defend doing that but I wont. The simple and correct way is to agree to remove all religious content from user pages and stick to the policies and apply them uniformly. --Matt57 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, it is irrelevant whether I'm trying to make a point. If I saw a user with a userbox which I also wanted to copy on my page, does it mean I'm trying to make a point? No. I liked that verse on my userpage. It expressed my disapproval of a religion, just like another verse expressed approval of the religion on another user's page. I'm prepared to take this debate to any length so we can be fair to everyone. The quote you mentioned also said "campaign for or against anything ". Having religious quotes on userpages to express the approval of the user's religion means campaigning for the certain religion. Having my quote was campaigning against the religion, obviously. We must remove all religious quotations - that includes Itaqallah's arabic verse on his userpage. I agree to comply with Misplaced Pages's policies but they should be applied uniformly. Misplaced Pages's policy states that campaigning FOR is also not allowed on a user's page. Itaqallah's verse must be go as well. I find Itaqallah's verse provocative, because I dont approve at all of the religion he is trying to promote on his user's page. Policies must be applied fairly so please, remove Itaqallah's religious quotation also on his user page.--Matt57 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed ItaqAllah's polemical statement from his user page. Do we all agree on this? thanks. --Matt57 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on which interpretation to favor, but it appears that by FayssaIF's standard, Surah 3 verse 102 is polemical. — coelacan — 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Netscott reverted my removal of Itaqallah's polemical statement on his user page. I want to hear administrator's confirmation (particularly Faysal's) that, all religious polemical text (irrespective of language, text or nature) should be removed from a user's page. As I said, I'm prepared to participate in any amount of debate to make sure that policies are applied uniformly to all users. --Matt57 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, not all religious texts are polemical. Professing a belief is typically less provoking than attacking another belief. Distinction is possible and discression required. "Make a narrow rule, so that I can (barely) honour the word, but ignore the spirit" is not the way Misplaced Pages works.--Stephan Schulz 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a religious quotation from your holy book is campaigning for that religion. Campaigning is not allowed on user pages: "campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea", said Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. Having a quotation from a holy book is not necessarily campaigning. It can be, but it can just as well be a simple profession of faith, or just showcasing a profound thought or beautiful literature. Like a lot of things, it depends on the details and context. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So whats the limit to what we can and cannot quote from religious texts on our user pages? Can I quote anything from the Quran? This would not be a big problem if people said NO to all reliogious quotes on user pages. If a Muslim has a quote from the Quran on their user page, then I should also be able to have a quote from the Quran on my user page. Thats all I'm saying. If somoene can express approval of the faith they belong to, then for fairness, I should be able to express my disapproval of the religion. Why is that a big issue? And if you see below, people are voicing their disapproval for having any religious texts on user pages and this is what should be done, for fairness. Either allow all quotes or dont allow them, but DONT be selective about what can be quoted and what not. --Matt57 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don'y you suggest it on Misplaced Pages talk:User page and see how it goes.--Sefringle 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I aready did that on that page last month, and it petered out after a few replies. Tarc 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(dedent)Either allow all quotes or don't allow them, - I guess your world is very black and white. The argument is nonsensical. "Either kill all life on Earth, or don't kill at all." "Either eat all the chocolate in the supermarket, or none at all". "Either allow people to own all kinds of weapons, or no weapons at all." "Either allow driving at any speed, or at no speed at all."...and the list goes on. This world has more shades of gray (and don't let me start about various colours!) than you seem to be aware of. --Stephan Schulz 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent religious quotation comes to mind. It appears in several versions.

1. ""What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." Hillel the Elder
2. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...." Matthew 7:12, King James Bible
3. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you...." Matthew 7:12, New International Bible
4. "Don't be a dick." Misplaced Pages

That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee rulings from five days ago:

While not explicitly stated on Misplaced Pages:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From Billy Ego-Sandstein. Take that as you please. Daniel Bryant 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo (talk · contribs)

Embargo insists on re-adding an inflammatory userbox on his userpage, despite numerous complaints over the past few months on his talk page. This is the current userbox which I have removed, it reads This user supports islamic resistance wikilinking to Hezbollah, now I'm no islamic expert, but I know that in many countries, Hezbollah is very controversial political party (I think the USA still class them as a terrorist organisation). The statement is clearly polemical, as all the similar userboxes have been which embargo has been putting up. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look at the userbox that I removed? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the continued replacement of a quote from the Talmud as a WP:POINT against Matt56 hadith quote (which was removed) shoudl also be reviewed. See rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. -- Avi 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've reverted back to the non-offensive version. This is getting to be an extreme exercise in WP:POINT -M 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Into the hot water) As much as I despise Hezbollah's acts of terrorism (I cannot call actions which intetionally kill innocent civilians anything else) I do not think that the formulation This user supports islamic resistance (wikilinking to Hezbollah) is per-se so inflammatory that it is not allowed on userpages. Go to arbitration if you must, but I feel repeated editon of another user's userpage in such a controversial case is not "good"; also, what would you do if the text in question was not placed inside of a userbox but *gasp* plaintext on his userpage. Would you still remove it then? Or would you allow it to stand? Where does the right to show bias end? People supporting Israel's retributive actions against Paleastinian acts of violence (and vice versa) would have to remove that information too. And people supporting the Iraq war (or opposing it). And people following radical muslim faith. And radical Christians (time of troubles in Northern Ireland, anyone). And Muslems and Christians and Atheists in general. etc. etc. etc. And then were are left with "This is an userpage" (End of File) CharonX/talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • However, it's clearly a polemical statement, which are against WP:USER, it's not even margianlly an infringement, it's perfectly clear cut. I'm sure Israeili people will be clearly offended by this statement, I think that says it all Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I went and blocked him for 3RR for a couple days until this clears up. I don't know whether or not it's a problem, if this must be taken to arbcom then do so. They may accept it, they may not.--Wizardman 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, you can't really 3RR in your own userspace, but this delightful bit of trolling probably justifies your block anyway.--Isotope23 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been discussed before . The behavior of this user has been discussed numerous times as well . Embargo knows what he is doing. He is intentionally being disruptive. IrishGuy 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I support the block. I know this is getting lumped in with the Matt issue from the other ANI post above, but these are slightly different situations. Neither really should be posting polemic statements on their userpages, but Embargo in particular seems to have a history of trolling.--Isotope23 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just before his block he created a redirect for Islamic resistance to hezbollah. Would anyone support a longer block due to the amount of trolling that he's done in the past? I'm kinda involved so maybe I'm not the best person to suggest this, but I propose moving it upto 10 days. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

............And block evasion??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. If someone wants to extend the account block I'd leave it to their discretion.--Isotope23 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And 'round and 'round this goes again. As I've said before, Embargo isn't exactly an agreeable person (in a wikipedia editing sense), but can you see where the uneven treatment can make him get a bit steamed? If there's really going to be "no polemical statements" allowed on user pages, then it must be enforced uniformly and this back-and-forth "some admins delete UserBoxA, but a similar UserBoxB is allowed to stay" stuff has got to come to an end. User:Matt57's (not 56 as noted above) quote is at this moment deleted, but when Embargo brought it to Viridae's attention, Viridae responded with "I can't see anything offensive about at all" ? Also note the previous time where Twas_Now was the one who suggested that either "This user supports armed resistance" or "This user supports resistance to hostility" (both with wikilinks to Hezbollah, note) would be, quote, "good for you" to use.

This is really what needs to be addressed; the need fora uniform policy for ALL user pages that will be upheld by ALL admins. Tarc 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many things that may be offensive aren't, this is. Use WP:UCS when evaluating these and all is well. Life is unfair sometimes, it's true, and the onesthat can really be offensive can go, but most aren't offensive, just irksome. -M 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of BS hypocrisy that has gotten this user into trouble in the first place. Tarc 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this user got in trouble for spearheading WP:POINT, which is what most people who do these sorts of userboxes end up doing. Also the people who go around removing every piece of religious text end up getting into as well. Common sense, its a wonderful thing, any one who doesn't use it often should try it. -M 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic, Itaqallah, and Matt (arbitrary section break)

I have agreed to the removal of religious text from my page, as long as the policy is applied to ALL, as user Tarc pointed out above. This user Itaqallah also has religious text (it doesnt matter if its in Arabic. It must go as well). I had removed it but was reverted and threatened by a block from Netscott for removing it. Can someone please remove this so it is clear the policy is applied to all uniformly? We're also discussing this 2 sections above this one. --Matt57 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. This should be discussed with the other pages. -- Avi 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not in agreeance with the removal of User:Itaqallah's Qur'anic quote for the following reasons: (1) It's in Arabic and (2) it is addressed to "those who believe" and (3) the primary reason that its removal has come about is User:Matt57's pointed addition of a "hadith" (I still am very doubtful as to the nature of Matt57's quote due to the fact that I could only find it mentioned on anti-Islam punditry sites). If the quote on Itaqallah's page was addressed to those who didn't "believe" as though they'd be subject to eternal damnation or some other such nonsense then I'd understand the removal but I don't see what User:Matt57 or (User:Embargo for that matter ) was doing as equivalent to Itaqallah's display. (→Netscott) 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that when all is said and done that such quotes would be allowed for the reasons you mention. However, as it is a point of discussion now, I felt it better to simultaneously discuss it here and try and prevent any appearances of impartiality. I would say, that being that this is English wiki, it would be a prudent idea to, at the very least, have an accurate translation of foreign sayings on user pages to help forestall any misconceptions. -- Avi 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo wasn't the only one violating WP:POINT. as i explained to Avi, Matt57 put up that particular extract on his page in order to be provocative, and in particular, bait a response from me , despite him believing that scriptural extracts weren't allowed on user pages. ITAQALLAH 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, the language, nature or context of the Quranic verse should not matter. Either all users should be allowed to have quotes from Islamic sources on user pages, or they should not. If I'm not allowed to have an Islamic source on my userpage, then it would be wrong for anyone else to be allowed to have a quotation. My question will then be: Whats the limit to what I can quote and not? I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive. Please read my arguments above. If someone is allowed to express their approval of Islam, then others should be allowed to express their disapproval of the same. If you apply Misplaced Pages policies, you will arrive at the right decision which is, to not allow campaigning for or against anything. Having this Quranic verse qualifies as campaining for Islam and is thus wrong. I agreed to have my quotation removed and I expect that for fairness, everyone else including Itaqallah should accept the same judgements for their user pages. --Matt57 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, my actions should not indicate that I agree that no religious quotations per se exist, but there should definitely be no statements that lead to project disruption. Pointed comments about stoning women, pedastery, killing infidels, ritual murder, theft, superiority of any one religion, race, or creed versus others (to name some hypothetial examples) are forbidden under WP:USER. Things like love your fellow man, live in peace and harmony, likely help the project.

In this situation, I felt that possibly disruptive comments should be removed, especially in a foreign language where the intent of the statement is unknown to 99% of project members. This issue needs to be hashed out and a consensus reached. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that positive comments, even if religious in origin, are likely not disruptions, and should be permitted, but anything that can be considered disruptive should be removed, religious or non-religious. I removed the arabic comment because I could not be sure as to its meaning, and it was brought into a conversation about disruption, and the fairest result in my mind was to remove it for the time being, and reinstate it if it can be shown to be acceptable. It is not a comment as to the nature of the statement, as of now, since I am not certain as to the exact meaning just yet. -- Avi 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. "superiority of any one religion", thats what Itaqallah's verse said: "die not except in a state of Islam.". So not only is this a violation, it is also in Arabic as you pointed out. --Matt57 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive"- it doesn't say that at all. you are misquoting a religious text, and this is not the first incidence of such. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, please dont falsely accuse me of misquoting. The verse says what I said it says: "die not except in a state of Islam." --Matt57 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

you've changed your attribution. it's still a misquote though, as per your partial quoting. you strip it of context to forward your own point. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Itaqallah, in your opinion based on context, what does it mean and what is its purpose on your talk page? -- Avi 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it means that Muslims should a) have taqwa (the actual word used in the verse) and; b) die as Muslims. it's on my page as i find it an inspiration, and is one of the most well-known verses of the Qur'an, and it has never seemed inappropriate to quote from religious texts, as a large part of the Misplaced Pages community currently does. it's in Arabic because, as Pickthall and others opine, no translation can fully encapsulate the meaning of the Arabic itself. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, why did you not quote the full verse? It says in addition: "Do not die except in a state of Islam". This means that Islam is a superior religion. I should then be allowed to say "Dont die in the state of Islam", so again - where does it end? --Matt57 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

... please read my comment again. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "one should die in a state of Islam" means campaining for Islam. This is not allowed on Misplaced Pages according to Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the context correctly, the verse in question seems little more polemic than the Shema, one of the most basic affirmation of faith prayers in Judaism, which also speaks to those already in the faith. I see nothing wrong with it's presence on the userpage. (standard IANaAdmin Caveat) ThuranX 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Any other admin's care to weigh in? -- Avi 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

meh, its a non-polemic statement of faith. If it said 'I wish non-muslims would die' or 'I wont work with jews' or 'I worship the grand wizard' or something, thats polemic. A non-offensive statement of faith is fine. Even embargo up there, I believe, would've been fine if he had just had a ubx that said 'I oppose the continued military prescence in the occupied territories'. No, he said he believes in islamic resistence and linked to hezbollah. Just think about these things people. "Will people go apeshit if I do this?" isnt that hard a question to ask yourself. -M 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The verse can only be taken as campaigning. If the word Mu'minun (the object of address) is taken to be "believer" (though I recently read a paper of Stillman who essentially disproves this), then the verse can be saying that all people who believe in God shouldn't die except in a state of Islam. That's proselytizing. Even if it means only Muslims shouldn't die except in a state of Islam, that's telling Muslims "don't leave Islam." It's campaigning no matter how you interpret it, and the presentation of this message in a foreign language is discomfiting. Arrow740 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it doesn't matter what you think the verse means; all that matters is what Itaqallah thinks the verse means. And the way he interprets the verse, there is no campaigning. --Kirby♥time 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Is he the only one seeing it? Further, as he interprets it, it means, excluding the "taqwa" issue that may be addressed in another place, "Muslims, die as Muslims." So, "Muslims, don't leave Islam." That is certainly campaigning. Arrow740 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. If a Userpage has a swastika, it is not provocative if the swastika in question is being used in the context of a Hindu religious symbol. If someone else interprets it to be a Nazi swastika, that sucks for them.--Kirby♥time 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First I should say that not all swastikas should be acceptable. Second, you didn't bother to address the point I will now make for a third time, that itaqallah is at best telling Muslims "stay Muslim." That is campaiging. Arrow740 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not campaigning, that's Preaching to the choir. Campaigning means to go after people with uncertain convictions, while a "Muslim", by its very definition, has a certain conviction. I see his message as harmless as a Christian saying "Christians, believe in Jesus".--Kirby♥time 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a "former Muslim" you must have once been a Muslim with uncertain convictions. The message is (in his interpretation) directing Muslims to not change their religion before they die. It is more strident than your example. Arrow740 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. And I fail to see how being a bit more "strident" makes it unacceptable.--Kirby♥time 08:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this issue even exists.

There is no question that Matt57's addition runs afoul of WP:POINT, though I doubt it was intended to disrupt thee encyclopedia. Matt57's quote, designed as it is to cast Islam in a negative light, is somewhat inflammatory, and should certainly stay removed. I take him at his word that he strongly feels that if positive representations of Islam are allowed, so should negative ones. There is a certain logic to this, but let's use common sense: someone saying their religion is right is not quite as inflammatory as saying your religion is wrong, even though the second is logically entailed by the first, because the second is overtly confrontational. I doubt that Matt57 meant to troll per se, but it has a similar effect.

User:Embargo is in an entirely different league; besides his overt antisemitism and paranoia, he is routinely uncivil and appears to be here mainly or only to troll; a Community Ban might be considered.

Now for the borderline case, Itaqallah's quote. The recent ArbCom ruling, "Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV." I belive this strongly disallows Embargo's behavior, weakly disallows Matt57's and allows Itaqallah's. This ruling appears to have been based upon WP:USER, which disallows "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages," as well as "polemical statements." However, there is a difference between "inflammatory" and "polemic." Polemic's Greek root means essentially "belligerent," but nowadays means argumentative, particularly about controversial topics; ArbCom's wording could have (and should have) been stronger. Still stronger is Jimbo's quote, "using userpages to...campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea," but of course that only says it is a bad idea, not that it is disallowed. Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.

Like politics, religion is famously controversial, as it was when Itaqallah's quote was written, and remains so today. Banning all religious and political statements from userpages would discourage factionalization, protect users from being typecast and help us all get along. However, the community is not there yet; too many editors are invested in the notion of userpage as a platform for self-expression, and too many others fail to appreciate the degree to which this contributes to factionalization and battlegroundish behavior on talk space and in mainspace. Even when one edits fairly neutrally, declarations of partiality towards a subject one frequently edits creates the appearance of bias. Conversely, when people are asked to pretend that they are neutral, they will often wind up thinking more neutrally as a result.

To return to my original point, it's unfortunate that this issue even exists. It would be far simpler, and take so much less time for us all to parse, to simply ban all irrelevant opinions from userspace, for it shall be far easier for us to decide which viewpoints are irrelevant than which are unacceptable. I suppose I agree with Matt57 that clear and relatively objective rules are warranted. Barring that, we are doomed by our own hand to repeat these discussions again and again, arguing about what is or is not inflammatory, polemic, extensive, etc.Proabivouac 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Proabivouac on many points → (Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.) It is all about common sense. I must remind everyone that it was me who started this thread(s) and it was mainly because Embargo and Matt57 were making a point and provoking the community. Why? Embargo seems to be a Muslim having a Talmudic quote about pedastry in Judaism while Matt57, while being an atheist (as it is stated on his userpage) was quoting a hadith about the treatment of women in Islam.

Many users use the {{Torah_portion}} on their userpages. Is that inflammatory or provocative? NO! Why? Because they are Jewish and do not intend in any way to provoke anyone. So arguing about Itaqallah's Quranic verse is clearly a pointy argument. -- FayssalF - 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As Prov said, the simplest and best solution for this to have consistent and easy to follow rules: You either disallow everyone to have religious quotes, or allow them. Allowing them causes factionalization as Prov said - thats why Jimbo Wales said its a bad idea (becuase its campaining for Islam). If someone is going to praise Islam on their home page, that is inflammotory to me because Islam says I'll burn in Hell. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want to say about Islam too, if others are allowed. That verse was offensive to me because it said everyone should die in the state of Islam. If thats true, I should be allowed to say everyone should not die in the state of Islam. Both are equivalent statements; niether is more inflammotory than the other - thats the main point here. The only solution is to keep religious quotes and these kinds of separations out, otherwise the question will always be: What is allowed? And as Jimbo said and he was right: campaining is a bad idea. --Matt57 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, i'll be supporting the idea. However, you fail to understand Matt that your and Embargo's quotes were an intent to provoke others. As for Itaqallah's verse, as he explained, it was his inspiration as it is the case for many Jewish and Christian and other religious users as well as atheists. What i fail to understand is that why are you insisting on Islam while avoiding talking about how Judaism and Christianity view and consider atheists. Why Itaqallah in particular?! Isn't it your own POINT which i've been refering to since my first post above? -- FayssalF - 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell. That anyone should see something like that as "inspirational" is pretty much beyond my comprehension, but of course anyone is free to choose. Anyway, what matters here is that I believe that users should be able to visit each others user space without having to be confronted with such unpleasant threats, and the problem is not only with Itaqallahs user page. BrandonYusufToropov's user page also "welcome" non-Muslim visitors with a threat about hellfire, and on his page it is written in plain English. I have no idea what his intention was when he added it, and perhaps it has indeed been very much inspirational to him, but I still believe that is more important that users can visit each others pages without being exposed to any such threats. -- Karl Meier 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Karl Meier's removal of this material from User:BrandonYusufToropov's user page. According to current policy, material which is religious in nature is neither specially forbidden nor specially protected; the relevant questions are whether the material is inflammatory, polemic, extensive or campaigning. This presence of this quote is naturally interpreted as promising other editors - and perhaps also wishing upon them - eternal torment, and is plainly (and literally) inflammatory and divisive. "Go to Hell" is an uncivil insult in any spirit; how much more so when it is said in all seriousness.Proabivouac 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell"- the problem with Karl's point here is that the verse doesn't say that at all, and so i call into question whether or not Karl is aware of precisely what verse is under discussion. ITAQALLAH 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This was another divisive and campaining verse, a stronger one. We must remove all religious quotes. Faysal, my intent wasnt to provoke. Its simple: either everyone should be allowed to have verses or not. The intent is irrelevant. If Itaqallah and BYT wants to educate the public about some aspect of the Quran they want to show to everyone, I did exactly the same. We can end this matter by deciding to remove religious quotes from userpages like Itaqallah's and BYT, because again, that is campaining for an issue, in this case, Islam. --Matt57 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would simply like to see a uniform policy in regards to this situation. I got dragged into all of this because of Embargo's case, where he worked out a compromise with one admin, only to have another admin revoke that, as well as decline to apply the same standard to other users. Whether the ultimate decision is "no polemicals" or "some polemicals" or whatever, I just want to see something that is applied across the board. Tarc 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to take this to Misplaced Pages talk:User page and discuss it. I believe that we've achieved somehow what this thread has requested. Now, we need to move forward and archiev this. -- FayssalF - 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another userpage has been introduced to the discussion, so archiving is premature.Proabivouac 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please fill me in. The reason no one could ask whether I would mind removing this material from my userpage is that . . .. ? BYT 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We should also be removing this userbox from userpages as it faces the same problem:

This Muslim user strongly condemns any terrorist attacks and would like to point out Sura 4:29 of the Quran that says,"And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you."

--Sefringle 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa that was a huge userbox that messed up my page. Cutting size by half. If it looks weird, my maths are wrong. As for the issue at hand, the statement on itaqallah's page is from one of the most widely distributed religious texts in the world, and is a non-polemic. It is no different than a userbox saying "Jesus christ is my lord and savior" or "Shma yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai echad", or "Hail Mary..." or "Our father...." etc. It's not divisive, it's not polemic, it's not aggressive and offensive and harmful. It's a nonissue. ⇒ SWATJester 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this as well. -- FayssalF - 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the guy doesn't communicate and keeps reverting so i've just protected his user page. -- FayssalF - 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous block of DreamGuy by David Gerard, please review

On April 15, 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a month for POV-pushing by Theresa Knott, which I thought rather draconian, and reduced to one week. ANI discussion here. This is the IP of DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as he has amply acknowledged. It's not an abusive sock. My week's block was about to run out today, when David Gerard re-blocked for a month, giving the reason that the IP is "a sock of a banned user" (? no), and that it has been making ""Continuing personal attacks using talk page as platform". (I agree DreamGuy has been surly on the talkpage; blocked users tend to be.) David has also blanked and semiprotected the talkpage. So, a one-month block plus the talkpage gag? Was this guy making personal attacks to the extent that it disrupted the encyclopedia? On his own talkpage, that nobody has any need to go to and be disrupted by...? Well, I think that would be an overstatement, please check the History and see if you agree. Theresa, prompted by DreamGuy's old adversary Elonka, has subsequently blocked the DreamGuy account for a month also. The DreamGuy block actually seems merely redundant, as a comparison of the IP block periods with DreamGuy's contributions will show that DreamGuy is blocked when his IP is. But perhaps, if Theresa's double block hadn't been placed, he could have used User talk:DreamGuy to communicate, say post an unblock request? Not sure if that would have been technically possible. It's moot now, anyway.

David's block seems excessively spontaneous to me. I'm hoping he will reconsider it. A hurried proceeding is suggested by the way he placed it last thing before going offline, apparently — I have posted on his page without response, and his contributions list ends with the 216.165.158.7 semiprotection — and also without a block message and without any report here.

Please note that DreamGuy, while not our sweetest-tempered user, is a constructive editor and certainly no vandal. As I wrote in the original ANI thread a week ago, he has done good work for the encyclopedia for a long time, in staunchly resisting spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. A silent phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks is quite wrong in my book. Take him to WP:RFAr if measures are needed. Or perhaps a mentor? Anyway, this is no way of doing it. That's what I think, what do you think? Please review. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

You know, DreamGuy may have his share of positive contributions, but so do most people who get blocked. From what I've seen, DG is obsessive about Elonka and actively tries to remove each and every mention of Elonka and her works from Misplaced Pages, taking the opportunity to spread incivility and bad will. Besides, I've always heard that RfAr (and our dependence on it) indicates that we're unable to solve our own problems.

DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks. If he expresses a willingness to discontinue his problematic editing patterns, he should be unblocked and monitored. What *isn't* productive is shrugging off these problems as "not being our sweetest-tempered editor". Philwelch 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you are being overly naive regarding this case, Bishonen. Both the anon and DreamGuy are not productive editors, and their negative impact far outweights the positive ones. The Misplaced Pages isn't in such desperate need of editors that we have to take whatever comes... we can easily let go of editors who, despite having some postive contributions, are both agressive and disruptive. Not to mention completely impolite and confrontational. I don't know about other admins, but I am perfectly willing to move forwards with a community block or other such radical measure in case Gerard's decision is overturned. --Sn0wflake 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually nonsense. The only negatives come from conflicts with people who are not following policies and then try to win through false accusations and character assasination. You, for instance, were quite aggressive and disruptive and, as your talk page states, have a policy of blocking first no questions asked. This kind of behavior goes against the policies of Misplaced Pages and, in fact, causes more problems than it solves. If anything your own responsibility in this matter, first in harassing me until I said something less than polite in response and then in presenting false information to the ANI page about my activities, which led to a block under false pretenses, should be examined. It's might outrageous for you to be making claims about my edit history when the dispute I had with you was because you insisted upon placing information on how to pirate software back into an article talk page after I had removed it because it was not what talk pages are for. 216.165.158.7 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was preserving the Talk page. If the discussion in it unfolded for two years without being censored, then I don't really see for what reason you would be allowed to go into it and erase basically everything. Still, trying to reach a middle-ground, I archived t and started a fresh Talk. Then, on the main article, you insisted on putting information which belonged to the article on Abandonware. I reverted and told you those matters should be addressed in Abandonware. You disagreed, so you insisted on pushing your bias into the article of the website. Then hell broke loose and your other conflicts surfaced. And here we are. You have now accused me several times of abusing my sysop rights, called me a software pirate several times also (warez lubber, wasn't it? Way to go with encyclopedia language) and your list of Contributions should be a textbook case on how not to behave on a Wiki. Now there seem to be 3 admins volunteering to mentor you and somehow you have been unblocked, which I find downright ridiculous, but I digress. My part in this seems to be over for the moment. --Sn0wflake 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First up, however long illegal an completely off topic information may have existed on a talk page without being removed it certainly doesn't justify putting it back and then making very aggressive, rude and threatening comments about it. "Pulling information that belonged in the article"? Sounds like you had an edit disagreement. Edit disagreements are not cause for you to bully others. You kept putting your bias back in. But, again, you are ignoring that your stated policy to block first and ask questions later, which you certainly did (not to mention the later false info you presented on ANI) is wholly against the rules here and highly uncivil. The fact of the matter is, you were out of line. I admit to being less than polite sometimes, but on the other hand it usually comes from people being off the scale uncivil to me and violating policy (or, in your case, also the law). Blocking people without justification and bragging about it on your talk page is way more uncivil than me calling you a warezlubber (or whatever) after you had already clearly demonstrated a pro-piracy POV. The abandonware article (and related article giving free advertising to specific sites that do this) and other similar articles very clearly need to have information there so as not to confuse people into thinking that softwarepiracy is legal, either on its own or simply by giving it a fancy new neologism to rationalize it away. My edits simply pointed out that it is illegal, which is not a POV, and tried to undo some of the blatant pro-piracy POV that had been there. DreamGuy 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Never denied having a strong approach, never will. However, this is exactly the kind of thing which didn't need to happen, if only you had used a different tone back in the first edits/messages. I reacted strongly to somebody who was making his point strongly? Of course. Against policy? That's stretching a bit, no? You were being disruptive in several oportunities (I'm not even talking about myself anymore), and you are bounf to have realized that after all that has ensued. Also, what you describe as violating the law is very questionable. No direct link was being provided to downloads, AFAIK. There were just people pointing out how to reach the website. The site is online, not on some Freenet, but on the actual WWW, so really, giving a link to the website which is readily avalible from Google and a thousand other places is hardly violating any law. More like censorship, which I am very strongly against. Rather, you choose to assume bad faith and automatically turn me into a "pro-piracy warez lubber". I strive to mantain neutrality and block attempts at censorship. But saying I'm breaking the law etc makes it easier, no... if you hope me to hand out candy to people who unilaterally make changes to articles with agressive edit summaries and come to my Talk page loaded with guns instead of simply asking me what was going on, then no... I'm not that kind of admin and I never will be — my politeness depends on yours, admin or not. Also, about warning people about the legal status of abandonware... it doesn't belong on the websites' article. And that's it. It doesn't matter how evil you think it is. It belongs to Abandonware. --Sn0wflake 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the IP block for being a "sock of a banned user" appears to be based on a factual error, in that DreamGuy was not blocked or banned and no one else has been identified whom 216 could be a sock of. The necessity for the block and its length should be reassessed, after taking this correction into account, by the blocking administrator, whose attention should be drawn to this thread if it has not already been. I do not see that at this point, a case for a continued block, let alone a block of one month, has been made out. Note that I have not reviewed all the contributions and I am not opining that a further block could not be justified, simply that it has not been thus far. Having said that, enough concerns have been raised about the user's editing under both the DreamGuy and IP accounts that it would be good to see improvements in his approach whenever he resumes editing. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch: "DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks"? I guess you didn't notice my several references to the IP talkpage being semiprotected by David Gerard (confusingly, another DG) ? Semiprotection means an IP can't edit the page. That's why I also refer to it as "the talkpage gag". Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain this perhaps little-known facet of semiprotection. A combined block-plus-semiprotection-of-Talk is the strongest way we have of locking up and silencing an editor. It's rare, as it's only appropriate in very extreme cases. I wish somebody would unprotect the page right now. I have probably performed enough admin actions in this context, so I won't do it. I have appealed to David to undo his protection himself, but he's not here. I'm disappointed nobody has thought appropriate to do it yet. Brad? Bishonen | talk 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

He doesn't need the IP talkpage. He can log in as DreamGuy and post on his own talk page. Philwelch 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David is probably asleep. I don't see any problem with a cautious unblock here. Certainly David wouldn't object, he's not a nitwit. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, did you mean unprotect, instead of unblock? David Gerard appears to have blanked and semi-protected the page, because DreamGuy was using it as a platform to generate personal attacks. However, it's true that Gerard didn't issue any kind of, "This is your last warning" message. So, if DreamGuy would agree to be civil, I'd say to go ahead and unprotect the page, as long as he behaves himself. The block, however, should stay regardless, as it's for personal attacks, of which there were plenty. I'd be against removing the block, until/unless DreamGuy could prove that he was willing to participate in a cooperative and civil fashion with other editors. --Elonka 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what Elonka here is calling "personal attacks" is simply my poiting out that her and the other person falsely accusing others of using sockpuppets have a long history of harassing me -- and in fact is why I normally don;t sign onto accounts (it's not required by Misplaced Pages) as several admins suggested it might be a way to lessen their unnatural preoccupation with me -- and also of having sockpuppets on Elonka's Request for Admin vote, as proven by comments of several editors at the time. Elonka has a long history of branding things which are 100% accurate but which show her to be less than perfect person she wants the world to think she is as "personal attacks" and running around admin-shopping until she gets someone who will remove the posts. (Philwelch, above, being the perfect example, who in the past removed all documentation about Elonka's misbehavior that I had posted but insisted that Elonka's claims about me remain... 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant the block. It is the block that Bishonen has asked us to review. If this user after unblocking continues to be a pain in the wiki, he can be blocked again. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unblock him.--MONGO 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've undone both blocks because DreamGuy isn't a banned user. Actually I feel that my original 1 month block wasn't OTT at all. He was behaving awfully and needs to be told firmly that if he cannot edit cooperativly with others then he cannot edit at all. Anyway, that is done now, and we cannot block people as banned when they are not.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page was being used as a platform for vicious personal attacks - see its history. That's why I semiprotected it, specifcially so the IP couldn't continue in this manner. Bishonen, I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki - David Gerard 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that statement there is a vicious personal attack, both on myself and the actions of admins trying to act within the policies. 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. That's rather disappointing as a thank-you note to me for sweeping up after your careless block late last night, when I would much rather have gone to bed. Please be more specific about my past and present undue actions, I'd like to know what they have been. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

• I suppose the "someone" David Gerard is referring to above is me - though he is too timorous and polite to say it outright - or has he someone else in mind? - Whatever, perhaps we should be told - and more importantly how precisely Bishonen is "offering undue protection". If David Gerard does not want to put some diffs where his mouth is then he should shut up or cease his attacks - such as this one on Bishonen and her integrity. Giano 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard's actions were outside of policy, and, honestly, so were Theresa's. If a person is being hateful, etc., we still have AN and AN/I. We still have warnings. Even if the person in question is notorious, etc., we have the same requirements. It takes a minute to do things the non-controversial way. "Personal attacks" are indefinable and are especially indefinable when we get to user talk pages. Talk pages are not article pages, and blocking someone without warning and then blanking and protecting the talk page because of self-identified "personal attacks" is not proper. Doing so and then going deaf to the appeals is only slightly worse. Geogre 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user who had to deal with both DreamGuy and 216.165.158.7, I must comment: I think that this user has been repeatedly warned and given chances to reform, if not by warning templates, manually - I do not contest the block(s) itself. I do agree, however, that no user deserves to be silenced as such, especially given DG/.7's claim that the IP shifts over time. Since the block is reasonably justified, can we leave it as that, a simple block, and unprotect applicable talk pages? Besides, DG is a good editor, if extremely uncivil. I'd recommend leaving this block stand, but a warning that future cases may lead to a WP:RFAr. Nihiltres 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, Geogre: if you think DreamGuy's work is of value and are this keen to stand up for it, I hope you'll both go to extra-special effort to get him to stop being abusive to others and to attempt to mitigate what damage he causes. If he can't work well with others - and his behaviour so far indicates he has no interest in such - then he should be writing GFDL text all on his own, not attempting to work on a site that requires massive collaboration - David Gerard 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember DreamGuy from a year or so back. I concur with the view that he's a well meaning and useful editor who has problems staying civil. If this has become a problem to the point where we must consider showing him the door, this wasn't the way to try to do it. Perhaps a user conduct RFC or discussion at the community sanction noticeboard would be an appropriate next step? Friday (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First RFC, Second RFC. The habit of personal attack is not the behaviour of an unknowing n00b, and he's not getting better. Again, I strongly urge those admins who wish to defend him to work hardest on reining in his noted obnoxious behaviour - David Gerard 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So... are you then going to get a mentor to help you stay within Misplaced Pages policies when it comes to blocks and so forth...? Besides, if civility is the supposed issue, I think your comments (and the comments of many trying to portray me as some hopeless cause) are certainly just as bad. AGF and civility should apply to you folks as well. DreamGuy 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If two admins insist that this is such a good user, then I would suggest that they mentor him and clean up his mess from now on. Seems fair, as the work will not be left to people like me, Theresa and Gerard. --Sn0wflake 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is insisting anything. I don't mind cleaning up after him, I am an admin, it's what I do, it's what we all do. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I sometimes wonder why some of you people are admins, admins are here to do what admins do - I rather think that involves mops and buckets; you have volunteered for the job, not been dragged kicking and screaming against your wills. I note David Gerard has neatly avoided my question above so I repeat it, this time more clearly - please explain the "yet again" in "I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki" you made the attack on Bishonen's integrity - now support it with some diffs and facts! Giano 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard attacked nobody, please do not bait him. Bastique. 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I gave precisely those diffs, and why you were only Bishonen's word away from a ban for gross incivility, during the last Arbitration case you were involved in. It is saddening that what I said then about you being unable to comport yourself decently on policy pages still appears to hold - David Gerard 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have a highly inflated idea of your own importance on this site. Perhaps you should learn to review it, and stop baiting others with your comments which have no relevance to a situation. Giano 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that some actually click at some of the "precisely those diffs" as David Gerard puts it and finds in them "vicious personal attacks" as he claims them to be. --Irpen 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would not worry Irpen, David Gerard is just dredging up old "has been" events and diffs, all of which have been discussed "ad nauseum" to justify his attack on Bishonen's judgement. I had rather hoped he may have found something new but it seems he has just chosen to resurrect all the old animosity - and open old wounds to cause trouble, I wonder why? Some people never know when to leave a sleeping dog alone. Giano 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard: I ask you to please avoid casting aspersions on another editor's competence. This is especially true when you have just blocked someone out of process. I have no need to think Dream Guy is valuable, nor does anyone else. Our editors do not have to prove their worth to us: We have to prove their disruptiveness and destructiveness to reach for a block, and then we need to warn. Geogre 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I will extend the same caution to Giano. It really isn't necessary or profitable to talk about anyone's character. I understand that you were reacting to an apparent slur from him and being dragged into a discussion of his irregular block as an apparent attempt at distraction, and I know that readers miss these things, so we can't rely upon them to see what's really going on, but it's still not necessary or profitable to talk about David's character. Geogre 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing the above post, but I think this is the first time I have ever seen Geogre criticize anything done by Giano. My respect for Geogre just went up. --Ideogram 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a pity David Gerard decided to start making his veiled hints in the first place, and an even greater pity that to cover his behaviour he has to drag in completely uninvolved parties, such as myself. Claiming (above) I am unable to "comport" myself "decently on policy pages still appears to hold" when I merely express disquiet at being drageed in to his mess - says more about him than me. It seems to me to be about time some admins had their status reviewed, or at least were sent for re-training. Giano 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP indefinitely. He's using IPs rather than his official account to WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, and since its unblocking has been edit-warring with it and making all sorts of un-civil attacks. Enough is enough, let him login as Dreamguy, and edit as that. Jayjg 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't time to look at this in detail. I trust Jayjg's judgment, but I also trust Bishonen's! Just a few points, though. One is that he is claiming on his talk page that he can't log on. I think Jayjg may have intended to do anon only in the block, but forgot? The other is that I don't think it's appropriate to be tagging the IP user page as an abusive sockpuppet of DreamGuy. "Abusive sockpuppet" really means sockpuppet used for double voting, multiple reverts, etc., not a sockpuppet who happens to be rude to people. As far as I know this IP was acknowledged by DreamGuy. I also have a question about the indefinite block of the IP. Without having time to examine the whole thing, I'd be inclined to leave it to Jayjg, if he says that the IP was being used to avoid scrutiny and to make uncivil attacks; but that IP's first edit was on 7 March this year, and DreamGuy has been around since November 2004. That would suggest that it's not a permanent IP, as it's unlikely that he'd decide to start making numerous logged-off edits after two and a half years. He says here that "this IP is a local DSL IP and by its nature will not be any specific person for more than a few weeks at a time". So, Jayjg, if you think his IP should be permanently blocked to prevent misuse, perhaps you should reduce it to a temporary block for this IP, and then block his next IP for a month, and then the next, and so on, if he keeps on doing the same thing. I'm not sure it's necessary, but I haven't examined it in detail. In any case, please have a look at the anon-only blocking thing, as your block may be preventing him from editing as DreamGuy as well. Musical Linguist 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just looked at the block log again, and I see that it was anon only. Don't know how I missed that first time. Anyway, he was claiming on his talk page that he couldn't log on as DreamGuy. But I see that he has posted as DreamGuy on the DreamGuy talk page since saying that he couldn't log on. Musical Linguist 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And ... as User:DreamGuy on the IP talk page, saying he needs the IP unblocked! Uh huh - David Gerard 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not using IPs to "avoid responsibility", and there is absolutely no policy against using IPs. Nobody at all has given any sort of rationale that these IPs were used in a deceptive way or to try to get around any policies. The IP should be unblocked as a matter of policy, but also for the fact that whenever the local DSL provider switches it it'll blocked for no reason. Yes, after peole complained that the IP block prevented me from signing on and they said either that it didn;t or tht someone had fixed it, yes, I did sign on. Certainly David Gerard of all people knows that the IP was not being used to avoid responsibility as people knew I was using it and were tracking it. I fear a number of people have simply gone into witch hunts where they make blocks and take actions completely unsupported by any policy for the simple fact that when I have the temerity to actually say out loud that they were out of line when they broke policies they were supposed to be here to be enforcing. That, after all, is what I was pointed to as an edit diff to explain the "uncivil remarks" claim.

If admins as a whole decide I have to edit logged in (and not just the whims of people making things up as they go along), fine, but then I would expect them to make a policy then that everyone has to be signed in and that all IP addresses are banned, or to otherwise come up with some sort of real rationale. I also expect, however, that if I do have to be signed in that steps are taken to discipline those people who have in the past gone around and blind reverted all my edits, or brought up whatever accusatoins somebody somewhere made years back to try to rationalize away why they don't have to treat me as a normal fellow editor. WP:AGF has gone completely out the window here, and the baseless blocks and accusations and etc. are far worse violations of the rules on civility than any less than polite comments I might say out of frustration when I have people constantly threatening (and doing) blocks for no reason whatsoever other than old grudges or (as the early conflicts under the IP) trying to previal in an edit dispute of an article.

Anyone going over my recent edits, both on this account and my IP, can see that I have made a large number of good and needed contributions, both over the last couple of days and over my history here. I think some people have just plain forgotten that we're here to write an encyclopedia and not to play some sort of experiment in social interactions and power struggles.

DreamGuy 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should stop "experimenting" in your social interactions - David Gerard 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN

A message was left on my talk page saying I was "banned" from editing certain articles..

1. Looking at WP:BAN, only the Misplaced Pages community, the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation can issue bans and not individual admins.
2. I cannot see why adding a flag image to a template would result in a ban- various other users have been adding the flag images back to templates were a certain group of users are defying consensus and deleting them. I have also provided reliable sources on various pages to support the fact that the Ulster Banner is the unoffical flag of Northern Ireland.
3. The allegations about sockpuppets are false- no checkuser request has been filed, and there is no evidence that the anon user was me. Astrotrain 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Banning editor notified here. Navou 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may also wish to list this ban for review at WP:CN. I would recommend reviewing the ban the editor placed, and not the actual editor himself, this might help keep the discussion focused on the "ban" rather than both the ban and the editor who "placed" it. I am using the term ban loosely in this context. Regards, Navou 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • But is it even a "ban"?- the policy page does not state that admins can ban editors. And looking at the banning policy, content disputes that are not unique to me as an editor are not grounds. He is clearly biased against supporting a particular group of editors- he ignored a racist taunt made by one of his friends that I reported, while blocking me for merely stating my opinion that a particular editor was "inexperienced". Astrotrain 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, unless you have been sanctioned by arbcom or in some other fashion, individual admins cannot impose bans. But unless I'm missing something, the edits you have made do look rather tenuous and you should note that editing from an IP address does not excuse you from 3RR. In short, you may not have been "legally" been banned from those templates, but I would strongly suggest that you make sure that your edits reflect a consensus, rather than your point of view. --BigDT (416) 20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A previous case of a "soft ban" being implemented by an admin, NicholasTurnbull was on certain editors regarding Peter Townshend. This was discussed on AN/I. The discussion continued on CN. An alternative is a standard block, but where the problem is localised, this seems a better solution, as it allows the editor to work in areas where the particular problem does not occur. Astrotrain has made many productive edits elsewhere, but has proved unfortunately incapable of collaboration over Irish-related articles. My notice on his talk page is here: Tyrenius 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that an influencing factor may have been the suggestion that Astrotrain allegedly sought to evade 3RR by using an IP address. I think the "partial ban" should be lifted until that issue is confirmed or denied by a checkuser. I have lodged aa request. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was merely something in addition to Astrotrain's continuing lack of required behaviour for a collegiate editing environment.Tyrenius 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Tyrenius, imposed this ban on User:Astrotrain after I requested him to look into both Astrotrain and User:84.68.93.126 who where stalking and reverting my edits, I had ask Astrotrain to stop his stalking here and warned him that I would report him for vandalism, it was after this that a new editor User:84.68.93.126 with no edit history began doing the same thing as can be seen here, neither Astrotrain nor User:84.68.93.126 made any attempt to discuss their reverts in the talkpages of these articles, dispite being ask to do so. This is not the First time I have had problem with Astrotrain in this aspect, and he was banned prior to this for similar behaviour and attacks on me other editors. I should add that after Tyrenius posted his ban notice to both editors, User:84.68.93.126 stopped making any edits after that, and hasn't posted since.--padraig3uk 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only edits I made were to add flag images to templates- this is not vandalism. In any case, it has been confirmed that Tyrenius's "ban" is invalid and he has no authority to do this- so his "ban" will be ignored. Astrotrain 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where has this been confirmed, I see no confirmation of that here.--padraig3uk 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin can certainly say "if you don't stop making this edit/disrupting this page, I will block you", and that's somewhat similar to a "ban" on the page. But no, an admin can't say "you can't edit this page at all", only ArbCom/Jimbo can. If Astrotrain engages in an ongoing edit war over an issue, he can be blocked for editwarring, but if you want him banned from the template page or all Irish-related pages or whatever, you need to talk to the ArbCom. Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't discuss the current case because the question here is the general applicability of non-arbitration-imposed subject bans. Such bans with appropriate consensus and review have been successful on Misplaced Pages. This doesn't mean that the ban under discussion is likely to be successful, just that arbitration isn't always required. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

May I add that Astrotrain is most cases was simply reverting articles back to a previous consensus that was reached on such Northern Ireland - related pages. Users padraig3uk and vintagekits recently started mass disruptive edits on various Northern Ireland related pages, causing outbeaks of edit warring on previously stable pages which in turn have caused many of these pages to become protected. Tyrenius seems to have been excessively harsh on such user Astrotrain. Users padraig3uk and vintagekits are quick to contact Tyrenius if their actions are criticised in any way and will not accept anything negative being said about the clearly disruptive actions of such users, and Tyrenius is quick to label any negative comment on these users as a personal attack Jonto 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should state what these negative coments are? NI flag removed by IRA sympathisers. Restore NI's flag, NI flag removed my a noted IRA sympathiser. Restore NI's flag, User:Padraig3uk and his mate User:Vintagekits are noted IRA sympathisers, I very much doubt that you can describe an undoubted POV vandal such as User:Vintagekits as 'editing in good faith' and delete harrassment from terrorist supporters. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When editors make comments such as "Thank God for the IRA" and "the term British makes my skin crawl", as well as yourself adding "IRA" then "1916" to your signature- they cannot complain when other editors make the reasonable assumption that they are sympathetic to this terrorist organisation. Astrotrain 08:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I made those comments or any such comments?.--padraig3uk 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry

I'm submitting to my fellows a report regarding a group of editors acting as meatpuppets of the banned editor Hkelkar. The core evidence for this is e-mails exchanged between these individuals — Hkelkar is intimately involved in discussing Misplaced Pages issues and affairs, offering advice and instructions to the others. There is no doubt that these editors are colluding with Hkelkar and editing for his purposes as proxies. The group was targeting Dbachmann (whom they consider to be anti-Hindu) and maligning other editors such as Bhadani. However, I will not display the contents of the e-mails here unless the community deems it necessary.

• Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan have been blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry and scheming with Hkelkar. Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have been regularly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, while strenously defending a pro-Hkelkar point of view on Misplaced Pages articles. They has also behaved disruptively against editors they considers to be biased against Hinduism and India. Complaints about Bakasuprman's behavior have been lodged both on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan.

• Scheibenzahl has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Anupamsr, who in turn has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and participating in scheming with Hkelkar, Bakasuprman and Sbhushan. He has used his sockpuppet to participate in various WP:AFD debates and editing issues on the same range of articles as Bakasuprman and Sbhushan.

I know that this is a complicated issue, so I ask for my fellows to review my decisions. I will respect any criticism offered and any consensus decision to undo or modify the blocks as deemed appropriate. However, I would like to emphasize that permitting these editors to continue to edit Misplaced Pages defies the arbitration committee and the community's decision to ban Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that CheckUser confirms that Scheibenzahl and Anupamsr are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 3 more socks of Hkelkar were found and blocked. One of them was User:ThLinGan. ThLinGan was involved in an edit war with User:Faraz. Note how both Bakasuprman and Hkelkar together try and get the user blocked under 3RR by goading him. Calling someones edits ISIcruft is like saying OSAMAcruft in India. Baka knows this and has been warned hundreds of times not to do this. I have been suspecting these users of tag-team editing for a long time. I was waiting for my exams to get over before investigating their edits for a possible ArbCom case. If there is email evidence supporting Rama's claims, then I fully endorse the blocks. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rama's actions, assuming the behind-scenes evidence is as compelling as he says. Looks like a pretty good call to me. There's no doubt Bakasuprman and Sbhushan have been disruptive elements for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Rama Arrow's actions. I helped him compile some of the email evidence and have seen much of it. I had suspected their meetings with Hkelkar for some time now ever ever since their behavious became more uncivil. Gizza 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough evidence against User:Bakasuprman to warrant such a massive ban. I propose to unblock him on the condition to temporarily restrict his participation solely to self-defense. ←Humus sapiens 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman was one of the most vocal Hkelkar supporters and I support his ban. It had reached the point where is Bakasuprman said something wasn't PoV or someone wasn't a Hkelkar sockpuppet, then you could immediately assume that it was PoV and they were a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. – Steel 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Full endorsement of Rama's actions. Another Indian admin has previously provided me also with evidence of a well organized recruition campaign in Hindu radical websites, made by what appears to be one of the three blocked editors. On my account, I have long noted the concerted and disruptive behaviour of the editors in question; I must also add that I've long suspected of a direct link between Bakasuprman and his socks, at least since his passionate defence defence of Hkelkar's sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223 after its indef blocking.--Aldux 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I have reset Scheibenzahl's block to 2 weeks (the user:Anupamsr account has been indef'd, as he doesn't want to use that one) - apart from his explanations and confession, from the e-mail evidence I know that he wasn't a malicious member of the group, and it is certainly possible that he was an accidental or unwilling member - the main schemers were Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and D-Boy. But Scheibenzhal must be blocked for a period for manipulating WP:SOCK and potentially acting as a meatpuppet. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Scheibenzahl - Anupam had changed his identity for legitimate purposes. As a number of respectable admins have vouched for his integrity, I can also safely assert that he was not a willing member of the email ring. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on the specific users who were affected by this action, but I support in general terms talking very strong action to stop the organized activity by sock- and meat-puppets that is without question taking place. I have seen some of the evidence on public social networking web sites of active recruitment efforts for these things, and call upon all editors to reject these manipulations with one voice. At present the identification of these puppets is limited by the lack of any simple single place to post suspect activity reports. Would it be possible to have a "Sock Central" page where reports of all current activity specifically related to the Hinduism and India projects can be consolidated? Currently there are too many individual tracking systems going on. Buddhipriya 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the utility of such a page if it's devoted to sock detection. "Pages under potential attack" might be a better focus. That said, I think it's important to realize that such recruiting activity and the willing supply of volunteers will not stop. The basic reason has to do with the difference between verifiability and "truth". The recruiting efforts will complain that "the truth is under attack", and volunteers will step up -- be it noted, in good faith. The true socks will operate in the confusion sowed by these newbies' well-meaning efforts. (A "counter-offensive", on those public recruiting web-sites -- explaining only the verifiablity/truth difference and emphasizing NPOV -- might not be a bad idea too.) rudra 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, I think your idea of a "Pages under potential attack" is very good, sort of a community watchlist which all of us can monitor for current sock activity. I have noticed that as we pay more attention in one area, other pages begin to have problems, and some of the pages have very few editors who watch them regularly. Do other editors agree? If so, where could such a page be set up? Buddhipriya 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In think Bakasuprman should be unblocked at least for the purposes of defending himself. Jayjg 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for Bakasuprman to defend himself by posting an unblock template on his user-talk page. If he provides a convincing argument, we may weaken his block accordingly. Gizza 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have decided to shorten the blocks of Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy to 6 months. This is because an indefinite block is a community ban, which must be decided in a distinct discussion at WP:CN. Given that Hkelkar himself was not indefinitely blocked until he violated his ArbCom-ruled block 5-6 times, it is hardly fair to ban these two users. Also, Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have made a number of valuable contributions, which must be respected. However, I don't think this applies for Sbhushan - upon arriving on Misplaced Pages, he immediately entered into a dispute with Dbachmann and wrote up a baseless ArbCom case. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Bakasuprman should be given an opportunity to defend himself, especially regarding the emails he is accused of being a part of. Blocking him, bundling him with others and judging him is not democratic. The other accusations on him can be balanced by good deeds he has done.Dineshkannambadi 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Also, 6 month ban is a long time. Please consider reducing it.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing by proxy for a banned user is extremely serious - I am strongly opposed to reducing his block now, or unblocking him for "defense" - anything he has to say, he can say on his user talk page or in an unblock request. It was not his meatpuppetry alone that caused his 6-month block - it was also his history of edit-warring, confrontational behavior, POV-pushing, persistent incivility and personal attacks. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However I am afraid a 6 month ban could be as good as a permanent ban. Many users may not have the interest to come back and make useful contributions, while our goal is to ensure just the opposite. IMO a gradual application of the ban is better.Dineshkannambadi 03:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I support Rama's actions on preventing meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, I strongly believe the 6 month block on User:Bakasuprman is little too harsh. I for one, once (during Hkelkar's RFArb) had written about Baka's contentious editing and POV pushing. But certainly not in the recent past. His constructive contributions (with all those DYKs and collaborations) are much significant than the negative side of it. I do not certainly endorse any of his confrontational behavior or personal attacks. But for all these gross incivility, 6 month ban is just too harsh, especially when it is not of community consensus or of an ArbCom decision. I request to re-consider the block on Bakasupraman. As Dinesh suggested above, a gradual application of blocks is more appropriate for users who have significant constructive contributions for a very long time. Thanks - KNM 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is the same as what I would offer all users: uphold the harsh block, with the understanding that this can and should be reduced, perhaps to the point of an immediate unblock, upon admission of and repentance for the disputed behavior. The way we fail time and time again is by sending serious and committed, if problematic, editors away without any attempt to seek a mutual understanding. Who can be surprised when they return to sockpuppet? We should not compromise our principles, but reframe punitive measures, wherever possible, as demands to acknowledge and abide by these principles. If they don't do it, they will remain blocked - there is no point unblocking them at any time, six months, a year, etc. - if the do, there is no point keeping them blocked for any substantial amount of time.

Per Jayjg, I suggest that Bakasuprman be unblocked for the sole purpose of appearing on this noticeboard with his dignity intact, with the understanding that any other edits will lead to a ban, and that the community both expects and demands that he address the disputed behavior.

Bakasuprman, if these allegations are true, I invite you to appear here and confess. Repentance and petitions for amnesty are very rare in this ego-driven space. Many comments to this thread acknowledge a history of productive edits alongside some contentious ones, and, apart from this recent allegation, a pattern of improvement. You've been blocked for proxying for a banned user, not for your contribution history per se, and I would be very surprised if an admission of wrongdoing and an appeal for leniency - that is, to plead guilty (if you are, indeed, guilty) and throw yourself upon the mercy of the court - were met with anything other than compassion.

If they are not true, then contest them.Proabivouac 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Though I have seldom edited any of the 'Hindu' articles, I've followed both Baka and dab and their respective 'continuums' since the last several months. I am fully aware of the history of incivility and tendentious editing that has gone into those articles. I have had my run ins with both baka and dab. At the same time, I've worked in tandem with both of them on some other articles.
• As a dispassionate editor, the way I see it, Baka's problems have only been with a section of users involved in editing the 'Hindu' articles. Baka has certainly been incivil with many of them, but then, it is equally true that many of them have only been trolls and sockpuppets themselves or in other cases(as in the case of dab) been equally incivil with him. For example, while Baka's 'dabcruft' snap was unwarranted, so was dab's repeated insinuations of 'Hindutva trolls'. Everyone involved just gave as good as they got. A 'dabcruft' for example, and such other instances of incivility, has almost always been preceded by or met with an equally disruptive 'Hindu cabal' insinuation.
• I've seen Rama's Arrow, for example, pull up Baka for the 'dabcruft' thing while I didnt see him say a word to dab even as he admitted to Baka's himself that dab had been incivil too. Thats hardly befitting a 'no nonsense-fair-to-a-fault admin'. And btw, lest somebody misinterpret me, let me clarify that when I speak of Baka and dab.. I mean their entire 'continuums'... not just Baka and dab.
• Even in the recent Hindutva propaganda AfD all the "keep" votes were just about ad hominem 'hindutva cabal' banter. As Daniel was to later note, none of them even deemed it necessary or worse, even worth their time, to counter the very valid oppositions of the "delete" voters(Baka included). And once it got deleted, we saw a rudra and a Fowler waxing eloquent and pontificating on the deletion review and multiple user talk pages. And even there, it was simply wallowing in their own delusions and rank bad soapboxing. Seeing the case that the rudras and the fowlers made for undeleting the article and noting the almost unanimous community endorse of the delete, some of these users should have been hauled up for disruption if not for WP:POINT(for even taking it to DRV). Nothing of that sort happened.
• dab's move of the article in the middle of an AfD was infact, trolling if not serious disruption. I didnt see Rama's Arrow or any other admin(I am sure it was on the watchlists of every admin who's watching this) even so much as tell dab that his move was inappropriate; that he should at best, have requested a move from another admin. Nothing of that sort happened either.
• Even as I mince no words being critical of these users, let me assert that I have nothing personal against any of them. I have the highest regard for their contributions just as I do for Baka's. But then, there are cases where I disagree with them and I dont believe in sugar coating my words just to be in somebody's good books.
• Even as I read Jimbo speak(four years ago, admittedly) of sysopping 'semi willy nilly', we have admins making a case for him to do exactly that. I mean... if one admin can throw his weight around on an AfD of his own article and if the other admins just stand by and watch, that really doesnt make for a level playing field. Nor can it earn those admins any moral high ground to pontificate from. The admins cant just stand by and keep watching till it hits a crescendo and then pull up whoever loses the anger management game. Misplaced Pages is not about anger management. Certainly not. These are users that are trying hard(probably too hard) to build an encyclopedia and it is easy for one thing to lead to another and for the whole thing to degenerate into a free for all. This is where admins ought to move in and counsel both parties and if need be force a dispute resolution. All that we've had here is admins trying not to get their hands dirty and then pouncing on the first one they get 'incriminating evidence' about. Thats not fair.
• At the same time, to be fair to dab(in this case I speak only of dab), I do not think that he is acting in bad faith or that he is anti-hindu or anti-india or anything. It is just that he carries several misplaced stereotypes which he is convinced is NPOV. I can say similar things of Baka too. He is NOT acting in bad faith. The very crux of the problem as I see it is that both are not assuming good faith. Infact, they're assuming bad faith.
• Now, for all those of you who want to know what all this has to do with the socking and meating allegations, I can only ask you to stop acting so naive. Otherwise, you're going against the spirit of every policy and guideline out there.
• To wrap up, I submit that the 6 month ban is way too harsh. Like dinesh says, its as good as a permanent ban. I strongly urge the admins to reconsider the case and unblock him. I further suggest that both parties be banned from editing these contentious articles for a while. In any case, the very least that I demand is that they be unblocked atleast to argue their case. Sarvagnya 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At the cost of being called naive, I have to ask you - what has all this got to do with meatpuppetry and making proxy edits for a banned user? Hkelkar was banned by the ArbCom, and we have got evidence that Bakaman and others were corresponding with Hkelkar and making edits on behalf of Hkelkar. The ArbCom has ruled that if two users are making the same edits then it does not matter who is making them. We can treat all users as the same person. If you have a problem with Dab, please open a RfC or an ArbCom case. But don't tell me that Bakaman's disputes with Dab led him to make proxy edits for Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen the evidence you have. But going by what little RA has said about it and from what you say, I assume that you have evidence to the effect -

• Baka corresponded with Hkelkar
• Baka made some edits in line with Hkelkar's POV.

Now that could be incriminating only if you can establish that Baka carried out Hk's bidding. No arbcom can force two individuals not to meet outside wiki. Not only that, you would also have to establish that Baka would NOT have made those edits if Hkelkar had not asked him to. Knowing Baka's editing practices and also how closely their POVs match, I think its a given that Baka would make the edits he makes Hkelkar or not. That you 'caught' him corresponding with hkelkar outside wiki is not 'incriminating' enough. Sarvagnya 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the banter out. Please. Sarvagnya 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Sarvagnya, Aksi is right. By himself, Baka was a tendentious, incivil and often disruptive editor. With the direct connection to Hkelkar, we simply have a Baka-Kelkar combine operating. A softer block will do nothing to drive home the seriousness of Baka's offenses - tell me frankly, how will we know he doesn't continue to contact Kelkar? We should be thankful for the evidence we have, but don't expect Baka to make the same mistake twice. Contrary to some views, a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic, given Hkelkar's 1-year ArbCom ban and perma-ban from the community. Ideological warriors must be handed a long-term blocks to make sure that if/upon their return, their minds have been given sufficient time to make peace with Misplaced Pages's norms and edit to build an encyclopedia. We know Baka and D-Boy are capable of that, so a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic and humane - remember, they have consorted with someone the ArbCom banned for 1 year. This is half of that, plus the benefit of "good behavior" parole (sorry for the police lingo). As for their "dignity" and "defense," those can be made on their talkpages - we cannot unblock people for that. If they have a case for their unblocking, that can be made with an unblock request. See the example of Scheibenzahl — he stated his "defense" and regained his "dignity." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually we are in the zone where we look at blocking as a "punishment," when it is clearly not supposed to be. The overall goal of blocking these users is to protect the content of Misplaced Pages as well as other contributors. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground - we have no obligation to anyone who doesn't want to understand that. They must either understand that or leave - I can remember numerous times when I lectured Baka on civility and "encyclopedia-building." He contributed well to DYK, but editing by proxy for a banned troll is most serious an offense. Baka is no stranger to Misplaced Pages's policies - he was involved as a party in 2 ArbCom cases. As Aldux points out, Baka waged war whenever anyone discussed Hkelkar and his sockpuppetry or engaged in a content dispute with him. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is correct. Over the past few months, both Baka and D-Boy were showing signs of prioritising their POV ahead of building the encyclopedia. I can't be bothered to search the links, but if you want non-email evidence, just go through the past four of five archives. I had constantly warned them and said Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia where everybody regardless of background collaborate together. Their reaction was calling me a "weak, ballless Hindu." Again a week or two on Bhadani's talk page, D-Boy accused me and dab of "betraying the Hindus." I had told him time after time that WP:NPOV takes precendence over individual POVs, but they didn't listen. Gizza 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing, it seems very inappropriate to me for this discussion to go on here, while User:Bakasuprman is confined to his talk page. Therefore I am unblocking him. I am asking him to accept the condition to restrict his participation to this case for now. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never attacked bhadani, nor have I maligned him in any way, considering him as a wikipedian I respect
• I have not "Taken orders" from Hkelkar, I am most capable of understanding my own worldview. There are many users with similar POV's as well
• Hkelkar, contrary to popular belief, has not kept me in the loop about his sockpuppetry and has not listened the many times we have told him to stop. I do not ask him to revert, edit, or exist on wikipedia, he does so on his own and against the wishes of many of us who actually hope new users on Hinduism topics are just that, new users.
• I do not post to forums ranting and recruiting acolytes on Hindutva whine boards. Hindu Unity is full of retards who have seizures when they see an Indian woman being kissed by a foreigner. It does not bother me in the least bit who does what. In fact, posting there would be counterproductive since it is people like HU that make Hindutva look like a group of fanatics
• I have not violated 3RR ever nor do I need to. Misplaced Pages will be here tomorrow, a fact Hkelkar never understood. The fiasco at Great Power is a prime example of this.
• Rumplestiltskin was not known by me to be hkelkar's sockpuppet, and I was rather disappointed hkelkar would resort to these tricks. After that, I am certain I have not advocated for "Hkelkar" under any guise.
• Aksi's appeal to WP:Wikilawyering is a joke. Sarvagnya drives the point home. Nobody can deny that I have my own POV. Hkelkar does not order me around. It is quite obvious I have eccentric tastes in editing and am not accountable to anyone. I have made edits in line with Hkelkar's POV even when he was on wiki. Am I supposed to have an epiphany and stop?
• The evidence Rama has is an assertion. I have called his bluff. My part in the emails was encouraging the other users to get their head out of the toilet and work on India related pages, Hinduism related pages, and to build bridges with other users. Not scheming and proxying.
• Potential Personal attack and incivility problems are dealt with an RFC, WP:MEDCABAL. Then comes Arbcom, after an RFC or medcabal. Not with an unjustified 6 month vigilante block based on an ambiguous construct, false assumptions, faulty casual relation, faulty analogical reasoning and evidence that does not corroborate to his invalid assertions. Its highly opprobrious, the conduct, but I'm not going to make this personal.

I will not be active in the near future whatever the result.Bakaman 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rama's arrow past involvement with this user gives him a predispositional opinion of this user's behavior on Misplaced Pages. I agree that Bakasuprman has violated WP:CIVIL and made some personal attacks. I understand that his edits on Misplaced Pages may be promoting the Hkelkar-view, but frankly, I fail to see this as a real reason to block a user for such a long period of time. From what I have seen, Baka has his own views that correlate with Hkelkar and he has probably discussed this with Hkelkar, but I don't see how one can honestly block an editor for promoting the same views of another editor, even if he is blocked as a result of an ArbCom hearing. I wish for Baka to remain unblocked for the time-being, and an appropriate block duration be decided by a group of editors, instead of just one. Six months is too long. You must also take into account Baka's positive edits on Misplaced Pages, and a lot of the work he has done with DYK and editing other articles. We usually hand out long blocks to abusive editors, who have repeatedly violated rules and have been blocked for it. Bakasuprman does not fit into that category, and aligning him to other such users that have been abusive editors like those banned in previous ArbCom hearings seems unfair. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting something, are we? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - some people are mistakenly assuming that Baka was blocked for sharing Hkelkar's POVs. That is not the case - the reality is explicit meatpuppetry. The only reason I have not displayed the evidence is that it is very controversial and generally not accepted to publish contents of a private e-mail. But if the community desires to see the evidence - and there should be a consensus agreeing to want to see it; I'm not gonna break any policy/guideline/convention - I will happily post it here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response (at least he removed it afterwards). I would be frustrated if I was blocked for what may or may not be a particularly justifiable reason. Also, I have already seen the private emails of which you speak of. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed disappointing that having seen the evidence, you still think he deserves to be unblocked. "Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response?" Perhaps you'd like to see the example of user:Schiebenzahl, who showed his personal anger but made no personal attacks. Is "Tit-for-tat" is justified by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Its a joke that Baka says he doesn't want to make it personal, after he attacked me personally and tried to hide it. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said his personal attacks were justified. I was offering an explanation as to why he wrote that on his user talk page. Anyway, I advocate for a block as a result of personal attacks, violation of WP:CIVIL, etc. I don't believe a long block is justified for that, so I'm thinking of something like two weeks, max. I'm not trying to be lenient or anything, but that's what I feel is reasonable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Baka is not being blocked just for his disruptive editing - he is blocked as a meatpuppet/colluder of Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know...I already dismissed the Hkelkar meatpuppet claims. I'm talking about what I feel is blockable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Already dismissed?" How? The consensus here is upholding the block, which you seem to have "dismissed" as well. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is still following this, I'd like to add my strong support to this block. I argued during the HKelkar arbitration that Baka be studied as well, but received strong indications that, given the mess that that had become, the ArbCom was going to not examine his behaviour very closely. However, that decision seems to have empowered Bakasuprman; he has several times used the fact that he was not banned at that point as justification for his tendentiousness, and has told me that I violate the community's beliefs that he is a tremendously productive editor. As Gizza has said elsewhere, and as I have said time and again since last December, tendentiousness and disruption of this sort are not balanced out by energy. I believed the community was incapable of action in this case, and thus that an organised group of POV-pushers could effectively use WP as a soapbox for pseudoscience and so on; and am glad to see that the community's patience has run out. Hornplease 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't fully endorse these blocks without looking at the email evidence, but I think we need to trust that Rama's Arrow made the blocks on what he felt was very strong evidence, and we can't dismiss the meatpuppet claims without taking a look at the emails. Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake, in my opinion. Rama's Arrow, would it be possible to share the emails with some administrators privately, without posting them here? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not share that opinion. Humus sapien's unblock is a very good move. It will help keep the discussions unfragmented. And in any case, cant see what purpose having the blocked users communicate from their talk pages would have served. Sarvagnya 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with the evidence. Apart from you, Aksi great and DaGizza have seen the evidence - Nishkid64 is claiming to have seen it, but I don't know as I haven't spoken to him about this issue. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've seen some of the email, I endorse the block of Bakasuprman. Just to be clear, I haven't had much interaction with Bakasuprman, but I have been active on Goa Inquistion, which has been edited by Baka and Hkelkar/Rumpelstiltskin223. I would say that Baka has been uncivil on that article's talk page, and that he and D-Boy have teamed up to avoid the 3RR there. But the main problem with Baka's behavior, and the thing that justifies a substantial block, is his collaboration with a banned user to influence WP articles and harass an administrator. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Rama's arrow's actions. This attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into a nationalist battleground is totally unacceptable, especially when users are acting as proxies for banned users. I always tell meatpuppets I block that a meatpuppet is only one step away from a sockpuppet. Khoikhoi 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Khoikhoi. Incivility is very unhelpful and harmful to wikipedia. --Aminz 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The simple solution is to identify those articles considered contentious, ensure Bakasuprman keeps clear of those articles but let him contribute to others where his energy can be an asset to wikipedia. This could be a good first step to clean up the playground, so to speak.Dineshkannambadi 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been one of those who have seen the evidence but has also witnessed his good contributions to the project, I may support Baka to continue to editing if he is placed on probation/parole for All controversial, religious articles. This means he would not be allowed to touch any article/talk page/AfD relating to Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. except removing obvious vandalism. Even WP:1RR gives him too much lee-way. On these the talk pages, he often made crude remarks towards others instead discussing with them and acheive consensus. On controversial articles, his involvement was always a hinderance, a detriment, never improved the situation. The only problem I see with this proposal is that he still may be in contact with Hkelkar through email and may request Hkelkar to add their POV (with a sock presumably) if he can't. However, from what I've seen, it tends to be the other way around.

Another suggestion s for Baka is to abandon his account and start afresh, if his passion for writing East Indian history is so great and avoid controvsial articles at all costs. Btw, just two days ago Baka welcomed ThLinGan, who has since been confirmed as a Hkelkar sock. His sympathies are still very clear. Gizza 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I hate to sound stubborn, but probation will not solve anything, nor is it the correct response. In his statement above, Baka has already adamantly stated that he edits and will continue editing on the same lines as Hkelkar. He has been warned, advised, counseled dozens of times by various people, but to no avail. Additionally, he has been subverting Misplaced Pages - he clearly understands that Kelkar was banned, but continued to collude with him, tried to protect his sockpuppets and attack his "enemies." I'm sorry, but the seriousness of this misconduct is too much to ignore. Baka is obstinate and unwilling to change his attitude. Also, his "positive contributions" are by-and-large on Hinduism and India-related topics - if there are 10-15 articles he should not edit, he can transfer his activities to 10-15 other articles, as there is no shortage of topics on which Hindutva ideology can be imposed. I understand the good faith and willingness to forgive of my colleagues here, but being a very serious offense, I can't see how we can do anything save not have him edit Misplaced Pages and give him a lot of time to try and clear his head. If he genuinely loves working on Misplaced Pages, he will find it in himself to return after his block expires. If he is more concerned with Hindutva, he will stay away, which will benefit both parties. Also, re-emerging with another identity is not going to be helpful unless he reflects on his behavior. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And might I remind, that the block is not aimed to punish Baka, but protect Misplaced Pages. What is important is Misplaced Pages and not an individual editor. Look from that angle - what is our obligation to cut Baka some slack? Nothing, if he thinks Misplaced Pages is a vehicle for his Hindutva beliefs. There is no practical way that the Kelkar cabal can be dismantled without stiff action. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a probation may not be effective. We would have reacted much more tolarantly if they openly admitted their past links with Hkelkar before we revealed it. Even then they would have been punished but denying it (and responding aggressively as shown here) hasn't helped their cause at all considering that we have the evidence and have shown it to neutral parties upon request. Gizza 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial portion of his earlier response (which he removed subsequently) is reproduced here for convenience.

Here are my responses to Rama's Arrow's crusade to defame me. I will not be editing here for a long time while I sort out who double-crossed me and attacked me, and who are the real wikipedians.

When will a person be double-crossed? Praveen 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My run-in with Bakaman ad D-Boy has been very recent and related to only one small issue. However , I feel it is relevant to point this incident out. Both had reverted the change I had made to the Goa Inquisiton page even though I had first put it in the disucssion before making changes. The edit summary I made on both occasions justified the change. However both chose to ignore discussion. I even put a message on their talk pages asking them to justify thier action; but they chose not to because they knew they would not be able to justify it. Hardly any consensus building behavior expected from experienced users such as them. Their presence on WIkipedia has been more about pushing their personal likes/dislikes, than about building an encyclopedia. I will be really glad to see thenm go --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Per Nishkid64's comments above, I believe a 6 month block is excessive, especially given the lack of easily available evidence. Bakasuprman's alignment with a pro-Hkelkar POV seems to hardly be a blockable offense. Also, I'm seeing the word 'meatpuppet' tossed around a lot - hardly seems to match the definition. I'm not denying there are civility problems, POV problems, even some tendentious editing - but this is pretty extreme. I can't see how this has the support of the community, and would much prefer to see a broader discussion rather than a decision made by a handful of admins. – Riana 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• 6 months looks like an overkill, and would be something more like a motion passed by arbitrators given the type of evidence. They aren't new accounts either, and have been contributing for a resonable amount of time already. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's disruptive conduct, tedentious editing and his adamant/vicious defense of Hkelkar's sockpuppets is all on WP evidence. As to the email evidence, it clearly establishes a "meatpuppetry" and collusion between Kelkar and Baka and the others. Btw, what do you expect? Is this a court that one has to qualify if the evidence is admissable? We have to work with what we get. We were lucky that this important piece of evidence came across, or else this group would have continued their activities. Misplaced Pages is important, not an individual editor so I don't care if the evidence is off-WP, so long as the threat to Misplaced Pages is detected and removed. A 6-month block is most practical, considering that Hkelkar is perma-banned. Defending and praising his sockpuppetry while colluding with him behind the scenes to subvert Misplaced Pages is very, very serious. As to the definition of meatpuppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

It is clear that Bakasuprman deserves to be treated on par with Kelkar - however, he is not getting a perma-ban. As he is unrepentant of his collusion, I cannot see any need in cutting him any more slack. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They are individual users. Hkelkar created his account on 24th August 2006, Bakasuprman's account was created on 7th July 2006, Dangerous-Boy has his account since gawdknowswhen. The point is, these users have been extensively contributing to Misplaced Pages since a long time now, have been a part of two ArbCom cases, where there wasn't an inkling of evidence produced that they are one and the same individual, or they have been acting as meatpuppets. Let me make clear, the definition of a "meatpuppet" from WP:SOCK –

"A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Misplaced Pages with one agenda."

Hence the rationale on which these users have been blocked is fundamentally flawed. I repeat, these users are not meatpuppets of each other. Just because two or more users seem to share the same ideology, they cannot be termed as meatpuppets. I can't see you blocking more notorious users on this flimsy reason. I'd like to see the evidence that you have been distributing, and reserve futher comments till I get it through email. Thanks very much. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must again repeat my full endorsement of Rama's actions, and add that I don't absolutely find an overkill 6 months for Bakasuprman. I have never clashed with the editor in question, but I have repeatedly noted Baka's disruptiveness and vocal contempt for civility. I have also noted his constant and systematic teaming with the other editors in question, as with the previous sock of Hkelkar (i.e. User:Rumpelstiltskin223), in particular in VfD and in the RfC regarding Dbachmann. I'm worried, I must admit, by what seems to me a considerable degree of leniency towards transforming many India-related issues in an ideological battleground, and the damaged caused by this can't be compared to making some DYK.--Aldux 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How very nice. The same user you are talking about has not been the most civil of the users either. Now is not the time to make tu quoque arguments, but I have undeleted a page for your perusal, where you can get instant glimpse of dab's incivility, and also engaging into discussions with a permanently banned user on his own talk page. Bakasuprman has been contributing since a long time, and calling him nationalistic and a disruptive user just because he does not conform to your views is all the more disturbing. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be losing the point: I know Dab's manners are far from perfect and I'm not here to defend them. I only mentioned him because for a misterious coincidence in the RfC all the three editors in question compared. As to my pov, how you no it remains a great mystery to me, especially since I don't edit India-related issues, expect when dealing with User:Maleabroad. What I can say is that I have due to a long work in Balkans-related issues a long experience with dealing with natational-cliques in action, and I must say that Baka behaves exactly like the most problematic and disruptive of them. And yes, I repeat that Baka has shown a vocal contempt for WP:CIV as I have rarely seen, repeatedly putting in doubt its sense and its utility on this same board.--Aldux 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman's incivility has been quite unfortunate, and he gets warned for it. We have more difficult editors around. Do they all get blocked for 6 months? This is a punitive block. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its to allow the rest of us to build an encyclopaedia. Nick, you simply have not edited controversial pages with Baka. I have had occasion to point out to you before this, on the occasions when you have dropped in to the Narendra Modi page to protect it; you really must follow these things more closely in order to determine what the level of incivility and unpleasantness and regular disruptiveness actually is. Hornplease 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't beem the most civil of the users, Hornplease; although I must credit you for your patience which you displayed while editing controversial articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Sir Nick - I believe this un-deleted page is the one with Baka's comment What's your purpose on wikipedia dbachmann? Fighting evil Hindoo heathens?Bakaman 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a retort to dab's comment to Bhadani – . For which you posted him this {{npa3}} warning on Bakaman's talk – ; while gently reprimanding dab for the same – . — Nearly Headless Nick 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ostensibly, accusing Dab of anti-Hindu intentions is an accusation of bigotry. With Dab, it was a case of general incivility. Nobody asked Baka to use the words "heathens" or "evil Hindoos." And I believe Bhadani is capable of defending himself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite incivil. I also happen to remember one of the more notorious comment made by dab, around a year ago (on India and Indians). Not really worth blocking 6 months, or is it? Also, Bhadani is quite capable and experienced on not letting himself get malaligned or disoriented by a bunch of difficult editors. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to join Aldux in reiterating my support for this block. Bakasuprman may have been 'contributing for a long time', Nick, but that is not a guarantee of his usefulness, that is actually an admission of our failure.

It isn't that Bakasuprman doesnt conform to my views, or anyone's. Many, many people on WP don't. Baka is the only one who is genuinely a menace in the way that he edits articles; I have had the privilege of observing him since his very first few edits. He has been a problem right from the beginning.

Incidentally, HKelkar edited at first as 'Subhash Bose' and 'Netaji', so he did join before Baka. Shortly before Baka joined, HKelkar did post on another user's talkpage that he was 'mentioning to a few people that they should join' (this is indicative, but hardly conclusive); I could find the diff with a little effort, since I think I alerted BLNguyen at the time .

For context: note the above quoted undeleted page follows the AfD on Hindutva Propaganda, an article started by Dab, and which Bhadani urged the deletion of; there's some history there that I'm not going to repeat, as all concerned should really have gotten over it by now - including those uninvolved, like you, Nick. Hornplease 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

As a number of responsible editors and administrators have asked to see the evidence in question, there is a need to release the e-mails in question so that the community may see it and assess the seriousness of what was going on. I do have the consent of several peoples (but not all) who were party to the emails to release the contents. However, I want to make absolutely sure that its OK to do this, so I will wait for a little while. I emphasize that I have absolutely no desire to invade anyone's privacy or break any policy or guideline. My interest is only the preservation of Misplaced Pages. I also don't want to compromise the good faith and position of those who have chosen to trust my judgment over this case - I wish that all admins be aware of all the facts of this case. To anyone who may be offended or concerned over their privacy, I reiterate that I completely respect that right but as a responsible administrator, I cannot withhold it any more. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to forward me the emails. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that a large number of admins want to see it, and that there will still be a large number who haven't seen it, I might as well release it here. I don't want this confusion to drag on - several have suggested I have no basis to this, which is absolutely wrong. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you, emails aren't concrete evidence. The users may disown any of the content you might post here. Also, public posting of contents of private emails, is considered discourteous. But it's your call, finally. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider emails not to be concrete evidence, then why are you asking to see it? You might as well choose not to believe anything. Are they concrete when exchanged via email inboxes? And what do you think we are, the police? the courts? Well I'm sorry Sir Nick, but I didn't obtain a warrant first - is that ok, or does that make the evidence inadmissable? And might I remind you that user:Subhash bose was proven a sockpuppet of user:Hkelkar when Aksi great and Blnguyen received emails from the same e-mail address. Shall I un-block them, given the weakness of e-mail based evidence? I have no desire to be rude, but you should understand all this. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and Subhash Bose were suspected of being sockpuppets in the past. The case is available here – Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. The case is quite different with three independent editors whom you are accusing to be meatpuppets. Let me give you an illustration of how dab used admin rollback against User:Freedom skies, on Indian mathematics while being completely uninvolved with the article in the past – . Conniving over emails is not a blockable offence, apparently. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer about this? I don't see the relevance of any of it. Hornplease 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And its a little perplexing to me why releasing private e-mails is discourteous when you claim that e-mails aren't concrete evidence and can be disowned. If someone can disown their own emails so easily, what is the problem? Why the required courtesy then? The truth is that e-mail evidence is often vital for Misplaced Pages administrators to stop various cases of trolls, meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. Ignoring it would be suicidal. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then. What are you waiting for? — Nearly Headless Nick 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to post it here. You can email it first to whoever expresses a desire to see it. And after that, if people feel that it should be posted here, we can do that. Posting private emails publicly is not an appropriate thing to do. btw, I have seen a part of the evidence(which Gizza mailed me) and nothing that I have seen even remotely implicates Baka of any wrong doing. I asked him for more evidence, he says he doesnt have it/seen it. I've asked another admin and I havent got a reply yet. btw, even the evidence I saw lists many wikipedians and I am sure you're responsible fo their privacies too. Hauling up someone for some wrongdoing is not more important than protecting the privacy of people who gaurd it zealously. Sarvagnya 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to remove any personal information from an e-mail(including in the headers, like a source IP) that is not already on wiki before you send it to anyone. _InBC 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even then, I dont think it should be put here before getting the overwhelming consent of people who have seen it. The 'evidence' which I was sent, at first look is sensational. But, on a second look, is hardly incriminating or surprising for people who understand the background and are familiar with the users and their battles. Posting it here can even be seen as an attempt to sensationalise the issue and tickle the interest of users who are themselves disinterested or worse, ignorant of the myriad issues involved here to reach objective conclusions. Sarvagnya 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ONce again, special pleading - "familiar with the users and their battles"?. I don't think that controversial India-related articles should continue to have the rules relaxed. I say this, for example, because Bakasuprman has frequently indicated that he feels that incivility is in fact the norm on such articles, frequently quoting a throwaway remark about policing by BLnguyen from months ago as justification. Hornplease 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion to unblock

I have viewed the evidence, and the mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue. I request a communal imprimatur for an unblock of Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and recommend taking this matter to the Arbitration Committee for further discourse. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons stated above and summarised: Nirav has my trust; Ambroodey and daGizza have made statements that are perfectly clear; and I have had considerable personal experience of HKelkar and Baka tag-teaming and being disruptive. The block is perfectly within process and it will definitely lead to an improvement in the quality (and manageability) of the project. Hornplease 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - in case you haven't noticed, 3 admins who saw the evidence have endorsed the block - Aksi great, DaGizza and Akhilleus. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Basing myself on what I've heard and know, I certainly oppose the unblock for now; but I would like to see the evidence myself before pronouncing myself definitively.--Aldux 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - I was mailed a 'part of' the evidence by Gizza few hours ago. RA says that Gizza has viewed the 'evidence'; I suppose 'complete evidence'. If he has, I fail to understand why he wouldnt mail me the 'complete evidence' but would only mail me part of the evidence in which the 'cabal' apparently makes their distrust of me clear. Releasing such evidence selectively, makes me suspect their intentions and perhaps even the veracity of some of the 'evidence'. I support the motion to unblock. Sarvagnya 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - There is no clear consensus on the block imposed on User:Bakasuprman. Multiple users, including several admins, have opposed the 6-month block. There is a clear split of opinions on the evidence which is so far hidden on the wiki. Among those who have seen the evidence, few admins have supported the block, while few admins have opposed. While one admin said he has already dismissed the meatpuppetry claims after seeing the evidence, another admin above says, "mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue". Certainly there is no clear consensus. I strongly recommend unblocking the user and to take this issue to Arbitraion committee, and put up the case there by sending the committee members the email evidence. Rest decision whether to impose a new block should be left to ArbCom. - KNM 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I see one admin for the unblocking and five against. That seems a clear majority to me.--Aldux 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

one admin? nick is one. nishkid, an admin says he's 'dismissed' the evidence after seeing it. then there's a clear split about the duration of the block. then, i have seen some of the 'evidence' and nothing in it implicates baka even remotely. My repeated requests to send me the complete evidence is being met with silence. dineshkannambadi, a user with nearly a half a dozen FAs, has spoken against the block, which somebody has pointed out is a punitive block. there's clearly no consensus about anything here. Sarvagnya 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you and Nick are the only exceptions to a general sense of agreement among informed users. I'd invite you to reconsider in that light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Oppose unblocking for the reasons I gave a few sections up. Long term POV warrior and Hkelkar supporter. – Steel 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Although I haven't directly participated in discussions regarding Baka's block due to some real life issues, I've been passively following the developments in multiple pages. I've worked with Baka in few articles and I should say he has done a marvelous job in betterment of this project. It's good to see that no one here is questioning Baka's commitment in improving articles and making Wiki a better project. As someone else has pointed out a 6 months block is as good as a permaban and demands extraordinary interests from the user to come back and continue contributions in full flow. I strongly support Unblocking Baka, if possible on certain conditions and clauses and may be with a strong warning.Gnanapiti 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of us have questioned Baka's commitment to the improvement of the WP. You appear to be confusing energy with good faith. Its precisely this sort of thing, where decent users with little or no experience of the actual disruption the problem editor causes who step in to defend them, that worries me. Hornplease 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A lengthy block requires a smoking gun, and it's just not there. Not a single piece of evidence, either a diff, or an email, was produced to back up accusations of meatpuppetry. What instruction did Hkelkar give to Bakasuprman, what edits did Bakasuprman make under these instructions? We don't know. Instead, we have the standard accusations of incivility, POV-pushing, and similar wiki mantras of abuse that fly around by the thousands on talk pages. Sorry, you cannot block an editor, especially for 6 months, based on such considerations. Beit Or 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: can the relevant emails not be displayed here? It's a bit much to expect the community to make a decision based on virtually no information. Certainly I can't. If the emails really should be kept fairly private, then please email them to me. Moreschi 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Hi I am Sbhushan blocked due to this accusation. I have left note at Rama's arrow talk page and an unblock request on my talk page to show that accusation against me is baseless. This is my edit history since I started contributing on Misplaced Pages ]. Please note that I have not contributed to any article identified as Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. In fact I have no common interest with Hkelker. There is no evidence of me doing any edit based on any instructions Hkelkar might have given me. Rama’s accusation is baseless and I request an opportunity to respond and defend myself. Sbhushan (IP address as I am blocked and no-one is looking at my talk page)198.96.180.245 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Hornplease, what do you mean? apart from myself, knm, dinesh and many other users, even Gizza has conceded that Baka has made useful contributions. he has also been incivil. everyone agrees. but then, there is a history to that and is more nuanced. all of us are aware of it. all the more reason for an arbcom. dont assume that we have little or no knowledge of Baka's history. we wouldnt be here otherwise. also you cant have the cake and eat it too. RA says that this block has nothing to do with incivility or perceived disruption and that it is only about meatpuppetry.

As for meatupuppetry, which is what I suppose this block is about, we havent seen any evidence yet. The little evidence that Gizza sent me has absolutely nothing that can implicate Baka of any wrongdoing. And what worries me most is that, in his mail to me, Gizza has said that he himself hasnt seen all the evidence!! RA on the other hand, claims that Gizza has seen the evidence. I am beginning to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye. Also, while RA says he's prepared to put the evidence here, he hasnt responded to my request to mail it to me. Sarvagnya 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Rama's Arrow & Hornplease. Praveen 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support In case you forgot, I vocalized my opposition to Bakasuprman's block, last night. I was forwarded the evidence at the time when this AN/I posting was made, and I reviewed it and made a conscientious decision. Six months is too long, and I still don't believe in tying Hkelkar to Bakasuprman like this. Honestly, if Baka had been an administrator, he would have gotten away with all of these things. People here have already said that Dbachmann said a number of hateful things before, but it seems he never got the rap for his actions. I must repeat myself that I have dismissed the email logs, since I don't see any justification for Bakasuprman's block. I'm still advocating a block for incivility, if you're interested. Another thing...you've repeated that you blocked Bakasuprman for being a meatpuppet of Hkelkar, but you've just stated that the same has been happening with Sir Nick. Either don't use the double standard and block Baka, and not Sir Nick for the exact reason...or give up your case to pinpoint a block on Bakasuprman when there appears to be no evidence of what you claim is occurring. Also, I'm one of the few who has not had a history with this user, and I'm speaking from a neutral stance. Many others, I can clearly see, have a personal grudge or dislike Baka and are vocalizing their support for the block here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that people who have grudge against Baka are vocal in their support for blocking him. Same line of argument can made about people who oppose his block. I clearly see people who colluded with Baka in POV pushing are here supporting him. Praveen 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to condone Baka's nefarious activities, that is your mistake. Your hypocrisy of allowing Baka to return just b'coz Dab has been incivil is ludicrious. As for Sir Nick - I received it not very long ago, so I still had to go through it and try to understand what was happening. It is indeed sad, and I am basically asking the community to review it properly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow, I did not say Baka could return just because Dab was incivil. I was merely commenting on the double standard of how Dbachmann never got in trouble for his behavior because he is an administrator. That bit was just part of my rant, and probably has no real relevance to the discussion at hand. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support to unblock . While I understand the concerns of Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) in being tough on certian issues, I support the motion to unblock Bakasuprman. Let further proceedings to be taken up by ArbCom to decide his participation in certian articles. This will be more democratic. A few emails and any conjectures there in cant be used as ultimate evidence. Arbcom exists to solve such tough issues.Dineshkannambadi 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Bakasuprman should be permanently banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence

Well, here it is, the first round of evidence - two particularly damning emails exchanged between Bakasuprman and Hkelkar. Please note how Bakasuprman did not want to be part of Hkelkar's "scheme anymore" after I first imposed the blocks. I had sent this first message to user:Akhilleus when he asked to see the evidence 12-15 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Bakasuprman conspiring with Hkelkar

I don't think I need to, but lemme nevertheless highlight the phrases used by Bakasuprman such as the point is to become indispensible, to cover your tracks, the Hindu cause, Jews are better than Indians anyway, befreind user:Humus sapiens, User:Beit Or, User:Avraham in particular. Once he was blocked, Bakasuprman was quick to blame extenuating circumstances for not wanting to be a part of Hkelkar's scheme anymore - establishing that he was a part of his scheme before he was busted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

With a degree of sadness as well as contempt, I must present some evidence I've received that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also involved in recruiting meatpuppets and helping Hkelkar and his activities.

Btw, sorry for the haphazard flow - formatting this has been a bitch. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas attempted to thwart DaGizza's efforts to fight Hkelkar and co.

Sir Nicholas leaked an e-mail user:DaGizza had prepared in order to keep a watch on Hkelkar and his cabal's activities at Hinduunity.org forum. DaGizza had communicated this in private to other "trustworthy" admins:

DaGizza's compilations

That my friend Nirav, was a breach of trust. A sick twisted breach of trust indeed. I demand an ArbComm to stop this madness. Gizza is no saint. Amey Aryan DaBrood 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Breach of trust?" Excuse me, but do you have any idea of what the hell was going on here? Do you expect me to do nothing when I find out that Anirudh has been hassling the community by propping up Kelkar, yourself and D-Boy? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably i'm the only one who has a clear idea of what drama was played out here over past 6 months. You more than anybody else know that i have been unwilling participant in this. Nick was always well meaning. You more than anybody else know without me it would have been impossible to chart kelkar's activities on Wiki. I have done what your ArbComms couldnt get Kelkar to stop socking here. Just today i helped u round up last of his socks.

You are essentially destroying the community. Do want me to sing like a canary here. Do want me to tell these ppl how you got Kelkar to collect evidence for your ArbComm ase against Nadirali thru me?

Over past 24 hours i have been subject to threats and counter threats to switch sides. I have been cruelly manipulated, and right now find meself at the centre of feud between two admin factions. Eitherway i know i'll be setup. For fucks sake i was here to write an encyclopedia not indulge in your petty admin politics.

Also accept the fact that as long there will be Misplaced Pages, cabals will exists. Me, you all of us here are a part of one big hypocrisy that is called NPOV. I reserve my energies for ArbComm. Amey Aryan DaBrood 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for your or Kelkar's help ever - I never condoned that troll's activities. I took all the help I could (mainly just from you, not Kelkar) to fight one set of trolls, but this never meant I was prepared to tolerate Kelkar's crap. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As if I ever tolerated Kelkar's crap. I grant it that you didnt ask for help. But nevertheless you were aware that Kelkar was helping. Didnt we joke about how that should keep him off his sockpuppeting activities for a while? Amey Aryan DaBrood 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AMbroodEY

I'm somebody at the very centre of this whorehouse. I have been the recipient of original emails. As this issue is fast snowballing into a tug-of-war between two admins, both of whom I consider close personal friends (one helped me with University admissions and other is a close ethnic clansmen whom I've known for over a year), I'd reserve my statement and evidence in case of an ArbComm.

I have edited Misplaced Pages for over two years. I have never been blocked. I also participated in 3 ArbComms. I have been courteous enough to apologise whenever I've made any error in judgement (of all people, dab will vouch on this). But let me tell you guys, today I feel betrayed, i feel violated. Because someone whom i'd always considered a friend, someone whom I had offered to nominate for Adminship, Someone whose RfA i strongly supported wanted me perma banned for my convictions. Someone who by his own admission encountered my beliefs only over the internet, thought that I consorted with the braindead prats who throng Hindu Unity.

Its bit rich of Girik to ban Bakasuprman for allegedly acting as a meatpuppet of Kelkar when he himself knew about Kelkar's sockpuppetry from the outset . Why dont you tell these good people Girik, about how you asked Kelkar for help thru me recently. Have you added this email to your 'evidence'? I think not...

Note: Desigeek111 is Hkelkar's pseudonym. His acc i believe used email <e-mail address redacted>. Here is the self styled defender of NPOV (DaGizza, who concern for NPOV interestingly wasnt visible during Nadirali fiasco) asking me to ask Kelkar for help in case http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda resolved in keep. Interestingly DaGizza voted merge. D-Boy for all his idiocy, lack of elaborateness and shoot-from-the-hip-style was right sometimes i does take balls to speak your mind.

As much as i abhor D-Boy's Hindu Unity antics, Brahminist bullshit that Baka spouts every now and then, i find two-facedness and hypocrisy more disgusting on par with Hkelkar's neurotic activities.

If this goes to ArbComm i will present everything i have. I only demand that this evidence is only seen by Arbitrators as i believe stuff i know is too shocking, too damaging to the community. I dont mind if the Committee finds it appropriate to block me for my un-orthodox actions. I emphasize i have always acted in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. I have always placed Misplaced Pages above my POV. I could have easily saved my hide and cut a deal, but my conscience tells me otherwise. सत्यमेव जयले Amey Aryan DaBrood 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and take this to arbcom

From what we're seeing unfold, I think that it is becoming clear that there is more to this than meets the eye. this is out and out arbcom stuff. I think, RA has blundered in singling out few users for unilateral action. I demand that all the blocked users be unblocked and the matter be taken to Arbcom. There are several questions that these revelations raise and all of them cannot be discussed here. I will reserve my comments for an arbcom.

For now, I request that users be discerning enough to note that there are two issues here -

1. Allegations of POV pushing
2. Allegations of meatpuppetry

The first one is not news and is as stale as stale can get. We dont need a sting operation and sensationalised revelations to tell us that. The second, prima facie is falsifiable and looks to be full of conjecture and convenient conclusions. This case is crying for Arbcom intervention and a closer examination of the 'evidence' by a larger group of wikipedians. I honestly feel that RA has jumped the gun and that Baka has genuine reasons to feel victimised. I request a neutral admin to unblock everyone and haul all of them and the admins involved over to arbcom. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is self-evident, as is the involvement of Sir Nick in these proceedings. There is nothing to justify Baka's "victimisation." His complicity with Kelkar has been clearly exposed. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is not self-evident to me even after reading the emails. Maybe some additional explanation and background were necessary, but these were not provided. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And, dear Sarvagnya, don't try to distract the debate like you tried above with your lecture on Dab's incivility. Anyone who can read and understand English knows that Baka's guilt has been established clearly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt has been established no more clearly than dagizza's or nick's or amey's or anyone on that list for that matter. It can be argued that everyone on that mailing list are conspirators. But no. If you want me to believe that this is the only mailing list going around on wikipedia, I can only once again, ask you to not act so naive.

The crux of your block is meatpuppetry. People talk a hundred things in the privacy of their bedrooms and mailing lists. You still have not established that they acted upon hkelkar's advice. For example, hkelkar advises that .."a case can be made that dab recruits trolls.....". That is the only explicit 'order' that he gives in the mail trail. Can you show me that the blocked users acted upon that advice? Or any other advice of kelkar's? Can you show me the diffs? Simply 'catching' users on the same mail chain as a banned user is not meatpuppetry. Sorry. Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Where are the diffs supporting the accusation of meatpuppetry? Beit Or 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What diffs would you like? the one where Bakasuprman explicitly calls someone part of Dab's 'army of trolls'? The one where he notes that I am 'carrying out the dictates of banned Pakistani trolls?' This is truly extraordinary. Hornplease 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding yourself to think that Baka needs ideas from somebody else to say those things. huh. Sarvagnya 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse taking this case to the ArbCom. The matter is too complicated, too controversial, too damaging, and too wide-ranging to be resolved on this board. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that while I approve of an arbcom investigation into the actions of certain admins who seem to be involved in this nonsense, I see nothing here that indicates that the original banning of Bakasuprman needed to be taken to arbcom. The community shoots itself in the foot once again. I am disappointed, but unsurprised. Hornplease 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow just filed an ArbCom case. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rama and others, please move the case to ArbCom. And stop this here. First, the whole thing is very damaging. And it's not going to end soon. Please everyone try to stay cool, and move this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted numerous e-mail addresses from this entire thread. There is no reason for these to be posted on-wiki. In the unlikely event that an arbitrator or other editor genuinely needs to verify such an address, it can be retrieved from the page history. This is not an endorsement of any other material that was or wasn't posted or a comment on the merits of the dispute. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking that a step further and removing the e-mail contents. They constitute private correspondence, and should not have been posted here. The case has been referred to ArbCom; should it be accepted for RfAr, further evidence can be cited there. -- Samir 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to pro-pedophilia websites on userpage

Please direct all concerns regarding advocacy of pedophilia directly to arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org. This concerns regarding actions users or administrators have taken with respect to such advocacy. All such matters may be considered provisionally accepted by the committee, but are to be handled confidentially. Fred Bauder 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not disscuss this sort of wiki buisness on a mailing list, or anywher off-wiki. i will be filiong a formal RfArb, on the proepr page, since you wish this dealt with by the ArbCom. DES 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, if the ruling of the arbitration committee is that this may not be public, and that concerns must be directed privately to the arbcom mailing list, isn't that binding? A filing of request for arbitration would be a public concern. It doesn't make sense that Arbcom says "we want it private" and you would say "Ok, I'll take it up with Arbcom in public". What happens when they accept the RFAR? They then make it private and you're back at square one again. Is it just me, or does anyone else not see the logic in this? Please someone let me know because I'm really serious: am I just crazy? ⇒ SWATJester 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If he files a request for arbitration, the request will be forwarded to the committee by email and the original request deleted. Fred Bauder 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus again and again severly vandalized

Need help there. Lemma was severally vandalized. A certain user:steschke was first politly asked not to delete informations that are well sourced. Please have a look on the disuccion too. Thanx in advance Pitohui 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN/3RR. Nishkid64 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A new case of vandalism occured, I reverted it. Would you please protect the lemma? Regards Byzanz

Hallo, please observe the history and actual discussion page of the article closely.

User:Byzanz and before User:Pitohui carry on an edit war, calling sourced information "vandalizing the lemma" (with the exact same wording). They keep on to delete sourced informations about IDGR and put in their privat theory of a "pen" name and a "double" name of the editor in it - without any reliable source for that.

All references only show that Mrs. Margret Chatwin edited IDGR under that name and no one really knows her actual real name. The edit war on the name has no relation to the matter which is IDGR, not naming the editor of it with other names.

These arguments on the discussion page were completely ignored. So please decide whose behavior there is to be called "vandalism". 89.166.148.69 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

nice idea. Have a close and detailed look on the history of the lemma and the discussion page. Will take a little time to watch step by step but will be, no doubt about it, extremely helpfull. Afterwards you will be able to decide, who commited vandalism and who did not. Regards. Byzanz

It took a lot of time to repair demages and reinsert information which went lost when reverting the lemma becaus of deleting sourced information. Please see On the whole all sourced informations plus some new fact should be given now. Regards Byzanz

user:stescke again comes along vandalising the lemma. Need help now. Byzanz 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn and Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Today I noticed that Klaksonn (talk • contribs) recreated Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User_Hezbollah (as Template:User_Hezbollah 2) for the fourth time (since April 2) today which I speedily deleted again. I blocked him for a week, only to relent because I was concerned that I may have overreacted since he hasn't of yet re-added it to his userpage. However, his downright hostility towards me (for example: he has previously accused me of being racist and having double standards merely because I was Australian) and other editors as well as total disregard for policy has exhausted my patience. Now that he has threatened to have me de-opped, I hereby ask other administrators to review his behaviour and send him a strong message that we will not continue to tolerate such inflammatory displays on user pages or his incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You told him on the 2nd to take it to deletion review and not to recreate it. He did it anyway. He also seems quite incivil on the talk page. I don't feel you were in error anywhere on this one. IrishGuy 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreated category per "Likud Wikipedians", "Yisrael Beytenu Wikipedians", "Kadima Wikipedians" and so on.. _Sonn 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't recreate the category for the last time today, as you sadly claim. I recreated it weeks ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. I bet you knew that. _Sonn 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. You were asked to seek deletion review rather than constantly recreating. You chose to recreate anyway...while making personal attacks and calling Netsnipe a racist. IrishGuy 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above is a valid arguement. My rationale is very relevant. Other categories exist, I don't see why the one I created is inappropriate. _Sonn 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see you're making it personal by trying to get me blocked for 3RR, reverting edits to an article I created. Very low. _Sonn 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He just broke the 3RR rule. As I have reverted him, someone else should block him. He was warned, he did it anyway. IrishGuy 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I "making it personal"? I don't even know you. I read this report and looked at your edit history. IrishGuy 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is 5 reverts now. IrishGuy 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to an article I created. I have provided sources, one of which from an American governmental organization, saying IC is one of the finest educational insitutions in the world. I find it normal for this to provoke some jealousy. _Sonn 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule applies to all articles, whether or not you created them. --Iamunknown 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When one editor was about to break this rule, IrishGuy somehow intervened to get ME blocked for 3RR. _Sonn 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Klaksonn for thirty-six hours for edit-warring. Feel free to continue discussing the Hezbollah template matter, though. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It has also been the case that Klaksonn has been incivil to me in the past, committing a breach of WP:NPA by calling me a racist, and telling me to "Buzz off", after I nominated the template he has recreated, for the first time. Myself, Netsnipe and Klaksonn were in quite a heated debare which resulted in Netsnipe blocking Klaksonn for 24 hours.In this case, and bearing in mind this user has previously been blocked for longer, and warned to behave himself when he came back (which he obviously has NO intention of doing, I would ask these previous blocks to be taken into consideration and for the present 36 hour block to be severely extended. I see no other way of keeping this user under control. Thor Malmjursson 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all of Kalksonn's contributions are inappropriate. I don't think they warrant an indefblock yet. --Iamunknown 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for an indef, but surely his past incivility, bad manners, behaviour and downright disregard for rules and procedures should be enough to get him more than one and a half days "time out". Thor Malmjursson 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So why exactly is this category not allowed? The Behnam 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason the template and associated category were nominated (in the case of my nomination, for speedy (as devisive and inflammatory)) is that Hezbollah is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities. In my estimation, if someone were to create ], ], ] or ], they would all get the same treatment. The activity they support is illegal, and therefore could be devisive. Could also start a war with someone creating ]. In short, devisive, inflammatory and plain wrong. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground! Thor Malmjursson 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though it is a slippery slope in both directions. If expressing support for Hezbollah is not acceptable, what political opinion statements are next? Why not scrap all of them anyway? They don't serve the project, but they can negatively affect it. True? The Behnam 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

False debate on it's face. This stuff comes up almost exclusively in regard to a couple of contentious geo-political problems. No one complains ' He has the i'm a democrat' userbox, or the GOP userbox, or the Labour party box. No, people complain when someone's got a terrorist group, and then people scream outrage because they secretly support that terrorist group too, but are smart enough to not advertise it. When it's pointed out that blowign up 3 year olds is generally reviled, they scream 'then get rid of all userboxes, you're repressing my freedom'. No, we're going with widespread consensus that 99% of userboxes are fine, and 1% need to be examined and possibly removed. the "I support suicide bombers who blame everything on jews instead of their own lack of self-accountability" Userboxes should be removed and deleted. The 'I support a major party in the politics of my own nation' boxes are fine. No one's complaining about the 'This user is a member of Fatah' Userbox; it's a legit party. (Is there such a box?) ThuranX 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatah is a legit party!? 68.248.83.41 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say it is about as 'legit' as Hamas. Perhaps Hamas is more legitimate from the perspective of political legitimacy, considering the vote. Oh wait, does 'legit' mean acceptable to Israel & friends? I suppose that Fatah is legitimate under that assumption. The Behnam 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More so than Hamas, which has lot more ties to terrorism than Fatah. Even Hamas is more legit than Hezbollah. Both have participated in free elections, both are starting to get major recognition as political parties, not terrorist groups. ThuranX 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was obviously being hostile and as such should be properly dealt with. However, with regards to the larger matter at hand, I have to disagree with some of the users above. Hezbollah is in fact represented in the Lebanese Parliament and as such it does not seem entirely inappropriate for users to believe that category's or infoboxes should be created in "support" or stating their membership in this organization.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, in respect of Klaksonn's behaviour, Hostile is to Understatement, as "Minor tremor" is to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906! Thor Malmjursson 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question one: how do userboxes supporting even relatively non-controversial political parties benefit the encyclopedia?
Question two: how much time is spent arguing over what does or does not cross the line into the unacceptable?
Of course, I'm not arguing for "fair treatment" of this userbox (userboxes don't have rights) which should be deleted either way. But it's time to delete them all. Not userfy, but delete and remove. If some users leave Misplaced Pages as a result…great. Experience shows that these are often the very same editors who causes other problems in the pursuit of these same opinions; those who are not will accept the removal of contentious material with grace and an eye towards moving forward.
Misplaced Pages is not a forum for self-expression, national, political, religious or otherwise. When new editors visit another editor's userpage and see it filled with that editor's opinions, they got the wrong idea, and who can blame them? It's our collective responsibility for allowing it.Proabivouac 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban userboxes is your solution? Throw a hissy fit and get rid of userboxes. and then say 'well, anyone who goes wasn't worth keeping?' I think you'll find we'll lose hundreds of editors, who will see that as a major step towards thoroughly anonymizing their hobby. You will not just lose problem editors, you'll lose good editors who like that they can be themselves in their wikipedia presence while helping the project. Once Userboxes are gone, the next logical step will be the elimination of almost all text oon userpages, because someone will see identification of rival college enrollment as offensive, rival careers as belittling, and lists of on wiki accomplishments as elitist. We'll have to switch to numbered ID's, adn then we hit reducto ad nauseum. No one on this project (or nearly zero, there might be three or four odd ducks) wants to have a user number, and not name. Userboxes are fine in the vast majority, those supporting terrorist groups, pedophilia (also under discussion on AN/I), and other anti-social, often criminal behaviors need to go. This 'eliminate em all if I can't have my 'kill all the XYZ's' box is childish. ThuranX 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant reductio ad absurdum? —physicq (c) 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the vitriol and insult throwing above, fact is that 1) userboxes are not the goal of the wikipedia project. 2) Editors are offended by userboxes saying that a user supports hezbollah, myself for one. I consider myself a moderate, and I consider myself to have an open mind in terms of userboxes. However, Hezbollah is on at least 6 country's designated terrorist organization lists. Hezbollah has a long and well-documented history of conducting terrorist acts. It is polemic, it is designed to incite and inflame, and it is offensive to me as Jewish editor, that someone would be allowed to have a userbox in support of a group that has advocated, quote: ""If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew." and "“if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”" ⇒ SWATJester 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, you're discriminating againt, um, his culture.Proabivouac 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see Hezbollah, a legitimate resistance movement, being compared to crackheads, pedophiles and actual terrorits, when someone like "Thor Malmjursson" is allowed to have a userpage this disturbingly repulsive. This is a sad day. _Sonn 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, I come under attack... or rather, my choice of design does...Maybe it would be better if I blank my page. Thor Malmjursson 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:COFS

Please take a look at this This user has attacked me (and been uncivil) because we have different editing points of view. Something needs to be done about this guy.--Fahrenheit451 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't made an overt personal attack on that page; the worst thing I could find was "The moment you add unsourced statements I'll cut your head off (verbally)" . Certainly his attitude has been combative and unproductive, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about it. A first-level warning against personal attacks might be okay. YechielMan 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of NPA warnings on his talk page already, as well as warnings about legal threats and other problems. I think the user is due for a 3rd or 4th level warning by now. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I decided to ignore Fahrenheit451s personal attacks on me more than a week ago - instead of reacting to his very personal insinuations and provocations - editing is much better. Check it out. I wish he would stick to that as well. COFS 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit by Misou counts as a succicnt 3rd-level warning. -Will Beback · † · 08:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS claims that "editing is much better". His recent "editing" has not been so good: --Fahrenheit451 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd

User:CINEGroup has made two edits, removing sourced material from two actresses pages (both are underage so I have purposely withheld their names). When I went to this user's page, there was a message reading "This user has retired and is not returning" or something to that effect. Could someone take a look at this?

Ispy1981 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. CINEGroup removed a youtube link from one, and a CRYSTALBALL Violation. Both edits are fine. ThuranX 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not linking to a vandalised page because the subject is underage? Does reading a page about an actress make me a pedo? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These two edits are okay but they are linked to a possibly troublesome underlying situation. I am following. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashkani

• Ashkani (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad 4

As per checkuser case (linked above), I hereby request an "admin's judgment call" based on Ashkani's contribs. -- Cat 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Ashkani. He is certainly a sockpuppet of an experienced Armenian User. He appears just after a number of Armenian and Azeris were banned or put on a paroles by Arbcom. Artaxid was caught sock puppeting previously. The checkuser is compatible with him been an Artaxid's sockpuppet. Small details (like the aircraft on the userpage indicate him been Artaxid). Even if there is a small probability Ashkani been a sock of somebody else he should be blocked anyway taking into account the recent Arbcom. Alex Bakharev 09:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. He was creating copyvio articles too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a community block perhaps? -- Cat 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a community ban if no admin undoes it, regardless of whether it is submitted to Votes for banning. Thatcher131 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Playboy rich

This user has repeatedly ignored my massages and has continued creating the pages Under Pressure (My Chemical Romance) or Under Pressure (The Used). User:Jamdav86 has advised me that the pages should stay redirects. – Zntrip 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"user has repeatedly ignored my massages"... well that's one way to get his attention. Seriously, though, he's making contentious edits and has only ever made 3 talk page edits of any kind, and all of those were to blank his own talk page. That's textbook disruptive editing. I'll block him for a few days just to get his attention, and hopefully he'll start communicating with you. A Train 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a 'welcome' template there with an edit summary suggesting he read the links, and backed up your redirect edit with reverts. hope that helps. (not an admin, jsut a frequent flier of ANI air.) ThuranX 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're being too overt with the "massages" ;) JuJube 05:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'm not the only who noticed that. — MichaelLinnear 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope this helps too. – Zntrip 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please check all of Playboy's image uploads? They're all licensed under the GDFL, even though a lot of them are CD covers, and I'm unsure about how to approach him. – Riana 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Brown

I vaguely remember hearing that name before. I received a fourteen-page-long e-mail from one BlackTeller regarding alleged sockpuppetry by Rachel Brown, with the request that I post it on this board. Did anyone else receive something similar? Could anyone familiar with RB inform me if such a post would be useful here? >Radiant< 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Did the fourteen page email actually contain any evidence? - Mgm| 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It establishes a pattern of similarity in editing style as well as xFD/RFA !voting habits, as well as a lack of overlap in editing times, of three accounts and one IP. I suppose that counts as tangential evidence. The link towards Rachel is somewhat tenuous. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in more than a year, unless she is using sockpuppets and just hasn't touched her main account. hbdragon88 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk discussion yields interesting stuff. Four accounts were blocked after a CheckUser, but they were all later unblocked due to a "lack of evidence." hbdragon88 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I got an email after putting a not_a_ballot message on Category:Jewish figure skaters saying that there are potential meatpuppets/sockpuppets participating in recent cfds on Jewish topics. It turns out this was true in part.

Supposedly, users have been leaving messages on each other's talk pages (or possibly emailing each other) in order to recruit their vote for those cfds. Specifically, User:Epeefleche was spamming user's talk pages with requests that they save "Jewish athlete categories" nominated for deletion. He did this before with categories such as Category:Jewish fencers. One of the userpages he spammed was User:Londoneye, who according to that link was previously blocked as a sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown, with a suspicious message of "Hello, I know this has interested you in the past" . Though Londoneye didn't vote on the category, he/she did interestingly request for User:Epeefleche's email address . And although Londoneye didn't vote, another suspected sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown DID vote on three recent cfds: User:Newport. (, , )

There are other discussions here: .

The type of vote fraud described in the past discussions of Rachel_Brown are very similar to the type of vote recruitment and email messaging that is apparently happening now. I had suspected meatpuppetry involved in some of these cfds even before the email, and I wouldn't go past saying sockpuppetry could be involved too in some way.

If these allegations are true, given that Rachel_Brown was accused of sockpuppetry in the past and accused specifically of vote fraud using these previously-blocked suspected sockpuppets (User:Londoneye, User:Poetlister, User:Taxwoman), it is unlikely she/he would be foolish enough to continue the vote fraud under all of the same usernames.

So it is reasonable to say there might be other usernames. I do recommend this be investigated. Bulldog123 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't cropped up again but, if anyone wants to investigate, these may be relevant , . I made one of the contributions. Thincat 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burk Hale

Burk Hale (talk · contribs) will simply not stop edit warring and pushing his extreme POV and original research (he continually argues that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which basically gave African-Americans and others the rights they have today) was the result of "subversive" action by the U.S. government. Also, there is a copyright concern with some of the text Burk Hale continues to add to this article. Burk Hale has been warned repeatedly on his talk page and on the talk pages of the relevant articles he has edited. Finally, consensus is clearly against Burk Hale's edits; several have opposed them and none has supported. Burk Hale clearly warrants a block for his continued, obvious disruption (I am involved in the dispute, thus I have not blocked him myself). · j e r s y k o talk · 12:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Burke Hale has also reverted the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, three times in the last 2 hours , restoring his theory each time. Edward321 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation (five reverts in the last 12 hours or so), but I'd like to get more input on what to do with this editor. Natalie 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerseyko has given a good description. What he hasn't mentioned is that this user fails to assume good faith on the part of other editors and accuses everyone of being sock puppets. Heis being very disruptive by ignoring consensus to re-adding his material to a prominent article. -Will Beback · † · 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I expressed my views on Burke Hale a couple weeks ago - .

"While I appreciate Burke Hale bringing this interesting memorial to Misplaced Pages his repeated attempts to push his POV, ignoring several policies including those on concensus and original research, lead me to believe that he will never stop trying to push his theories unless he is blocked from editing the appropriate articles. He's clearly not willing to be reasoned with, claiming he has refuted others when he has done nothing of the kind and refusing to listen when people point out the flaws in his original research. Edward321 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

I am not alone in having problems with Burke Hale's actions, so have Rocket Fairy, Zantastik, Will Beback, Jersyko, Isotope23, and Famspear. In addition to his other problems, Burke Hale has grown increasingly insulting - incompentant being one of the nicer accusations he has made.

Burke Hale has also insinuated that some of the people disagreeing with him are the same person , which Famspear has already refuted . Edward321 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are to expand our conversation about Burk Hale beyond a single block for disruption, it is probably best to do so at the community noticeboard or in a user conduct RfC. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I removed his NPOV tag from the 14th Amendment article a few days back and reminded him that "not NPOV" is not the same thing as "not my POV". Apparently he feels that everyone who points out consensus is against him or the fact that his edits 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress are orignial research (as they are a novel synthesis and show a rather glaring misunderstanding of what constitutes law) is obviously completely biased against him. In my opinion at least, if you have 1 POV editor who is not adding anything of value to the article or discussion and is instead being tendentious it is probably a good idea to nip it in the bud.--Isotope23 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge University Vandals

Mohammad Rafique has been having his page vandalised constantly over the last month or so and the guilty party is from an ip address of Cambridge university. Earlier today I had this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Crickettragic&diff=124971642&oldid=124956079 left on my talk page from the Ranjit Fernando vandal stating that he has friends at uni willing to help him vandalise. I believe the person that has been vandalising Rafique is the same person/people from the incident earlier today. The same IP has made malicious edits to both pages over the last hour. I belive the post history on Rafique's page backs me up - Here. Crickettragic13:07, 23 April 2007

User:131.111.8.102 {{schoolblock}}ed for one month -- Avi 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that it's 131.111.8.104 that has been blocked. Not sure that this is going to be very useful though because the Cambridge proxy server load balances across 10 IPs, seven of which appear active at the moment (see here). Will (aka Wimt) 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're correct :) -- Avi 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just received this on my talk page. Crickettragic13:55, 23 April 2007

Hmmm that IP resolves to the engineering department and not one of the proxy servers at all. Will (aka Wimt) 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. That and the fact that the editor made a death threat, I thought a one week block wouldn't cause too many problems. I'm hoping we won't need a range block, but we'll just have to see. Rklawton 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope so as well, but we'll range block if we have to :( -- Avi 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to strenuously object to some extreme blocking of a tertiary institution such as Cambridge University. I've reverted Avi's 1 month block because 131.111.8.104 forms part of Cambridge's IP proxy pool. We're not dealing with a primary or high school here people -- you're talking about blocking one of the world's most famous universities and we do not need another media fiasco like we had with Qatar. The common sense thing to do here is contact the Cambridge Computing Service helpdesk. I regularly file abuse reports when it comes to universities and they tend to be very responsive when it comes to dealing with such abusive users. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, will you fire off the letter then, please? -- Avi 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 1 am in Sydney and I only came across your block through having the IP talk page on my watchlist. I can do it tomorrow when I've had more time to compile evidence. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can do it in an hour or so (hey, it's 8am here :) ) if you like. I was involved in blocking some of the CU vandals yesterday & know some of the history now. Crickettragic pmailed me some more detail earlier - Alison 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

confidential@ucs.cam.ac.uk seems to be the address you want to contact. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the University by email. No response yet - Alison 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Cambridge student avoiding work who found out about this due to an irritating "new messages" message (that still hasn't gone away), I find the idea that this may get into the media laughable... it wouldn't even make Varsity. The UCS *will* do the detective work to sort this out if the person(s) concerned is reported, but I ought to point out that it the response by their college will probably be nill or (imo more likely) life-changingly harsh. 131.111.8.98 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as your new message is concerned, see Bug ID 9213, it will go away whenever the developers figure out what's causing it--VectorPotential 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's the latter, that's regrettable, but something they should have thought of before coming and vandalising our project. One would have hoped for better from supposedly one of the world's top universities. --kingboyk 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir

• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan" . When the categories were removed as per WP:V and WP:NPOV he reverted them back with an edit summary "revert anti-kurd edit".

I do not believe he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where he has no edits which may involve WP:HA.

Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has fewer than 100 edits of which most seems to be voting (keepinging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan).

-- Cat 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Without making a comment on the sockpuppet issue (I think I side with you on that, it feels like an established editor) I must point out that those are not 'random cities' but cities that are in the region commonly known as Kurdistan... seems obvious they should be tagged as such. I'm not going to wade into this dispute (I honestly think I'm the only uninvolved editor on the entire 'pedia in regards to the kurdistan wars) but you may want to let the edits stand. -M 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. The user avoids discussion and merely reverts without relying on any kind of sources nor discussion. Entire contribution seems to be revering. Users with similar edit patterns have been banned before such as User:Diyako who also has a history of sockpuppets. WP:V suggests that I should be able to "verify" these issues without relying on someones personal belief system. I have every reason to remove anything that can't be "verifiable" unless evidence to the contrary (verifiable info) is provided. -- Cat 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir could be sourced to Turkish Kurdistan specifically, and the 11 provinces the Kurds have in Turkey at The parent Kurdistan page over at GlobalSecurity.org fairly easily. Right wing think tank or not, they do do exhaustive research. -M 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is User:Diyarbakir's user conduct. This is ANB/I not the articles/categories talk page. Please take your content related arguments there. Your argument is not inline with Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Some general guidelines #8 -- Cat 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is. Your argument is that the user is a policy-breaking sock. I'm pointing out that the actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned. Want to try again? We can start the conversation over now that we know where each others coming from :) -M 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say. This isn't a content discussion, instead it is a request of admin review. Admin's will decide weather or not to take action. Smudging it with a content dispute is disruptive IMHO. -- Cat 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you're accusing AKMask of being "disruptive", for pointing out that the user you've accused of being "suspicious" hasn't made any abusive edits? -- Ben /_HIST 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider revert wars disruptive yes, thats what Diyarbakir is doing. Locating CfD on 10th edit is more than enough to suspect Diyarbakir to be a sockpuppet. As for AKMask, I do not recall making an accusation. If it looked that way please disregard. That was not the intention. -- Cat 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would an administrator comment on the edit behavior of this user? -- Cat 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not paid enough to get involved. Speaking as an Admin, & having looked not only at Diyarbakir's edits, but also such fora including Category talk: Kurdistan (discussion stalled since February, page protected) & Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Kurdistan, that's my comment on this entire conflict -- Diyarbakir, you & Kurdistan. -- llywrch 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou inappropriate violations

Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Multiple warnings (not from myself) on the User's talk page. Seems to be a repeated pattern, the warnings don't seem to do much good. Warnings related to policies: WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:WQ.

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Possible_Tendentious_editing_by_User:Steve_Dufour_and_User:Misou

Relevant troublesome DIFFs:

1. WP:HARASS (revealing user's personal info) -
2. poison dripping off your teeth now again - ,
3. knucklehead like Touretzky - ,
4. You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming - ,
5. PFUI (name of editor) - ,
6. so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke - ,
7. If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up -
8. Propaganda shit removed. disrelated material goes. Bye2 -
9. Whoever put this in there should be sued by the Scientologists for libel. How blind can you be to leave this in so long? -
10. (Undid revision 120657435 by F.Obstruso. WP:VANDAL!!! You should get shot from water pistols by the partisan squad.) -

Yours, Smee 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

And these:

1. This was constructive editing until you - Mr. Know-it-all - showed up here. Don't you have enough problems at home?
2. PS, and your WP:OR statements should go where the sun never shines

I have made an effort not only to warn the user for each violation, but to be civil myself (although he says that I am "cynical"). --Tilman 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for a week. I'm not a big fan of abusive editors who think they can game the system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One week block too long?

An editor, on Misou's talk page, has raised a concern with the length of time for the block. Anyone else want to weigh in? I think it was reasonable, considering the full knowledge the editor had that their behavior was disruptive (specifically, not only had they been warned several times, but they actively engaged the warning editors and responded to the warnings, eliminating any doubt that they could have missed them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not support uncivilized comments. However, this does not appear to be a clear cut case of uncivil remarks. Tilman and Misou seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints. While I do not condone Misou's choice of words, I also feel that Tilman helps set the tone, and thus encourages Misou to react rather than respond. His comments are often blunt, matter of fact and curt. While perhaps technically WP:CIVIL, they do little to encourage compromise and discussion. These two will probably never see eye to eye and be best friends, but I believe that Tilman does very little to reduce the tension.

Immediately after one of the remarks was made, Tilman posted a warning on Misou's page. While perhaps technically proper (I don't know), I felt that it did little to reduce tension. I posted on both users' pages. On Tilman's I posted that I felt it would be better if he let someone else 'warn', rather than giving the appearance of being righteous and increasing tension. On Misou's page, I posted that he was out of line and not helping himself. However, I did not intend to be counted as one of multiple users warning him as I feel that is overstating it.

I have not been on wiki long enough to know what punishment fits what crime. You have my overall views on these two and you are welcome to apply them in whatever manner you see is just. -Peace in God. Lsi john 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou has indeed used uncivilized wording in some of his heated edits and responses, making it difficult to defend him, however after reading through the cited violations above, some appear to be a bit overstated. Whether they all qualify for wp:civil is for someone else to decide, however I do recommend reading the history around them before making a long-term decision. Lsi john 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that this block came from ANI so I had posted on Misou's talk page and I thank EVula for bringing up my concern here. Irrespective of warnings or discussions, this is Misou's 1st block, right? Then I think 24-hours would have sufficed and, for a stern warning, 48-hours as a maximum. And yes, Misou has risen to bait on occasion but, rather than over-analyze, can we just give him a more reasonable block and move on? That is all. Thanks. --Justanother 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an analyst. I analyze and analyze... But, I agree that a week was harsh. -Peace in God. Lsi john 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To those questioning the length of the block, please look at some of the past discussions about these issues in Misou's archives. User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Apr2007 User talk:Misou/section index Anynobody 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the length of the block was appropriate considering the frequent instances of violation of wikipedia editing policy. It was fair and just.--Fahrenheit451 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having observed much of the above unfold as it happened, I feel this block (and its length) is appropriate. Robertissimo 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate and reflects taking "side" to anti-editors Misou might be temperamental but be bold and WP:IAR still apply. Overdoing it should be penalized with a 24hr block or 48hrs maximum, if repeated (which it is not). CSI LA 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive mass merging and mass deletion by User:TTN

I noticed that this user made a sweeping merge of characters from the series 7th Heaven (no matter their importance in the series) last week without any prior discussion on talk pages and no attempt at gaining consensus first. They just did it because they decided it should be done. When confronted on their talk page about it, they acted like they do not care about what other editors think and that they will continue making edits like this whether or not other people agree with the changes. He won't even consider gaining a consensus when I gave him possible options with how he can do it and not be so controversial.

The main reason I am bringing this up though is because this isn't the first time this user has done this. I wasn't even aware of it until I looked at the other messages on their talk page and 10 out of 20 of their current messages have something to do with them deleting massive amounts of information from articles or mass merging. I've skimmed through their archived pages and find much of the same sort of messages to this person. On one message in particular, someone told him to use talk messages to settle disputes about a trivia section and their response was, "I will never use talk pages for something that trivial."

My concern about this user isn't so much that they're doing this (some of these merges/deletions were probably the best option), it's that they don't want to take any time to see what other people have to say first and allow them to voice their concern. They also don't feel the need to use talk pages to settle issues if they feel they are right, even when they could very well be wrong. They also consider anybody else disagreeing with them as rabid/obsessed fans even though their opinions were blatantly ignored from the beginning. Of course they're going to freak out if their articles are messed with that drastically without being informed first! I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about this, but it would be nice if someone with a bit more authority could explain how disruptive this behavior can be. --pIrish 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"(no matter their importance in the series)" - Can someone help me? Being a character important in a series, movie, book, game, whatever, doesn't mean that the character deserves an independent wikipedia article, and that merging is probably a good idea. How does verifiability work with no suitable refs? But merging without discussion is probably not as successful. But maybe I'm wrong? Dan Beale 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If all he did was unilaterally merge game characters into a single article and zap a trivia section it sounds like he's done a good job. Are you sure there's any problematic behaviour here? Being bold is encouraged after all. (NB: I haven't actually followed any of the links, this is just a general comment). --kingboyk 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter would be a character so important in a series that he deserves his own article. So would Aslan from the The Chronicles of Narnia, Jack from Lost, and various others just because of the sheer complexity of the character. In the particular example about 7th Heaven, two characters, at the very most could possibly deserve their own articles (and their two articles could possibly be merged as one at that).

But that really was beside my point. I said multiple times in the message to the user (and here) that merging was probably the best course of action, however, not discussing the mass merge was the real problem I had. Which is the problem I am speaking of here. He's done this several times without even thinking about the fact that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, not his own personal playground where he can make any decision he wants without thinking abuot the consequences or concerns of others. This is what I would like advice on and would like to know if anything can be done to remedy this user's behavior that causes controversy and disruption. --pIrish 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not controversial (and presumably it isn't, as you said you don't disagree) it doesn't have to be discussed first. Bold, revert, discuss is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things here. That said, if he did the bold bit, you revert, and then he keeps reverting back without discussing it becomes a content dispute. Please see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for steps you can take if it becomes an actual dispute. HTH. --kingboyk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit I talked with him about was not controversial. However, other edits that are similar have received a bit of controversy and he has gone into edit wars over them and had no interest in trying to settle the disputes on the talk pages. This is evident by the majority of the messages on his talk page being negative reactions to these changes. He thinks only his way is the right way. He has no interest in keeping the peace. I understand being bold, but I also understand being polite and keeping etiquette. When did it become ok for someone to treat articles like their personal playgrounds where nobody else's opinions matter? --pIrish 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's always been the case! I can go edit any article around here, any way I want. You can too! If someone objects or reverts, then it's time to stop and talk. If no one does, no big deal. If you think the changes were wrong, you can revert them and say why so. On the other hand, this is not a bureaucracy, and just going ahead and making changes is a perfectly valid way of testing if such changes have a consensus, or starting discussion to develop one. Seraphimblade 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of notification of this would have been nice. Would you point out some instances? In most cases, I only push the 3RR with anons that use all of the arguments covered by WP:ATA, and then soon give up after that. Most of the people on my talk page like to point out that I'm cutting "important information" when most of the time it goes against guidelines. Others are just content disputes that happen to pour over to my talk. Nemu 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to mostly get help in understanding and building my knowledge of the way Misplaced Pages works, not gang up on you so I don't particularly see why I should have notified you, especially considering I knew pretty much nothing but information and guidance for me would come of it. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't think most of your edits were bad or not warranted, I just feel like you should be notifying people first. The reason you get people freaking out on your talk page is because you didn't notify them. I wanted to see what the exact stance was with cases like this because I have never come across someone who was as unwilling to discuss major changes as you are. --pIrish 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, no, the reason for the messages on my talk page are either from people I'm just having a plain dispute with, people that don't understand that this site isn't a game guide/fan site, or people that realized a page was merged a month after it was actually merged, and have a problem with it. Nemu 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that now. All I really had to go off of though was, "I really think you are removing way too much information from way too many articles." and "The mass deletion of the track listings for Mario Kart: Double Dash!! was uncalled for." That doesn't give me much room to assume anything other than exactly what they say and that people are angry you've done it without talking about it first. Clearing that up was helpful, but I still do maintain that massive edits should probably be discussed before. Of course, this does not apply to obvious policy-breaking and small or even medium edits. --pIrish 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick glance and all I see is a bold editor who knows the guidelines and is responsive on his talk page. I'm seeing good not bad. If I'm somehow wrong, please present some diffs. --kingboyk 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all the above fails to meet the main point, TTN:

• 1: he does not merge, like some said above, he redirects to other pages, discarding much content
• 2: weather he is right or wrong he causes large amounts of content to be lost, and when confronted with a revert of his edit he engages in edit wars, instead of trying to achieve a consensus
• 3: he removes 3RR warnings and invitations to discussion from his talk page.

I am not saying this user is making incorrect edits, the problem is he engages in revert wars, instead of attempting to achieve a consensus, and refuses discussion. Hopefully someone more experienced than I may be able to explain to him better how to avoid edit wars. You may find an example of his edit wars at Mayor McDaniels. I would prefer to explain to him personally, however this is not possible due to him removing attempts at discussion from his user talk page, so I am forced to post here. --Jackaranga 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging if often cutting. The information removed is never crucial, and would be cut even if the page didn't stay. The above example isn't an edit war (unless two reverts is considered an edit war), so I felt no need to keep the message. If you didn't see, I asked for a discussion, but when you stepped in, he became content. Nemu 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, there are four reverts over a period of time, but those are just cases of random people reverting anything that's merged without any reason, so you cannot really count those. Nemu 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted four times in a short period of time for the exact same thing each and every time. This is the very definition of an edit war and would have been a violation of 3RR if it had been in the span of 24 hours, instead of being stretched over two days. After the first revert of the redirect, you should have immediately started discussion on the talk page to gain consensus. Instead? You chose to revert the edit and enter yourself into an edit war where four people disagreed with you, three of which were registered users, yet you still refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. This is the sort of disruptive behavior I tried to bring to attention here. --pIrish 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot count a random anon and a guy that randomly reverts any sort of merge in the whole discussion part or in a revert war. They aren't the type to discuss. The anon went away, and he gave up. Those two are isolated incidents that shouldn't be lumped in with the other guy, who was persistent and seemed to have refused to discuss. Plus, there was already a consensus to merge articles on the project for that series. Nemu 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, those two are like people that just randomly revert a merge months after it happened. Those wouldn't require discussion, so these similar reverts also shouldn't, especially due to the fact that they didn't even give a reason for a revert. Nemu 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:TTN is also violating WP:SIG, specifically the part which reads : In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of an existing user. His signature is "Nemu", which is the exact same username as User:Nemu. I do not understand why it is accepted in his case in particular, as it also makes it hard to understand who is writing.--Jackaranga 12:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this was just an accident, and I would have told you on your talk page except you deleted my previous comments, and those of other users.--Jackaranga 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"New" disruptive editor - WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL violations

User:VolcanoXeni, a "new" disruptive editor has appeared in the Scientology articles and is off and running with WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL violations.

• WP:3RR - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Restoring essentially the same material each time. Please note that COFS was blocked 48 hours for mirror image edit-warring, see here.
• WP:NPA - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Please note responses to NPA warnings by two editors here and here.
• WP:CIVIL - Just about any talk page edit, see history. Also see edit summaries like this - I guess I am the "loonie" referred to.

As far as "new", s/he seems pretty familiar with the workings here, see here so I do not think this user deserves much in the way of "newbie slack". --Justanother 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the users who warned him. He is clearly a troublemaker, and needs some time to think about how to improve his behaviour to comply with WP:CIVL and WP:NPA. --Tilman 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. – Steel 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock puppets/meat puppets

I wanted to report obvious sock puppet/meat puppet abuse at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Landau7_(2nd)

I have dealt with these two in the past and the evidence was inconclusive. Now I think it is very conclusive. Drumpler 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Bot No Donut

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Shadowbot's bot rverted a huge ammount of links and changes because I formatted one wrong (missing a "[".) On Shadowbot's page is written "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." so that's why I'm writing.

The links in question were on another wikipage so the link itself was probably not the issue but the website was aol. In the spambot message was written...

"However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages."Benjiboi 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the bot's doing its job just fine to me. There's no reason for a webgroup link to be in that article. Seraphimblade 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot reversed that edit as well as four others that were fine and had been previously saved. I hardly feel that's a fine job.

User: 216.196.230.137 is repeatedly vandalizing the article "Cumulonimbus Cloud"

This user is vandalizing the article by adding bad jokes to them. This user has a history of vandalism by also vandalzing the article . This user already has two warnings but still hasn't stopped his/her vandalism. I've provided two links to make it easier to go to the article. When you go to the articles click on the "history" tab to see what this user has done. He also violated the three revert rule on April 21.

Weather333 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing my articles

I am trying to contribute newsworthy material to Misplaced Pages and a bot by the name of Shadow1 keeps removing all my stuff from www.thesportsinterview.com. Please evaluate this bot and please take my site off removing stuff right away.

I am trying to contribute info, not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsInt (talk • contribs)

From your username, I'd gather that you're adding links to your own personal website, which isn't allowed per the policy on external links. MSJapan 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you shouldn't be adding interviews from your own site, it is a conflict of interest. Also people do not think your site is notable enough to be considered a reliable source.--Dacium 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, Shadow1 isnt a bot. (: He's a warm-blooded user. He does operate a few bots though. ~Crazytales 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you keep this up, your web site may get blacklisted so that nobody will be able to add it to any articles. -Amatulic 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what to do

Ok, I searched "Chord" into wikipedia, and got a ton of e's - clear vandalism. I then copied what it said before and re-edited it back to what it was before the vandalise.

The person had attacked before, so I put semi-protection lock until some professional wikier saw to it. What should I do, or should I leave it with you guys?

You can see the events here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chord&action=history

--Dark dude 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but locking the page down seems excessive. Why not just address the vandal by warning or blocking, as appropriate?Chunky Rice 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting. Just revert back to the unvandalised version, warn the editor as described at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Adding a protection tag is on its own has no effect. -- zzuuzz 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true. The tag doesn't convey protection/s-protection; you need to be an admin to do that. Thanks for fixing the vandalism, though. -Hit bull, win steak 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgruntled user gets indefinite block, please review

Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Loomis51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely due to his harping on about personal attacks and his perceived one sided treatment by admins on wikipedia with respect to his contributions at the ref desk. (clarification: the italicized comment represent my own thoughts on the matter, not words used by Firday when delivering the block) I think it is frustrating for admins and other ref desk regulars alike to see Loomis continue to display this negative attitude. But, while a cooling off period is probably a good thing, an indefinite block is probably unwarranted. For one, all of Loomis' recent comments were restricted to his own talk page. Could other admins review this block? Thanks David D. (Talk) 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anyone who wants can feel free to adjust or remove this block as they see fit. I've washed my hands of this situation- I'm not well equipped to deal with this. Friday (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has he even expressed a desire to be unblocked? I'd have to see some kind of remorse or willingness to behave better before considering it. John Reaves (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He has expressed a desire to be unblocked, although, he has placed terms on the behaviour of the admins that frequent the ref desk: Loomis wrote:

"In short, if some necessary improvements are made, I request to be unblocked, and promise to be on my best behaviour. However, if those necessary improvements remain ignored, I have no interest in being unblocked, as I have no interest in once again participating in a project where WP:NPA except upon Lewis remains the governing guideline." For context

Loomis' grievances:

Hope this helps David D. (Talk) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here is where Loomis says he'll keep being disruptive until I warn some other editors about personal attacks. I don't play the "do what I say or I'll keep being disruptive" game, so upon seeing this, I extended his block to indefinite. As I said, I've no objection to anyone else adjusting or removing, but I'm not personally inclined to spend even one additional second of my time helping an editor who threatens to keep being disruptive. Friday (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth nothing that Loomis has been deliberately skating rather close to the edge. I think it should be clarified that Loomis' 'harping on about personal attacks and his perceived one sided treatment by admins' is by no means the sole reason for his block (as an aside, those words are David's, and were never used by Friday), and that that particular conduct is not even the most important reason. Loomis' troubling behaviour is spread over many pages and a couple of months, so it's difficult to find all of the diffs. (Poor edit summary usage doesn't help.) Nevertheless, here's a sample of some of the behaviour that earned his block.

There is his insistence on calling another user a Nazi apologist and anti-Semite ; his habit of continuing to quote her out of context to further his attacks continues today: .

There were the disruptions to make a point; see for example these deletions of other editors' comments from talk pages: , , .

And, of course, his attempt to skirt WP:NPA by making comments on the contributions, and not the contributor (ahem): , .

Attempts by editors who had been on friendly terms with Loomis to help steer him away from trouble were met with cruelty and contempt: . (Incidentally, I applaud JackofOz's continued attempts to bring Loomis back into the fold. Jack has the patience of a saint.)

Combine that with a stated intent to end any positive contribution to Misplaced Pages () and open acknowledgement that his behaviour has been and will continue to be deliberately disruptive: "...all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine.... ...can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive...? Of course you can't."

I don't even quite know how to describe this rant.

Loomis' talk page before he last blanked it (see this revision) shows numerous editors counselling him to calm down and avoid making personal attacks and engaging in disruption; this advice has gone unheeded. It might be reasonable to unblock Loomis at some point in the future if he calms down and agrees to avoid personal attacks, stops being deliberately disruptive, and becomes a paragon of courtesy and civility. Absent such guarantees – backed by some sort of parole arrangement – I fear that we would be in for more of the same conduct that brought us to this point in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this, I pictured something from a Lovecraft story. You know, where there's the guy who's ventured too deep into the ruins and is telling his partner to get the hell out of there. Veinor 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been in discussion with Loomis for a few days and in that time he has gone from personal attacks ("friendships you seem to have developed with those so utterly beneath you such as Rockpocket, Ten, Clio, Friday, eric, and so many others..." despite the fact he and I had never actually exchanged words when this was written) to praise . A similar, albeit more extreme, pattern of behaviour seems to have occured between him and JackofOz (talk · contribs) and Clio the Muse (talk · contribs) (from this extraordinary display of admiration to accusations of Nazi apologism.) My concern is with the emotional investment Loomis appears to invest in his editing, and whether that is healthy for him, and those who interact with him, in addition to disruption that results in. Perhaps an enforced period of reflection - something he has said he would like to take voluntarily, but can't help reneging on - would be the best solution. I'll continue to speak with Loomis and see if he will comply with that. Rockpocket 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note for review. I have now protected User talk:Loomis51 for one month, as he was using his talk page to continue his personal attacks ("Please take your Nazi Apologist filth elsewhere. It's not welcome on my userpage."). I have suggested that he may contact an administrator via email to request a lift of protection if he agrees not to launch further attacks on the page, and if he wishes to participate positively in Misplaced Pages again. Another admin may lift this protection as he sees fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Introduction

Misplaced Pages:Introduction is getting hammered by vandals. I tried reverting, but kept getting "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Someone should look at the page. -- Jreferee 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Misplaced Pages Introduction text, can't be vandalized, no edit there ever counts as vandalism, it's like the sandbox--VectorPotential 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MartinBotIV (talk · contribs) was supposed to be resetting the page every half hour; presumably the bot is currently down. --kingboyk 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah--VectorPotential 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I previously only knew about Misplaced Pages:Sandbox. The "anyone can edit" portion of "the 💕 that anyone can edit" on the front page links to Misplaced Pages:Introduction, which includes four tabbed pages, the first page having "What is Misplaced Pages?". I just read Template_talk:Please_leave_this_line_alone and it says WP:INTRO is one of the most vandalized pages in Misplaced Pages. In any event, I was mistaken in that I thought it was something that needed to be reported. A red-faced oops for me! -- Jreferee 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on potential BLP issues on that page, as ephemeral as edits to that page may be. El_C 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA violations by User:69.141.30.12

WP:DE and WP:CIVIL

In spite of having been blocked for two weeks for sock puppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke), User:69.141.30.12, alias BlowingSmoke, Moderation and EtaKooramNahSmech, to list the established sock puppets of User:69.141.30.12, does not seem to have understood the warning message and has reverted to his disruptive and malevolent editing. He has simply shifted his activity from the article on Passive smoking to the article on Smoking bans.

In the Passive smoking article, he made repeated attempts to remove the notion of causation linking passive smoking to diseases, running against the consensus of the long time editors of the article (this is well documented in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke). He is now doing the same thing, attacking this time the Smoking bans article, deleting a relevant reference and altering the text to throw doubt on the notion of causation:

• 20:15, 13 April 2007
• 10:59, 14 April 2007
• 08:58, 17 April 2008
• 22:33, 17 April 2007
• 20:15, 18 April 2007
• 06:15, 19 April 2007
• 15:20, 22 April 2007
• 21:41, 22 April 2007
• 02:53, 23 April 2007
• 17:22, 23 April 2007

His edits were reverted by several editors, including myself.

WP:HARASS and WP:NPA

User:69.141.30.12 then made an attempt to harass me. He posted a threatening (unsigned) message on my Talk page, accusing me of "repeated violations of the Misplaced Pages policy" and of having "hatred" for smokers:

• 02:59, 23 April 2007

My personal policy is to ignore such messages, and I simply deleted it from my Talk page. Nevertheless, User:69.141.30.12 came back to my Talk page and undid my deletion of his threatening message:

• 17:22, 23 April 2007

This is a clear violation of WP:HARASS (See User space harassment).

Could you please do something to stop User:69.141.30.12's malevolent activities, as they are highly disruptive, they waste every other editor's time, and they are totally counterproductive. --Dessources 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Dessources has claimed ownership smoking ban article, reverting any changes which disagree with his anti-smoking point of view, which is clearly stated on his talk page. User talk: Dessources Is it not clear if the views are his own, or this of his meatpuppet, Nmg20

• ]

Dessources has disregarded the following policies to retain control of these articles: WP:OWN Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.

• 18:56, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125225649 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Restore to original, consensual version) ]
• 23:20, 22 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Rationale - Rv unjustified mass deletion and changes) ]

All diffs below qualify, as well.

WP:CIV:

Judgmental tone in edit summaries :

• 10:06, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125046223 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv obstinate amd illusory attempts by same person to inject POV) ]

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:CIV#ICA)

• 10:55, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123482202 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv - Blowingsmoke is back with his POV edits!) ]

Removal or properly cited passages, in violation of WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth"

• 09:07, 19 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 124018690 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) False and anecdotal evidence)
• 10:59, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123481800 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Citation is clearly unscientfic and unsufficient - mostly anecdotal)
• 01:15, 11 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Effects on businesses - Delete false statement: polls done prior to the ban showed that it enjoyed wide popular support)

He refers to requests that he refrain from violating WP: NPOV as "threats." He reverts good-faith attempts to neutralize the article, characterizing the edit as "vandalism," "malevolent" and "attacks."

• [[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Smoking_ban&diff=prev&oldid=123922408
• ]

Such imflammatory langauge inhibits reasonable discourse, and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL I have never ciriticized Dessources in any way, other than the quality of his edits.

In contrast, he has accused me of threats, vandalism, sock puppetry (I display my IP address specifically to avoid this tactic), and has reverted every single edit good-faith I have made to the article.

I imagine this type of harrassment allows him to keep control of the articles, which is clearly not acceptable.

I am not User:Dessources "meat puppet" (whatever that is; I presume he means "sock puppet"); we have in the past had arguments about aspects of the passive smoking page , and the edit history for that article reveals that we spent some time undoing one another's edits.

Unlike in the current situation, however, we reached an accord - User:69.141.30.12 refuses to do so despite a complete lack of support for his views. He also continues to ignore Misplaced Pages policy as Dessources has already outlined, and frankly it annoys me that I spend more time reverting his edits than I do working on new articles.

Regarding his tone, he has posted in the past using "we" instead of "I" in an attempt to give his views more credibility, has deliberately ignored my repeated links to the Misplaced Pages policies he was breaching in the same section of that talk page, he continues to accuse me of "sanitising" articles to my own ends ("You state as the only grounds for its exclusion that there are no similar references used in the article, which is no surprise, as you insist on removing them"), refuses to sign talk posts ("Stop demanding that we sign our posts. We choose not to."), and has resorted to some pretty schoolyard comments ("I commend your decision to end an argument that you have lost."), albeit one that I admit I reacted badly to.

Really that thread is all you need to look at for evidence of the problem here - three separate users have explicitly disagreed with his views, and not one agrees with him, yet he continues to change the article and attempt to provoke a reaction on the talk page. I support what Dessources has said above. Nmg20 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By way of follow-up, the Smoking ban article has been edited 40-odd times since yesterday (23rd April) morning, with the upshot of those edits currently standing at a change of 34 states to 35, and the addition of a link which has been disputed for weeks. The rest are almost all reverts of the same stuff User:69.141.30.12 has been championing on his own.

User:69.141.30.12's edits have been reverted by User:Dessources, User:Sigma 7 (who has an extensive edit history outside the page), and would have been reverted by me had others not got there first. In addition, User:John Quiggin has expressed his support for my objections on the use of ACSH as a source .

It would be great if we could get on with doing something constructive here rather than constantly having to revert destructive edits from one individual. Nmg20 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find the definition of a meatpuppet at WP:MEAT

I have not accused you of santitizing any article. I submit that you and your counterpart, Dessources, conspire to bias certain articles toward an anti-smoking POV.

You have admitting reverting all my edits, without consideration or discussion. You and your counterpart have also revert every edit by every user who posts anything to support the other side of the debate.

User:Pyrotrees - something strange going on...?

Have a look at these diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pyrotrees&diff=122599804&oldid=122593897 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pyrotrees&diff=125298801&oldid=122601368

User:204.102.108.32 appears (to my untrained eye) to be repeatedly adding javascript to the user page of this inactive user. I'm not really sure what's going on - but it looks like he may be trying to do something potentially 'not good', so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. What do you think, guys? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats java, not javascript, completely different languages, and java requires you to execute the command through a Virtual Machine. Weird, but nothing dangerous. -M 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any idea what it all means, as a matter of interest? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's real-life-example code. As code it does nothing, but if you were going to describe how you, as a person, would change cd's in a cd player in java, not english, this is what it would look like. It means nothing on a computer, but is useful for a teacher to make sure the student understands the syntax. -M 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiahilmi

User created an article about a deceased person on userpage. This is users first edit. It may be a copyvio (I haven't checked). I am not certain what process to involve. -- Cat 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a copyvio, from here. -M 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Go, G12, go! hbdragon88 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been helping out a user who asked for assistance at the Village Pump on DeVry University. I've done my best for the article but I am more of a fixer than an adder to articles. Nevertheless, User:Codeplowed appears to have unusual activity. I've done my best to assume good faith here, but he has been doing things that seem to be quite strange. His first edit was to introduce criticism to the article, and he appears to be a single-purpose account only editing that article. He appears to want a large amount of criticism in the article (). Not to mention harassment (, , etc.).

When I gave him a rough equivalent of {{uw-npa2}} with a little good faith as a warning for it (those and calling people "WikiImpostor"), but I was met with "stupidity out of my talk page". When I tried to give him a little bit of guidance on {{Talkheader}}'s usage, I was met with a revert calling me a Digimon (Digimon, I've been editing these over the past few years but I still know very little about it). Then when I told him not to call me names and notified him of some of my changes he might have missed, I got a riddle: "Just looking into verifiable facts: Digimon is all that is fantasy: it is not a person, it the creation of fantasy this entry is about actual families and their children and their future: Facts" - I only ended up deducing I was a fantasy of some sort. In all these conversations, he removed my comments from the talk page.

Then I think there are bad faith assumptions ("reverting: Check for official information, as interpreted otherwise, Harrasment was done by what it seems now many users/employeers of DeVry do not put yoursel at stake by vandals") and a reluctance to remove {{advertising}} from the article's header (the lack of links on the page makes it sound weird)... Could I get some feedback on how to approach him? x42bn6 Talk 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say, calling someone a "Digimon" is a new one on me. I think next time I get in an argument with someone I'll call them a Duel Monster. ^_^ JuJube 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some assistance? Talk:DeVry University and its history (see User:Codeplowed's contributions. He is soapboxing the talk page putting views forward like:

BE BOLD and edit your own behavior, become neutral and better yet objective, weight the evidence do not fabricated the entry for your interests and selfish gains, like keeping your job or feeding your children without concern of all the harm that your actions and decisions are making in the life of our nation, many people that are our real ans infiltrated enemies are helping you because they believe that our system does not work, in this regard they seem to be aiding you and working for/with you but only because their real aim and wants is to destroy our way of living and our reasons and values, our Freedoms and our future minds. By giving false promises, making money out of mediocre and obsolete ans inapplicable knowledge you are hurting our country and it is not the way for our future.

Does this violate WP:CIVIL?

The battleground is the REAL-life of thousands of people that have been victimized by DeVry and are or have been Victims of DeVry and you are part of it by interpreting facts as protecting this malady entitled DeVry Inc. It like protecting Hitler or working for an Institution that enslave people in the sense that you are doing wrong by receiving payments for a system that is causing harm and committing atrocities. What is worst is that you seem not to have the guts to recognize it. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, to adapt to new situations, DeVry Inc. has taught you to use treachery instead, it seems, nothing to do with manners of well-intentioned individuals, you have exhibited your behavior in here and is documented, yes you can archive it but you can not erased, there are many backups of it, however you can still quit.

And this?

I think he is one of the people who has an agenda against this University. It doesn't fall under WP:COI but I feel this makes him one of the editors that should not be editing the article so aggressively. Help? Thanks. x42bn6 Talk 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and I'll participate after I have looked around a while and learned the background, players, etc. It certainly appears to be a messy talk page and the article could certainly use some help but it's not too bad. Codeplowed's extremely long and dense comments on the Talk page are difficult to read and appear to wander off-topic quite a bit but I'm not sure that's a capital offense. --ElKevbo 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat and article to watch out for.

Received this on the Unblock-en-l list today, from (redacted)

I am being blocked from creating an account because apparently my computer has been "tagged" as causing problems, or something. I live alone and I am the only person using this computer. I suspect I have been put in this list because information relating to "Bupropion/Wellbutrin" is 100% different than what you have listed.

I am starting legal action against GlaxoSmithKline for misrepresenting Wellbutrin and poisoning Americans with thier drugs. I spent 14 years under the thumb of GlaxoSmithKline and only when I started taking the generic of Wellbutrin (bupropion) did my psychological symptoms go away. Go to www.shippyceramics.com and go to the "gsk profits" link to find out the actual truth about a drug that is being taken by over 21,000,000 million people.

Until I am allowed to inform the public of the truth, I will include Misplaced Pages on my website as compliant in one of the largest mass-medications in earths history. GlaxoSmithKline is a terrorist organization, they are killing people and torturing them.

On the face, it's a clearly obvious legal threat against the project: Block, refer to foundation, move on. However, note the directly stated intent to damage the Wellbutrin and likely GlaxoSmithKline articles in response to this threat. WP:NOT a battleground etc. We should be keeping an eye out for this. ⇒ SWATJester 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a philosophical problem with a block since this user has basically alerted us that he wants to add his POV to articles, but where is the "obvious legal threat against the project"? He just says "I will include Misplaced Pages on my website as compliant in one of the largest mass-medications in earths history." Since when is simply bad-mouthing the project a legal threat? -- DS1953 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He is suing Glaxo. He intends to list Misplaced Pages as "compliant" with Glaxo in the abuse of Wellbutrin. Obvious to me. ⇒ SWATJester 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just keep the kooks out? If a potential editor freely admits to paranoid ideations about the marketing of a drug used to treat psychological disorders, it's not a stretch to assume that he is not on any medication that might adequately treat his umm... "potentially disruptive" symptoms. ˉˉ╦╩ 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like he/she is already blocked from creating an account - must be the Misplaced Pages Pre-Crime Division at work. If so, nice catch. I'm happy to watchlist the articles in question. MastCell 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that obvious bit, I should have taken a longer glance at this section. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Mastcell, that it was why it was sent to the unblock list, but since they didn't include an account name or IP, I had no way of knowing who it was (why I pointed it out here). I could be wrong, they could have run into an auto block and just sent an email to the unblock list by accident thinking it was the foundation's address. ⇒ SWATJester 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a break and ponder this

I just did some quick math and calculated that the archives of AN/I plus this page total approximately 9,300,000 words, or slightly more than 16 times the length of the English translation of War and Peace. Not admin related, but I thought the admins would get a kick out of it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and how long did it take you to count them all?! :) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Half as long as it takes to read War and Peace? Seraphimblade 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious next step is to publish AN/I as a book. Or translate it into Russian... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The amount of drama would make it an instant success among rings of teenage girls. // Sean William 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was easy - I took archive forty-something and archive 220-something, put them into Microsoft Word, averaged the word counts, and did some multiplication. It took five minutes, which is about .2% of the 42 hours it took me to read War and Peace last semester. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I always knew people spent more time here instead of here, but that's pretty outrageous! :) – Riana 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, there's not much I can do besides read AN and AN/i. Well, except for newpages patrol. hbdragon88 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is sorta the same theory that you could pick two chapters (out of 365) of the novel and pass the final... :P   Shenme 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more fodder: there have been 51302 edits to WP:AN, and the request for AN/I times out (see http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/). So yeah... we talk a lot. Titoxd 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was able to access the AN/I stats, and I took pictures of the stats page and uploaded them: Image:AN-I edits.png (the main part with the header,) Image:AN-I edits 2.png, Image:AN-I edits 3.png and Image:AN-I edits 4.png. 118080 edits here as of then. Grandmasterka 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the monthly summary: Image:AN-I usage by month.png. This excludes the one edit made by Jayjg back in January 2003, establishing the page. Grandmasterka 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg didn't establish the page, the server clock just got messed up. See this diff. Graham87 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User will not stop "fixing" other users' talk page posts

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs) has been warned many, many times, and blocked once already (and very recently) for this, but simply will not stop. Just a day or so after the block expired, he was right back at it, despite repeated promises to stop (or to "try to" stop, whatever that means). I suggest that a considerably more extended block may be in order. User claims it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder problem, but this not plausible as user has been on WP since 2005 but only started doing this last month. User has a very curious history of making good edits and almost as many disruptive ones; his talk page is piled to the metaphorical ceiling with complaints and warnings about almost every conceivable editing transgression, and his responses are uniformly either hostile or mock-obsequious, yet he's also got a number of kudos messages posted to him, and before I was aware of his disruption problems, I'd considered giving him a minor barnstar for some good editing work! See User talk:Bart Versieck#Perpetual problem with editing others posts after many warnings and promises to not do so for consolidated a meta-thread about this editing problem (or this history page if that consolidation has been reverted by the time this is addressed. I thought about filing this at WP:AIV, but this seems more a WP:DE than WP:VANDAL issue, per se. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please correct your post on his talk page from 1995 to 2005 or whenever he started (ahh, I'm getting OCD! :)) Anyway, although psychological issues are not a laughing matter when they are true and Misplaced Pages may be tolerant, however, Misplaced Pages cannot indefinitely accommodate such edits. —physicq (c) 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. If people need to correct things, we have endless things to correct. Remember, anyone can edit, which means an endless supply of typos/whatsits/etc. We have pages devoted to lists of recurring nightmares. Trust me, there are dozens of 'desribed/desribes', 'unecessary', 'equivilent', and the like. If that's too easy, look at every 'Alpert' trying to find the ones that should be 'Albert' (they are out there!). And after reading project talk pages, it is marvelously calming to correct the few 'worshiped' or the one 'stronlgy', and then go to bed. (Ahhh! I have OCD!) Shenme 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can stand you lose such an editor (with all the corrections and whatnot). Perhaps some very stern warnings and short blocks when he just can't resist fixing other people's comments would work. A bigger problem, is the misuse of minor edit marking. John Reaves (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some talk page comment editing is helpful (such as if a message is too incoherent to read) but it looks as if he is taking this way too far. I'd agree with short blocks if this continues. I'd also suggest he put a self-imposed ban on himself from viewing article talk pages if it is getting him to the point of being blocked. VegaDark 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, a ban is absolutely rediculous. Short blocks as needed. Besides, he makes people sound better on talkpages. Buy him a beer as a thank you, dont flip out at him. -M 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty nice that a user is willing to spend time fixing other people's errors, but I agree it gets annoying after a while. He doesn't make major changes anyways, just minor wordings such as "and" -> "plus", so I don't think it's such a big deal? (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A filthy propagandist vs. WP:NOT

I've just blocked this propagandist who has been spreading hate speech at Talk:Islamofascism in the form of forum discussions in opposition to WP:NOT. I had alarmed them before but i received a filthy message instead on my talk page before blocking the account. Can someone please review that if possible? -- FayssalF - 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I think you might have overreacted a wee bit. However, I found the claim that Islam was the only religion to have killed people very amusing. JuJube 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• According to them, i am a plain killer. Does that mean that i like listening to Killing Time (Massacre album)?-- FayssalF - 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We block people for that sort of nonsense all the time. Calling a huge ethnic group a bunch of killers and fascists is well over the line. Can say I approve of the label "filthy propagandist", it is best not to insult even the people we block. _InBC 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslims are not an "ethnic group", but a "religious group". Muslims can be found in all ethnicities. Corvus cornix 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment that, whatever the editor you have commented on has done, FayssalF, I would like to think that no one deserves to be referred to as a "filthy propagandist" and, frankly, am shocked by such word usage. Regards, Iamunknown 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I know it was a moment when i was feeling really bad. -- FayssalF - 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't hold it against you. I understand that things get heated. I felt like expressing my opinion nonetheless. Maybe I shouldn't have addressed it to you, but instead I should have posed my opinion in general. My apologies for putting you in what I would consider an uncomfortable situation. --Iamunknown 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user editing as IP

Blocked user Dhimwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently editing using 82.20.124.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), including personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly my fault for not enacting the same length block on both the IP and the account (they are the same person). I'd like to take this time to ask for a possible community ban of this user. He has harrassed via e-mail, used his account and IP to make continuous personal attacks, edit warring, disruption, etc...--Jersey Devil 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked users can't edit. If you want to come back, you request an unblock with a LOGICAL reason that doesn't involve bashing admins. You don't log out and continue editing, regardless of how you feel about the behavior of admins. JuJube 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should extend the block to the IP address. Andy Mabbett 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ongoing. Andy Mabbett 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming to promote non-notable Yahoo group

Repeated spamming of Syd Barrett The Piper at the Gates of Dawn () and Pink Floyd () by 84.24.5.107 (talk · contribs) with non-notable Yahoo group, contrary to notices on talk page and many reverts by different editors, on the former. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Incident

Not sure what to do about this: --Savant13 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Fatuglyhor (talk · contribs) and Fatuglyhor2 (talk · contribs). Andy Mabbett 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Waggers has indefinitely blocked him. YechielMan 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?

If not, where should I go to alert admins of DYK backlog? --Kaypoh 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, backlog notices are placed at WP:AN, and you could also leave a message at WT:DYK. YechielMan 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And place {{adminbacklog}} on top of the page to notify the sysops. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Serial abuse of minor edit tag

User:Wnjr has racked up a lengthy user contributions list; with only an insignificant number of exceptions, these edits are almost invariably tagged as being "minor." See

The use of "minor edit" tags is reserved for edits where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Even a cursory review of recent edits that User:Wnjr has marked as "minor" reveals that the edits are frequently substantive. To pick only two recent examples:

• This edit to George Galloway may have some merits, but the changes it contains are substantive as opposed to the "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes" connoted by the minor edit tag, and while there is perhaps something to be said for changing the sentence "Galloway has a reputation as a radical left-wing extremist who advocates a Stalinist style redistribution of wealth and extensive nationalisation of large industries" to "Galloway has a reputation as a fiery left-winger and advocates redistribution of wealth," it certainly isn't true that such a change "could never be the subject of a dispute" as the minor edit tag connotes.
• There is, surely, nothing objectionable to adding the name of a version of OSX. But even if that edit "could never be the subject of a dispute" (Which is not certain, since the insertion is unsourced), it is a substantive change, not the sort of "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes" connoted by the minor edit tag.

Just a few other recent examples of substantive edits mislabeled as "minor edits": .

The point here is not that the changes User:Wnjr are mistagging are necessarily objectionable, but that they are not minor as Wikpedia policy uses that term. These changes are ineluctably substantive, and my understanding of Misplaced Pages policy was that the minor edit tag should never be used for substantive edits. That, I had thought, is the purpose of the minor edit tag: to signal other editors that this edit does not require careful scrutiny.

I provided User:Wnjr with a warning on this point, see , and was met with total denial and hostility. User:Wnjr denies any impropriety in her or his past (mis)use of the minor edit tag, which suggests that he will continue to abuse it. Since user:Wnjr plainly has been and continues to serially abuse the minor edit tag, and since s/he is apparently unresponsive to being warned by a regular user, I would request that the warning be reiterated by an admin, to discourage this ongoing abuse. In the alternative, perhaps an admin could correct me if I have misunderstood the purpose of the minor edit tag.Simon Dodd 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While your concern about the "minor" tag was correct, you made the mistake of combining your message with a totally unnecessary level-3 warning ({{Uw-longterm}}, speaking of "only warning", "vandlism" and "you will be blocked". No wonder the other user reacted with hostility. I'd suggest you go back and apologise. By the way, there's an option in the edit preferences that marks all edits as minor by default, maybe some users think that's a good thing, who knows? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I added the secondary tag that {{Uw-longterm}} was a "level-3 warning ... speaking of 'only warning', 'vandlism' and 'you will be blocked.'" At WP:WARN, that tag is described as having the purpose of flagging a "ong term pattern of abuse," which would precisely describe User:Wnjr's record of a long term pattern of abusing the minor edit tag. That's why I added it, and if that isn't {{Uw-longterm}}'s purpose, perhaps WP:WARN should be changed to reflect that? ;) Simon Dodd 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Pull the other one. Is there something we don't know about here. Some history between you two? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, I'm not sure what part of my comment you're objecting to. I've never used the {{Uw-longterm}} tag before, and I used it in a case that (it seems to me) fell squarely within the kind of behavior that WP:WARN says the tag should be used for: a long-term pattern of abuse. I'm at a total loss for how you can suggest that if User:Wnjr has been abusing the minor edit tag for a long period of time, they have not ipso facto displayed "a long-term pattern of abuse," ex visceribus verborum.

Frankly, per your comment at the user's talk page, if I misused the tag, then yes: it is the tag's fault, or at least the fault of WP:WARN. If this tag shouldn't have been used in this case because the template is needlessly inflammatory as a remedy to the kind of abuse the tag is held out to remedy, then there is self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. I see only two possible explanations for your doubting my good faith here: Are you denying that WP:WARN says that {{Uw-longterm}} tag is intended to warn a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse," or are you disputing my and Fut.Perf.'s conclusion that User:Wnjr was abusing the minor edit tag?

In any event, I've proposed changes to remedy what is apparently a problem.. Simon Dodd 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am objecting to is you use of the word "abuse" in this context. I have personally, on many occasions advised people that they should not use the minor edit button for anything except trivial changes and I have never once, even thought to call a simple error on their part abuse. You were way of of line on this. Please also do not rely on templates. They are simply a shortcut way of saying something. They are not official, and they hold no greater importance than if you simply say something yourself. I hardly ever use templates, and certainly a situation like does not merit the use of a template at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, misusing the minor edit tag once or twice is not abuse, that much we can certainly agree on. But that's a red herring: at issue here isn't terming a single, simple error "abuse," we're talking about serial mislabeling spread over 2+ years. Of 395 edits credited to user:Wnjr, see , virtually all are labeled as minor edits, and a significant fraction of those edits are substantive. That is serial misuse of the tag over a sustained period of time - and yes: when a user is "us wrongly or improperly misus" a tool repeatedly, far beyond the point it's possible to excuse the conduct as simple or isolated mistake, that constitutes abuse, so far as I'm concerned.

And for that matter, even if there is a reasonable argument that this behavior doesn't qualify as abuse (either under the term's plain meaning or as a term of art on WP), with all due respect, that call is far from sufficiently inarguable to support your heavy-handed accusation that I was "way of of line on this." If your only quibble is semantics - i.e., the only issue that you're contending is whether user:Wnjr was serially "abusing" the minor label tag, rather than, perhaps, serially "misusing" or making a constant and repeated error - your conclusion is no more or less reasonable than mine, and while you might certainly disagree with my conclusion, you have no right on the strength of that alone to upbraid me for using a template that purports to be for dealing with serial abuse to flag what is at least arguably serial abuse.

It seems to me that your beef isn't with me, it's with the language of the template. So change the template, or change WP:WARN, but don't start hurling accusations of impropriety or bad faith around just because you disagree on a semantic judgment call. Simon Dodd 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that when reverting obviously disruptive edits they should be marked as minor because the edit plus the reversion results in no cumulative change to the page, am I wrong here?

Wnjr 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. Oh come on, you're not a dumbass, don't resort to that. If you're going to put a warning, you need to at least read it first. This is rediculous. He probably has the 'mark all edits as minor by default' box accidently checked in his profile. Ever think that instead of a knee-jerk, holier-then-thou decision to place a massively inflammatory warning on someones talk page, you ask nicely on a talkpage? Last time I check, WP:AGF wasn't something you could opt out of. In the future, dont use something till you've read it yourself. Never thought I'd have to actually tell someone that... -M 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How has this become an issue? The tag is described on WP:WARN as being for flagging a "ong term pattern of abuse." No one disputes that much. No one but the user him/herself disputes, on a substantive level, that User:Wnjr had developed a "ong term pattern of abuse." How is it possible that anyone who speaks English as a first language can criticize me for using a tag for the purpose for which it is plainly advertised as existing at WP:WARN? As to whether the template is too strongly-worded, why are you criticizing me for that? Who am I to tell WP how harshly to come down on users determined to qualify for the tag? If you think the tag comes down too hard on a user, change the template, or change WP:WARN to make clear that it is not intended to flag a "ong term pattern of abuse." The only credible basis you can possibly have for criticizing my adding the tag is if it is completely obvious that User:Wnjr's record vis-a-vis the minor edit label does not qualify as a "ong term pattern of abuse" under either the ordinary meaning of those words, or as some WP term of art which I'm unaware exists. See .Simon Dodd 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You added a strongly worded warning that you failed to read first! How is this not going to be the issue? Off the top of my head, thats a WP:UCS violation and since the user only has 300 some edits, WP:BITE too. Either it was a mistake for the minor edits, as I pointed out, or a good faith inerpretation of the rules, as the user said (and I might actually side with them, reverting edit wars and vandalism could easily be classed as minor) or its a long term pattern of abuse. 2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template. And 3/3 (or 1000/1000 or however many reasons for adding warnings there are) dictate that you read it first so you know what it says. Ever wonder how no one whos commented so far says anything at all besides things related to these points? Instead of arguing this and still failing to get it, why not think that maybe, since everyone else feels this way, we might have a point? You could learn something. -M 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than User:Wnjr! WP:UCS is similarly unavailing; common sense here dictates that if the user qualifies to be warned for serial abuse of the minor edit tag, if WP has a tag specifically intended to flag serial abuse, it should be added. But common sense does not dictate that I should be deciding what level of sanction WP decides to rain down on identified serial abusers. That's the problem with invoking "common sense" - as George Lakoff has pointed out, common sense is not a value-free construct, and what strikes one person as common sense can reasonably strike someone else as totally crazy. See Lakoff, Moral Politics (2002).

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did. I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it. That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed. But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag. Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call. Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!Simon Dodd 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than User:Wnjr!

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

But common sense does not dictate that I should be deciding what level of sanction WP decides to rain down on identified serial abusers.

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? Did Misplaced Pages take over your account and warn this user itself? Is it self aware? You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

That's the problem with invoking "common sense" - as George Lakoff has pointed out, common sense is not a value-free construct, and what strikes one person as common sense can reasonably strike someone else as totally crazy. See Lakoff, Moral Politics (2002).

Ohh, a strawman? for me? I love it.

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did.

See my earlier point on how we have not created an encyclopedia that is self aware, can hack your account and post its own warnings.

I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it.

Well then, no one stopped you from reading it did they? You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed.

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag.

Well, obviously not everyone feels it was appropriate. In fact, no one but you thinks it was appropriate

Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call.

Misplaced Pages does not choose anything, as I said above. Its not self aware. Me, you, and others, acting in a community, make decisions and carry them out individually

Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on consensus and get back to us when your done. -M 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

Totally irrelevant. That might have some valence if he'd registered in 2005 and then gone inactive for a couple of years and the three hundred plus edits were all in the last two weeks, but that isn't the case. WP:BITE doesn't define "newcomer" and contents itself with citing Newbie as its premise for what constitutes a "newcomer." That term is invariably understood to mean how new to a community a person is - hence the term, newcomer - not the level of familiarity the average user will have attained having been a member of the community for several years. Here, WP:BITE has no... Uh... bite. ;)

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? ... You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

Incorrect. The tag is for "Long term pattern of abuse." Unlike, for example, "Vandalism" or "Creating inappropriate pages," where there are several "levels" of warning, permitting a user to "choose how to warn this user and how seriously," i.e. to tailor the level of sanction to the infraction, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary: either there is a "Long term pattern of abuse" or there is not. Here, there was; the choice was either to include the tag with whatever sanction WP deems appropriate, or fail to include a tag that is explicitly directed at the conduct at issue, viz., "Long term pattern of abuse."

You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

No, because as I keep explaining to you and you keep failing to grasp, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary! There are not several levels of sanction available; its criterion is either met or not. user:Wnjr's conduct met its criterion. What sanction follows from {{Uw-longterm}}'s criterion being met are the concern of people authorized to make that determination - which, so far as I'm aware, does not include regular users. If you're going to tell me that in fact, I can change the template, say so explicitly, and I'll go change it right now, and cite your reply when I get shot down.

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Where is that written in WP policy? If the sentence for murder is death, and I think that's too harsh, can I reduce the sentence to manslaughter, notwithstanding that the crime was, in fact, murder? This is the template that warns a user, in such terms as WP has determined are appropriate, that they have been committing long-term abuse; if they have been comitting long-term abuse, then that is the template that I should add, notwithstanding that I might personally think it's a little harsh. To make the verdict rest on the sentence turns the process inside out!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on consensus and get back to us when your done.

Might I suggest that you read WP:AGF and reconsider your wholly-uncalled for belligerent attitude towards me here? Simon Dodd 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, absurdity factor has kicked in. Simon, smile, accept that you posted a template without reading it, which was a mistake, and move on. In the future, make sure you read the content of anything you transclude (template used) because the title on it may be something that can mean multiple things, and likely not the one you want. As with many things in life, you're responsible for the content you use as well as the cover of it. You also get further by nothing trying to say "Its not my fault because of this tiny detail here." Mistakes happen, I've collected quite a few. Accept, apologize, move on. --Auto 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Auto, it's not in dispute that I posted the template without reading it. What's in dispute is whether that's a mistake when the conduct being warned for by the template falls squarely within the purpose of the tag and there are not multiple levels of sanction available.

It would unquestionably have been a mistake to not read the template had I been tagging user:Wnjr for, say, vandalism, because (assuming arguendo that s/he was, in fact, vandalising) there are five different levels of sanction available for that tag. S/he has to be tagged with one of them, of course, but I have to determine what level of sanction I use, and since that requires matching the harshness of the sanction to the infraction, obviously the template has to be reviewed. But that is not the case here! {{Uw-longterm}} has a binary criterion; there either is or isn't a long term pattern of abuse. There was here. It's therefore totally irrelevant how harsh the sanction is; what matters is whether the conduct the tag is for has ocurred. That isn't a "tiny detail." My understanding is that if someone commits an infraction to which multiple warning tags can apply, all relevant tags must be applied. Is that not the case?

I've made a lot of mistakes on WP, and if I thought this was one of them, I'd apologize, but I can't see how this is one of them. With all due respect, WP:WARN says that tag is for a certain kind of conduct, the conduct being warned of had occurred, and since there is no countervailing WP policy of which I'm aware, how was this a mistake? If an admin enforced the 3RR rule notwithstanding that they thought it was too harsh, would that be a mistake too? Simon Dodd 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... love me some wikilawyering in the morning. Dont be a slave to policy if policy is stupid (its not in this case, you you seem to think it is.) The next time that 'Misplaced Pages makes you put a warning' and it doesn't fit, the Ignore All Rules. Dont worry, you wont get yelled at. -M 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I shall help you -- its a mistake. The minor tag is a minor issue, and not abusive by this user, or vandalism. There is no indication to believe that the user was acting with knowledge that somebody would be upset at what he was doing. This is what uw-1 stuff is for, or perhaps better yet nice custom written thing saying "I think you should have done... this is why..." I don't think you'll find anything further in continuing this discussion. --Auto 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not serial abuse if it's not something the editor has been repeatedly warned about. --OnoremDil 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly

A a cup of tea for both of you guys as per Kelly. -- FayssalF - 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

For the past few days, Majorly (talk · contribs) has seemed increasingly emotional or whatever in believing changes need to made to RFA as soon as possible. He has been making a lot of changes, leading to Template:RFA being full protected (twice now) and receiving a few warnings to tone it down. Now since he can't edit Template:RFA he's editing where it's transcluded (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Selket) to implement his changes there anyway.

I consider all of this to be disruptive and possibly in violation of protection policy, since the template was full protected to get him to stop edit warring over what is in the template. Thoughts? I personally think he should take a break from doing anything other than commenting on RFA... since it's basically his attempted changes to process that are causing all of this. --W.marsh 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The RfA appears to have been quite stable on bullets for several hours till you changed it, why are you edit warring over numbers? I was under the impression editors where trying several varieties of RfA lately? Matthew 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This was after his changes to the template (numbers to bullets) were reverted and the template protected. He's doing this kind of stuff in several places and no one but him really seems to be supporting it... as far as I know this wasn't discussed. Also the b'crats have been not very optimistic about the experiments, all 2 of them, see WT:RFA. --W.marsh 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the change (I'm more of a discussion-ist than a voter), but I can understand your concerns in regards to implementation method. Matthew 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The RfA process is getting mad! That's too much. The problem is not limited in Majorly's actions but many other admins are involved as well. -- FayssalF - 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, I've been making a marginally-related (but hopefully less contentious) change to the template at the same time... --ais523 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think RFA is working, and we should remember that: "If it works, don't fix it.". All these changes are actually worse than the current format (IMHO), and are (again, IMHO) disruptive. · AndonicO 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How are they worse? All I've done is removed the numbers. Since RfA is for getting consensus, and should not be using numbers, tallies etc how can the current format be better? It just encourages people to vote. I am, however satisfied with the section edits put in by ais523. Majorly (hot!) 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all just your opinion though, and you're edit warring to implement this stuff that a lot of people disagree about. You're still just arguing your changes should go in because you think they're right... obviously people disagree. --W.marsh 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the person whose RFA it is consent to having the numbers removed? If so, then I don't see a problem. --BigDT 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly made the change here while voting... made no mention of the change being made. I don't see that the candidate was asked. Although I don't necessarily agree that a candidate can format their RFA however they feel like either. --W.marsh 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't vote. I give my opinion. Why should the candidate be asked? It's not even a major change, like Matt Britt's. Majorly (hot!) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh asks where was there discussion. There was none. I've been bold. You do know that tallies and numbers were added in without consensus as well? Does that mean it's wrong as well? Even if I tried to discuss it, believe me no one would agree to it. The only way to see it work is to try it. I can't even do that without marsh reverting me. Majorly (hot!) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And the change to numbers lasted for years, and people still defend them. Here Majorly is openly saying he's acting against consensus... I don't know what else to say, that's the point I was trying to make myself. --W.marsh 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

People still defend voting yes, but is RfA a vote? What consensus is this I have acted against? Majorly (hot!) 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You just said "Even if I tried to discuss it, believe me no one would agree to it" so uh, that's the consensus you're acting against. I'm not going to argue about why RFA should have numbered sections here, that's not what this thread is about. Besides I'm sure my opinion is on the record in various places. --W.marsh 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant no one would agree either way. Majorly (hot!) 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, dude, you are like losing control or something here. Why don't you go have a cup of tea and let some people with slightly calmer heads deal with this issue, ok? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse on user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Splash15hotel

Someone has been posting abusive comments on my talk- can something be done?

• It seems to have been 86.12.228.155 (talk · contribs) doing the harassing... I have blocked the IP for making personal attacks. --W.marsh 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah you can remove that harassing comment from your user talk page if you want. --W.marsh 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked .svg images

For the past hour, it seems that .svg images won't display on Userpages. I've tried this on 3 different computers, after noticing that Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg didn't appear on a vandalism warning I put on someone's page.

After making more tests, I find that .png images are OK, but the problem is with .svg images: they display in articles, but not user pages. When I attempted to look at the source code for Stop hand, I got a "malicious code" warning – are you aware of this problem? JGHowes - 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem already fixed. -- FayssalF - 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeanclauduc

Jeanclauduc (talk · contribs · block log) has stated that he's Jean-Claude Ducasse, CTO of MDS International . He's been involved in edit warring in both MDS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a company he's in legal disputes with, MDS America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His English appears to be poor, so someone fluent in French would be helpful in determining if he's even trying to understand the cautions and warnings he's received, and what he means by his many comments that make little sense. Language problems aside, he's repeatedly made legal threats against editors and Misplaced Pages .

MDS International is currently full-protected, and there is a COI/N. Ronz 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that. But please guys keep calm and don't escalate the issue further. -- FayssalF - 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy seems rightly pissed off at (what was) the contents of the article, which looked like a concerted smear campaign against the company, based on an anonymous attack site and original research. Though he is talking about lawyers, there are other editors whose edits are of concern. 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) and WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) seem to be making some troubling edits, as well as most of the warnings. It seems Jeanclauduc is not the only one with a conflict of interest. -- zzuuzz 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for Jean Claude's response to my message, i share teh same opinion w/ zzuuzz. -- FayssalF - 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if Jeanclauduc backs down and explains himself. The article is protected in a version that he should be happy with. --Ronz 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about the edits of WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) and 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) than those of Jean. I am not sure how much you are aware of the implication of the information posted at the article on wikipedia. But, i'll wait and see. -- FayssalF - 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought it was priority to get help with Jeanclauduc's legal threats and poor English. Sorry if my focus on him was inappropriate. --Ronz 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Hoping to hear from his concerns first as he's the claiming party. We'll deal w/ the rest later on. -- FayssalF - 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help on this, Fayssal. It's a little hard to get to the root of this when both sides apparently have an agenda and I can't make heads or tails out of some of the statements. One other question: can you find a corresponding article on fr.wikipedia.org? I'm afraid that my high school French from 20 years ago did not get me very far. Kuru 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any article on MDS International in the French Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot: Unjustified Edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FileFront&diff=124931709&oldid=124931685

Shadowbot appears to have made an unjustified edit on the FileFront page. A user added a link to Alexa.org's traffic ranking for FileFront, which isn't spam at all, yet Shadowbot seems to have classified it as a spam link and removed it. Was this unjustified? RevenDS 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uh have you asked the bot operator? --W.marsh 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The bot's page points people to here to report misedits. Is this not the correct protocol? RevenDS 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Generally you should report bot mistakes at User talk:Shadowbot. You only need come here if a bot is malfunctioning and may need action taking against it, which in this case isn't the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inutero2222 (talk · contribs)

This user's only edits have been to repeatedly deleted the criticism section from the Ashley Simpson article. It's weak, but talk page consensus is that it belongs and needs to be improved, and he's only deleted the whole section at a time, never added anything or worked selectively to trim it down. I reverted him a couple times, then checked his history and gave him a 48 hour block for a long history of reverts without productive contributions. He created a new account and left a message on my talk page (which I indef blocked as a sock), and now he's requesting an unblock. Someone want to take a look? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla turned down the unblock, and I entirely agree with Yamla's words. The unblock request does not show in any way that they understand the problem with their actions. --AnonEMouse 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at RFA

Could I get a ruling as to whether this edit to an RFA was disruption?

Assuming the edit was disruption, how long would the block be? And what do I need to do to make sure I don't get my ISP's /16 or my company's /19 address blocked?

No cups of tea will be necessary in this discussion, though another beverage would be appropriate. --Elkman 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would considered disruption or something for which a block (which would be preventative, not punitive) would be imposed. He or she is certainly expressing his or her opinion strongly but it seems to be relatively polite given the editor's strong emotions and viewpoint. RfAs are meant to be discussions and those comments seem to be discussion to me. -ElKevbo 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not disruption, just a bit irrelevant. _InBC 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even irrelevant... Questioning someone else's opposition spree at RfA is hardly irrelevant, and it's certainly not "disruptive". Confrontational, yes, but sometimes it's almost unaviodable when someone has to take the fall and say what needs to be said. Grandmasterka 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone report themselves to AN/I before. Acalamari 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

Found this on a new users page:

"Regarding warnings You're using all the wrong warnings and your spelling and grammar is quite atrocious and very unprofessional. From the looks of it, I doubt you're even over the age of 15. Please only use the standard warnings listed at WP:UTM. See Misplaced Pages:Cleaning up vandalism for further information on the correct way to deal with vandals. Thanks. NetSnipe"

From Netsnipe?? No way but yes, it was him! Is it just a bad day today? CINEGroup 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people receive tons of reminders and messages re something they have done wrong but they never correct their behaviour. Maybe Netsnipe was a bit harsh but neither John Reaves, DLX, Gracenotes nor Chrislk02 were wrong. It seems that User:Staffwaterboy doesn't listen carefully. -- FayssalF - 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Their 12th edit was a RfA self-nom indeed. -- FayssalF - 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an application of WP:SPADE -M 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW. It is not User:NetSnipe but User:Netsnipe. -- FayssalF - 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of copyvios - need help cleaning up

Someone has added hundreds of links to copies of Stargate SG-1 screenplays hosted at media.dave.tv (see ). This is plainly a copyvio; unfortunately there are over 250 of the things now linked from Misplaced Pages. Would it be possible for someone to knock up a script to edit them out en masse? -- ChrisO 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

try wikiproject spam, they specialize in this sort of thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

technically its not a copyvio, wikipedia isnt hosting the information. Do agree it should go, though. -M 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted returns

Could an administrator please look at 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to insert references to Lee Nysted into the Matt Walker (drummer) article, even after their removal by several different editors. This IP is a obvious sockpuppet of permablocked user Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition to the pattern of editing, as noted on its talk page, the IP address resolves to AG Edwards, where Nysted claims to be a "Managing Director, Owner Senior Vice President Investments." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for WP:3RR for 24 hours. If it isn't a sock, it sure is a meatpuppet.--Isotope23 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup (talk · contribs)

CINEGroup has engaged in a all kinds of disruptive activity in the past 24 hours.

He accused Netsnipe, an administrator, of conducting a personal attack.

He accused me and 8 editors in the past 24 hours either with vandalizing Misplaced Pages or creating nonsense articles. It seems that everyone he disagrees with gets threatened with a blocking notice. I received four 3RR warnings on in the space of 10 minutes. This guy has also threatened the following editors in the past two hours with being blocked from editing:

• MKnight998
• Spence69
• Cherlrenae
• Jon6810
• Stagedives
• 158.59,214.157
• Rlhockey203
• Dwartam

This guy is clearly disruptive and a bully. Can you do anything about this? MiFeinberg 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Trolling, disruption and excessive use of warnings especially that they only joined the project a week ago. -- FayssalF - 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• sigh*. I think both these editors need a time out so that they can read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. It appears that CINEGroup (talk • contribs) kept on labelling MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) as a single purpose account and striking out his votes at Talk:Walther P22 where's an ongoing edit war over whether to mention the gun's use in the Virginia Tech massacre. MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) keeps on reverting having his "vote" being discounted, CINEGroup (talk • contribs) issues WP:3RR warnings and reports MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) to WP:AIV at which point Chrislk02 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) issues a 1 hour block for "disruption", a block I personally find questionable. I then caution CINEGroup for being incivil in calling MiFeinberg a "single purpose account" when he clearly isn't and a vandal over a content dispute. CINEGroup then starts trolling my talk page and here as well. MiFeinberg on the other hand is indignant at being blocked and accuses CINEGroup of being a bully when all the above examples except for Jon6810 were appropriately issued warnings for vandalism. And to top things off, MiFeinberg has probably just been harshly blocked. It's my personal opinion that both CINEGroup and MiFeinberg have had their abuse reporting inappropriately taken at face value when it's clear both of them have grudges against each other. I'm going to sleep, so someone else can clean up this mess. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We just went through all this with User:CINEGroup on April 18th. He was throwing around 3RR warnings to editors for simply making three totally different edits to an article. . A summary of my issues with his editing at the time is here where I pointed them out on his talk page. Then he posted a retirement message. Sigh. So far as I can tell, he seems pretty argumentative, unwilling to read policy or listen to advice (I'm still not convinced he understands WP:3RR) and is pretty convinced that his small number of contributions require that other's respect his judgement on all matters . I think this editor needs to be seriously dissuaded from trying to mediate, punish or otherwise deal with editing conflicts on Misplaced Pages until his understanding of relevant policy is a little bit more seasoned. I think his intentions are good, but he's like a mall security guard who thinks he's a cop. He really does far too much wading into situations that he can't handle and trying to kick butt and take names. Cheers. Dina 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of this past incident. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, i made a erronous block. I have apologied and taken it up with the editor. It happens to the best of us. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking some of these warnings (god, I really hate the "this is the only warning you will receive" in the hands of the ill-tempered), it seems some are bogus, or at least way to harsh. I'm going to go through, check contribs and remove some if they really don't apply. Dina 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might further notice that there is even a complain against CINEGroup higher on this page under the heading "Odd." Clearly, this guy doesn't have the right temperament to be on Misplaced Pages. He treats it like a vast bare-knuckles bulletin board, not an online encyclopedia. MiFeinberg 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who posted that complaint. From the looks of it, it seemed as though this was an old user who'd "retired", but returned. It also seemed, though I have no evidence except conjecture, that this is a blocked user. His demeanor (attacks on other editors, especially), plus a couple of edits he's made AND his name, seems to suggest this. I have been speaking with an admin about this matter, as it is very serious. His MO seems to be to get into Wiki's good graces by performing helpful acts, then attacking others/vandalizing pages. That is, if this is the same user.

--Ispy1981 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I had an interaction with this editor yesterday - his first contact was to accuse me of "encouraging trolls" for replacing a speedy delete tag that had been removed when the creator added a "hangon" tag. The exchange we had was unpleasant and he/she certainly came across as unnecessarily aggresive and bullying. Natalie 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also had interaction with this user before he "retired". He was unnecessarily aggresive and bullying, in my opinion as well. Daniel Bryant 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory and insulting comments by User:Xerxesnine

On the pages Talk:C++ and User_talk:Xerxesnine, Xerxesnine sparingly uses derogatory expressions like "petulant complaint", "hassles have been persistent", "persistent and disingenuous arguments", "puerile threats". He and previously User:Yamla do unsolicited accusations of people (including User:AnAccount2 and User:Red Baron) being my sockpuppets. The initial reason for this was my inclusion of the external link to the C++ page (this one, if somebody cares) and the dispute whether it conforms WP:EL or not. After User:Yamla erased it, I never restored it back, but I still think that this link does not contradict WP:EL and certainly I am not a spammer or vandal.

I have no sockpuppets and would gladly be checked by checkusers. I am ready even to give my real name to any checkuser. Furthermory, I would be just thrilled if Xerxesnine stopped his insults against me and other people who support my position. --Urod 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment: Checkuser is not going to get involved. According to WP:RFCU, they do not honor requests to "prove your innocence." This is a simple case of dispute resolution, which I leave for someone else to address. YechielMan 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to resolve the dispute (except by arbitration) when everyone who supports my point of view is declared to be my sockpuppet, and treated with extreme contempt. --Urod 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But still thank you for the information. --Urod 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been appropriate for Urod to notify me of this entry, as I just happened to stumble across it.

Regarding the external link, Urod closed his AMA request, stating "I am not interested in dealing with this dispute anymore." So clearly this is not about the external link.

The initial complaint was here. This, together with Urod's history with myself, User:Yamla, and User:Requestion provides ample justification for my skepticism. It is of course a matter of opinion about how to characterize Urod's behavior. In my view, "petulant" is being rather generous.

However the real reason I am writing here is to make sure it is understood that User:Rjakew used the wiki-link trick of ] to make it seem as though his name was "Red Baron". Above, Urod has incorrectly referred to User:Red Baron, who has nothing to do with this. On Talk:C++, I rightly pointed out that it was disingenuous for Rjakew to attempt to pass himself off as Red Baron. Xerxesnine 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The AMA link request which I closed was about different articles , namely 3 software lists. Since two of them had been deleted, the issue lost it relevance. This happened before I added the external link to the C++ page. So it is rather irrelevant to the C++ external link issue. I don't know why Xerxesnine mentions it here. Finally, Xerxesnine's phrases "petulant complaint", "hassles have been persistent", "persistent and disingenuous arguments", "puerile threats" related partly to me and partly to AnAccount2, not User:Rjakew or User:Red Baron. --Urod 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (modified --Urod 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Xerxesnine wrote "It would have been appropriate for Urod to notify me of this entry..." However, previously he called both me and AnAccount2 (he believes that AnAccount2 is my sockpuppet) "an especially persistent nuisance" on his talk page. Why should I talk to somebody who thinks that I am "an especially persistent nuisance"? Judging from past experience, he would probably call my message "petulant", "hassle" or another similar name. --Urod 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (typo fixed --Urod 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

possible COI/check user incident?

Moved to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MER-C 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs) and Matt Walker (drummer)

Related report WP:ANI#Lee Nysted returns

I blocked 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · logs) for WP:3RR per that report for 24 hours. The person claims to be "Steve" and the IP resolves to a company that Lee Nysted has claimed to work for. After the IP block, another IP 67.186.123.21 (talk · contribs) has shown up also claiming to be "Steve" which would be block evasion to me. The IP resolves to Comcast in Illinois, one of the places Nysted claims residence. I've semi-protected the article for the time being to avoid any more silliness and opened an RfC with the request that completely outside opinions (i.e. nobody that has previously interacted with Nysted or from an IP that is likely to be connected to him), but since I've apparently become involved here and it is being claimed on talk:Matt Walker (drummer) that I have some sort of bias here (and in all fairness I've had some interaction with Nysted in the past as I've mentioned on that talkpage) I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved would have a look at the IPs and the article protection and determine if the blocks or protection should be adjusted. I will say that the RFC may be a mistake on my part given the sock/meatpuppetry surrounding Mr. Nysted in the past, but hopefully we can get at least a few real legit editors chiming in to establish a consensus here.--Isotope23 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Further light reading:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#The_Lee_Nysted_experience
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Lee_Nysted

--Isotope23 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj

User:Rbj has been chronically incivil and insulting toward anyone who disagrees with him at Talk:Intelligent design. This is after multiple recent warnings there and at his talk page and a block 1 month ago for personal attacks there. People at Talk ID are becoming exasperated and Rbj just doesn't seem to get it, so would some admins here take a look at his history and recent comments there and his talk page and take whatever action is warranted and that will get him to participate positively. Odd nature 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a careful look at the relevant edit history. The problem is that Rbj is strongly opinionated but also highly intelligent and committed to NPOV. He tends to lash out too strongly against those who disagree with him. The recent edit does not merit a block because, as Rbj defended himself, he attacked the opinion as "made-up" rather than attacking the person as a "liar", which he has done in the past. I'm not going to take action, but the most that could be done is a warning against personal attacks, including labeling opinions as POV, with a block to follow if the warning goes unheeded. YechielMan 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perennial. Doesn't seem to be related to the ID page, but this recent alteration of another's user page was pretty incivil. Over on Talk:ID, calling other editors' work "dog-shit" and brandishing the "you guys think your own shit don't stink" line again. And waving around the threat of meatpuppetry again. And calling another editors' arguments "bullshit". I didn't dig any further than that. No, he's not pleasant to work with. I've had too many disagreements with him in the past to step in, myself. I'm would not be able to act as a disinterested party. But I agree you shouldn't have to put up with this... — coelacan — 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unjust ban for non-violation of WP:3RR

User:Rotten made three reverts on William Connolley and was banned for it by User:Atlant. The other user, User:Stephan Schulz, who made 3 reverts as well was only warned by Atlant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 22:50, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

Rotten violated 3RR and WP:BLP, which is more important.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. He was still (falsely) blocked on grounds of 3RR. Maybe Atlant was not aware three reverts is allowed. Who knows. ~ UBeR 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Three is just an arbitrary number. Edit warring is still harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree, but I don't think you should arbitrarily block one instead of the other because you agree with the other edit warrior. ~ UBeR 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's a block, not a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. ~ UBeR 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And self-referential referencing to make a point about the subject of the biography who happens to be a Misplaced Pages editor that it is known you have issues with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ryulong, nothing more to see here. – Steel 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:3RR explicitly does not apply to editors who are removing unsourced material from biographies of living persons. Any such material may be reverted and removed at any time. Stephan Schulz was doing just that - removing unsourced attacks from the article. FCYTravis 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Related: #Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been in some conflict with User:Codeplowed who insists on putting a soapbox-like "rant" on the talk page () of Talk:DeVry University that I deem as partially a personal attack, partially uncivil, partially bad-faith and mostly bad because some comments on there are possibly going to cause problems if left public (the comment is far from nice and is all unsubstantiated).

After a little explanation on why I thought it was bad and why I removed it (I've removed it something like 3 times), he then, I think, tried to put a level 3 warning on me for vandalism (User talk:x42bn6#Vandalism Warming (sic), possibly taking offense to me removing his comments) and then a level 4 warning for inappropriately using talk pages (User talk:x42bn6#last warning) (!?).

I am loathe to report him to, say, WP:CN or WP:AIV because I think it's inappropriate for me to "gain the upper hand by getting him banned", so I was hoping someone could give his/her thoughts. x42bn6 Talk 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, that's the Digimon guy. He's leaving "final warnings" on people's user pages. JuJube 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I concur that User:Codeplowed has been significanltly disruptive for at least several days to Talk:DeVry University. I first encountered him when trying to help out with a report at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University. I have no agenda with that article and only showed up to help out. At first the editors at that page responded well and there was improvement (it's documented in the Wikiquette report). Then User:Codeplowed started re-inserting archived material and posting long rambling POV essays with bad formatting at various places on the talk page, and removing the talkpage header boxes repeatedly. He did not discuss constructively with any other editor at any time. He appears completely unresponsive to friendly comments. After a few days of watching the disruptions, I posted a warning at the top of the article talk page to respect the guidelines and a warning on his talk page to stop the vandalism. He responded aggressively, re-inserting the archived essays, inserting some nonesense into the middle of the page, and then began posting vandalism warnings with templates and long essays on my user page (not my talk page), and on other users pages as well. I don't have the diffs handy right now, but if you need them let me know and I'll find them. I request that this user be either strongly warned by an administrator, or blocked for a short time so he can get the message. He is apprently not at all interested in any feedback from ordinary editors. --Parzival418 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ockenbock

I've been continuously harassed, basically every day, by the walled garden of Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for more background information see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Viva La France). You can see the accumulated nonsense here. Is there anything that can be done at this point? It's getting fairly ridiculous. It's getting fairly ridiculous. It's been pure harassment since late January up until now with almost one sock attack a day. Metros232 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have nothing more to suggest than the usual steps: checkuser as many of the socks as possible and talk to a checkuser about rangeblocks; raise the possibility of an ISP report if there's an identifiable and consistent ISP behind the socks; and semiprotect your pages if the socks are recently created rather than aged. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than that because I emphathize with the situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Logging IRC

My understanding is that Misplaced Pages IRC is not to be logged or redistributed. It seems one user may have posted such a log to Conservapedia. He says he had permission but when I inquired as to details, he deleted the entire discussion thread. There may be a perfectly good explanation but as an occasional IRC participant I'd appreciate some clarification. Is prior notice given when IRC is logged? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Haven't those who have violated the prohibition in the past been blocked? --Iamunknown 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Blocked? I can see where they would be banned from IRC, but blocking seems severe for an off-wiki offense. Besides, blocking Ed Poor wouldn't accomplish anything. Sean William 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, I was there for all that, he got permission from the people, and the no-logging policy exempts relevent cuts with unrelated comments removed and the permission of participants. -M 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for the clarification. Good to know how these things work. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Sean, I was thinking of someone (Karmafist maybe?) who was blocked for posting IRC logs. I don't have any diffs or block logs. Sorry. --Iamunknown 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidden notes interlaced into article edit page on Pimp My Ride; possible threats??

Interlaced into the article Pimp My Ride, I noticed that their are "notes." I copied them here for highlight:

On the first line to US Version =

• <!---- Please do not link one of the cars that are not shown in this article ---->

Right after Season 4 line =

• <!--- Do not link vehicles that has no articles, such as the Chevrolet Panel Van. Any ridiculous edits such as linking fictioal vehicles will result a 2 week block. --->

Embedded into Season 6 =

• <!---- Do not link the vehicle names without first putting the car owner's name and the vehicle's year. Also, do not link vehicles that has no articles. Any unsourced edits such as adding ridiculous episodes that was not aired will cause either anonymous or newly registered users will result a 4 month block. ---->

Are these acceptable in the article? The first one is confusing, the second one and third one have threats of blocking by someone who is not an administrator and seems to be extremely protective of the article given their edit history. I didn't notice them before I made a few edits and when I went back to do somemore cleanup, I then noticed the "notes." --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, especially the "block" section. The editor who placed these notices has no authority to block anyone for doing these things, unless they did it repeatedly, and the editor was an admin. Feel free to remove them, as their only purpose will be to frighten off users. --Kzrulzuall 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And what of the user himself? All he's gonna do is revert my edits and it might turn into an ugly 3RR debacle.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Discouraging editing and mandating "rules" like that is not in the spirit of WP. I'm going to remove them - Alison ☺ 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done by user: Kzrulzuall - Alison ☺ 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of circumstances where hidden comments, if they are conservative in quantity and in tone, are appropriate (see Jesus). I am unsure why they are justified here. --Iamunknown 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact Professional Gamer who added the threats (at least one) see this April 21 edit. WP:OWN-violating HTML comments in that article though go back for months. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with HTML comments per se. These are clearly unacceptable of course because of the baseless threats of blocking. --kingboyk 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt Yesterday, 9:34pm Post #6

"This is stupid. Hive2 is going back up if those links aren't restored in Michael Snow's article within 24 hours." WAS 4.250 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He's grasping at straws for leverage. Sean William 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really pay it any mind, there wasn't really any hope that whole situation could have been resolved so easily anyway. To do something like that over just a couple of links, though...yeah, I would agree with Sean. --Coredesat 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought links to attack sites were disparaged. Corvus cornix 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are, although it's not policy yet. --Coredesat 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES is not likely to become policy, the last attempt ended in a train wreck. — MichaelLinnear 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the word generally used is "deprecated" rather than "disparaged". (grin) -- Ben /_HIST 03:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block: Dastard

The user account User:Dastard has been used only to create articles most of which sport the phrase "THis Page is meant to entertain and Humiliate certain People." and all of which do exactly this. I have indefinitely blocked this account. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack/nonsense articles only, warned more than enough. Kuru 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Routine vandal/nonsense/attack-only block. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterofsuspense sockpuppet recruitment

I've reported User:MasterofsuspensePT(priston tale) to WP:AIV for this edit to their user page. It indicates a recruitment of people for sockpuppetry. I don't have time to follow up on it now. Perhaps an admin/someone else can see if the users mentioned are blocked. Flyguy649_contribs 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. The account has been blocked and the pages deleted. As for the people who signed up, it looks like they would have almost all have been username-blocked at inception anyway. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Jimbo's comment on libel on userpages

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