Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:36, 1 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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?

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved – But question of disruption may remain DES 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked WikiGnosis (talk · contribs) for continuing to make legal threats. The latest was this edit which used a cutesy rhyming thing to try and get around the whole NLT issue. Specifically, the user had been repeatedly warned about legal threats (see his/her talk page, plus an item on Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk) so he/she described a behavior someone was doing as "starts with L, rhymes with bible". I've read this as a legal threat, and invite scrutiny of the block. I've counseled the user on his/her talk page to review WP:NLT and appeal once he/she is willing to commit to abiding by WP:NLT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Chilling effects are bad. ⇒ SWATJester 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the user had been going around deleting ANYTHING potentially critical claiming Jimbo Wales authorizes him to. This includes things that wouldn't even fall under the scope of WP:BLP. ⇒ SWATJester 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For example and . Also, after checking some of his edits, I seem to recall having run across his name on AN/I before. ⇒ SWATJester 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, status change, the user would now like to appeal the unblock. If anyone has a chance to check it out, it's here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You block him for making legal threats and the one edit you provide is merely him asking questions? There is no way that edit is a legal threat. I fully agree that it is a "travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule". Having said that you really just need to provide more links to his edits because he is obviously a trouble maker, but if you are going to ban him at least make it so it can stick because that reason is pretty much a joke considering what he posted.--Dacium 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Misplaced Pages "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." I denied based on that sentence. John Reaves (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to go back on that. The reason he made that statement was because of the way he was banned. If we agree he didn't make legal threat, then he wouldn't have been banned and he probably wouldn't have felt that way. And what does that comment have to do with the ban he was contesting anyway?--Dacium 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the two main "legal threats":

"I'm very confused about how things work on Misplaced Pages. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?" (diff)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Misplaced Pages while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

I don't agree that these were legal threats, at least not as I understand the term "legal threats", any more than the Misplaced Pages policies against defamation or copyright violations are "legal threats", or than an admin's warning not to link to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios would be a "legal threat". A statement about the law, or about what actions break the law, is not a threat to sue or file charges; it says nothing about the writer's own intentions.

See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Not trying to "wikilawyer", Ben /_HIST 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis. -- Ben /_HIST 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

View WikiGnosis's contributions. Nearly half of his entire contribution set says "Removing negative material per Jimbo Wales": misapplying the WP:BLP policy to remove ANY negative material, sometimes material that's not even negative (For instance, a person having cancer is apparently negative to him, as is a football player owning a restaurant after retiring from football). The argument that these statements are tantamount to libel, consistent with his prior accusation of libel, and disruptive editing, warrants a legal threat block. I close with a reiteration of one of his statements You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone. ⇒ SWATJester 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate in turn, Swatjester: "A polite, coherent complaint is not a 'legal threat'". Stating that one is deleting material from an article about a living person (not oneself), because it was defamatory to the subject, is giving a reason in line with WP:BLP, a policy we have from Jimbo and the WMF legal counsel -- and citing that reason is not a "legal threat". If the concern's misplaced in a particular case, that's an error, but still not a threat. -- Ben /_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has now accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point in this edit. This does not seem to be an editor operating in good faith, Ben. In regards to your concerns above, accusing someone of libel (which this user _has_ done) is a direct legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why it isn't clear to you that neither of those posts is a legal threat. Accusing someone of libel is not a legal threat, it is at best a personal attack. If he said he was going to take legal action, sue etc. then it would be a legal threat but what he said clearly isn't.--Dacium 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violating WP:NLT when, as far as he (or I or some others) could see, he hadn't violated it. He has responded with comments including: "I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Misplaced Pages 'real' world" and referring to this as "a dysfunctional community." His response has been cited back to him as the reason for declining an unblock. I think he's got a justified complaint. Following WP:BLP should not be a blockable offense, he had not violated WP:NLT (as the quoted sentence makes explicit), and to keep him blocked because he thinks the block's reasoning laughable (or Misplaced Pages dysfunctional) seems a bit pointy to me as well. Criticism of Misplaced Pages, its admins, or their actions is not good reason to keep someone blocked, and issuing blocks or declining unblocks for bad reasons seems to me capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive of the trust which is the foundation of any voluntary community. I myself find this incident terribly disappointing. -- Ben /_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, your disappointment is secondary to our responsibility to protect editors from legal threats. You and I disagree on whether or not repeated accusations to the effect of "you are libeling" is a legal threat, but to characterize that as a capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive seems to be going a bit over the top. The block is not because he's critical, it's because he's made repeated oblique legal threats, something that is not tolerated. I believe you've constructed a straw man argument by suggesting that criticism of admins is why he was blocked, and I hope you'll reconsider. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WikiGnosis has been "polite" or "coherent", but I don't see that he's made any legal threats either. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. The post in question may have been trolling but I don't see a legal threat. Saying "these statements may be libelous" is no a de facto legal threat- particularly as you can't sue for the libel of someone else. I think we need to be a bit sharper on identifying legal threats, "I will sue you", "I am thinking of suing you", "withdraw that comment or I will sue you", "I am taking legal advice" type comments may all be legal threats. But I'm not convinced a legal threat was made here. In particular WikiGnosis seems to have valid concerns about the thread he refers to- Daniel Brandt (a real, living person, whatever Wikipedians may think of him) was described with very strong labels and had actions attributed to him that were in fact done by third parties. Advice to be cautious was appropriate. That said, I am unfamiliar with WikiGnosis- if he's generally around to cause trouble and has a history of trolling, I'm fine with the block. But I see no legal threat- covert or otherwise. WjBscribe 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll unblock. If the user is trolling, I'd prefer a separate block that reflects that, but consensus seems to be leaning towards the text in question not being a legal threat. I appreciate the feedback, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the aboe quotes are legal threats. i have seen others say things like "If you add that satemtn to the articel it is libel" and no one calls it a leagal threat. it my be uncivil, it may be impolite, and it may be disruptive. I haven't reviewed WikiGnosis's contributions in detail. From the above descriptions, a case could be made that he is editing disruptively. But I simply fot see "You are libeling person X" or even 'You are libeling me" as a legal threat, unless there is at least an implication of "and I will sue if you don't stop". Saying that soemone else might take legal action is not IMO a leagel threat, at least unless there is an implication that the parson saying (writing) this will urge the third party to do so. I think that the blocks for violation of WP:NLT should be lifted. if anyone wants to argue for a block for disruption, or other improiper actions, that will be another discussion, or perhaps an RFC might be the way to go. DES 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see at least three editors who don't think this block is warrented, at least not for the reason given. I urge the blocking admin to undo the block, before someone else does. DES 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked, you may have missed my 16:08 message above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss it, but I've seen it now. The matter is over for me, unless you want my assistance in dealing with trolling or disruption on the part of this user, which i will provide if you wish. DES 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note another discussion below, different people, identical issue: #Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin. Do we need to hold a workshop on what does or does not constitute a legal threat? -- Ben /_HIST 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, Wikignosis should be blocked for disruptive editing: if the legal threat block is lifted, I will lay a temp reblock for disruptive editing (indef would not be called for, though longer than normal would be appropriate given the user's history of being brought up here). By the way, I'm sure this workshop would go over the concept of a chilling effect, no? ⇒ SWATJester 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the block was lifted by the blocking admin. And now you've blocked him again. I think this was somewhat premature; WikiGnosis hasn't been the most civil of users, but you have to remember that he was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet of JB196. I don't really see the reason for this block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one-week block for civility? After being blocked indefinitely? I'm afraid we are going to effectively run off WikiGnosis and, while my interaction with the editor has not been the best, I don't want that to happen. Other users are much less civil and don't get a one-week block. I don't endorse it. --Iamunknown 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben /_HIST 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To a point where we run off WikiGnosis? It's reality check time: WikiGnosis is a classic instance of disruptive editing. I lifted an indef block on this probable JB196 sockpuppet/meatpuppet as a gesture of good faith because this editor claimed to want to participate at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Instead of going there the user immediately came to my user page with a rude post, then followed up with resumption of the account's old borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation and insulted the project when another sysop reblocked. This account's main contribution to the project has been to misapply WP:BLP. New users don't behave this way. This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned. Durova 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "JB196 sockpuppet" accusation was retracted. If you want to revisit that issue, or make a new accusation, please present new evidence. In any case, that was not the basis offered for the present block.

"borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation" -- the two passages discussed held no such threat; they made a valid point about accusations of crime ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") against a living person, that if false these are defamatory and in violation of WP:BLP. As WP:NLT#Legal complaints states explicitly, such a complaint is not a "legal threat". And why are we revisiting this issue, when this too was retracted?

"This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned." This may be obvious to you; it is not obvious to me. In the absence of some clear showing, let's consider this username's edits on their own merit, shall we? WP:BLP is supposed to be followed, and this user appears to be trying to do that. If he's doing it wrong, then show him where and how he's doing it wrong. Simply blocking him for trying to discourage defamation seems to me a very bad public message to send. -- Ben /_HIST 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this through WP:RFCU. Durova 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ben: the original block was for the legal threat. There would have been an overlapping block for disruptive editing, however I chose not to issue it because of Naconkantari's block. Since the legal threat issue was nullified, that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited, and the 1 week block is preventative, to stop any more misapplications of BLP and other disruptive edits. By simply removing the legal threat block and not addressing the disruptive editing issue, you're basically giving him a free pass to continue being disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Naconkantari's block" ? The only blocks on this user were by Durova, Chairboy, and you.

  "that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited" -- Please specify, as you haven't yet done so here or on the user's talk page. Note Akhilleus's attempts below to guess what you're referring to; I have had no better luck.

  "misapplications of BLP" -- How and where has this user misapplied BLP? On his talk page he argues compellingly that in specific instances he properly applied BLP (and Jimbo's comment "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight."). But if he's mistaken in how to apply policy, perhaps you could begin by explaining his error to him, then (if he continues) warning him, before proceeding to a block. Frankly, I'd like you to explain his error to me too, because I seem to have made the same error in reading WP:BLP and Jimbo's comments, so this user's edits not only seem good-faith to me, but also well-based in policy (and journalistic ethics). -- Ben /_HIST 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be troublesome about this, but I'm still having trouble understanding the block. If "disruptive editing" means WikiGnosis' behavior after getting blocked on Apr. 19, it's natural to be irritated after being misidentified as a sock. If, on the other hand, the block is for his edits on Mar 31, when he deleted a bunch of material on BLP grounds, I have trouble seeing what the problem is. First of all, that was a month ago. Second, I'm not sure those edits qualify as "disruptive"--WikiGnosis' edit summaries are odd, but he is removing unsourced material, some of which is arguably negative or controversial--such as this edit, for example. At any rate, I don't see any discussion or warnings on WikiGnosis' talk page about those edits, and aside from one more edit on Apr. 19 I don't see that he's done any more BLP edits. So it's hard to say that WikiGnosis was about to go on a rampage.

Now, if you think he's a sock of a banned user here to troll us, I'd say either figure out who the sockmaster is, and block him on those grounds, or just wait for the checkuser to come in: WP:RFCU page on "MyWikiBiz". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh....what is with my system....I could SWEAR I saw a block from Naconkantari, which was why I applied the legalblock template......but now it seems to say Chairboy....⇒ SWATJester 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was looking at the block of Sdpate, who was on AIV. Irregardless, deleting that "xxx has cancer", when true, does not fall within the scope of BLP. Especially, when the rationale for removal is "Misplaced Pages should not be allowed to post people's medical histories, that is disgusting" (paraphrased, but accurate). So what, are we going to remove that Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons references? How about Ali's? That's just a single example of his misapplication of BLP, combined with throwing the alleged weight of Jimbo Wales' words around as if they supported his point in the slightest: they were completely taken out of context. (They were in fact related to the Daniel Brandt scenario: something this user seems to be VERY familiar with. And how many brand new editors come in and say "Oh hey, lets dive into one of the project's most vitriolic debates, especially one involving legal status and allegations of libel"? ⇒ SWATJester 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"when true" -- or rather "when verifiable" (cited, attributed to a reliable source) -- is the critical point here. The material WikiGnosis deleted was not cited or attributed at all, so how do we know that it was "true" ? This is exactly the condition under which Jimbo and WP:BLP advise deletion of biographical information about living people. -- Ben /_HIST 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser has come back "likely" (), so I have indef blocked WikiGnosis as a sock of User:MyWikiBiz. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" rather than "Confirmed", and with commentary that suggests an opinion rather than a finding? That doesn't seem like a high level of confidence. -- Ben /_HIST 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Jpgordon to be sure, but when he says "likely" I take that to be a fairly high level of confidence--one step below confirmed. And it matches with my intuition and other users', so I blocked on that basis. I welcome review of the block, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict).....My WikiBiz....im not surprised. ⇒ SWATJester 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, maybe we should have this discussion on a different page, but I have to agree with WikiGnosis on one point: Misplaced Pages shouldn't be giving out information on people's medical history unless it's sourced. We can say that Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's because many reliable sources have reported that information. But if we don't have a source saying that an obscure Japanese wrestler had colon cancer (or whatever it was) we shouldn't report it--first, because medical information should be presumed to be private unless it's been made public, and second, because it's possible that unsourced information might be false. (Of course, it's pretty easy to supply false information with a false citation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

D'accord. And that one point is at the root of the dispute. WikiGnosis deleted unsourced contentious biographical information about living people. His doing so was in accordance with WP:BLP, and with Jimbo's even more strongly worded admonition, and with journalistic ethics. He stated his reasons, including the danger of libel. For this he was blocked twice, once for "legal threats" (which he had not uttered) and once for "disruptive editing" (which these deletions did not constitute, in my opinion). This seems to me a very bad public message to send, since it may tend to discourage others from making such entirely proper deletions. -- Ben /_HIST 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that he was identified as a sockpuppet of a user who was banned from the project for making persistent legal threats, the issue is more to the effect of "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet who makes legal threats", not one regarding scaring folks away from BLP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"he was identified as a sockpuppet": "Likely" but not "Confirmed". "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet"...: The deletions in question appear to have been in good faith and pursuant to WP:BLP. ..."who makes legal threats": He didn't make legal threats. Here's the passage in question again:

The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Misplaced Pages any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Misplaced Pages while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds.

That's not a legal threat, explicit or implicit or any other kind. -- Ben /_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the wrong sort of message to send is when editors in good standing enable this sort of abuse by granting it undue attention and stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits. I've been doing complex investigations for a long time. Contact me offline if you're still confused. Durova 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the passage quoted above was not abusive. The deletions of unsourced biographical material about living people (that I've seen, and/or that have been discussed) were not abusive. As best I understand WP:BLP, or Jimbo's rather stronger statements on the topic, or the rudiments of journalistic and biographical ethics, these were entirely proper edits. On his talk page, after being blocked a second time, WikiGnosis said some things in exasperation -- and upon calming down a bit, refactored or retracted them with an apology. That's the closest I've seen to "abuse" from that user, and frankly, in my opinion it was mild given the provocation. Aside from that and the sockpuppet allegations, just looking at this user's edits (which seem to have been not only good-faith but actually in accordance with policy), I do not see the problem. Please, show me where this editor altered encyclopedia content in any unjustifiable way. -- Ben /_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova is quite good at complex investigations: I give a lot of deference to her/his opinion in such. For the record, Ben, my issue was that he was removing things en masse with a edit sum referring to a statement by Jimbo (appeal to authority fallacy much?) made regarding WP:BLP...but the things he was removing are not NEGATIVE information. Whether someone has cancer is not negative nor is it positive. Same with whether a person owns a restaurant or hot dog stand. I fully well understand that much of what he removed was unsourced anyway. Sofixit. But BLP was not written for just blanket removing something one disagrees with: it's for removing negative information so as not to libel someone. THAT is why I allege his edits are disruptive: he is misapplying the policy. My point appears to be enhanced by the fact that he was a sockpuppet who obviously knew what he was doing was wrong.⇒ SWATJester 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what matters here is that this is a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor. If he wants to make a legitimate comeback to this website he can sit on the sidelines, stop generating sockpuppets, and exert a sustained demonstration of good faith. Then after an appropriate interval he could request reinstatement. Until he does that no further discussion is necessary. Durova 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben /_HIST 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that he's trustworthy, right? Even if that were true, do you have any idea how many people from pennsylvania winter in florida? ⇒ SWATJester 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Winter in April, after Spring Break? In a retirement community, when one is neither retired nor within a decade of the minimum age? Wow, you're crediting him with a lot of advance planning, since he posted the photo as his fourth edit, long before he encountered any dispute or accusation let alone block, and had taken it even earlier. If I'm "stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits" (to borrow from up the page), what kind of stretching is this? -- Ben /_HIST 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, this level of advance planning is trivial, and not even clever. Take a look at the date of the photograph, anyway: the timestamp doesn't tell you very much. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if I hadn't been referring to the date of the photograph, why would I have asked "Winter in April, after Spring Break?" (He posted it in March, right before he edited The Villages.) You've looked at its date; now you're saying that two years of advance planning is trivial? -- Ben /_HIST 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt anyone took a picture in 2004 with the intention of using it on Misplaced Pages in 2007. On the other hand, I'm sure that thousands of people have photos from 2004, and it might strike some of them to upload those photos. If you're really nefarious, you might even alter the timestamp. If I have a point related to your comment (I'm not sure I do), it's that the date and place of the photo don't tell us much about WikiGnosis' age, place of birth, or current residence. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:CINEGroup

CINEGroup (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. -- FayssalF - 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I just blocked him for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on Walther P22. But as he has already accused me of being involved in the editing dispute (I am not) and wikistalking I thought I'd bring it here for review. The diffs for the 3RR violation are on his talk page. I'll be honest, this kid is getting on my last nerve. Dina 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=112994770

BTW, that post was made by an anon user, who later went by 69.132.199.100 or CineWorld. Notice anything similar? Addendum: 69.132.199.100 was blocked for 6 months by NewYorkBrad. --Ispy1981 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting the block and counting. -- FayssalF - 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has since made it to my user talk page somehow, for any of you who are watching, you may want to weigh in there (I'm resigning myself to a few days of my usertalk page being a public forum for this incident).⇒ SWATJester 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told this was here, you will see my ip address is not that ip address (69.132.199.100) or anywhere near it. Thanks though ISpy, i don't know what led you here other then the fact that you have added information to wikipedia articles before that I have reverted and it's been upheld by others. CINEGroup 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Say wha? I looked at your talk page. No one mentioned anything about this page on there. Also, which of my edits have you reverted. Or am I a sockpuppet, too?

--Ispy1981 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't know how to look at edits in wikipedia, and no, your not going to try and drag me into another edit war with you. CINEGroup 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup may be referring to Leebo's remark at User talk:CINEGroup, "I've asked for administrator assistance at WP:ANI in moving your talk page back to where it belongs." That says WP:ANI is here, though it doesn't mention this particular dispute. Note: given the accidental move of the page to Usertalk:CINEGroup, I think these may be the mistakes of a new user (account created 17 April 2007).

Apologies to CINEGroup, I have done some format-fixing on his reply above: (1) removed his full quote of Ispy1981's comment, since the original was already immediately above it; (2) removed the blank space preceding his reply, since that "coded" his text. Further indications of a new user. Please don't bite him. -- Ben /_HIST 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re CINEGroup's comment: "Another edit war"? Ben, he is making false accusations against me. I have never edit warred with this user, only the similarly named CineWorld. Unless there is something he'd like to tell us. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it's very hard given his actions, obviously reminiscent of the anon user I previously mentioned aka CineWorld. Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage. I think this might be something to look at in the aftermath of the Essjay affair. In short, there is no CINEGroup East. A google search, a Yahoo search and a webcrawler search all turn up CINEGroup's user page. Perhaps he's using his userpage as a spider trap for his business, which I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned. --Ispy1981 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's Look at some quotes here:
"Ben, he is making false accusations against me."
"Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage."
"In short, there is no CINEGroup East."
"I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned."

Just so you can see how just blatantly wrong you are: , As far as my professional resume, I really think you are now going from just really pissed off wikipedia editor to a warring stalker. I wouldn't film your wedding if you were marrying Madonna CINEGroup 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's look at the facts. I looked at the link you provided. Nice dummy page. By that, I mean there's nothing there. Nothing to click on, no TMNT or National Geographic. I would think such a prestigious organization as you tout this to be would have that among its credits, or at least something other than what's there. I can buy a domain, put stock nature footage on it and some canned nature sounds and call it a website. Doesn't make it a real organization. I also highly doubt such an organization would use Domains by Proxy, Inc, which is notorious for its use among people who, for one reason or another, don't want their identities known. Professional businesses (like Disney, for example) list their parent company as the owner of the site, along with contact information. Furthermore, why aren't there any references to CINEGroup East being involved in these films, in papers, on the net, etc. In short, there is nothing there which bolsters your claim of this being a real organization. If it is, you might be in violation of WP:U as I doubt you speak for the whole company. --Ispy1981 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ISpy1981, I don't know nor do I care what issues you have had in the past with editors here, but your trying to drag me into a fight with you and it's not going to happen. Your writing style might be good enough to make "suggestive" remarks here, but It's not something I will be playing into. CINEGroup 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The website was registered the same day CINEGroup put up his userpage, April 17th. The CINEgroup east organization doesn't appear to have existed before April 17th. IrishGuy 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out something that might not be obvious to some of the people here. Cine Group EAST. Perhaps theres a Cine Group West as well?

Also, btw, I know SEVERAL if not HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of businesses that exist in brick but have no web presense yet. This is now turning to wikistalking and this is where it gets sad. Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media. CINEGroup 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Misplaced Pages, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Misplaced Pages, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"
WTF are you talking about ? CINEGroup 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am refering to your statement: Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media.. IrishGuy 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand, which is CINEGroup's edit warring and disruptive behavior. If he stops that, he can register as many websites as he wants as far as I'm concerned. Dina 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is only relevnat as far as CINEGroup saying Ispy1981 was wrong about the organization not existing. It appears to have only existed for 11 days. IrishGuy 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamworks existed since 1995 but just opened up a website in 2003. CINEGroup 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CINEGroup:With all due respect to User:Asams10, the notion of me being an "admin sock" (wha?) of this editor (a self described "gun nut") is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard here. Please stop calling everyone you disagree with a sockpuppet. I would have blocked him for WP:3RR as well as you if he had violated it which he did not. (Goes off to vote for Deval Patrick again)Dina 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying 'It's no wonder that several wikipedia editors have been murdered over the last few years' is quite clearly a veiled threat. Not to mention the various other rude statemtents in that particular edit. IrishGuy 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a week for a variety of things, but the last straw was striking through other people's comments on this thread twice after I warned him not to. Natalie 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to change my name to Cho soon and just settle this." Have we heard enough? This goes beyond new user learning curve, revert war, incivility, and veiled threat. --KSmrq 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel the same way. The user's response to my block was quite childish, to be quite honest. If this is how they deal with criticism and correction, I doubt they will be successful as a Misplaced Pages editor.

Since they're talk page was protected to prevent their harrassment of me, I'm going to disable my email for awhile. If someone wants to post the unblock mailing list address to them, please do (I can't remember it). Natalie 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Ignore me, I can't disable my email for other reasons. Natalie 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to this entirely unacceptable edit I have indefinitely blocked CINEGroup. No amount of good faith assuming makes that anything other than a very very thinly veiled threat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the initial one-week block, as well as the subsequent indefblock by Finlay McWalter. This user's behavior under this username was unacceptable, and he has been linked to even more troublesome behavior under prior identities. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• This user is an obvious reincarnation - he was dishing out 3RR warnings on his first day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This user defines "exhausting the patience of the community" in addition to exhausting the patience of this particular user. Cheers. Dina 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! A word of caution: He will most certainly return, if he is not among us already--Ispy1981 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From Thatcher131 to Mattisse - is this a fair AGF proposal? Request feedback please!

No further good can come from this; thus, archiving. --Iamunknown 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The letter in its entirety, published with Thatcher's permission was sent to me by him to settle Jefferson Anderson's and Rosencoment's disquiet. I want to know if this is fair proposal. I admit I am hard to deal with at times, but I do not lie and I am an excellent editor with over 18,000 mainspace edits in less than a year -- no bots but real edits. If I accept his offer, I will be abandon my ediing history:

Mattisse, I have to ask you to do something which may be very difficult, and that is to drop your pursuit of old grudges and move forward without them.

First, in looking over your history, I don't think you have been entirely honest about your background here. You state repeatedly that you only had sockpuppet problems at the very beginning and they were your grandchildren. That accounts for User:Teek and so forth in July. But it does not account for the sockpuppets uncovered by Rdsmith4 in September as noted on your talk page. You did not object, that I can find, and you apparently worked out an unblock arrangement with Rdsmith by e-mail. These accounts were used in a disruptive manner in the Starwood matter.

Second, I am concerned that your recent behavior is more of the same. User:BackMaun was suspected as a sockpuppet of yours based on behavior. A recent checkuser shows that you don't. However, the IP pattern indicates that you use a cable modem from one computer, and BackMaun and some other sockpuppets use a dial-up connection from a different computer but in the same city. One explanation is it is completely a coincidence that you live in the same city as someone with enmity toward Jefferson Anderson. Another explanation is that you have a new PC but kept your old one, and figured out how to keep the two sides of your editing separated. With the additional evidence that in February you and BackMaun used the same IP sometimes, I'm afraid the sockpuppet argument looks stronger than the coincidence argument.

At this point I want to acknowledge that you had the misfortune to run into Hanuman Das, who was not only abusive, but a clever enough user of sockpuppets that it took a long time before he got caught. Unfortunately, you answered sockpuppet use with sockpuppet use in September, and got caught first. This is definitely a case of two wrongs don't make a right; but also please appreciate that Hanuman Das has been indefinitely banned and you were given a second chance.

Also, you need to understand that Jefferson Anderson was never shown to be related to Hanuman Das and socks. There was a lot of confusion at the time of the Starwood matter, and Anderson was abusive toward you as well as Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna and did use the sockpuppet Frater Xyzzy, but he does not appear to be related to Hanuman/Ekajati et al. By blocking Frater but allowing Anderson to edit, he has also been given a second chance. (He was allowed off the Starwood case not because he did no wrong, but because his abuse was directed at Paul and Kathryn over Celtic Paganism, and seemed to be a separate abuse issue from Hanuman's abuse of them and you over Starwood.)

I also want to acknowledge that many of the normal wikipedia assistance systems broke down in your case. The AMA was not very effective as your advocate, and Jefferson Anderson's advocate was thinking more like a personal lawyer (to get Anderson off the hook no matter what he actually did) rather than acitng with the best interests of wikipedia in mind. This is a recurring problem with the AMA, and is an effective argument that almost got the AMA deleted. Perhaps they will be able to reform, perhaps not. The bottom line is that they are untrained volunteers, they are under no obligation (other than their own moral compass) to take a case or to finish what they started, and there is (as yet) no apparent method to ask ineffective advocates to leave the organization. It is unfortunate that your negative experience with Hanuman was compounded by ineffective AMA assistance.

Now, to move forward, there are two possibilities.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are not related at all to BackMaun. I'm afraid, then, that you have the misfortune of living in the same city as someone with a deep grudge against Jefferson Anderson, and there will always be suspicions against you, not only by Rosencomet but by others with no involvement in neopaganism-related articles. If you want to continue editing as Mattisse, you will have to let go of your past hurts and grudges. Your obvious hostility toward Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson only fuels suspicion that new accounts which attack them are your sockpuppets. Eventually, no amount of negative checkuser data will be able to override the presumption that "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck." You will have to let go of your negative emotions and demonstrate by your actions and edits that you have moved on. Certainly you should not ignore new abuse by Rosencomet or Jefferson Anderson, but forgive, or at least ignore, past problems, as you would like your past problems to be forgiven or ignored.

Or, you could abandon the Mattisse acount while it is still in good standing and open a new account, like Jefferson Anderson claims to have done. Edit some other articles for a while, and if you eventually return to articles edited by Rosencomet, or someone who you suspect is the former Jefferson Anderson, then treat them with the respect you would treat any other editor.

If, on the other hand, you are responsible for BackMaun, then it is even more important for you to stop targeting his contributions and let go of your old grudge. This is probably your last chance, and if you continue to act out against Rosencomet or Anderson's new account, you will end up being banned as a disruptive editor. Please understand that I am not asking you to tolerate new abuse, but you can't respond to abuse with abuse, and you need to put old abuse behind you and not make it the basis for current action. You may want to try mentorship, or an informal buddy system of some kind so you have someone to share your concerns with who can help you decide what action to take when you get into conflict.

I hope these comments are helpful. I am going to ask Rosencomet to stay away from you for a week, as a show of good faith, to see how you intend to respond and move forward. Anderson has already declared an intention to stay away as well. This should give you some breathing room to decide how to proceed.

Thatcher131

Comments from Mattisse

• I am not interested in editing neopagan articles and neve have been. My original concern was the link spam butg I abandoned that and since early fall of 2006 have not to my knowledge edited a neopagan article. My real interest is in writing and copy editing.

• I would be giving up an excellent editing history of article creation and copy writing with over 22,000 edits since last May when I started on Misplaced Pages and Jefferson Anderson would be giving up about a month's worth of edit wars.

• I have never been uncivil or rude to Rosencomet. Rather I have made some apologetic posts as well as some light hearted posts to him.

• I cannot fathom why anyone would think that I am obsessed with neopagan articles and need to "restrain" myself from editing them. I have no interest in them and do not edit the same articles as Rosencoment.

• Reasons for some animosity I might feel for Jefferson Anderson:
• Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson Suspected sock puppets

Additional information

-- Organised sockpuppet ring focused on this page and offshoots (among others) --

User:Ekajati -- (It is suspected that this User:Ekajati has used one or more accounts abusively.See list of confirmed sockpuppets and has been banned from Misplaced Pages indefinately,)

These sockpuppets include frequent commentors on this page: User:Ekajati, User:Hanuman Das and User:999. This was discovered during ths Starwood Arbitration.

See

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision

Sincerely, Mattisse

• See also Sockpuppetry related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration.2FStarwood

Please give me real feedback. I know I am not perfect but I do try very hard to do good -- although slipping up at times. I do not want to leave Misplaced Pages!

Sincerely, Mattisse 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 is an excellent editor, admin, and arbcom clerk, and knows precisely what he is talking about. Don't fixate on the "new account" suggestion; I strongly support his first suggestion, of letting go of past grudges and moving on. If you're not interested in the articles themselves, just concerned about spam - leave the articles alone, and let someone else worry about the spam. Really, there are over 200 participants in WikiProject Spam, over 1000 administrators, thousands upon thousands of well meaning editors. If any one aspect of the Misplaced Pages is causing such a problem, let it go, the Misplaced Pages will not collapse. Honest. There are many other places you can help equally well, that hopefully won't lead you to abandoning the project, or even your account. --AnonEMouse 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) By the way, I'm not up on the whole problem, and of course can't look into your heart and know about whether you are bearing grudges or not, but I looked at your recent mainspace contributions, and when a long time contributor makes edits like this, there is something seriously wrong. If you can take a few steps back and drink a nice cup of tea, that would be very good. --AnonEMouse 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have several things to say, and will try not to take too much space. First, in answer to the question posed: yes, this is a fair proposal. It is incredible that Mattisse seems unable to read the first, and presumably Thatcher's preferred, proposal to Mattisse, to: "let go of your past hurts and grudges", "let go of your negative emotions and demonstrate by your actions and edits that you have moved on", and "forgive, or at least ignore, past problems, as you would like your past problems to be forgiven or ignored".

We've heard this advice before; it's as old as the written word and human wisdom itself. But it seems to be something Mattisse will not even consider. On the contrary, she has spent yesterday and today in great part tagging the names of individuals who were blocked over two months ago with unsigned sockpuppet tags in IMO a provocative manner, filling User:Thatcher131 and User:Fred Bauder's talk pages with some of the most disrespectful and uncivil language I've seen in Misplaced Pages (especially in speaking with administrators and arbitrators), and ramping up to this misplaced complaint. (I say misplaced, because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the stated purposes at the top of this page.) Some of that material is posted below; "letting go", I'm afraid, is not part of Mattisse's plans.

Nor is taking responsibility for her actions. She has not accepted responsibility for a single one of the eighteen known sockpuppets attributed to her that operated from May 2006 until they were blocked in September 2006. She has never stated flatly that she has no connection to User:BackMaun, User:Alien666, or User:RasputinJSvengali though asked to repeatedly, but just insists she's insulted at the suggestion, in spite of the evidence Thatcher discusses in the e-mail that I am thankful she has published publically above. She and her socks have made dozens and dozens of edits to the same articles I have created or substantially contributed to (mostly related to Neo-Paganism, consciousness exploration, and world music) beginning hardly a week after I began editing in August, and stalked both my contributions and Jefferson Anderson's, even created fake articles and attributed them to me, yet still insists she has no interest in them and does not edit them. She has insulted me and Jefferson Anderson repeatedly, along with Fred Bauder and SilkTork and others, yet still insists she has never been uncivil or rude. A review of her posts over the last few days on User Talk:Fred Bauder and User Talk:Thatcher131 will settle that (for my part, I'm not crazy about lines like "reducing me to Rosencomet's level").

Thatcher has exercised, in my opinion, the patience of a saint. Had I the ability, I would have blocked Mattisse long ago, especially in light of the fact that User:Ekajati was blocked indefinitly for similar and less extensive behavior. At least a temporary block for incivility would have been in order. But Thatcher chose to keep trying, on and off Wiki, with compromise proposals to everyone involved, at the expense I'm sure of hours and hours of thought, work, and stress. If he made any mistake, it was in suggesting the second solution; what value to Misplaced Pages would there be to encourage User:Mattisse to continue this behavior under a different alias? His hopes that a fresh start might be accompanied by a better attitude shows more faith in human nature than I can muster in this case. Rosencomet 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say that as one of the prime antagonists and a relentless self-promoter whose mass spamming of your own sites essentially kicked off this mess in your zeal to continue, Rosencomet, you're in no moral position to be passing judgment or dishing out advice here. You ought to follow the advice you so blandly gave in your first paragraph to passive-aggressively continue to get your licks in. --Calton | Talk 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with sockpuppetry that began in May of 2006, three months before I first edited? What does it have to do with User:BackMaun, User:Alien666, and User:RasputinJSvengali's stalking, vandalism, and bad-mouthing for the past month? What does it have to do with User:Thatcher131's e-mail, or his suggestions, or User:Mattisse's responses? Are you saying Thatcher131 isn't an excellent editor, or that his advise in the e-mail above isn't civil, well-meaning, and sensible? I mean, she could always just not have taken his advice, said "thanks, but I've decided to go a different way". Should she really have reacted the way she did on his talk page?

Or are you just here to "get in your licks" with me, and do a little of your own "passing judgment". Rosencomet 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It;s called a "reality check". You could look it up. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest please Rosencomet. The reason why people keep trying to persuade Matisse to continue editing is because she was a great editor on many subjects who had threats of violence posted on her talk page some time ago by someone who claimed to be a neo-pagan, simply for challenging the notability of what looked like vanity articles about neo-paganism. The exact wording from one of your co-editors to a 66 year old woman who had worked very hard on wikipedia was;

Go fuck youself up the ass with a straight-razor. You are intentionally attacking the articles of pagans, FUCK OFF.

Matisse, being a rather more delicate flower than most editors, took this rather badly. This disgraceful editor is still at large by the way. I believe those who persisted in pushing her around are responsible for this unfortunate situation. Very sad.-- Zleitzen 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You two make my point. We're talking about what is happening now, and what Mattisse is accusing Thatcher of. You are bringing up something an editor who was blocked two months ago said on November 9th last year, something I never said anything like, and throwing it up in my face, and bringing up issues of religious differences which no one else has discussed here. You are being thoroughly uncivil by calling me a "relentless self-promoter", using terms like "blandly" and "passively-agressively", and not commenting on the issue at hand.

I didn't bring this accusation of Thatcher to this page, I haven't been filling abitrators' pages with insults and disrespect (have you even read that stuff?), and I haven't been visiting any of Mattisses articles posting insulting material or messing with her editing. She is the one who keeps provoking others and keeping this stuff going. I've been hard pressed just to ask editors to check if harassers like User:BackMaun, User:RasputinJSvengali and User:Alien666 are sockpuppets, which they were. (Do you care if they were really Mattisse, or if they were, would you say "so what, serves him right, the big self-promoter"?) I realize you are "on her side" and therefor against me, but I don't want to be on a "side" of any conflict. I've never chased her to do anything to her; she has stalked me, used sockpuppets against me, faked articles and blamed them on me, and rallied other editors against me. No one is stalking her or interfering with her editing, and someone was stalking me and Jefferson Anderson for several weeks and causing us problems.

You have every right to like Mattisse, but let's keep it clear who has been causing conflicts and who has just been reacting to them. I would be more than happy if Mattisse (and the mysterious sockpuppets) simply stopped talking about me, stopped messing with my edits (often in nonsensical, clearly vandalizing ways), and stopped rallying people to wage some kind of battle against other editors and arbitrators, and we could all breathe a sigh of relief and go about the business of contributing to the encyclopedia. And I don't care if it angers you that I present myself as someone who has done her no harm but been harassed by her for months, because that's the truth. I had every right to ask for help to stop BackMaun, Alien666 and RasputinJSvengali, and every reason to suspect that Mattisse might be involved and ask for it to be looked into. And in my opinion, whatever her age or parental status, no matter how prolific an editor she is, she should be subject to the very same rules of operation, decorum and civility as the rest of us. If she can't or won't stop instigating battles and harassing others, she should be asked to leave as others have been. Fair is fair. Rosencomet 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what do you mean "still at large"? Rosencomet 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest please User:Rosencomet. I know exactly what went on and who said what, before she came across your group, and after. And my council and opinion remains unchanged. This issue has ended so your monologues about Matisse, which serve no purpose I can see, should cease now. -- Zleitzen 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure you know everything about everything. You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. But this discussion here isn't about what Hanuman Das said in November 2006, or Calton's opinions of me. It's about the e-mail Mattisse posted above and her question concerning it. She is the one that brought in the whole Starwood arbitration, and all the issues you say have ended. She brought me up repeatedly when she opened this thing. You think I'm the one who should leave this in the past? Mattisse just had to have a tagging spree on Talk:Starwood Festival and elsewhere reverted YESTERDAY! Rosencomet 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If she can't or won't stop instigating battles and harassing others, she should be asked to leave as others have been. Fair is fair. "Mr Kettle? Mr Pot is on line 4. He says you're black." In other words, perhaps you should have taken your own advice before coming here. --Calton | Talk 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Get real, Calton. This entire issue on this page that Mattisse has dumped here mentions my name all over it. She, not I, brought in the whole Starwood arbitration as evidence. She, not I, posted the e-mail from Thatcher with my name all over it. Jefferson Anderson and I were harassed by BackMaun, Alien666, and RasputinJSvengali, who were editing up until 2 days ago, and who's edit history matches the past Mattisse sockpuppets' edit history to a "T". I have never visited any of the many articles Mattisse has created to target her; she has targetted me and J.A., still refers to Thatcher131 as "Rosencomet's protector" (even when thanking him for something!), and still rallies people against me and targets anyone who helps me defend myself against her. That's what's going on here and now. Current events, not insults from November. I have every reason to be in this discussion. What are you doing here, I wonder? Rosencomet 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am "being real", Sparky. You're continuing your petty grudge and passive-aggressive harssment in hopes of driving off an opponent, whatever your excuse or rationale. Which is, you know, a case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's why I'm here. As it says at the top of my User page, It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.--Calton | Talk 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cease these personal attacks. They are in no way constructive dialog or related to the topic at hand, they do not belong here, and should be struck. You should not be refering to other editors with terms like "petty grudge and passive-aggressive harssment", nor calling them "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". You have been asked to tone this down by another editor, and responded uncivilly to him as well. I have done nothing to you, and I have not used such labels to describe you. I do not want to be baited into a conflict with you, but I should not be subjected to this inappropriate behavior. If you do not cease and desist, I hope an arbitrator or administrator will intervene before tempers flare. Rosencomet 18:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not "personal attacks", they're descriptions of your bad conduct and motivations, constructive in that they warn others who are unaware of your history to discount your words accordingly and note the reasons for Matisse's (entirely understandable if overzealous) dislike of you, namely your history of relentless self-promotion supported (coincidentally, no doubt) by abusive sockpuppeteers and their sockpuppets: in other words to explain why you are probably the last person on Misplaced Pages fit to offer "advice" to Matisse -- "advice" that is, frankly, indistinguishable from "personal attacks", which brings us right back to the whole "pot-kettle" metaphor. Also, for terms like "petty grudge and passive-aggressive harssment" , that's called "precision"; the fact that you haven't used those specific labels yourself is due to their inapplicability, and the fact that I use them about you is due to their complete applicability. As for my User page motto, it only applies to those who are dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical, so you shouldn't have problem with this, should you? --Calton | Talk 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

* "bad conduct and motivations". "relentless self-promotion". "the last person on Misplaced Pages fit to offer "advice"". "petty grudge and passive-aggressive harssment... the fact that I use them about you is due to their complete applicability".

This is obviously a personal attack. It is obviously uncivil. It is obviously not feedback on Mattisse's question. It states clearly within the text that the purpose is to discredit. I refuse to respond in kind. I ask once again for some administrator or arbitrator to strike this language and request that User:Calton cease and desist. Advice to that effect from a fellow editor has already fallen on deaf ears and received an uncivil response.

The e-mail we're supposed to comment on concerned the three recent sockpuppets (and that's what they were, in fact, determined to be) who were harassing User:Jefferson Anderson and me, not the Starwood arbitration (which is closed) or the behavior of long-blocked editors last fall. The question posed by Mattisse concerning it is: "is this a fair AGF proposal". This should not be used as a forum for further attacks on the victims of that harassment.Rosencomet 16:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Let's get back to basics here. I suggested that in order to clear her reputation from past sockpuppet allegations (both confirmed and suspected) Mattisse needed to drop her grudges. There may still be ongoing problems with abuse from Hanuman Das and with self-promotion by Rosencomet; let other people deal with it. Anyone, including Mattisse, who is still excercised about Rosencomet's edits regarding Starwood et al. would be well served to take AnonEMouse's advice and ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Spam. Anyone, including Mattisse, who comes under renewed attack (such as from the recent Hanuman Das/Ekajati sockpuppet Khabs (talk · contribs)) should report it here or to any friendly admin rather than retaliating on their own. Enough said, yes? Thatcher131 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thatcher131's comments are well taken and contain good advice. I sympathasize with Mattisse since I found Rosencomet and his supporters frustrating to deal with (I contributed to the Starwood arb case under another IP address before getting burnt out on it); however, it's easy to get wrapped up in this stuff to a self-destructive extent. When that happens, it's best to disengage from the subject for a while, or even temporarily quit Misplaced Pages altogether (WP:Wikibreak). That has a wonderful restorative effect. 75.62.7.22 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC) .

Please delete this anonymous attack. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and it is uncivil. Rosencomet 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's intended as feedback for Mattisse which she requested and therefore has everything to do with the matter at hand. I've now toned it down slightly though I don't think doing so was strictly necessary. 75.62.7.22 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to it in its present form. In fact, I concur (even with being, for some, frustrating to deal with at times). Thank you for your revision. Rosencomet 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That Mattisse can avoid firing back after all that is already a very encouraging sign! Thanks everyone who is giving her a chance and not goading her further. --AnonEMouse 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You people sure are in a bad mood. --Ali'i 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Help appreciated with a new editor

User:Frjohnwhiteford, apparently the pastor at St. Jonah Orthodox Church, in Spring, Texas has got his shorts in a twist about Template:Dominionism, a perennial magnet for the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such. He's well past 3RR there and has been warned already.

The greater problem is he previously indicated a his wish to make a WP:POINT, and now has carried through with the threat: This change is simple vandalism to make a WP:POINT, considering the People's Republic is avowedly atheist. Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about violating WP:POINT . Since I'm involved in the debate over content I cannot take administrative action like a firm warning, or even revert the vandalism to the template, but someone will need to. Will someone here help out please. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way wish to defend the activities of this editor, who clearly seems to have crossed the line into vandalism. However, I think there are serious BLP concerns with adding people's names to a "Dominionism" navigation box, template, or category if they do not self-identify as such. Some of the names are relatively uncontroversial — e.g. Rushdoony — but have Dobson et al. ever called themselves Dominionists? If not, the inclusion of Dobson and not of other prominent Religious Right figures (e.g. Robertson and Falwell seems arbitrary and problematic. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Feloniusmonk has not surprisingly misrepresented what occurred here. His own comments above provide evidence of his anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance: "the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such". Apparently all conservative Christians who do not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, or any other item on the Liberal agenda are therefore advocates of "theocratic ideals."

This current flurry began for two reasons: 1). a Note which pointed out that the claims of Dobson being a "Dominionist" were those of a particular group of people, and not just a universally accepted claim was removed. 2) Dobson was added to the Dominionist Template, and that Template was added to the Dobson article.

I should add that Feloniousmonk also removed the POV tag on the Dobson article, despite the fact that the neutrality of that article clearly is in dispute, as anyone would have to conclude by reading the discussion page for that article. However, there is now a sufficient qualifier to the Dominionist section of the Dobson article that I personally can live with it. I knew that, given the nature of this Wiki, removing that section entirely because it lacks merit wasn't going to be accepted...though I don't think you will ever see such a section in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or any other scholarly encyclopedia. But fairness required that the claim not just be stated as fact.

The problem with the Template, as seems to be agreed to here by most Admins, is that it states as a fact that Dobson is an advocate, and Tom Monaghan is an financier, and there is simply no real basis for the claim, the template does not allow any qualifications to be made to the claim, and in the case of Tom Monaghan, there is not even a single source that states he has done anything other than give a lot of money to Focus on the Family and Pat Buchanan's presidential Campaign. When the attempt to remove Tom Monaghan was rebuffed, I was told that the article stating that he supported Focus on the Family was sufficent to prove he was a financier of Dominionism. I then pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party has placed Focus on the Family on all Chinese state owned Radio stations in China. This seemed sufficient proof, based on the logic of Feloniousmonk, to establish that the Chinese Communist Party was a Dominionist Organization. Feloniusmonk's only response was that since they were atheists they could not be Dominionists. But since Tom Monaghan is a Roman Catholic, he could not be a Dominionist either... but, according to Feloniousmonk, "Truth does not matter, only verifiability"... and since I had verified that the Chinese Communists support Focus on the Family, that verified it, regardless of the truth of the matter.

I would ask that some sanity be allowed to prevail here, and that either the Dominionist Template be deleted, or that it be limited to advocates of Christian Reconstructionism, who identify themselves as such. Also, I would ask that the "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey. Frjohnwhiteford 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That template has serious NPOV and ownership issues; all I ask is that neutral parties read over the talk page and judge for themselves if all is as it should be. - Merzbow 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the series box and its talk pages, it does indeed have serious NPOV, ownership and BLP issues. It's one thing to include someone's name in an article about Dominionism - because there's the space to offer a nuanced and NPOV view - it's quite another to include them in a category or (IMO, worse) a series box when they do not self-identify with the term. A category is a simple binary option; either someone is a member of the set, or they are not; and a series box implies something even stronger, that Misplaced Pages has attempted to create a whole project on Dominionism, and the articles listed in the series box are intended to be read as part of a series and are parts of a single work on Dominionism. It implies editorial judgment that the articles are closely tied together.

This isn't just my opinion on this series box, but on all of them, although the more subjective the category, the more problematic it is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the concerns; templated boxes can 'sneak' people into categories that would be deleted from their article without proper sourcing, and it's not our place to label or identify, merely record what has already happened. The pastor's problematic edits are orthogonal to that concern. -- nae'blis 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) block review

I have blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours for religion based hate speech directed at other users. Initially, I had blocked him for 24 hours for his hate speech and personal attack on the talk page of another user . (where he lambastes the user for his (assumed) religious beliefs ("khanzeer"=pig, and harami is another derogatory curse word in Urdu). After the block ended, the user went back to making the same type of hate speech.

Note that, Yahya01 has been vandalizing various talk pages by removing project tags (for example, removing the WP Pakistan tag from the talk page of a former Minister of Pakistan), and by making similar personal attacks/hate speech via swear-words-filled edit summaries.

I request a review of this block. Feel free to unblock the user if you feel the block is not ok, but please do look into his previous blocks ... he had been blocked several times before for the exact same behavior against users of other religions. Thanks. --Ragib 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. We cannot have such racism on Misplaced Pages, and think that, should it be done again, it should be a much longer block. J Milburn 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of further racist comments and hate speech by the blocked user on his talk page, I have extended the block to 1 month. Please feel free to review. Thanks. --Ragib 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned user

Following extension of the block, Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now evading his block by using various anonymous IPs from 89.243.*.*. See this for details. I request someone else to take appropriate action immediately. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further block evasion via IPs by Yahya01:

I request an Urgent block on the offending IP ranges, as he seems to be using dynamic IPs. --Ragib 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And more trolling:

--Ragib 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Those are all dynamic IP's from Opal Telecom's DSL network, and the range of that block is 89.241.0.0-89.243.255.255; 196,608 addresses. That's a hefty rangeblock, and may not be appropriate, even on an anon basis. -- Avi 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user keeps returning to add his racist comments and personal attacks. I don't know how such disruption can be prevented. Here are some examples of the anon's latest venom:

The IP's are all from Opal Telecom, UK. --Ragib 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

I request others to help in resolving this disruption. --Ragib 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

--Ragib 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And even more:

• --Ragib 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I give up. The banned user is making a mockery of wikipedia by jumping IPs and vandalizing User talk:Fowler&fowler 9 times so far. --Ragib 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox abuse?

I know a sandbox is for tests and all... but does this guy take it a bit too far. --Kzrulzuall 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes - offensive content can and should be removed from the sandbox but in fairness to that user they did remove it themselves. Will (aka Wimt) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have seen worse, and I rarely look at the sandbox. Just revert it, and politely request to keep the sandbox worksafe if possible if the user continues. Better in the sandbox than anywhere else, and, as Wimt says, they removed it themselves, so a warning at this stage is not needed. J Milburn 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*2 edit conflicts* Should using the sandbox to bypass WP:SPAM be undone as well? Funpika 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is the sandbox- do what you like. If you don't like it, revert it. Spam, personal attacks, whatever- remove them, but don't get worked up on warning the users. Perhaps place a message at the top when you edit it, saying something like 'No spam please!' J Milburn 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, isn't it? Why put stuff like that in the sandbox. Surely that guy is trying to get aroudn the rules or something? Shadow master66 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What rules is he getting around? The spam will be removed every 12 hours by a bot. No follow tags apply so it doesn't increase hi page rank, therefore it's harmless. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is on the page he can get hits from people who follow the link from the sandbox. That is most likely his intention. Funpika 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbot automatically reverts edits like that, in this case within 2 minutes of the original edit, it would be a wild fluke it google just happened to cache the sandbox during that 2 minute period. This is what google's current cache of the sandbox looks like--VectorPotential 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Question: Are sandbox edits kept in history as well? i.e. If there was a situation where personal information about a minor was given out on the sandbox, would it need to be oversighted, or is that part of the auto-clearing of the sandbox, that all edit histories are removed too? ⇒ SWATJester 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the sandbox has a permanent edit history. You need oversight as deleting the sandbox will lag the hell out of the servers due to the sheer amount of revisions. MER-C 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages

For several months now, Timeshifter has been creating image description pages for Commons media not on Misplaced Pages, it seems for the express purpose of categorising layers of categories that he has created here. The motives are of secondary concern, since the action seemed to reverse the intent and effect of transwikiing media. I pursued clarification and received agreeable responses in multiple venues (User_talk:Tewfik#CSD, User_talk:Tewfik#Categories, Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Commons_media_categorisation). I still wanted to be very sure, and so I tried to clarify the specific CSD that seemed to already say the same thing, but in an indirect manner. My recommendation for emendation was discussed and accepted. I waited more than nine days after rephrasing the criteria before taking any action, which saw no change in the consensus. Unfortunately, Timeshifter chose to respond by attacking me for what he perceives my nationality to be, as well as declaring that there was no discussion and that I "unilaterally" rephrased the criteria, which is demonstrably false, as the discussion is present on that very page. He then went ahead to revert the CSD criteria without any consensus, and systematically removed the speedy tags from the image description pages. I have no idea as to how to proceed at this point, and would appreciate input. Tewfik 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he an administrator? (I can't tell from his user page). If not, he shouldn't be reverting CSD tags unless they're blatantly and obviously incorrect (for instance, a CSDA7 on Microsoft Windows XP) or changing it to an AFD nomination for further discussion. That's just my viewpoint though, I don't believe it is reflected in policy, but I can't see a great reason, other than the aforementioned, that a non-admin would have need to remove a CSD template, since they don't have deletion ability anyway ( except as mentioned above on AFD). ⇒ SWATJester 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can insert or remove templates as appropriate. Only admins can do actual deletions. Whether these particular removals are appropriate is a separate issue. 75.62.7.22 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone also can blank an article, or leave pornography on someone's talk page. Doesn't mean that it is at all acceptable behavior. ⇒ SWATJester 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik changed policy on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion without getting a single reply on the talk page there first. That is against the rules there. I was the first person to reply, and I opposed his policy change. See: Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation. His policy change was for the purpose of seeking speedy deletion of map categories and map image description pages that he did not like. He was trying to depopulate map categories with the names (among others) "Palestinian territories" and "Golan Heights" in them. He has tried to depopulate those categories in several ways since March 7, 2007. See his user contributions in the image namespace. The only legitimate way to delete those map categories is if they are empty. Thus, he has been trying to depopulate them of maps. They also have to be depopulated of subcategories, too. So he has more work to do. I noted all this in detail on some of the map category pages. See: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. The speedy-delete template said it could be removed if the reason listed on it did not apply. It did not, so I deleted it. Tewfik needs to get consensus for his proposed speedy-delete policy change before trying to use it. He is currently reinserting his policy change even after I reverted it and pointed him to the talk page. He is approaching a 3RR violation. --Timeshifter 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is totally false. I linked to the discussion about the emendation/rephrase above. Tewfik 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was correct about the talk section I was referring to. I see now though that there is another related talk section farther down that CSD talk page. You seemed to ignore what User:Grm_wnr wrote about image description pages (IDPs). Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

"As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, ...

• IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
• No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
• However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
• Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
• If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
• So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier."

The reasons for local IDPs are for the English wikipedia categorization reasons I explained much more thoroughly at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation and Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. This is a longstanding tradition. --Timeshifter 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't selectively quote, especially when accusing me of doing it. Here is his conclusion which accepts my version, and whose only objection is that it should be obvious (I also added to the bolding of the statements above). Tewfik 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

People should read all of both talk sections. Otherwise it is easy to get confused. Here is the link to the second talk section in question:

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification of I8

You did not include his suggested changes in your version of the policy rewrite. In the above excerpt from User:Grm_wnr you bolded "but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier." The whole point of all the discussions was to point out that one should not delete local English wikipedia image description pages if they had information on them that could not be transferred to the commons image description pages. One can not visit wikipedia image categorization pages from the commons image description pages. So local English wikipedia image description pages with category links can not be deleted. --Timeshifter 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous wording is incomprehensible, and the motivation for all these categorizations seems clearly to be to do an end-run around trans-wikied media. Jayjg 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The motivation is to keep the category links on English wikipedia image description pages. The trans-wiki process occurs in all cases, and the commons image remains stored on commons servers in all cases. --Timeshifter 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The actions above are being used to justify the creation of IDPs for Commons media and their categorisation on WP, seemingly ad infinitum, which is disruptive to the project and decreases the utility of categorisation as well as transwikiing, as well as being implicitly disallowed under the current CSD. The most recent examples (of dozens ). Tewfik 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Local English IDPs (image description pages) for images stored on the commons are created whenever the images used in wikipedia articles are clicked. This is done through the trans-wiki process. When categories are added to those local English IDPs, that info is saved at wikipedia. The trans-wiki process combines the commons info with the wikipedia info to create the local English IDPs. It is all completely normal or the programmers would not have set it up that way. Each different-language wikipedia has the same setup. That way each wikipedia in each language can categorize and easily find the images labeled in its language. That is how it works. --Timeshifter 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. No Consensus 489 U.S. 153 (2007)

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the English Misplaced Pages. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the English Misplaced Pages, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save Jimbo Wales and this Honorable Court.

Anyway, today, I present to you a simple question, with meaningful consequences due to the high profile of the article. As you may be aware, there is controversy regarding the inclusion of a "See Also" link to the Virginia Tech massacre on the articles for Glock 19 and Walther P22 (the firearms involved in the shooting). I don't argue here the reasoning for the content: instead, I question the proper way to apply consensus, or lack thereof.

In the Glock 19 article, there is no question: consensus is to remove the information, bada bang, bada bing, end of story. However in the Walther P22 article, there is no consensus: it is split down the middle: it's about 16 editors against inclusion and 13 for inclusion. How then, to apply this lack of consensus? It is obviously not going to be changing. What then, is the correct action to take? For instance at AFD no consensus typically means the article is kept. RFA, no consensus means that the request is denied, same for RFAR.

So, in this case, what does "No consensus" mean in terms of action? (yay for forgetting to sign:) ⇒ SWATJester 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, concensus was not achieved at the Glock 19 article, and the issue of whether the link belong applies just as much to the Glock 19 as the Walther P22 article. Will somebody please help unravel this knot? Griot 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As ridiculous as it may seem, I suggest to adjudicate the two cases separately. For the article with consensus to delete the link, delete it, and for the article with no consensus, keep it. I consider content disputes about the inclusion of a link, section etc. to be miniature AFDs, such that the rules of thumb for AFD consensus apply.

I recall a few months ago that there were two AFD debates, one about "list of menu items at McDonalds" and the other about "Burger King." McDonald's got kept and Burger King got deleted, for reasons I will never understand, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. Such is life. YechielMan 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I guess that since the onus is on the person who wants to include information to justify it, a lack of consensus in this case means that the information stays out. Spartaz 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Put up a content RFC and get more community input (see WP:RFC). This doesn't sound like it needs intervention. 75.62.7.22 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an intervention request...it was a request for policy clarification. ⇒ SWATJester 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already the result of an RFC.

What we are dealing with is an addition of content. If there is no consensus for this addition of content, then the default is that the content is not added. The article remains at its state prior to the incident. Full disclosure: I have been arguing this already on the article talk page, but I think it's a reasonable approach for any similar situation. ··coelacan 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see that point of view. I think it may depend on how long the content has been there, but for a recent addition, a no-consensus can default to delete. I have no problem with that. YechielMan 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove the data from the 2nd article, they it should remain in the see-also section. THe first should be removed as there is nothing to 'see-also' Pretty clear cut (despite the fact that both appear to be the same thing the community have spoken!)--Dacium 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacium, it would appear that coelacan's version is the correct timeline...the article started without the information. It was controversially added, and then removed. Therefore, no consensus defaults to "remove" am I right, because that was the original state before the addition. ⇒ SWATJester 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the history of discussion at these articles, you will see that including a mention of the VT massacre at the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles was a compromise. There was much objection to mentioning the massacre in the main article, and a compromised was reach whereby it would be mentioned in the See Also section. Now editors have attacked this compromise. Please, let's stick with the compromise as arranged in the original debate. Griot 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment, considering that the new editors showed up after the RFC (their opinions were sought) and your underlying assumption seems to be that only those people who "got there first" should have a say about an article. ··coelacan 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I second coelacan's argument. While I personally believe the issue addresses a larger issue (as I elaborated in the P22 talk page), the previous status quo seems more appropriate in this case. I disagree with Dacium--there was no consensus on a compromise.--Dali-Llama 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was originally no clear consensus on whether or not to include any mention in the Walther P22 article when it was first proposed. Revert wars ran back and forth. I then started an RfC, inviting all participants that had commented in the discussion, regardless of their position previously, to weigh in, on whether or not to include information, in a formal RfC, and the end was no consensus with about a 50:50 split. To eliminate the revert war, it was then proposed that a See also mention be inserted into the article, linking to the Virginia Tech massacre. For the good of Misplaced Pages, I along with 3 or 4 others who were originally opposed to inclusion of a mention in the main article, agreed to this, and in my case, I agreed to this ONLY if a consensus neither way could be reached (relative to the main article). That arrangement was stable for only about a day and a half. This compromise did not stand, with users favoring inserting or deleting a full mention canvassing votes favourable to their position and sending people to the talk page. (See, for example, Griot's soliciting votes.) Personally, I believe that no mention should be made, as there is no consensus to insert this information. However, this is a very volatile subject, and there is a bigger picture to consider for the good of Misplaced Pages; hence, compromise seems best suited to eliminate the 3RR violations, editor blocks, and continued edit warring. Although it is not something I prefer, I could live with a see also link, in the absence of any clear consensus, just to prevent having to run the article continuously semi-protected or full-protected. However, this link should not include references, nor any commentary, and should not be anything other than being just a link. By all logic, there should be no mention. But, this issue is not about logic but is about emotion related to a criminal act that is not even in the same category of article as a firearm article, and a decision based solely on logic is not likely to stand with the emotional volatility that is evident. Hence, to avoid future problems, a simple link is probably about the best compromise. Is it right? No. But will it work? Probably. Yaf 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slow down. You guys are all completely missing the point of my question: In this case, what action does "no consensus" correlate to: Does it correlate to removing the information and leaving the article the way it was before the VT shootings, or does it correlate to leaving the material in? ⇒ SWATJester 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I just semi-protected (and will full protect if it continues) for 2 days - The most recent edit warring was over a new topic, whether to put a POV tag on the article or not, which had no talk page discussion at all. As I have commented in-thread in the talk page and have an opinion, I invite uninvolved admin review, but I believe that this most recent dust-up qualifies as semi-sterile edit war, and that the freeze is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of VinceB

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead. Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new one: 195.56.51.196. Tankred 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is necessary, since I always confirm my sockpuppets . I'm not that kind, what Tankred tries to show me. Whenever I confirm myself, he deletes it if I was trying to evade ban secretly. No. I am doing it openly :) --195.56.51.196 13:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits abusing vandal technology

Accusing me of vandalsisng my own user page abnd insisting on readding personal attacks is not acceptable. Can an admin please ask vintagekitys to leave nme alone and stop his harrassment campaign. This editor is causing a lot of unpleasantness at the moment, see above complaints, SqueakBox 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - this editor has accused me of being a racist and also "editing is based on hatred of British people or British culture" - I find this dusgusting and he refuses to either back his claim up with diss or writdraw it.--Vintagekits 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for admins take on him calling me a racist. I will not stand for this. How would you react if another editor constantly accuses you of being racist and motivated by hate - you cant get away with this!--Vintagekits 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vintagekits is looking more and more like a POV pusher. Every edit seems to further an anti-British agenda. This looks very WP:POINTy, since the conflict is not;; commonly known as the Malvinas War as far as I can tell (and I worked hard to ensure that the extreme pro-brits did not remove the word Malvinas from the lead of Falkland Islands). I believe it may be time for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go one further. is MORE pointed and edit than the previous, as, having lost the presence of the 'malvinas' in the lede, he goes and removes all other names.ThuranX 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• ThuranX, actually if you had checked properly you would have seen that that was my second edit in a row and I had added references to back up my claim but had dupilcate the section was refering to the other names in the lead - so I didnt remove it they were in there twice. Additionally I would like to turn your argument on its head and ask - WHY IS IT that these British edits ONLY remove the reference to Malvinas War 58,000 ghits but not South Atlantic War 600 hits or the Falklands Conflict 85,000 ghits or the Falklands Crisis 15,000 ghits. Now you tell me why is that?--Vintagekits 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, At a glance, that argument looks like the sort of content dispute conversation you should've started with, but this AN/I's about your edit warring and POV, not about the content dispute. Assuming I looked at no facts, and just my own biased opinion is also more than mildly insulting. Focus on the issues at hand in the future, thank you. ThuranX 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you will have to forgive me but after reading your assessment of the situation it would have been easy to summise that you didnt look at the facts hard enough. I am not trying to replace the term Malvinas with the term Falklands - however Malvinas is a significant minority term for the islands and for the War and this should be reflected in the article. If you look at the Irish war of Independence article you will see that the main name for the war is listed as the title - Irish war of Independence and then the common Irish name (Tan War) is listed and also the British term for it (Anglo-Irish war) is listed.--Vintagekits 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lede? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, no... I meant the OTHER lede! (oops.) ThuranX 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I diagnose a case of Editor On A Mission. This is rarely much fun for any of those concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Over 50,000 ghits say that British editors need to realise the world doesnt revolve around them. I am not anti-British but too many articles possibly wiki itself) are set up with an inherent British POV and any thought of introducing another perspective is obviously bang out of order!--Vintagekits 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

58,300, actually, you are being too generous in this. It presents a major problem to WP, this GB view of the world. I could name 12 articles, but would only distract from the substantive issue. 86.42.180.78 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But most of the first page is Socialist websites, which all have inherent agendas and biases. That somewhat undermines your 'it's all Pro-british' assertions, as we can all say 'Using Malvinas is pushing a pro-socialism agenda'. ThuranX 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely nothing - both of you jumped in on a band wagon to put the boot into me without checking the facts. If you wish to ignore that the Malvinas is a commonly used terms 1. in non UK/British English language circles and 2. in British left wing circles (thats quite a lot of circles!) and choose to ignore that other British editors are trying to censor the term but the same editors do dont try and remove less significant alternate names then you go ahead if that suits you. But this is looking at lot more like others how have the agenda and I am the one trying to add a little balance into the article.--Vintagekits 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we used to mock the Soviets for "airbrushing", or for even compiling pseudo-history. Let's call a spade a spade and get on with making an encyclopedia. Here's an other example of avoiding the facts, and fail to get to the main article page . I have no "agenda" here, and I avoid argument on WP with an intensity, and that's why I use my IP here. -86.42.180.78 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say :

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page :

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, Orthologist. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coelacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Misplaced Pages that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Misplaced Pages can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder if anybody who uses the handle "The way, the truth, and the light" could ever be anything but contentious. Corvus cornix 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest

Puppet User:MountainClimber of Barbara Schwarz, diff Anynobody 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was resolved: block log. This can be archived to thin the noticeboard down a bit. Anynobody 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He confirmed by checkuser a number of sockpuppets including the ones edit warring with Onefortyone. I blocked Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo for a week but would like feedback on an indefinite ban.

The sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo show similarities in interest to Lochdale (talk · contribs), including Elvis, Nick Adams and James Dean. Lochdale was banned from editing Elvis Presely at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis, and hasn't edited since--too long for checkuser against him. Lochdale in turn shares similar interests to Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) and Wyss (talk · contribs) who were placed on indefinite probation for making disruptive edits to celebrity articles (but who do not seem to be banned as far as I can tell). I'd like advice on whether a week is long enough for Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From Ted Wilkes' block log, he was blocked for one year in March 2006 after multiple violations of his probation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. The year expired in March 2007 and Fred Bauder unblocked then, but Wilkes has not resumed editing under that name. Meanwhile, Wyss has been indefblocked "at request of user." As for the issue of block length, are the edits from the SPA's useful additions to the encyclopedia, or the mine-run of unsourced nonsense? Newyorkbrad 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mixed. Judge for yourself. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD overload again

Just look at the sad, sad size of the CFD category. It's starting to remain at consistently high levels for days at a time. I say we figure out who the top ten non-admin RC patrollers by edits are and give them all adminship. We are missing a huge number of CSDs that are falling through the cracks that were tagged, not acted on for awhile, and then eventually untagged by their creators. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See overkill. x42bn6 Talk 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is possibly overkill about granting adminship to the people who need it most, and would use it to the benefit of the encyclopedia by getting rid of crap before it slips through our fingers? --Cyde Weys 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them might have bad userboxes. --Elkman 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So we delete their userpages first. Big deal. We still need help clearing out CAT:CSD. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They might even not be endorsed by Wikiprojects. Bad idea. --W.marsh 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation makes me laugh. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, Elkman. =) I'm all for going with Cyde's suggestion. More admins is almost never a bad idea. ♠PMC♠ 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What will we use to judge their spelling if we delete their userpages? Frise 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of the backlog, I just knocked off about 50 articles. I'd encourage admins to use the Pywikipediabot framework and speedy_delete.py. It really makes quick work of CAT:CSD. alphachimp 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay, someone is using my bot! I'm happy. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is people with image experience. The articles are being deleted at a slow rate, yes, but it's the images that are always backlogged the most because no one seems to want to touch them. Metros232 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick, and subsequently feel like shit and don't want to do anything. Clearing out a bit of backlog is about all I can do right now. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't often deal with images because a system has yet to be devised to make image deletions fast and easy. The one tool that helps with images (made by martinp23) is too slow for any long term use. alphachimp 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing images, except that removing them from articles is cumbersome. Not everyone does that, I guess. I'm writing a play right now and I shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, but I'll get to the backlog later tonight, I guess, if it's that bad... Grandmasterka 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of identifying people who do a diligent, accurate job on RC or RP patrol (or any of the other mundane but important tasks) and speaking to them about considering adminship is a good one. (I do emphasize accurate because when I've reviewed CSD'd pages recently, I've found myself declining about one tag in five.) Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of incorrect tagging recently, particularly with A7. Perhaps the wording on the tag or on WP:CSD needs to be clarified or strengthened. Natalie 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just speedily deleted an image that had been tagged for a day-and-a-half. I'm thinking about opening an image-coaching project, and perhaps an admin backlog contest. Hmm... Grandmasterka 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of blocking, placing on probation, desysopping, et cetera we should issue penances of backlogs. John Reaves (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL... That would be great, if we could enforce it. Anyway, I have a small thing going at User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest. Feel free to comment. Grandmasterka 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could make WP:CSD more non-sysop friendly, like encouraging non-sysops to go through the list and changing/removing incorrect tagging, to remove invalid hangons (is that allowed?), etc. x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not only allowed, that is appreciated. Go for it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let anyone know who hasn't seen it, my script makes the "Reason for Deletion" with CSD stuff much easier. Here you go. ^demon 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If only it let me delete images faster. Anyone got a script that shows the license without having to scroll past 1000x1000 images? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, a tool which automatically removes the deleted images from the articles. Or does that maybe exist? Hope, hope. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin's wonderful NPWatcher automatically orphans images while deleting them. AWB works nicely as well, albeit a bit less automatic. Sean William 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Could someone get this guy (correct link; userpage is red) off my back? He's sullying my talk page with things like "zomg lulz" and something about it being over my head. I wouldn't have reported something as trivial as this were it from some random IP user, but I've never seen this kind of behavior from an administrator before. Simões (/_contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Jeffrey O. Gustafson. IrishGuy 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not the Misplaced Pages Complaints Department. Take it up with Jeffrey if you were offended by his "personal attack". Sean William 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he has friends. Could a neutral administrator address this? Simões (/_contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! I have friends!? This guy clearly has no clue who I am... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there something Simoes has done to deserve being mocked? ··coelacan 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was mocking me... don't know about anyone else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the edit summary again, that made me ask this. As evidenced by the comment below, Simoes wants this to be over. I hope it is over. ··coelacan 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind. I don't think I'll be running into him again. Simões (/_contribs) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, again

Talk:Misplaced Pages community#Trivia. Can someone please say something to him? See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru more background if you don't already know. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And by say something, I don't necessarily mean about the dispute on the talk page, but his behavior in the dispute (such as egging people on to add the trivia and ignore the discussion about it's dispute, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention.. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=126894978&oldid=126892247 -- Ned Scott 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it time we took him to ArbCom? MER-C 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has mediation been tried? --Iamunknown 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Given Quackguru has paid no attention to anything anyone says to him on the talkpages, I doubt he will on a mediation page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe community-enforceable mediation. QuackGuru would have to actually participate tho. --Iamunknown 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

User is promoting hatred and violence (see here, moved later to his user talk by Petri Krohn). User Roobit has a history of improper edits and personal attacks, as can be seen from messages on his talk page. DLX 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I don't see anyone promoting hatred or violence. Maybe you can quote something specific for us? I'm not going to dig through that whole essay to see where the problems you perceive are. This is the user's only edit here in quite a while; hardly an ongoing problem. Why didn't you contact the user instead of taking this complaint directly to ANI? ··coelacan 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... calling Estonians Nazis/Ethnonazis, pushing political/hatred agenda ("Don’t buy anything in Estonia. Don't do any kind of business with Estonian companies and organizations. Don't invest in Estonian stocks. Don't travel to Estonia as a tourist. If you are American, write to your representative in the House of Representatives and ask why is the government wasting your tax dollars on support of Estonian Nazis? Demand that Estonia is kicked out of NATO before it becomes a liability to America and the rest of the world."), promoting lies (pretty much everything he says about Bronze Soldier is a lie), posting inappropriate material to Misplaced Pages talk pages.

Why didn't I contact him? Because last time I did that (outside Misplaced Pages, though), I got called names and threatened with violence ("We'll kill you and your family, you Nazi pig"). So I've stopped trying to talk with them and instead will try to notify people who are responsible for enforcing Misplaced Pages rules. DLX 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The content has been moved off the article talk page. I'll leave a note not to put it back there. It's off-topic. But seriously, it doesn't read quite like you're making it out to read. The user is saying that there are Nazis in Estonia, not that all Estonians are Nazis. I for one am not going to block anybody over one single off-topic post that doesn't exactly make the sweeping generalizations you're suggesting it does. ··coelacan 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll note that now that you're asked for quotes, you show nothing that "promotes violence". Honestly, this was already handled when Petri Krohn moved it off the article talk page. This is not the complaints department. Please make an effort to resolve these very minor issues with other editors before bringing them to ANI. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just strictly as a comment - try substituting "Estonians" with "Jews", "Estonia" with "Israel" etc. Would you still agree afterwards, that the message is peaceful and harmless? All nations and nationalities should be treated equally. DLX 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. The authentiticity issue is again important in deciding whether to mention it on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user with shifting IPs trolling AfDs

• He's voting "Speedy Keep" on a variety of AfDs where it's obvious he hasn't even read the article in question, and is simply voting to make a point about deletionists. I don't know if it's the same guy as the one I reported before, but I wouldn't be surprised. He is posting from 172.129.74.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked by Naconkantari), 172.162.65.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and more recently from 172.162.73.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Is there anything that can be done about this? JuJube 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If s/he is voting keep on articles that Misplaced Pages guidelines say should be deleted in order to make a point, s/he's doing Misplaced Pages a service in taking the trouble to figure out the proper disposition of all those articles in order to vote the opposite way. The solution is simple: closing admins for the affected AfD's should simply count each of the person's "keep" votes as a "delete" vote when determining consensus ;-). Note, I left a reply a couple minutes ago at the earlier discussion (but now it looks unlikely to have an effect, sigh). Anyway, I'd say warn about WP:POINT then block if it continues. 75.62.7.22 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be more to it than first glance. The edits of the last IP I put suggest this person might be indef-blocked user ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs). If so, it's cut and dry trolling. JuJube 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really no fun to see this disruption at AFD. Blocks are entirely warranted by now, for WP:IAR if for no other reason. YechielMan 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal

Jayjg has blocked these three articles based on biased reasoning. He claims that he is only blocking these articles to prevent edit waring, but he all but admited on my talk page that he specifically disagreed with my edits. He's pretending to be neutral so that he can block the articles after my edits have been reverted by some other user. This to me is wikistalking.

Case in point the Alan Cabal article. I have been involved with that article for less than a day and have only reverted another users edits one time and after that he blocked and claimed it was because of edit waring. It is my belief that he is going to any article I contribute too an then blocking it after my edits get reverted in order t prevent me from editing the article.

In regards to the Kurt Nimmo article he refuses to lift the ban even though the issue origianlly under contention has been resolved. He won't unblock it because he doesn't want me to edit other parts of the article, which I thought I had the right to do.

I am asking the Misplaced Pages Admin. to undo Jayjgs blocks on these articles. annoynmous 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He refuses to unblock the Kurt Nimmo article even though the original issue under contention has been settled.

He blocked the Alan Cabal article even though I had only reverted another users edit once. How is that edit waring.

He blocked the Ward Churchill article even though there were other editors who agreed with my position.

On my talk page he admited he blocked the articles because he disagreed with me, not because of edit waring. Shouldn't there be some punishement for giving a false reason for blocking an article.

He convientely blocks the articles just after my version of the article has been reverted. He never perserves my version. If this truly was about edit waring don't you think he'd perserve my version once in a while. This feels like a covert way of preventing me from contribting. annoynmous 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note to whoever looks at this, but "he" is referring to Jayjg ^demon 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: What do these articles have in common? Have you tried a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP? Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? ··coelacan 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Annonymous was edit-warring on them. You guessed, didn't you? Guy (Help!) 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, but I was trying to squeeze something a little more substantial out of annoynmous. ··coelacan 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Jayjg was using the false pretense of edit warring when he was really blocking them because of a bias he had against me. Under these circunstances I think the articles should be unblocked.annoynmous 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Alan Cabal article count as edit warring when I only reverted one edit. Doesn't that need to go along for a little longer before it's called edit warring. annoynmous 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we don't usually do unblocking here. There's a place for it. WP:RFPP has a section about unblocking. Why don't you go there and try to make a neutrally-worded request that doesn't involve a complaint about Jayjg, and you might get what you want. BUT! As I asked before: Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? If there aren't substantive answers to these questions, the articles won't be unblocked. ··coelacan 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, it has already been rejected at WP:RFPP, there is no discussion on the Talk: pages, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus that I can ascertain. Jayjg 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, you're telling me that there IS a cabal? -Hit bull, win steak 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago

Background

On January 19, 2006, 11 new user accounts were created in relative quick succession. They are listed below, preceded by the time of the accounts' creation.

• 09:53 Fallingred (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Presidentkennedy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Lilpixie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Katz* (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:53 Charlenecumberbatch (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Wardie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:03 Kirank (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:08 Aranshoker (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Kirandhesi1 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Harpzbrahm (talk · contribs · logs)

Commonalities

1. All 11 accounts were created within 17 minutes of each other between 09:53 and 10:09.
2. All 11 accounts were listed as participants in WikiProject PKPhilosophy by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) at 10:40 (see diff).
3. All 11 accounts were welcomed by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) within 6 minutes of each other between 10:44 and 10:49.
4. 10 of the 11 accounts have 0 or 1 preserved edits, made on January 19, 2006. The only exception is Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs), who has 8 preserved edits, of which 7 were made on January 19 (to the userpage).

Comments

Now, the manner in which I have presented the information above should make it quite clear that I suspect the 11 accounts to have been created by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs), especially in light of the fact presented in point 2. However, the creation of the accounts does not seem to fall under any of the "forbidden uses of sock puppets" listed at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. Judging from the preserved edit history only, the 11 accounts made no votes, were not used to "avoid scrutiny", did not create disruption, and were not used to circumvent policy. That said, the creation of the accounts also does not fall under any of the 5 "legitimate uses of multiple accounts" listed at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. The only purpose for the accounts that I can see is to create the impression that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject PKPhilosophy is an active WikiProject; what end that serves, I'm not sure.

Note: I have tagged the various user pages for proposed deletion and have started a deletion discussion for the WikiProject (see here).

Since Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) is mostly inactive since December 2006 (see here), I see no point in requesting a clarification on his talk page. So, in short, I bring this to the community's attention so that a proper course of action may be chosen. -- Black Falcon 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should post this on WP:RFCU, for confirmation. Anynobody 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidkinnen said he was a teacher, and the Wikiproject is connected to what he said was his school, this may well have been a case of a teacher inviting some of his students to sign up for some (not terribly well thought out) scheme of on-wiki classwork. The edits by the Biggsy accounts do look like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Looks like a school project of some sort. Frise 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... that makes sense. Given the harmless nature of the accounts, I don't think submitting a checkuser request is needed. I guess this turned out to be a non-issue after all. Thanks for your clarifications everyone. -- Black Falcon 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser data for activity that old is long gone. 75.62.7.22 07:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Burkem22

A new account for the indefinitely blocked User:Burkem and posting further nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think we need checkuser to confirm this one; the name and contributions history show a clear identity. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Choess will revert the vandalism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers ownership issues

There are some serious ownership issues on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit (suggestions for an alternative forum to raise such ownership issues welcome). Andy Mabbett 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather thought that the point' of WikiProjects was to provide some sort of "officially-sanctioned ownership" of articles in order to keep a sense of order and continuity? Maybe you can direct me to where I am mistaken? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This does not require admin intervention. Moreschi 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone holding a strong opinion in that debate, you have a vested interest. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may well be more about the attempt by Wikiproject biographies to WP:OWN every bio in existence - and stick hideous ugly standard boxes on them. But then, I could be wrong.--Doc 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Moreschi 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As indeed, you are. Regardless of the merits or problems with infoboxes, referring to another editor as a "guest" on a set of pages is unacceptable; as are other comments of a similar nature in that debate. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That much is true; there is a definite WP:OWN violation here. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the debate, and the language was certainly infelicitous, but Andy Mabbett's comments were inadvisable and needlessly contentious in the context of a project page that caters to editors with a common interest in writing about composers. Righteously bandying policy around and making accusations against other editors, impugning their motives, etc..., (many of whom have put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the various composer pages) was bound to elicit a reaction of frustration. The editors at the composer project certainly know they don't own composer articles. In its context, the comment was clearly borne out of exasperation. Taking this to ANI is somewhat inflammatory in the context of the discussion. A break from involvement in the debate might be a good idea. Eusebeus 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has exhibited WP:OWN issues in spades before. Not least was his repeated ad nauseum claim that WikiProject Biography shouldn't tag opera-related articles, one reason for this was that it encourages rock fans to edit them! :) I believe that a thorough examination of this editor's contribs (particularly at WIkipedia talk and user talk) would show it wasn't an isolated incident or as innocent as you think. The editor in question plainly believes that his WikiProject should have sole scope over these articles. --kingboyk 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the sole instance of WP:OWN being referenced here, I take back my comment and offer an apology. My suspicion is that the accusation is intended to address the general tenor of the debate, which impugns the intent of many other editors and that is not acceptable. Eusebeus 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please rephrase. --kingboyk 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing your initial report beyond the statement: There are some serious ownership issues on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit. That is the comment to which my reaction was directed. Eusebeus 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought my initial report (about which you, Eusebeus, failed to AGF), was perfectly clear - there are multiple breaches of OWN, including but not limited to the one I cited. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Eusebeus, but may I point out that no adminstrative action is, as of yet, required to address the actions of anyone, and that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion? Doubtless Kleinzach is not perfect, but then no one is, but he is a very valuable contributor who has done a huge amount of good for Misplaced Pages,so AGF. This is a bit of a blind alley from the real issues at hand. Moreschi 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone might be able to explain to me whether I am to consider myself a "guest" or whether I may edit in these topic areas? Is one invited to do so or must one have an established presence in the subject? If so, then what policies are to be followed and what are not? How does one stop being a guest? Is there a test to pass or something? Must I follow the policies of the composers project when aditing articles about classical composers and related subjects? Or should I follow sitewide policy. This is very confusing and I'm not at all sure what to do now. I wrote a new article today about an Offenbach Opera that no one had done before, but I wasn't sure what to do and whether what I had done was right. Gretab 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification for you: there is no sitewide policy concerning these infoboxes. They are entirely voluntary and not mandated by anything or anyone. Moreschi 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is none. His accusation was unacceptable in my eyes (as a normal editor anyway). You're within your rights to contribute -- productively -- to the discussion and make any edits you see fit provided they follow policy (and if they happen to go against consensus, should be reverted with a note as such). As for User:Kleinzach, I don't know him, but in light of the words, I am not surprised to find that he is indeed the same one who made this edit (with the resultant talk here ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the discussion has become unfocused here a bit. If Andy Mabbett's complaint is that Kleinzach referred to editors as "guests" of a body of articles, then I, and probably most others, would agree with him without reservation about ownership issues. As I understand it, though, the larger point was that a group of editors, regularly involved in Composer's bio pages, discussed the value of the boilerplate infobox that the bio group likes to put on pages and found it generally wanting with respect to specific issues pertinent to composers. The subsequent debate leans overwhelmingly in favour of not using such boxes. Because that debate largely involves people who are connected to the composer's project and because the consensus against infoboxes was formed within that community, they were accused of "owning" composer articles. That is simply not true; to bandy accusations of ownership around is disingenuous. Obviously a group of people who are actively involved in a specific area are going to have issues and viewpoints that exist simply as a function of that involvement. The slap-happy infobox taggers at the bio project should be sensitive to that. Eusebeus 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a stronger case of WP:OWN might be lodged at the door of Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Misplaced Pages. Might we hear his thoughts on that particular aspect of this matter? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Go look at the contribs as I suggested. The editor in question feels he has the right to prevent others from editing "his" WikiProject's articles or talk pages. That's OWNership. WikiProject Biography doesn't do that so you're way off the mark there. --kingboyk 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what Eusebeus and Phil have said. WP:OWN is a much wider issue and I strongly object to projects like WP:WPBIO trying to force their poorly-designed infoboxes everywhere indiscriminately. The composer bioboxes were particularly bad as they caused basic distortions of fact. Factual accuracy is essential for an encyclopaedia, infoboxes are not. --Folantin 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, while perhaps not the original intention of this report, it does bring to light what Folatin, Eusebeus, and Phil have said in relation to WP:OWN and wikiprojects. This is something I've been noticing more of lately; members of wikiprojects at least insinuating on talkpages that they somehow have more right to edit their project topics than non-project editors or using their project numbers to stuff AfDs. It is not a helpful trend.--Isotope23 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Misplaced Pages.". Your accusations are unfounded (if not, cite evidence) and yorur tone unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, you totally misrepresent the complaint raised here. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? Are you stating that your problem is limited to Kleinzach's comment about guests? In which case, you will get no argument here. Or do you have a wider issue? In which case, could you link to the specific comments you find objectionable and iterate your reasons for finding them unacceptable? Eusebeus 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fightback starts here.--Doca pox on the boxes 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect that's not a very helpful statement. The issue is perceived statements of WP:OWNership. It's fine to debate and reject infoboxes, it's not fine to say "you're not editing because I don't like your edits" or, even worse, "we don't want pimply pop music fans editing our articles". If they feel that way (and I can provide a diff to show this was said (minus the "pimply" bit), they can go to another wiki! --kingboyk 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, project perceived ownership is the issue here; not infoboxes.--Isotope23 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this a WP:OWN problem? Show of hands: who hasn't seen stuff five times worse than that diff on an average page? "The box wars are hot" is an understatement. "We should finish the template box debate" would be nice. "People get worked up about this" is a truism. "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported. "You are a guest" is the "own" thing? Ok, so that's one person with an opinion. Other people have other opinions. Geogre 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"How is this a WP:OWN problem?" - read WP:OWN, and the cited diff.

" "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported" Hence "exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit".

Andy Mabbett 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is about boxes? Good grief! Boxes are imminently foolish when they're applied by fools or when they are designed by fools. They are wholly inappropriate as a "must" on anything. The only truly consistent people are the dead, and I would argue that they're not consistent, either. In fact, a standardized anything works only when we are absolutely sure that all elements of the series have absolutely defined common points of importance. It's fair to have a blanket rejection of boxes for biographies (as I do), because it's fair to believe (as I do) that no two lives are alike and no two people can be reduced to any common points of importance. It's fair to tell the templateers to go away, as what they're doing is not editing the article but dressing it. Putting a decal on your bumper does not make you an automotive engineer. Geogre 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Oh, so this is about boxes? " No; it's about ownership. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, it's about conflicting OWNership, then. That's the problem. Boxes are not good or bad: they're GIGO. However, when WikiProjectX asserts control of all articles written under a particular subject matter, that is an assertion of OWNership, too. If two WP:OWN violations meet, we have problems. I think the impulse behind "we have a project that claims this article, so you must now have the following qualities placed here" causes conflicts across the project, and, of course, "I wrote it, so it's mine" does, too. The problem is that I see the edge going to the people who have worked on the content, and I regard boxes and templates as non-content contributions. Therefore, even if the content folks were ill humored and acid tongued, we're not really at the level of a WP:OWN violation -- just regular boorishness in the face of a conflict. Geogre 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"it's about conflicting OWNership, then." No. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Geogre. Bioboxes were an ill-conceived disaster from the start. Take Philidor, for instance, who was equally famous as a chess champion and a composer. Somebody has put him in the chess master biobox. Does someone now come along and add a composer biobox below? Or Ignacy Paderewski, still mercifully free from the box straitjacket. He was a composer, a concert pianist and a prime minister of Poland. Do we fill his page with three infoboxes? Or do we create a special, one-off Composer/Pianist/Premier version? Yet some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier. --Folantin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They also seem rather ill-disposed to discussion to boot. (The Paderewski example is judicious). Eusebeus 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, per Who OWNS what?, talk of "organised resistance" and "trolling" are certainly not helpful, and do not indicate a willingness to work towards consensus. Nor does talk of "BOX fascists". Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier": Do you have any evidence to support that remarkable allegation, or is it just another failure to mention breach of WP:AGF ? Andy Mabbett 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion between you and another user entitled "Why is persondata separate to infobox" isn't entirely irrelevant. You answer the other editor's objection "This would require every biography to have an infobox, which many editors are opposed to" by saying "I would question why they're opposed, and whether they're perhaps putting personal (aesthetic?) preferences before the convenience of users. That said, perhaps, one day, it might be possible for user preferences to include a 'do not display infoboxes" option, like the current "do not show TOCs' option". That's rather propietorial (although you do generously admit that one day it might just be possible to have a page without an obligatory biobox). Also, it's worth remembering some editors have personal preferences for things like factual accuracy. --Folantin 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by those comments, which neither prove your earlier claim, nor your new allegation of being "propietorial". Andy Mabbett 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think planning to impose infoboxes on every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not conflicts with WP:OWN then? OK. --Folantin 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think yet another false insinuation is unhelpful - nobody is "planning to impose infoboxes" on anything, much less on "every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not". Perhaps you might kindly refrain from inventing such things? Andy Mabbett 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woot hoot, this is actually quite funny. It doesn't matter who ownes what. Nobody is really explicitly claiming to own anything. The point is that these boxes are a joke. Again and again they have promoted inaccurate information, and such a simplified view of matters that the aura they project is misleading. I mean, check out this monster. His "associated act" was apparently the Pittsburgh Symphony. Right. This is not, by far, the only example: there are plenty worse.

This isn't about ownership. This is about inaccurate and oversimplified information being removed. Anyone can do that, WikiProject or no. I've tried to help out GretaB, so if there was any bad fallout from Kleinzach's remark, I've believe that's been dealt with. At any rate, these infoboxes, where they are inaccurate, are being removed and will continue to be removed. That is supported by consensus and, more importantly, the fact that Misplaced Pages must be accurate at all costs, regardless of whether the boxen make data-parsing easier or whatever. For future reference, it's not a good idea to apply boxen intended for those working within the tradition of more popular music to "classical" composers, and vice versa. Like applying a country infobox to a philosopher. You will have problems with accuracy and lack of NPOV definition. Moreschi 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I believe that issue has been dealt with. I've tried to clarify matters to GretaB, and Isotope23 has left a message on Kleinzach's talk. Fair enough. It may be worth noting that he was probably referring to GretaB not quite getting the fairly deep-seated issues at hand: I've also tried to clarify that. Incidentally, several people here have expressed a distaste for the lack of consideration in the mass application of infoboxes. Is there anything else you want done? If not, I can go back to removing more misleading and useless boxes. Moreschi 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Andy Mabbett's response strikes me as galling hubris. A group of editors who have committed a lot of time to improving composer and composer-related articles have concluded after open debate that the bio-project infoboxes are ineffective for composers. Andy aired his view in their forum. They disagreed, expansively explaining why. In lieu of accepting the issues raised, he instead bring the issue up - very inappropriately - as an administrative matter. Ridiculous. Eusebeus 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you completely misrepresent me. You also ignore the other, uninvolved, editors who agree that that there have been "ownership" issues; and the fact that one of the editors concerned has acknowledged, and rightly apologised for, his inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, so time to move on now I think. As Moreschi notes, the issue has been settled. Eusebeus 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'll leave the difficult task of interpreting Andy's comments and behaviour "correctly" to others if they are so inclined. There's nothing more to be said here. --Folantin 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice also that no one seems to have even informed Kleinzach that this discussion was going on. It's completely inappropriate to start talking ill of a user without telling him or her that the discussion is going on. Heimstern Läufer 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (I'm on a different timezone here). I have written to Gretab directly (also on the Composers Project page) to say that my comment about her being a "guest" was inappropriate. I've withdrawn what I said. The last thing I wanted to do was to personalize a difficult issue - not just of the problematic infoboxes - but about the way the different projects relate to each other. I had intended to avoid getting involved in the increasingly ill-tempered tail end of the Composers Project discussion, and I should have trusted my better instincts. --Kleinzach 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the note and the invitation to join the Opera project. However, in exploring the project further, I came across this comment concerning naming a category of opera in German. Could you please explain what the word "interlopers" means in this context? Who are the "interlopers" here? Gretab 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already explained to you directly, I didn't make this comment and I don't have anything to say about it. --Kleinzach 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from the context that "interlopers" refers to operas rather than editors. "German Romantic opera" is a very specific category. Some well-meaning users might be tempted to add items to the category which don't belong there (merely because they are German and involve romantic love, say). GuillaumeTell, the editor who made the remark, is suggesting that calling the category "Romantischen Opern" will prevent this confusion and stop people mistakenly adding the wrong operas ("interlopers") to the category. --Folantin 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, GT, is clearly referring to operas being added to silly cateogries rather than people. Moreschi 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of ink and ire spilled over box/not-box. Can't we leave it up to the editors of the individual articles to decide whether they need a box or not? Boxes work in some situations (cricketer biographies, for example, are almost always improved by a box, as it moves the stats into one place, neatly) but not others, particularly people whose "facts" are not well established or disputed. It is just as bad to insist that no article should have a box as to insist that they all must. -- 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALoan (talk • contribs)

Again: The issue was ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Libricide

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Misplaced Pages burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation as serious scholarship still has far to go.

Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books.

Is this mutatis-mutandis ?

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm

Neil zusman 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Libricide. KillerChihuahua 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you want WP:DRV for that, but please familiarise yourself with core Misplaced Pages policies first, notably WP:AGF, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (especially WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. --Folantin 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM

The above-referenced users (User:Gnevin and User:Padraic3uk) have deleted my valid edits and markers indicating POV and unsubstantiated/unreferenced text from Thomas Begley, GAA and Brendan Hughes pages without providing any explanation or justification. 216.194.3.116 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

(after edit conflict) Looks like a content dispute to me. See WP:DR. Also, please don't post in ALL CAPS, be certain something is vandalism before you call it that - to accuse other editors of vandalism can be a failure to assume good faith - remember we are all here to write an encyclopedia, and try to work with other editors to find the best solution for any content disputes. KillerChihuahua 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tags without giving any justification either in the edit summary or in the talk pages of either article for doing so is meaningless to other editors, as we are not mind readers and are unable to determine wether you object to the whole article or one word or sentance as POV.--padraig3uk 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts invisible here? This is a content dispute. Dispute resolution is ---> thataway. KillerChihuahua 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please not that I believe that that IP address is a blocked editor see here.--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now 100% sure - please add this IP to the blocked list!--Vintagekits 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, except a clear sockpuppet of banned editor Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's RMS up to his usual tricks again. Blocked 1 week - Alison ☺ 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot needs to be stopped

Don't know the right way to request this, but I believe that ToePeu.bot needs to be stopped. I have left a note, to no effect yet. It is adding interwiki links to Template pages, but not checking for a "noinclude", so the interwikis are being inherited by the pages where the templates are used (unless noinclude was in effect). Example: Template:Lowercase‎. Notinasnaid 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot so that things can be cleaned up. I'll try my best to mass revert, but I'll notify the bot's operator of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, check out the interwiki list at Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources! The bot only seemed to be adding the Korean ones just now, did it add the Russian ones too, or is there another bot to stop? --ais523 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Yurikbot was doing this stuff. Am I hopelessly behind the times? There shouldn't be two bots doing the same or closely related things. If Yurik got tired of running his bot maybe he could let someone else run it instead, since it seemed pretty well debugged. 75.62.7.22 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

warning level?

user:Moironen moved Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? to DOMINATION BLACK. I moved it back. What level warning should be used for this? RJFJR 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:mp2}} seems about right. --ais523 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the fast reply. RJFJR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... personally, I think that {{Vandalblock}} is entirely appropriate... pretty obvious to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, some other admin has come along and killed the account. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212

The user that created Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212 previously created a page, telling me that their teacher told them to make a page on Misplaced Pages as an assignment. As such, I am dubious as to the notability of this new page. What do other people think? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be real. Google does turn up a few hits. (Which I didn't check individually, though.) But it's very bad practice to write an article about a court case based on nothing but the court documents. I'm missing secondary sources. As it is, it's an OR summary culled together from a primary source. Lupo 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Masinagudi

I have just tagged this article for speedy deletion as it seems the article is nothing more than a brochure for a resort (db-spam). This was tagged before with db-spam, however, 122.164.33.90 removed the tag, claiming that the web links to the portal were removed. They then proceeded to place a weblink "For more information about the resort" into the article. Could we speedy delete this? Addendum: Xompanthy has just tagged the article for blatant advertising. --Ispy1981 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange and curious block

Apologies if Cyde gas already listed this here but I don't see it. This seems a very odd situation If coming and going is a blockable crime there would be few of us left. I wonder what Cyde's motives are Giano 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you talk with Cyde first? I'm sure he would be open to suggestions. --Iamunknown 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Cyde's description of why he blocked is not a reason given by our blocking policy, and Cyde himself does not appear to be impartial. The actual reason appears to be these deletions of comments, including Cyde's, which means he's involved in the situation and should not have performed the block. R. D. H.'s minor disruption does not warrant an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Add in all of the disruption and personal attacks from the IP address identified below; now do you think it warrants an indefinite block? --Cyde Weys 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Repeatedly returning in order to disrupt is indeed within the scope of WP:BP, we definitely do block for repeated disruption. Giano was somewhat selective in his quotation of the block reason, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Giano was not. I listed the reasons given by the blocking editor "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (User repeatedly claims he has left Misplaced Pages but keeps returning to create further disruptive. This will help him.) " on the block log. Please check your facts. Giano 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JzG's point reflects the need to discuss such things with the blocking admin if feasible before undoing a block. _InBC 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought of removing this thread and then asking Giano at his talk page to talk with Cyde first. Maybe I shall do that next time. --Iamunknown 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No this is the place to discuss strange blocks. I was right first time. Giano 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not without talking to the administrator first. --Iamunknown 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde appears a bit to close to this and really shouldn't be doing the blocks, but given the fact that RDH appears to be here just to disrupt at this point I don't think an indef is out of the question. Given the recent edits from what would appear to be his IP, 70.171.22.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I don't think he's particularly interested in adding anything of value here at this point.--Isotope23 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has long gone without doing anything productive on the project and his stated intentions have been to return to cause trouble, which he has been doing. This is a textbook case for an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then come here and get support for such a block. Your blocking reason was unclear, your personal involvement was ill-advised, and while I may support such a block now based on your aditional information, all actions should be transparent and clear from the get-go. This is a textbook case of failed communication. -- nae'blis 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's no biggie, this will all be resolved very shortly now that the information is out there. I don't particularly mind if he remains unblocked for a brief period while all of our individual knowledge is shared. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cyde, I am confused - why are you saying he was serving a 48 hour block, I'm sure he was not. Giano 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see OK Interesting sequence of events this. I wonder why you botched your reasoning on the block og. Giano 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My complain of nonsense on my page

Someone posted nonsense on my page that I am banned. The name was Hipocrite but he was retired so it must be another. It said I am Rootlogy. This is not for real. I am no one but me and babalooobabalooo, for I forgot my Babalooo password for one day. I thank you to take away the Babalooobabalooo name. This is the many times I have to removed nonsense at me. I am sorry that I do not write the pefect English but this is not a reason to torture me. How do I get a mentor advocate? I thank you to ask others to not torture me. Babalooo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said you were banned. From the looks of it, there is a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of Rootology (talk · contribs). The fact that you've edited here means you are not banned or blocked though.--Isotope23 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to prove that you are not a sockpuppet, you could leave a message for WP:AMA. YechielMan 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post in this forum tonight. Babalooo 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Badly broken english now, but used to be able to write acceptably. Perfect knowledge of editing on their first edit (signing, space before ~'s), user page on their second edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are my room-mates words. My first words were on 06:51, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (→Where?) He says I should make my own name account and not use his. I will do so tonight and you may transfer my posts to my new name. I want to have a high post count with these posts under Babalooo and Babalooobabalooo on my new name account. Babalooo 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a rather over-used excuse. --Iamunknown 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism

The Rugrats Characters section has been vandalized several times recently, probably by members of the Barney Bunch.--Hailey 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to List of Rugrats characters. I will request semi-protection. YechielMan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it is the Barney Bunch, because most of it wa targeted at Drew, plus there were a lot of racist comments about Susie and her family and Didi's parents.--Hailey 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barney Bunch? Targets? Rascism? Do we have children's cartoons-affiliated gangs on the 'pedia? -M 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the choice of words, the vandalism was rather bad: check out . As the page is now, however, semi-protected, I shall tag this section with {{resolved}}. --Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by ShandraShazam

ShandraShazam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently has the {{unblock-auto}} template on her talk page. Since this appears to be a generally productive contributer who was trying to edit from a school IP, I was prepared to reset to a soft block. But when I looked at the block log for the IP listed in the unblock request, I see anon-only is already set. Could someone shed some light on this situation? —dgies_c 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry by User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2

As most of you guys know, I filed a community ban request for Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs) on the grounds of gross incivility, massive copyvios, and what appeared to be blatant sockpuppetry by way of Kd lvr (talk · contribs). I apologize for being a bit overzealous and bypassing normal process, but a sanity check of the affair after User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki saw them working in tandem on several editing disputes and AfD discussions revealed what appeared to be pretty blatant sock activity:

• Voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would theoretically allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again ,
• Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2.

The last one what clinched it for me ... it seemed EXTREMELY unlikely that two users could post within a minute of each other if they were two different people. Based on my previous experience as a moderator on political sims, I thought this was a case at first where process could be bypassed--and again, I apologize for being a bit overzealous. I'm hoping to be an admin someday myself, and one of my priorities if I become one will be zero tolerance for sockfarming.

Well, today, after a checkuser turned up negative, I mentioned to TREYWiki that they were clearly meatpuppets, based on this post by Kd lvr. Kd lvr responds later, "Congrats on finally figuring that out!"

To my mind, this is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:MEAT. Kd lvr created his account only a few hours after Kdkatpir2 created his, and both have worked on the same articles. From my sanity check of this, I can't see how this is appropriate, and would ask one of you guys to give these two a warning. Also, could someone close the community ban request? Thanks ... Blueboy96 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart redux

Dsmart-3000ad (talk · contribs) has made pretty explicit legal threats against some folks and was blocked for it. His page has quite a collection of denied unblock requests, and each of them appear to be (more and more) soap boxes which make more threats against an editor here he's involved in some dispute with. I just know the guy from seeing his name around here semi-regularly, and I know he's made some nice games, but considering the rhetoric flying over on yon talk page, figured I'd drop a mention here in case anyone is interested. I'm considering protecting the talk page, but if anyone else has any ideas, let 'em fly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the situation and while he made a legal threat, his "retraction" sounded sort of like "I won't sue you now, but will if my attorney suggests it", and the blocking admin wasn't really impressed either. Per the ArbCom case, Supreme Cmdr is still under ban, but friends of Smart can make suggestions on the talk page, though that still doesn't permit legal threats. —dgies_c 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about his quite litigious history, suing websites and magazines for publishing negative press and the like. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs · block log)-2 things that can be done.

I have been keeping an eye on User talk:Kkrouni and looking at some of the discussion on that page and I think there are only 2 things that can be done about this user.

1. Unblock- Frankly the best evidence I have seen to prove Kkrouni is a sock of Cowboy Rocco is a Checkuser. I would like to know if there is any evidence that I missed if there is any however. I don't think the possibility of a shared IP (Cowboy Rocco and Kkrouni being different people but using the same IP) was considered. This makes me think that there is a possibility of Kkrouni not being one of Cowboy Rocco's sockpuppets (I won't deny Cowboy Rocco is a Sock Puppeteer).

1. Fully protect User talk:Kkrouni- Technically Kkrouni has abused Template:Unblock 2 times by requesting an unblock again even though the decline template says not to do so. If Kkrouni is without a doubt a sockpuppet then I fell that his user talk page should be fully protected. Funpika 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Khrouni and Cowboy Rocco edit from the same IP and use the same signature (as do many, many other sock accounts I caught). I do not see any reasonable way to explain this other than them being sockpuppets or real life associates. Raul654 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw plenty of similarities in their contribs but won't list them here so as to not give suggestions for hiding in the future. I would have protected the talk page but it seemed like kind of a dick move for me to do it after declining an unblock. —dgies_c 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*edit conflict* In this diff he claims he does know Cowboy Rocco. Does that mean "real life associate"? Funpika 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Kkrouni wants to discuss this on this user talk page. He has made comments there. Funpika 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio of a print source

Is there a template used to report direct copying of Misplaced Pages articles from print sources? {{copyvio}} seems to assume a Web source. The article on Daniel Dancer is taken directly from p. 216 of Facts & Fallacies (1988), a Reader's Digest compilation. It should be deleted since there is no version in the history to revert to. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is such a template. My recommendation is to list the article at WP:AFD. YechielMan 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD is to slow - copyvios should be deleted immediately. Perhaps one could use the blank db template. Natalie 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked for warring on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I really see nothing else coming of this discussion now. Whatever has happened has been undone from what I can tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three hours for continued bickering on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. Since the page has since been deleted, I would like this reviewed as there may now no longer be reason to keep the blocks active. Naconkantari 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the blocks. And why was the talk page deleted in the first place? El_C 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 (talk page of deleted article). --Iamunknown 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

G8, as in imperialist countries? I've deleted countless RfCs and always left the talk pages intact. El_C 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been deleted - CSD G8 doesn't apply to talkpages that contain discussions about the deletion of the page they relate to... WjBscribe 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the deleting admin may have intended merely to calm the forest fire. --Iamunknown 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it has that effect it may be valid under WP:IAR, but it isn't a G8. WjBscribe 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let it be IAR. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you treated everyone equally, and I think I understand your intentions here, but I submit that these blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Ugh, what an utter travesty. Can we unblock them and tell them to leave each other alone? Grandmasterka 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should all have been warned to stop before blocks were issued. WjBscribe 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock, the page has gone now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the talk page has been deleted you might as well unblock regardless of the reason for the original block. CMummert · talk 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x5, argh) I would support the immediate unblock of Friday; his role in the bickering was minimal. Sean William 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Naconkantari was fair in blocking them all; I just don't think any of them should have been blocked and I don't see how it helps the matter. --Iamunknown 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, i don't see how it helps; it wasn't a content dispute, it wasn't a wheel war, it was a dispute over who had the right to get in the last word at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking them all. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Naconkantari for submitting the blocks for review here. There obviously isn't consensus for them. I think we can release the blocks now. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to support unblocking all of them, so the blocking admins should act accordingly and let us never speak of this again. And undelete the talk page, please. Thanks in advance. El_C 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about undelete and indefinitely protect, I fear that it will only attract trolling. --Iamunknown 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks, endorse unblocks _InBC 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed bold for emphasis. I guess no one thought of protection instead of block-delete... El_C 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked the lot of them. – Steel 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page can also be UNdeleted. I don't think anybody is going to be edit warring there again soon. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(ecx13)I have no objections to removing the blocks. I felt that this was the best course of action to stop the fighting, as fully protecting the page would have brought cries of protecting the wrong version and deleting the page would bring cries of cover-up and would muck up DRV for another week. Naconkantari 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy here the only two edits that I made to the page in question. You tell me how I was "edit warring".

• Yeah, nobody can honestly claim that they didn't see it coming. If you disagree with it, try to change the RFC process ... but this deletion was on solid ground.
• "Incontinent"? I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means.

Nacontankari, you owe me one hell of an explanation. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion page should be undeleted, as this has relevant discussion on it. Or shall I bring this to WP:DRV? DES 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is right, he wasn't edit warring. Neither was Friday. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I restored the talk page with the following edit summary: As the admin who deleted the RfC, I think I should have been consulted. Especially since I outline my reasons for deletion here and the discussion was ongoing. I hope that's okay. Thanks again. El_C 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this boils down to this. Giano posts trolling calling another user "a powerless spent force" "incontinent and impotent" and "too old". When it is removed as an unhelpful personal attack, he repeatedly reinserts the trolling. But because Giano has the famous 'free-pass' on personal attacks, he can't be disciplined for this. So, in frustration at his immunity, an admin comes up with the wheeze of blocking both Giano and the person removing the trolling. "See that's fair." Yes, it is. In the same world where we equally punish the good and the bad! I don't blame Naconkantari here - I blame the intolerable mess that led us to this. (And before someone says I was edit warring - yes I was - justifiably, I'd say - but I'd already told Naconkantari that I would not remove the trolling again - so this block was not preventative.--Doca pox on the boxes 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

if you must quote me Doc, please do it correctly and in context otherwise peole may think you are deliberatly misleading them, anyone wanting to know what I said precisely please check history or wherever it hes been removed to. Giano 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the only editor on this project that has a "free pass" is Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but this is the free pass that's relevant to these blockings.--Doca pox on the boxes 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a desysopping. Maybe later rather than now, but definitely a desysopping

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

I thoroughly agree with NYBrad's that these "blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level." I also wonder where the blocking admin has been all the time.

First of all it has been repeatedly shown that the "cool-off" blocks only make matters worse.

What's more, the recent series of desysoppings has shown that unilateral blocks by the admins who are so eager to exercise powers that can't wait to confer and ask for advise get repeatedly desysopped. A bunch of names can be provided upon request. Extremely silly, harmful action no less harmful than past such actions by other eager-blocking admins.

Whether this will or won't be at ArbCom this time, mark my words that the community or ArbCom will desysop Naconkantari later if not sooner because another feature of trigger-happy self-important admins is inability to reform themselves. --Irpen 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not helpful. – Steel 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Steel is right. Let's assume good faith, even if we think the admin in question erred. Heimstern Läufer 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to run to the Arbitration Committee for every administrative dispute. El_C 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the actions were trying to calm down a situation and all is sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Punitive. Sean William 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but, in this case, taking someone out back behind the shed and repeatedly spanking them is impractical, even if one of the blockees was your big buddy. An effort, though not the correct one, was at least made here to calm a situation here. // Pilotguy radar contact 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the blocked, I'd say the blocking was a weak call, but done in good faith. No blame on the blocker.--Doca pox on the boxes 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you all have already seen this and this. -- Pastor David _(Review) 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as blocks should be preventative, not putative, the same should go with de-sysoping. _InBC 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Naconkantari quits

Aaaannnddd ... he's gone. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Annnd? Too bad I was editing the encyclopedia; had I seen it, I would have just protected the page. Then no one would have had to quit and everyone could have just blamed myself. El_C 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That's a pity. He was wrong in his blocks of at least Cyde and Friday, but errors are made in situations which seem to be spiraling out of control, and he certainly did the right thing in bringing it here for review. I hope he will be able to take a break and come back with less stress. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Errors happen. Then we pick up where we left off. --Iamunknown 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really get this. I've no real beef with his blocks, they were Bold, IAR, and good faith - even if wrong-headed. he doesn't come out of this too badly IMO. But what's problem now? He didn't need to get involved at all. If the situation stressed him, he should have just given it a wide berth.--Doc 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking with him on IRC and it appears that he didn't do any research into the blocks at all. Once he looked back at what he did, especially to Friday and I, who were in no way deserving of it, he probably felt ashamed and thought that this was his best way out. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has been jumping to quick conclusions this whole thread and in the lead-up to it. Let's see if Naconkantari stays gone - I suspect not. Grandmasterka 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming all too frequent I expect Cyde is correct, anyhow hopefully he will learn by his mistakes and it will be a valuable lesson for him. No doubt he will be back soon a better person for the experience Giano 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Without trying to cause a conflict on the above dispute, the above page is still fully protected on grounds of a dispute, with the discussion here now closed, where are people supposed to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is over? --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further issues can be resolved on the user talk pages, or an application for unprotection can be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss my deletion of the RfC on my talk page. El_C 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully support deletion, but what's the point in keeping it undeleted if it's protected? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I've always kept the talk pages of deleted RfCs intact and I see no compelling reason to change that practice now. El_C 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest removing the disputed template from the top? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. El_C 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is this dispute settled? Don't say in userspace because that's not what the tag suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just how the tag is designed. I can modify it if it's really important to you. Anyway, the point of having it undeleted even if it is protected (which happned after undeletion) is that it can still be read by non-admins. El_C 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm really not that bothered to be honest, but it just seams a bit stupid to have a template on the page saying it's disputed with no-where to go to settle the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified it to read something more generic. Hope that helps. El_C 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for clarifying the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullies in a Barrel, or "Delete/Undelete/Call Names/Block"

What fresh hell you folks manage to make. Let's see: Cyde doesn't like Giano. That's surprising. Doc likes Kelly. Big surprise there, too. David Gerrard likes Kelly. Check. I don't. Ok. Now, to that, let's add selective hypersensitivity to what Giano says and immediate choruses of "free pass" and "cool down blocks." Right: so far, this is all according to the script. If we stay true to the path, we'll have someone totally uninvolved who somehow (gee, don't know how...couldn't be misrepresentations on IRC) gets tricked into blocking people. Ooooh, and we have that, too! Wheeeeeeee! Now we're in the "I was right all along, and I'm mad, and the other people were always wrong, and I'm mad" phase.

This is nauseating.

Confer. If a page's deletion is controversial, speak to the people protesting with an eye to finding a way to satisfy them. Have we learned nothing? (Right, of course we haven't.) Deleting it, painting the discussion brown and "archiving" it, and hiding it won't solve anything. It will make the people who disagree disagree more. Since these people are important, that's demonstrably unwise. If a page is going to get deleted on procedural grounds, try to find another solution other than breaking process to keep it.

Confer.

Block no one. Let every observer beware: If you're on IRC and any of the above names (including mine) approaches you to tell you about the awful things being done by any of the other people, do not block. It's a trick. You're being a sap. You're being played. Do not block. Do not block. Sit tight, investigate, research, listen, and tell the person telling you how awful the other guy is to try to work things out in discussion. As for the people named above: cut it the hell out. You may or may not be children in body, but you're damn sure being childish here. Geogre 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geogre. Could you explain what relationship this matter has to David Gerard? --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know it needed to. Didn't know I was accusing anyone. However, everyone is acting so predictably, so stupidly, and so according to the past that it's hardly worth watching which particular person spoke this time. David Gerrard was all over the RfC, along with faithful Cyde, in saying, "There is nothing here! <insult of complainer>" and then "It's a vendetta!" Yes, yes, yes. There cannot be any reason for all of these people independently complaining about one person. Pure coincidence or insidious plot, I'm sure. Meanwhile, let there be any discussion on AN/I, and it gets "archived" in an hour. "The discussion is OVER," we're told. We are told this by people who cannot see why anyone would dislike being told things. I'm pretty weary of the same childish statements from the same accounts, and always, surprisingly, around Kelly -- who, of course, is totally sinned against and never sinning. Heck, just mention Kelly and it's obligatory that someone will bring up Giano. It's like a residual haunting, except that a different face ends up being the one tricked into blocking every time. That's the tragedy, that's the hell. I repeat: if you are approached by any of these people, or by me, and urged to block one of the others: don't do it. Geogre 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano brought up himself, it would seem to me. Speaking as someone who normally likes Giano a lot and thinks he's got a good mindset, no one provoked him into coming to the RFC and say "Kelly Martin has been ruined because she messed with me", that was all on his own. You can't throw a grenade into a tent and then expect sympathy when the occupants come after you, weapons drawn. There may be a lot of situations where Giano is baited and treated unfairly, but I don't see this as one of them. Eh. And for the record, this isn't a minority bullying the rest, quite a few people supported K-mart in this RFC. Milto LOL pia 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's correct to say that Giano inserted himself into the RFC. That he's unable to express himself without making the grossest personal attacks doesn't really excuse those who respond to him (Ignore all Kelly Martins also means Ignore all Gianos).

As to the block, it was well meant but misconceived and (in case Geogre is interested) was actively canvassed against on the administrators' channel. If I'd thought a block would help, I wouldn't have hesitated to suggest one, but the situation as was known accurately from minute to minute on IRC, in a way that is never as readily apparent on the wiki, clearly indicated that the edit warring was coming to an end and no block or protection was needed. --Tony Sidaway 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See how much nonsense is being caused over fighting over who gets to post coments on a talk page? People think they're clearing up "disruption" and end up causing a crossposted cat fight... just look at the the theatric title of this header. At what point are these perpetual feuders going to lay down their arms and get over it already? Everyone would do themselves a favor to just not reply to this or any more Giano/Kelly Martin threads, it's not going to get anything but worse. Milto LOL pia 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Geogre. I just noticed that you mentioned David Gerard and some other people and then you went off into a familiar jeremiad about IRC. Nothing I haven't seen before, but I wondered why you happened to drop David's name in there. If you can't explain it, that makes two of us. You may have noticed that the RfC itself was dropped for lack of certification. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because, on the RfC himself, he was trying to get the thing gone and because, on AN/I before, he has said that he has no concern at all for what other people think. Since I was describing the usual behavior of people who don't believe in conferring with anyone, who believe that their insults are truth while anyone else with truth is an insult that should be blocked, it fit. As for "familiar" rants about IRC, you believe that the edit warring was accurately described on IRC minute by minute? That's enough condemnation of IRC for anyone, I would imagine. If one partisan thinks that IRC has been accurately keeping tabs, that's a great sign that it isn't. "Minute by minute" sounds exciting. I wonder why Misplaced Pages isn't a great big happy funtime webforum or a party line telephone call. Oh, right....rules and procedures and trying to get input from all sides -- some of us absurdly still believe in those things. Geogre 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't even go eat dinner without you silly sausages turning Misplaced Pages into lunchtime at the primate house. A pox on all of you, Geogre included. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh, block for personal attack! Block for personal attack! (I have antibiotics, thanks.) Geogre 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more pointless drama here than a bad community theater. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

User:89.100.195.42 already warned, and blocked three days ago , has added another abusive rant ("You are all a shower of murdering, denigrating bastards who make it all so much worse by denying it to educated "Paddies" like this writer in 2007. Go fuck yourself") not once, but twice . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Nick. WODUP 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently shared account

Someone want to look into this. I am at work. Viridae 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. See block log DES 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 6 minutes after I posted - quick work. 131.172.4.45 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison block and subsequent unblock by Guettarda

This has all the makings of a Wheel War that should be nipped in the bud. See here for the exchange. User:Tom harrison blocked a few users/IPs for BLP violations on Template:Dominionism. It appears to be the same user making numerous edits with same content. User:Guettarda unblocked them without discussion. He left less than kind remarks on Tom harrisons page. .. From the discussion page, it appears that these are legitimate BLP violations. It is unclear to me whether reverting BLP violations is considered being involved in an "edit war" and therefore requires a different admin. It appears that other admins believe this to be the case however. This seems to be a grey area as reverting vandalism is not considered being involved in an edit war. My thoughts:

• Since multiple admins consider the blocks to be inappropriate, Tom harrison should refrain from BLP blocks on this article.
• Admins should not undue blocks even if they consider them inappropriate without discussion.
• The comments left by admins when they undue another admins blocks should not be inflammatory since that doesn't help to achieve consensus but rather creates admin confrontation as we seem to have now.

Informal remedy:

• User:Tom harrison doesn't block people for BLP violations to Template:Dominionism. He can continue to revert under BLP policy and report to BLP noticeboard.
• User:Guettarda removes himself from any further action with regard to Tom Harrison's conduct. He certainly has other avenues to influence Tom's behavior without direct, escalating conflict.

--Tbeatty 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had protected that page earlier this month. It certainly has BLP implications, since its point is to associate various people or their pet organizations with whatever "dominionism" is (I have only the slightest idea). Unfortunately it is impossible to tell what is reliably sourced in a template that has no references, and the edit wars keep going on. Because of the relationship to BLP it's hard to block people for edit warring. If I thought that it would get deleted I would nominate it for deletion at TfD. CMummert · talk 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Tom Harrison should not issue blocks for that page, since he has been actively reverting there. CMummert · talk 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let one of the hundreds of uninvolved admins make the call. Milto LOL pia 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are responding to Tbeatty or to me. I am quite uninvolved in any content dispute in this template. CMummert · talk 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No one in particular, just adding what's probably the best idea... I know from experience that persons using sysop toolz in pages they are editing for content is highly time-wasteful. If you're uninvolved and want to handle it, I think that's a good idea. Milto LOL pia 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the template not be deleted at this point, because I think it can be useful. There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo another admin's actions. Our policy on biographies of living people says, in part, "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel." I appreciate Tbeatty's suggestions, but I plan to keep following our policy as I have been. I will remove unsourced controversial material, and block users or protect the template as necessary. I appreciate comments. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, I will leave the template and related pages for someone else to deal with. Tom Harrison 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made bold something that people seem to be ignoring. Tom Harrison 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one haven't been ignoring that, but I don't think it is so clear cut here, since some users claim they have presented sources. In any case, I will be watching the page very closely for a week or so, and I set up a workshop page to make these claimed sources easier to evaluate. CMummert · talk 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not a given. I've argued that the sources support the content in the template and that's there's no BLP issues, but I'm amenable to changing my opinion given the right evidence from the right contributors; that just hasn't happened yet. To that end I've pinged several arbcom members for their personal opinions, and once I have those, I'l abide with their say. In the meantime, Tom shouldn't be blocking anyone he's engaged a direct content conflict with. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you reference the conflict? The only contributions that I saw were Tom's reverts of what he considered BLP violations. I don't think that qualifies as a "direct conflict" otherwise no admin would be able to fix a BLP issue and then blcok the offender. That definition of conflict would also apply to vandalism reverts and it's simply not the standard. I would think that disagreements regarding BLP would error on the side of caution with goal of consensus. Not the standard of "inclusion until proven wrong." I thought Guettarda was heavy handed and incivil in his comments and threats and it looked like we were headed for a wheel war. Everyone seems to be working in good faith towards improving the encyclopedia but disparaging other admins actions were uncalled for. Tom may be mistaken about BLP applying here, but there is no justification for the editor to continue to add the information. The editor was clearly edit warring and Guettarda unblocked him to make a WP:POINT. --Tbeatty 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created Template talk:Dominionism/Workshop to faciliate the evaluation of references for inclusion of names in the template. If editors repeatedly add material to the article without posting references there, I reserve the right to block them under WP:EW and following User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts. When reliable sources are provided there, however, it will no longer be acceptable to remove material citing the BLP policy. I hope this brings some measure of objectivity to the discussion. CMummert · talk 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such blocks from you are any less problematic than those of Tom or would withstand scrutiny considering your past activity and statements there. I suggest admins there need to chill on the blocks. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My only previous activity there was to warn everyone about 3RR and protect the page for a week. I originally thought that BLP was most relevant to the names of individuals, but someone since them pointed out to me that BLP might also apply to names of pet organizations that are strongly associated with an individual. I have never had any stake in the content; my goal was, and is, for the edit warring to stop. CMummert · talk 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if Tom's only edits are reverts, he can block for BLP. Since admins disagree that these are BLP violations, we are in a grey area. For purposes of civility, I think the blocks needs to end lest overzealous admins block Tom. I didn't see any content edits by Tom, only reverts of BLP violations and whence this wasn't an "edit war." I did not think the messages left by Guettarda were appropriate or civil nor was the unblock without discussion. --Tbeatty 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this initially but Tom previously posted his block here. I think this shows tom has acted appropriatley throughout. --Tbeatty 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that might be the case were it not for Tom arguing over a simple content dispute for the last 2 weeks on the talk page and offering very partisan personal opinions on the topic of Dominionism at the Dominionism article and its talkpage. That places him squarely in the realm of an involved party, far from being a neutral broker on the issue. He'd be well advised to cease blocking those he's argued with in the past; he's in a very compromised position. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dominionism article is one thing, but a template has inherent POV problems, since it presents a black-and-white view of the subject with no room for discussion or included citations. This is similar to the situation with categories, and there have been similar problems with categories. If Tom is in a compromised position, I would argue it is because BLP policy says he should. It might still be better to get second opinions before blocking, just to keep things neater, but I think Tom is on fairly solid ground here so far. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New User, New Vandal

I am a liar hasn't been with us for long, but (s)he's beginning what might become a vandalism-only account. Best to nip it in the bud. C1k3 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I gave him a final warning. If he persists, take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block as inappropriate username. 75.62.7.22 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain if this is a big deal, but...

I was reading on Digg.com a story about some HD-DVD protection key thing that got leaked, and surprise surprise, one of the comments revealed that the number is now a Misplaced Pages article, created earlier today. Not being well versed in the ways of the DMCA, i'm not really certain if this is legal or not to be on Misplaced Pages, (Might want to remove the number from my comment if it isn't legal) but it seems....questionable the way i'm reading this issue. Supposedly its a growing sort of leak now that's spreading around all over the place, so if this article does get deleted, I have a feeling it might get resubmitted in some other form as an article, and therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to notify people here in case something weird starts happening. Homestarmy 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page was redirected, but the number's still there as a redirect.... Homestarmy 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the redirect was deleted. Homestarmy 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It might or might not belong in an article about copy protection or HD-DVD. It certainly doesn't belong as an article, and its a ridiculous redirect (potential liability aside). Thatcher131 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of the de-css case, the DMCA was interpreted to not only make hosting of infringing content illegal, but hyperlinks to it illegal as well. For that reason, it should not at all be on wikipedia, other than maybe a brief mention in the HD-DVD that it was cracked. ⇒ SWATJester 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Xodexx

Would somebody please delete and salt Xodexx? Lots of anons making personal attacks on the page. Corvus cornix 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now salinated. Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Protected titles, plz? --Iamunknown 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats

User:72.199.45.205 threatened to murder anyone who reverted his edits. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)!

Blocked. Only 2 edits were extremely gross vandalism, and the threat. ⇒ SWATJester 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate link was reverted by a bot

The article Age_of_Conan:_Hyborian_Adventures has an out-of-date link to a guild website (guild is "The Hand of Set"). I updated the link, creating this article version. Then the well-meaning User:Shadowbot thought it was spam and reverted it, creating this article version. I received a message telling me the link was removed because it matched a rule "invisionfree\.com" but that site is hosting the bona fide, current, active website for the guild, a guild that has been listed in & linked from the article since September 2006. Thank you for your time. 67.165.120.204 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is spam, and none of those sites are notable or worthy of mention. ⇒ SWATJester 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the game is not even in open beta....signups just went out less than a month ago. There is no need for a listing of "guilds"....every game has them, few if any are nearly a sliver of the notability threshold for inclusion. And certainly not before the game is even released, or even in beta. ⇒ SWATJester 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodwinder (talk · contribs)

• Someone needs to help me with this guy before I lose my cool with him even more than I have already. He created the article Rex Liu which was deleted as a db-bio, and then recreated it. I tagged it and it was erased, and since then, he has vandalized Rancho Verde High School (an article I created) and incessantly whined on my talk page about how I'm "indiscriminately deleting" his articles, even though I've told him repeatedly that I'm not an admin, have no power to delete, and I only tagged one of his articles that had already been deleeted. It's gotten to the point where I've told him "Since I cannot do anything to help you get what you want, I'm ignoring your messages". But he continues to repost his rants on my talk page. Can someone tell him what's what so he can leave me alone? JuJube 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clarification: Jujube initiated contact with me regarding my postings, and despite the fact that I repeatedly made it clear to him that I am a new contributer and so am not familiar with how the system works, his attitude was rude and intolerant. He did not tell me "repeatedly that not an admin, no power to delete" (see what seems to be my talk page for verification). He stated, for example, that he hated "having to explain the same thing twice" despite mentioning finally and for the very first time several things that significantly clarified things for me. He mentioned my reposting the article after it had been erased. I had thought that I deleted it, which I intended to do once by clearing the article and rewriting it. I did not know whether or not this counted as deleting an article. I am willing to provide a transcript of all our communications. As I do not know of any other way of communicating with him, I posted my messages to him on his "talk" page. However, he has repeatedly deleted these postings as well (a copy of these are available as well). This dispute could have been averted if he has explained things clearly from the start, and in a much more pleasant tone, instead of assuming that I knew he was not admin and what privileges he does or does not have. I have to say his approach and attitude does not seem very conducive to the growth of the wikipedia community. Woodwinder
    • He did tell you that repeatedly, from the start, and in a very civil manner, right on your talk page. This doesn't make much sense. Grandmasterka 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only partly true. The following information was only made clear in his final communication on my talk page: 1) he only marked the page and did not delete it (that is the marker is not the same person that deletes it) 2) he is not an admin 3) he is not able to delete the page 4) he did not delete my other posting

The only things that were repeated were: 1) his instructions for me not to repost deleted pages 2) wikipedia criteria for article deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwinder (talk • contribs)

This seems to be a good example of why we have policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I think it would do well for both of you to just forget about this situation and head your separate ways until you feel cool enough to open a civil dialogue. --Chris (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) Reread your own talk page. That's far from the truth. Do we have a troll on our hands? Grandmasterka 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit I don't see where JuJube said that he didn't delete the page himself, or where he said he's not an admin prior to the last remark. Can you paste the diff for when he did? --Chris (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, he did say "I only marked Rex Liu for deletion", but I can see where confusion might have arisen from that. Still, Woodwinder was harrassing JuJube even after he explained everything, and even after JuJube told him to stop. That's the greater concern. Grandmasterka 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I admit it wasn't clear before I said so. I should probably have a big stamp on my user page and user talk page saying "I'M NOT AN ADMIN", because people are quick to assume I am one for some reason. JuJube 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • While it's obvious I messed up at being civil, can it be clarified at what point I messed up policy-wise before I snapped at his hounding of my user talk page? I followed procedure up to the point where Rex Liu got deleted and Woodwinder started to vandalize Rancho Verde High School. JuJube 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to your concern, Grandmasterka, I believe I reposted on my three replies on JuJube 's talk page once after they had all been removed. Seeing that they had been removed again, I reposted with the note that I was going to lodge a complaint. Since then I have made no additional posts on his page. As a new person, I naturally assumed that the person who marks a page for deletion is the same person who eventually deletes it. I can also see how a more experienced person might not realize this, knowing how things really work. I'm willing to move pass this as an unfortunate case of mutual misunderstanding. Woodwinder
    • Yeah, this was pretty dumb all around. Grandmasterka 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

His communications with me are not on my talk page anymore, but are easily available on my history page. I also haven't erased anything from Woodwinder's talk page. JuJube 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, read my talk page. Those details were only communicated to me in JuJube's final comment.-Woodwinder

I've read all of the dialogue here and the only thing that seems obvious to me is that you've both violated WP:CIVIL and neither of you are following WP:AGF. Again I advise both of you to go your separate ways and forget about this, or it could turn into a bigger deal than either of you want it to be. --Chris (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 again

After we talk about procedural problems with this RFC lets solve about the original problem. Kelly trolls of RFAs that is disruptive for one of our major processes. It should be stopped. I would rather not to do this job as I have a history with disagreements with Kelly. Any volunteers for the job? Alex Bakharev 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... huh? JuJube 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take, Alex? --Hemlock Martinis 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best course of action be to just ignore it? Hard for it to be really disruptive when nobody pays this whole wikiproject idea any attention. MichaelLinnear 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one's going to block or ban her anytime soon, which is the only conceivable way I know to stop it. Please, let's drop this until something else happens and it goes to ArbCom. Grandmasterka 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just ask any of her friends to talk about her disruptive behavior. If disruption will continue I am going to block her that I would rather avoid Alex Bakharev 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please remember to assume good faith. It isn't acceptable to attempt to sabotage a person's participation in RFA by misrepresenting their behavior. Kelly has said that she'll support candidates for RFA if they get a Wikiproject endorsement. She's entitled to make that promise, even if you think it's unlikely to be fulfillable by the candidate, because the candidate is free to refrain from trying to obtain her support. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly knows pretty well that no mechanism for enforcing of admin candidates via wikiprojects exists and morover all non trivial discussion of a candidate will be seen as violations of WP:CANVASS. I am usually good in applying AGF but here I fail Alex Bakharev 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Canvassing guideline that would preclude a WikiProject nominating candidates for administrator, and if any such thing did exist in that guideline it would be an error and should be removed. This sounds like a terribly contrived reason to describe Kelly's reasonable offer as disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's three discussion about, relatively, the same user. This seems to be a serious matter so could the discussion be kept to only one topic of discussion, as it gets extremely confusing? --Kzrulzuall 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, a block would cause way more disruption than we're already having, for heavens' sakes. Sheesh. 75.62.7.22 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of another "troll" who somehow managed to force edit counts into RFA in the same way, and look where that left us! Brrr, scary times. --Kim Bruning 08:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people make impossible demands at RFA, just live with it. There was someone who decided that they would make their support conditional upon a candidate writing a featured article. I don't recall anybody trying to muzzle them, even though it was pretty much agreed that such a condition would be hard-to-impossible to fulfil for many otherwise-perfectly-good candidates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people who has written FAs. There are nothing impossible about it (though may be difficult). Obtaining Wikiproject Endorsement is impossible because we simply have no process for it. It is not different from the demand to obtain endorsement from Santa Claus or from President of the United States. Impossible demands are trolling and possibly WP:POINT. Continuus disruption is bad and should be stopped Alex Bakharev 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  "We have no process for it" is a pathetic excuse. Pop a notice on a wikiproject of which you're an active member, saying you plan to run for admin, and would they hold a discussion and decide whether they want to endorse your application. If you're lucky, they hold the discussion and agree to do it. It's a lot easier than writing a featured article by yourself. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You people "don't remember" anyone trying to "put a muzzle" on the person wanting an FA? Good Lord, are you serious? We may have found a person to replace Roberto Gonzales. In fact, when we have had ceremonial oppose/support votes, we have had those votes discounted, and we have had people blocked for it and RFAR's over the matter, or simple blocks. This would not occur in this case because of the Super Friends who would prevent or tie up any such moves, but don't pretend that it's not different treatment for Snowball. I was aghast at one of the Super Friends saying that hopefully we won't get any more admins who believe in following the rules soon. All I can say is that such persons might have gotten confused and thought World of Misplaced Pages was World of Warcraft, as they sure are trying to make a faction of trolls. Geogre 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reqest for blocking: Jacob Peters, again

68.121.85.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of banned user Jacob Peters. Please block. This is definitely him: LA IP, general pro-Communist trolling, etc. Moreschi 09:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring observation

I have noticed that AnonMoos (talk · contribs) and Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs) are continually reverting Rafida, User talk:AnonMoos, User:Dreamz rosez, and User talk:Dreamz rosez. Each one claiming to be 3RR warning a vandal...while subsequently reverting their own 3RR warnings as harassment by a vandal...and all the while bouncing the article (even though it went to semi-protection). Someone may want to point out to both editors that they need to stay WP:COOL. 24.218.222.86 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreamz rosez is the latest morph of the "Iraqi Dinar" vandal whose activities are documented in painstaking in detail on page Talk:Rafida -- he's the reason the article went to semi-protection in the first place (though I had to lobby multiple times for it). He's continuing his past harassment activities (which have included sockpuppetry, and stalking along behind me to revert my edits on unrelated articles). AnonMoos 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's as clear cut as that, then you should have no problem having their account blocked at WP:AIV. Edit warring with a vandal is not useful and destroys page histories. 24.218.222.86 10:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also look into how to use the Template:Sockpuppet and stop using an article talk page (Talk:Rafida) as a documentation site for sockpuppets. 24.218.222.86 10:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Free toast

Some vandal keeps creating articles such as Free toast and Free toast. along with a few other variations, utilizing about a dozen sockpuppets so far. When one gets blocked, he comes back with a new IP and recreates the article. I'm not sure what to do other than keep blocking. I'd like to list it on WP:RFCU, but it says to try other things first, without specifying what of course. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens all the time. I've deleted these articles several times, blocked a few of the socks, and protected some of the recreated pages. The smarter vandals soon realize the pointlessness of what they are doing - for the idiots, like this one apparently, it takes a bit longer. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the users who recreate the articles and salting the recreated articles themselves is the best bet. CMummert · talk 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hallenrm and Energy

This message is to request a reversion of all the edits, splits, and moves made on the energy article by User:Hallenrm in the past 24 hours. User:Hallenrm appears to be a good faith editor who has become protective of the energy article to the point of disallowing other editors' modifications of his contributions, and who has become obsessive about making changes to the article. His recent changes were large, contentious, and performed without discussion. I am unable to move his Energy(Physics) back to the original Energy spot, which he has turned into a second disambigation page for the set of topics. It would be helpful if one or more administrators evaluated this problem. Thanks much, Robert K S 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A side effect of this users poorly-implemented actions is that Energy (disambiguation) is no longer linked into these pages. I need some time to figure out everything that has been done. CMummert · talk 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the situation. The Energy article was very long, so an editor unilaterally decided to split it into pieces. The split probably would have eventually happened anyway, but it was done with minimal discussion. I sprinkled some comments around to try to start discussion on the final disposition of the content. CMummert · talk 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing of references

User:Tankred deleted a section from the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, under this: "A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002."

The incriminated section:

"Dusan Čaplovič, the vice-president of the Smer party, has called for the banning of singing the Hungarian national anthem in Catholic Churches, claiming that this is disloyal to Slovakia. Even Robert Fico, current prime minister and leader of the Smer party, has made controversial statements in this regard as well."

In reality, the references, as the whole section was NOT added by User:VinceB.

It was just moved from Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article, by infed banned User:VinceB. Into Anti-hungarian sentiment article, indef banned (for two month - LOL) User:Juro moved from Slovakization article.

So in fact, this section was added into Slovakization article, as well as the refences, by User:Alphysikist .

The fisrt parto of deleting reason (A source added by a later banned user proved not to be accurate. Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002.) is obviously wrong then. About inaccuracy: as you see, the deleted section does not claim, what Tankred states. Section says, Caplovic was "vice-president of the Smer party". No "Caplovic was deputy minister" is written in that, nor dates, so "Caplovic was not a deputy prime minister in 2002." part of the deleting reason is an obvious misleading for the recent changes patrollers.

All in all

• It was fully added by another user, User:Alphysikist, not a banned one.
• The section does not claim that Caplovic was prime minister (or any similar). Nor mentioning 2002 or any date, and nor in that kind of a context, so it is, as deleting reason is an obvious misleading.
• Tankred claimed many times before, that he's not speaking Hungarian, but here, claimes the sources are inaccurate. Well, they're not. http://www.stars21.com/ - a good page or text translator. for en-hu-en.

I ask for blocking him, for this. --195.56.51.196 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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