Revision as of 19:24, 22 June 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Current issues

Deletion and redirect request

Action requested: That Haruyoshi Hyakutate be deleted and redirected, along with a redirect for Seikichi Hyakutake, to the Harukichi Hyakutake article.

Background: The kanji for Hyakutake's given name can be read as Haruyoshi, Seikichi, or Harukichi. No documentation apparently exists that documents which reading Hyakutake preferred, but Harukichi appears to be the most common in availble sources (see list of references for Guadalcanal campaign). I've already merged the information from the Haruyoshi article into the Harukichi article. The merge tags have been on both pages since January 2007 and no one else has commented on the proposal. Therefore, appears to be non-controversial and uncontested. CLA 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks fine, but can you not just replace the page with a redir, rather than deleting? It's important to preserve the article's edit history, least of all to show at a later date as to how the merge went and what happened. - Alison ☺ 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of redirecting both the Haruyoshi and Seikichi pages to Harukichi Hyakutake. -- Jonel | Speak 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the quick response. CLA 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous threats....

Yesterday and the day before that I took the time to proved the page Baccara with a detailed discography and also making a few minor - note: minor - edits to the existing biography. Today I received this rather unpleasant and anonymous message:

Please stop modifying Baccara's article This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, and it's written by close friends to both María and Mayte. Indeed, it's a mere translation from the Spanish article. At least tell us your ideas in the discussion page before you tear apart our work. Take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies. If you keep modifying the article, it loses its neutral point of view. Thanks in advance. And by the way, there's no such thing as an extended version of "Sleepy-Time-Toy". The difference between 7" and 12" was the sound quality. Any more changes, and we'll have to make a vandalism report.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dreamer.se"

Any reactions?

S.

Well, it was an unsigned message from Oaobregon (talk · contribs) who seems to have ownership issues around the Baccara article and, given your good faith edits, should probably tone it down a bit. Then again, have you tried discussing it with them or mentioning it on the article talk page? It's a little early for admin intervention - Alison ☺ 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About our discussion with User:Dreamer.se... Well, we're not against changes and improvements to any article. But do you consider more than 20 changes in one single day healthy to the article? At first, we didn't revert his changes because they were, indeed, good ideas. But when he added an "extended version" of the single "Sleepy-Time-Toy", we did revert it because that "extended version" does not even exist. When reverting, we did give a good reason, but he just didn't care and kept on modifying it with something that is not true. We told him: <<There's no such thing as an "extended version" of "Sleepy-Time-Toy". The difference between 7" and 12" was the sound quality.>> Don't you think this was a good reason to revert this modification? And next, he added a table with some chart positions (copied from the German Misplaced Pages) that is not entirely verifiable. As we understand, Misplaced Pages's articles must contain facts, not gossip. Once again, we thank any positive contribution... But don't you think any major changes should be first discussed in the article's appropriate page? User:Oaobregon

In what way were the edits disruptive? Was the information untrue? I agree that the editor might want to use the Show preview button more often, but unless the information is untrue, a BLP violation, or unsourced, then to remove it and threaten a vandalism warning is over the top. Please review WP:OWN. Corvus cornix 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They should probably also review the prohibition on role accounts. You each need to get a separate account on English Misplaced Pages. Natalie 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Misplaced Pages talk:Schoolcruft

Since 14:26, 18 June 2007 (diff), Alansohn has engaged in disrupting editing on Misplaced Pages talk:Schoolcruft to the point where users are becoming significantly frustrated at their inability to achieve an appropriate resolution to the specific users' concerns despite reasonable and continued attempts to do so. The user has also specifically attempted to breach the spirit of WP:CANVAS by attempting to bring like-minded users into ongoing discussions relating to his discussions on the talk page in question.(diff) This has now escalated to the point where the user has been significantly WikiLawyering and falsely accusing users of making threats towards the user and engaging in personal attacks.(diff - refer to edit summary) He has also engaged in the same editorial practices that he has continued to accuse others of.(diff) Further to this, the user has gone within minutes of committing a WP:3RR violation on the essay itself (diff1 diff2 diff3), and as an experienced user with over 37,000 edits and using his account since May 2005, should have known better.

Further to this, the user is more than aware of WP:3RR having been blocked on 23 February 2007 for a 3RR violation on Springfield Park Elementary School.(user logs)

From information received from other editors, it appears on the face of it that the user has been engaged in a long history of poor editorial and consensus building practices despite such issues being constantly raised with him.(list of issues relating to users editorial practices). Thewinchester 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft article contained a statement on dealing with "Schoolcruft" that insisted that "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." I was struck by the incivility of a statement that those who have been involved in a content dispute regarding school articles must inevitably be punished through the AN/I process if they have a disagreement on wording. After reviewing discussion and previous edits, I followed the "Please update the page as needed" invitation at the top of the essay and changed this to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with.", among other changes () to address the clear WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations; this change was reverted (). At this edit, the text was changed to the even more offensive "... AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." In turn, I proposed the compromise wording of "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with.", which in turn was reverted back to the new and more offensive version. A third and final attempt was made to address the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations, which in turn was reverted back to the newer blatantly offensive version. As it was clear that the two individuals involved were blocking any effort to address the problems with the article, I made no further changes to the essay. There was no violation of WP:3RR policy. All of my edits to the section in question were made in good faith, retained the basic sense of the text in question, and were made to address clear violations of Misplaced Pages policy.

• On the talk page compromise wording was proposed by User:TerriersFan, who had also been effectively blocked from making changes to the article by User:Thewinchester's bullying and abuse. I indicated my general acceptance with this wording, noting that "the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances.", only to be informed (at ) that this agreed upon suggestion to deal with the issues involved did not need to be addressed or considered. Attempts to discuss the multiple Misplaced Pages policy violations involved in this article were met with increasing threats, bullying and multiple personal attacks (see , for some of the more egregious examples). Ultimately, in response to an acknowledgment that the wording was "less bad" than before, came the proof of the poison in the pudding: at this edit, Thewinchester insisted that the efforts to discuss the largely closed issue demonstrated that my expression of opinion on the issue was "just crying out for spanking at WP:ANI" and concluding with an yet another shameless WP:NPA personal attack to "go back to New Jersey and continue create useless redirects for bus route numbers".

• User:Thewinchester has shown abundant bad faith in writing the offensive WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay, and in his use of bullying, threats and personal attacks in dealing with constructive criticism from me and other experienced editors (see , ), and has chosen the path of incivility in dealing with a series of constructive suggestions. There is no consensus on the wording of this section; the equal number of editors who disagree with the offensive wording were bullied one by one into walking away from the article in disgust, a path I had already chosen. Just as shooting horses is seen as the only option to deal with many equine veterinary ailments, User:Thewinchester has decided that WP:ANI is the solution to deal with any and all Misplaced Pages problems, as he has done here. In dealing with the supposed "schoolcruft" issue, Thewinchester has demonstrated a persistent refusal to consider reasoned discussion and proposed compromise, and has used bullying and threats, abusing the WP:ANI process in an effort to circumvent violations of Misplaced Pages official policy and to suppress any suggestion that he disagrees with. Alansohn 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In a conversation with another user (see here), which I assume was supposed to be unseen, User:Thewinchester made a hate-filled rant that those who disagree with him have to be dealt with through "appropriate procedural action", a process that he has abused, is abusing, and will continue to abuse. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there was no good faith involved here. Rather than dealing with the Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft article's Misplaced Pages violations in a proper fashion, the sole goal of the process was to make a WP:POINT through bullying and provocation, as he himself has acknowledged and bragged about. I had hoped to make a constructive change to a less than constructive essay; In response, this AN/I, and User:Thewinchester's responses to those who have shown any disagreement with him, are part of a self-described premeditated effort to let anyone who disagrees with his own personal biases know that "they get dealt with accordingly". Alansohn 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And let's not omit this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm." In some parts of New Jersey, as seen on The Sopranos, threats like this are followed by a bullet to the back of the head; here on Misplaced Pages that bullet is here at WP:AN/I. This systematic and pre-planned abuse of the AN/I process must be put to an end. Alansohn 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Alan. Apart from antagonising a whole slew of editors whom he berated, censoriously accusing them of attacks and poor faith, offering up lectures on civility and providing an all-round peacock display of wikilawyering, finally driving one to an outburst of total exasperation, Alan has done nothing wrong at all. He should be quite rightly aggrieved that his innocent inquiry into reversing the tenor of the Schoolcruft essay, an essay that, as he notes, violates all manner of Misplaced Pages policies by espousing a POV on a controversial topic, which is not what essays are supposed to do; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his clearly demonstrated willingness to listen to those with whom he disagrees, his sincere desire to establish consensus with editors who disagree; indeed, he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his very good-faith intervention on an issue over which he has consistently demonstrated an open-mindedness, tolerance and willingness to listen that can only be characterised as flabbergasting; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that this has inexplicably ended up at AN/I. Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies of good faith, civility, point, and personal attacks is certainly not trollish behaviour and I for one salute Alansohn's vigorous defense of his actions and salute the diplomatic finesse with which he consistently deals with those whose views differ from his own. Eusebeus 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My most sincere thanks to User:Eusebeus for his exceedingly genuine support on the persistent problems created by User:Thewinchester. One correction, though; User:Eusebeus's remark that editing an article to address policy violations constitutes "Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies..." and is somehow inappropriate, would mistakenly imply that the editors involved have a right to prevent participation from other editors, in violation of WP:OWN, a claim made multiple time by User:Thewinchester. The suggestion to move the article to userspace was made multiple times, consistent with relevant policy at Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." I would be more than willing to tolerate this as a userified article. As a mainspace article, policy dictates that it will be edited. I appreciate the most helpful remarks, and hope that this one small correction will only improve the overall tenor of User:Eusebeus's WP:POINT violation here. Misplaced Pages would only benefit further if User:Eusebeus makes more constructive remarks. Alansohn 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alansohn has literally been given enough rope, and has proved the exact problems that have been gave rise to this AN/I report. And if the user wishes to continue a baseless and unjustified attack on an essay and refuses to participate in multiple attempts to build consensus that's entirly their prerogative. And on the subject of essays that clearly breach ], let's look at his own work - Misplaced Pages:Cruftcruft, which not only fails to completly assume good faith and proposes no attempts or action paths to reach positive outcomes. WP:SCFT has achieved community consensus (Demonstrated by a near snowball keep at an XfD discussion) and encourages strongly undertaking attempts to resolve the issues it covers unless the users causing the problems just refuse to participate in reasonable attempts to do so. Seriously, this could go on and on to the point where someone will just have to open a WP:RFC on the user in question, and i'm half surprised that no one has done so already. The continued rantings of this user about pointless and baseless arguments and claims have exhausted my good faith towards them, particually since they totally take figurative comments out of context for their own person and try to claim that there has been a threat of violence towards them. That's just pathetic and to me comes across as a sign of desperation for the sole purpose of a faulty claim to the moral high ground in order to prove a point. Thewinchester 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Thewinchester continues to demonstrate a pattern of bad faith and abuse of process. The XfD keep only proves that other editors are willing to tolerate the article's existence as an essay. Multiple editors have tried to achieve compromise at Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft, only to be rebuffed by User:Thewinchester's repeated bullying, threats and regular ordinary refusal to consider any alternative to the article he thinks he owns in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. The physical threats -- especially this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm." -- are disturbing enough coming from someone on the other side of the world. It's the persistent threats and continued abuse of the WP:ANI process that are by far the most disturbing aspects of User:Thewinchester's behavior. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there is no good faith involved here and never has been any. User:Thewinchester is someone who doesn't just make empty threats; he follows through on his bullying and regularly abuses Wikiepdia process to make his WP:POINT that it's his way or your brought up on WP:ANI. It's time this is put to an end. Alansohn 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to try and stay out of this one, but I would point out that contrary to Alansohn's statement above, this is to my knowledge only the second time Thewinchester has ever brought a case to AN/I. Orderinchaos 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm thinking an RFC is in order on this matter, or preferably going to WP:MEDCOM. It seems like a couple of people whining about an essay, and both parties blowing it way out of proportion. If one of you wants to do an RFC, then do it. Better than here, us admins can't really do much here.--Wizardman 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Essays are meant to be edited, but when the thrust of the essay is at odds with an individual users point of view, particularly when there is a consensus for the current version, then the opposing user is free to write his/her own essay (see Misplaced Pages:A treatise on essays). It is only an essay and is not policy and its reasonable to have opposing essays within the wiki (See for example WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL). I agree with Wizardman that this seems to be a disagreement about content and that AN is really not the ideal place to be discussing it. All parties need to step back from this for a few days and calm down. Perhaps a moratorium or cooling off period for say 7 days where the 2 or 3 involved parties agree to not edit the article or talk page. The world will not end tomorrow. —Moondyne 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Misplaced Pages:A treatise on essays is, merely, an essay, and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., which actually states that it "documents an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages" states that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Misplaced Pages policy makes all essays, even this one, open to editing by all editors and grants no one ownership rights, unless moved to userspace, as repeatedly suggested. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to visualize the efforts to modify the wording to something less offensive, and the effort to maintain the status quo by User:Thewinchester:

I disagreed -- and continue to disagree -- with the general tenor of the article and its insistence that content disputes revolving around school articles that are deemed to be "Schoolcruft" must continue on a path towards WP:ANI if other editors disagree with User:Thewinchester. All of my attempts at rewording the article left the essential gist of the article unchanged, but sought to remove the most uncivil and bad faith aspects. Compromise wording that I will still accept would leave in the possibility of a path to WP:ANI, but only where vandalism is involved. User:Thewinchester has refused to consider any alternative wording from an article that he has decide is his WP:OWN. Suggestions to move the article to userspace was made multiple times -- consistent with relevant policy at Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." -- and have been repeatedly ignored.

In a nutshell, User:Thewinchester has made a determined stand for the moral high ground that those who disagree with his personal biases will face AN/I if they have the audacity to disagree with him. It's not just an empty threat; It's happening right here, right now. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering both of you whacked warnings on each other's talk pages before it got here, and that you came close to violating other policies such as WP:3RR, I'd say it had gotten well past disagreement. You have every right to disagree with an essay, I disagree with many I see around the place. Likewise, I cack myself laughing at the ingenious wording of some which are blatantly anti-AGF (the vanispami whatever one, and WP:CB as examples) - despite assuming AGF in my own dealings, sometimes frustration is a factor! I'd rather see it expressed in an essay as a catharsis of someone's feelings that someone understands how they feel and move on, than for them to take it out on people who may be contributing positively. Ironically, the essay to which Alansohn posted a link to on the Schoolcruft page on 14 June , Misplaced Pages:Cruftcruft, is one of the most nasty pieces I've ever read. I, however, choose to ignore it as a view that doesn't match mine, and move on. I suggest Alan do the same re this one. Orderinchaos 10:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. Alan seriously needs an extended wikibreak, or at least a moratorium on AfD-related issues. That's totally insane. Eusebeus 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• While it is an improvement over User:Thewinchester's threats of physical violence, what's with this latest personal attack. This is the second time you've violated WP:POINT right here on the Administrators' noticeboard. Again, address the issues in the article in question. I have. Alansohn 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the title of this piece is "Actions of Alansohn..." so discussion of your actions is entirely on-topic here. Orderinchaos 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noting out that you've gone completely and obsessively over the top, Alansohn, is NOT "disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point" -- in fact, it's completely the opposite. You DO understand what WP:POINT means, right? Hint: it doesn't mean "pointing something out", even if it shares a verb. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I had completely failed to notice the authorship of the essay I cited (thinking it was just a link-in), and the tenor of my opinions has changed markedly - this is hypocrisy at its finest. I am curious to know if Alan would be so keen as for those of us who disagree with his definitions and, in particular, his characterisations of hard-working users and administrators to be refactored or removed. I note with curiosity Alansohn's comment on the Cruftcruft talk page with consideration of his behaviour at SCFT. Orderinchaos 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As another aside, to show that this is a pattern and not an isolated incident, Alansohm seems to have done something similar in a "discussion" on the Kristi Yamaoka AfD where it didn't matter what I said as long as Alansohn got to reiterate his points about what I was doing wrong, despite the reasoning I gave him.. MSJapan 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a look at the AfD in question. User:MSJapan was warned by another user that "You've tried four times now over the last 15 months o have this article deleted. Enough is enough please. If 15 months after the first AfD you've been incapable of demonstrating lack of notability, it isn't going to happen. Continued attempts over and over again to have this deleted serves no purpose. Please, stop. Thank you." (See for details). User:MSJapan's actions in this AfD and the three previous ones he created speak for themselves in terms of failure to observe Misplaced Pages policy and persistent abuse of AfD policy. Alansohn 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point, and it only distracts from the real issue at hand. In the AfD, you asked questions regarding why I felt justified in doing what I did, and every time I answered, you basically screamed "POINT violation!", which means you didn't really care what I had to say. That illustrates a pattern similar to what is going on here, which is either a total disregard for or a weak facade of "discussion" in order to show that you're right and no one else is. MSJapan 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly sought to improve an article that violates Misplaced Pages policy, only to face malicious attacks directed at me. In addition to User:Eusebeus's shameless personal attacks here, he also seems to have the same problem elsewhere on this same subject. Eusebeus' latest derisive remarks, "Have you seen the latest derangement at the Schoolcruft talk page" would fit squarely as a prima facie violation of No Personal Attacks. (see for the details). Alansohn 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How the FRACK does an essay -- which is, you know, NOT A FRACKING ARTICLE -- violate Misplaced Pages policy by having the temerity to not agree with your views? Wait, don't bother answering unless you can do so with fewer than twenty-five words, that doesn't rely on calling other people evil, and that cites actual policy WITH ACTUAL CITATIONS.

If you have a problem, write your own fracking essay and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Who WP:OWN's this "fracking" essay? I encourage you to read the relevant Misplaced Pages official policy on the subject at Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Whether its just a "fracking essay" or not, the article is open to every single editor, regardless of their connection to the subject matter. Every single "fracking" edit that I had made to this "fracking" essay was intended to leave the "frackingly" malicious tenor of the "fracking" essay as is, while toning down some of its most WP:UNCIVIL elements. Why would anyone have a "fracking" problem with that? Feel free to move this essay to your userspace if no one else is going to be allowed to edit it, per Misplaced Pages policy. And by the way, "frack" you, too. Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Calton, Alan did write that essay; he calls it Cruftcruft and it is a model of the restraint and fair-mindedness that he shows generally. Anyway, I think the suggestion made somehwere in all the above is correct: an RfC would be a more appropriate venue for the issues that have been exposed here. Eusebeus 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was very carefully modeled on WP:SCHOOLCRUFT, building on its fair-minded and balanced coverage of the subject, with many sentences kept as is, with a few words changed. I was very careful to remove the text in WP:SCHOOLCRUFT that advocates bullying and threats to subject to WP:ANI anyone who disagrees with the essay. And what's the big deal, it's just a "fracking" essay? Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This user has a long history of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. What's going on with the Schoolcruft essay is nothing compared to the plethora of problems interacting with others, some of which are documented here. I don't think there's anything that can be done about this essay. Someone should just file an RFC and let community consensus make the call. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The threats and bullying from User:Thewinchester -- including threats of physical violence -- are what are relevant here. One only has to look through Thewinchester's bad faith actions in defending his patently uncivil essay in the face of good faith efforts to address some of its most malicious aspects. For all the personal attacks, there has been no one here who has justified User:Thewinchester's efforts to falsely claim ownership of this article in violation of WP:OWN and his abuse of Misplaced Pages process that involved him following through on his bullying. There is plenty to do with this WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay: follow Misplaced Pages policy and implement the good faith proposals to improve it. Problem is that folks just refuse to observe this policy. Alansohn 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you still crapping on and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill Alansohn? I've crossed five state borders and three different timezones since I last checked in on this, and you've continued to persist in beating this up for your own purposes, a viewpoint that I can see many of the comments to this AN/I report support. Would someone please open an RfC and help put a stop to this continued WP:POV and WP:POINT ranting? Thewinchester 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You're still crapping about an attempt to take a sentence that read "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." and attempted to change it in various efforts to any one of the following:
        • 1) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with." ()
        • 2) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ()
        • 3) "When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." (As suggested by User:TerriersFan at and supported at )
        • You are absolutely right that an RfC needs to be created to deal with the abuse by User:Thewinchester. In the face of multiple good faith efforts on my part to amend the malicious bad faith tone of the original wording, which demands WP:ANI as the only solution to an imagined "Schoolcruft" problem, User:Thewinchester repeatedly violated Misplaced Pages policy by insisting that he WP:OWNs the article, refuses to consider any edits to his essay and repeatedly violated WP:NPA and WP:POINT through his bullying and threats to initiate this notice. Above and beyond the grotesque physical threats, the exact abusive action that User:Thewinchester threatens to impose on those who disagree with him about "Schoolcruft" are what he has abusively created here. I stand 100% behind my actions in attempting to edit and improve this Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft essay. This shameless violation of WP:POINT by User:Thewinchester must be dealt with appropriately. Alansohn 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • • It's interesting to note that the line you keep quoting appears to no longer be in the essay, due to changes by another editor which I think have changed it for the better (and probably addressed nearly all of the AGF concerns). Orderinchaos 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
              • The original wording was problematic, to say the least. I proposed two variations to reword the sentence; another user proposed a third version as a compromise. Given that the text was deemed perfect and was set in stone once the XfD passed, the fact that this offensive sentence was changed by a third editor shows that there is broad agreement that the original wording was unacceptable. While the modified version may be more accurately described as "less bad" than "better", it further demonstrates that there is a clear consensus that the original wording was indefensible by Misplaced Pages standards. No one supports the original wording. Alansohn 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My god, this section reads like alphabet soup in parts. I'm amazed that no WP:USERs have written a WP:ESSAY to address the overuse (or overabuse?) of WP:POL WP:SHC's in WP:AN. :) That being said, I think we need to all stand back and look at this objectively. Yes, the essay needs improvement. Nothing is set in stone. No, waging a POV campaign because you don't like it is not going to fix it. Accusing editors of threats of physical violence and whatnot (I have read four entire talk pages this morning and failed to find one, other than a metaphorical reference akin to "X should be hung from the nearest tree" - perhaps a failure to understand the Australian idiom is part of the issue) is only going to inflame the issue. Writing essays which are more ridiculous just to make a point is not constructive. An editor with 37,000 edits should know better than to act in such a ridiculous manner and I hope that this stops very shortly. Before this interchange ends, I would like to propose that someone should make a really silly cartoon of this section of WP:AN before it descends into the archive pit. Zivko85 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OMGWTFBBQ. --Carnildo 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative decision-making

For context:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) - This article, as well as a few related topics, have a long history of deletion debates. The consensus of the latest review was that nothing should prevent recreation of a properly sourced article. A new version was started and edited with strong intent to fix any problems. The page was put up for deletion again after an editorial dispute. Outcome of this debate is that a majority agrees the new article solves the problems that resulted in the deletion of the last one. — This AfD was closed by Kurykh as 'delete', on the subjective notion that the article still violated WP:RS and that this administrator decision about policy violation trumps any majority vote.
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12 - The deletion review was speedily closed, reopened, closed again, on grounds that the topic exhausted the community's patience. Radiant! apparently still holds that it wasn't wheel warring and accused Georgewilliamherbert of making false accusations of abuse in return. It's was opened again, but I think these events quite nicely compromised any possibility to settle, in a neutral environment, the actual issue about whether due process was followed in the AfD.
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#Omegatron - discussion on the above
• User talk:Omegatron#HHO/Brown's Gas, #Outrage, #Query - related usertalk
• User talk:Kurykh#HHO and Brown's gas deletions, User talk:Radiant! ("rmv negativity"?!), User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Could you explain? - related usertalk for sake of completeness

I care about the results of this particular AFD/DRV no more or less than about any other. But it left me pretty much alienated, that's the word, at the inner workings of Misplaced Pages's power structure. I still am, a few days later, after these events made me take my first wiki-vacation ever, for the almost three years that I'm here.

There's one thing I learned from this: next time, stay out of deletion debates — I'll have more influence on the debate if I remain a neutral admin and close the discussion myself.

For crying out loud, this is what it has come to? I don't want to work like that. I don't want to live in a Misplaced Pages where I CAN work like that. It's dangerous to accept a community where this is possible. I have the admin tools to carry out consensus, and enforce it if need be — not to make consensus. Yet, it slowly appears to become acceptable.

Admins get more and more relied upon as decision-makers and holders of power. Generally, the margin seems to become wider, of what constitutes an uncontroversial decision at the sole discretion of a single administrator. There even appears to exist an atmosphere where it's considered more efficient when an admin cuts corners with the process. When you raise concerns about the process you're told that's not a productive approach. I don't think this particular case is an isolated one.

Just like in the real world, we're under a permanent threat of the creeping erosion of our freedom. A constant pressure from well-meaning individuals to act on behalf of all other people, and to decide for us what is right and what is wrong. All for the collective good of course. I have neither the energy nor the skills to actively fight against this.

So, what do we do to counteract it? Don't say the wiki-process is self-regulating, it isn't. Not when administrators may agree to "disagree with respect to the importance of said process". Femto 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no answer, having just noted basically the same thing on a different subject here and similarly here (without the rhetoric). Short of a series of administrative RfCs (which I am afraid I have neither the time nor patience for) I can see no recourse to stop this kind of administrative "God mode" (for the want of a better expression). Arbcom would never take these as cases individually. Perhaps a large community discussion on the role of an admin, might help reinforce that admins are servants to the community and their opinions never ever overrides community consensus. Viridae 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The similarity of what you say in your first link is almost frightening. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't underestimate ArbCom's willingness to look at wheel warring and other administrative abuses. One mistake by an admin will not be acted on but a pattern of repeated behavior may get their attention. Thatcher131 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of a pattern, but there are discussions on Talk:DRV about it. If there is one, it needs to be stopped. — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, unfortunately. There are no patterns, no individual wrongdoings that would stand out of the crowd or that would justify going through an arbcase. Nevertheless there's a trend, and paradoxically, the danger doesn't come from admins who act in bad faith but in good faith. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear to me what this complaint is about. Is it in respect of Omegatron's undeletion of an article of which he was a significant editor? We already discussed that. Is it about the serial re-creation of this article, which has been deleted by four separate AfDs? I thought we'd discussed that, as well. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  I hoped I was clear enough. It's not a complaint about this case in particular but a warning about how cases like this get handled in general. About the creeping acceptance that administrators use their individual judgement and their authority to "resolve" editorial issues. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It surprises me that people persist in the claim that something not involving the admin tools of deletion, blocking and protection can in fact be wheel warring, as the definition says the exact opposite. The only wheel warring I see here is this. >Radiant< 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think the actions of certain users in repeatedly defying consensus and recreating an article which the community has consistently voted to delete should be examined, although that is beyond the scope of AN. Orderinchaos 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, they voted to keep it, but the discussion was ignored by the closing admin. See the AfD. — Omegatron 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As for my undeletion, we've already discussed it, I've freely admitted that I made a mistake, apologized, and no one has a serious problem with my actions (which were arguably acceptable anyway).

As for Radiant's actions, I don't see how this could be any clearer.

• Misplaced Pages:Wheel war:
  • "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."
  • "Misplaced Pages works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling."
• Closing a DRV is an administrative action.
• Radiant closed the DRV with no explanation besides the edit summary "No."
• George re-opened it, with the edit summary "Don't speedy close DRV on clearly debatable AFD articles."
• Radiant, without discussion, and knowing that another admin opposed his action, repeated it.
• See also WP:WHEEL#Possible indications.

Does anyone besides Radiant disagree that this is wheel warring, both in the spirit and the letter of our policies? — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • A half truth is a whole lie. You are quoting only half of the sentence, which goes "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. " >Radiant< 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Call it what you want, people didn't disagree with your definitions, people disagreed with your actions. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone was curious, I didn't approve of the early closing of the DRV. But calling the repeated closing and re-closing of the DRV wheel-warring is ludicrous and misinterprets what wheel-warring actually is. Then again, arguing over the definition of wheel-warring when there are other things to do (like writing an encyclopedia) is ludicrous in itself. —Kurykh 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block request for anonymous user 69.223.169.170

User 69.223.169.170 (talk · contribs) continually adds the questionable entry of Carlos A. Cook without justification for entry's importance. The page has been previously marked for deletion. Further, the user deletes vandalism warnings and other community warnings on the user talk page. Suggest strong administator warning or possibly temp ban.--Ewhite77 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Said user has only been given a third-level warning. Once he gets a fourth-level warning and still vandalizes, WP:AIV will bring down the blockhammer. hbdragon88 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles

The matter has a pretty old history and probably was already noticed. Anyway, I want to expose it anew since in my opinion we faced a proceeding tendency, related to featured content. The featured articles to a greater or lesser extent are a common target to be affected by some backlogged tags in that way they aren't a featured articles anymore by definition. Most of them are marked as having unsourced statements, even such vital articles as Cheese or Technetium. As of June 20, 2007 among crippled FAs were or still are absinthe, alchemy, Azerbaijani people, black pepper, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, caffeine, cheese, Duke University, Mozilla Firefox, paracetamol, trade and usage of saffron and so on.

One may consider that the relevant act to combat that issue would be an ordinary deletion of crippled sentences per WP:IAR. Otherwise I think that some relevant Wikiproject or Task Force might be able to assist. Ultimately we should put an end to FAs, backlogged in such way. Brand спойт 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you for most of the articles, but some like trade and usage of saffron fit my perception of an FA. bibliomaniac15 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain this wouldn't better be situated elsewhere; this is not, unless I'm missing something, a matter that particularly requires administrative intervention or is relevant principally to administrators, and so I would encourage you to raise the issue at WP:VPP (and, with at least a link to the antecedent discussion, at WT:FA). Joe 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi

I previous AfD'd this article. It has been restored, and I note that a lot of the text is based on the previous version of the article . I'm not interested in challenging it as a repost (mainly because it doesn't read quite so much like a worship piece anymore). I'm thinking that for GFDL purposes we should quietly restore the article history though (unless you feel like deleting it again, but as he has a lot of followers I don't think that's going to work). Yes? -N 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. It looks like it was rewritten from scratch - the oldest diff is just one sentence long. YechielMan 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Turkey on the loose

Could someone with the ability to correct moves take a look at Turkey? Aycan (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved it to Türkiye, with no discussion that I can see. I'd try and work it out, but am cramped for time, and think it'd take an admin to undo the move anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've moved it back and issued a {{uw-mos1}}. I can't believe we even have a template for that. -N 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe we don't use it more often :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Canvasing

This user was making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet ], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support my filing,

":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: ] in response to an active mediation case at ] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations and stop fishing. Administrative action is required. DPeterson 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not an administrator; I just have a nose for messy situations. I do strongly recommend a block against User:FatherTree. He continues to accuse the complainant here of sockpuppetry despite the fact that Checkuser proved he is innocent. Unless I'm missing a critical detail, it's really simple, and the dispute resolution process will be better served by temporarily removing a bad influence. YechielMan 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how asking one editor to look into a dispute is "canvassing." I also don't understand YechielMan's assertion that a RFCU proved "innocence" as that is simply not true. I reserve judgment on FatherTree's other actions except to note that many editors involved in that dispute appear to be closely-related and focused very tightly on one group of articles; I have my own suspicions that several editors involved are sock or meat puppets but I'm keeping those suspicions to myself. --ElKevbo 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue here is FatherTree's violating WP:CANVAS. An administrator should look into this and decide. All other diversions by other editors are just that, diversions...to avoid the primary issue of this AN/I. In addition to his knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetrty...All in all a very disruptive set of violations. RalphLender 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you have a nose for messy situations Yechie you'd like to stick it in a bit further and tell us what you thing about the constant personal attacks of COI and financial chicanery DPeterson makes on the talkpage against other editors and his accusation that those who oppose him are meatpuppets, made on the mediation referral page no less. And the fact that he has filed two ANI's against the editor without telling that editor, and his supporter RalphLeneder a further one, without telling that editor. This a very complicated dispute and you seem to have taken a very extreme view from one snapshot.Fainites 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RalphLender that diversions, such as the above, are diversions from the focal issue: FatherTree's violation of Misplaced Pages policy. As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird Bio Getaround

I noticed the user User:Charlie_Snow as well as User:Bubba_Yarbrough and User:Zach_Ze. I belive the Charlie Snow user (which is the name of their band) was created as a way to get around the bio and notability guidelines - whats the best way to proceed? I know it is a sockpuppet of one of them, but is this legitimate and it is a violation of policy to get around notability requirements this way? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Snow needs to be asked about his actions at the talk page. His only edits have been to his own userpage, so it's probably a sockpuppet. If he shows no interest in working on any other part of the encyclopedia, action will need to be taken. --Masamage ♫ 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll comment later, I have to rush off now but I thought i'd drop this note in first. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Charlie_Snow is obvious spam -- period/full stop -- and I've speedy-tagged it, like I have a few dozen others. After all, accounts are for individuals, not bands, companies, or groups. --Calton | Talk 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have declined speedy on the user page. Its not anything promotional or advertisement. Barring the notability criterion, its otherwise okay. And since the notability clause does not apply to user pages, I think a chance a be given to the users to sort it out rather than deleting it on sight. --soum 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all of their user pages. If they don't contribute to the encyclopedia, then they don't deserve the privelege of having a userpage. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Ryulong

I have been keeping my eye on this administrator and listening to some of his comments. It seems like he's breaking a lot of rules. What's with the you cant have a your own user talk page if you have not contributed comments. He's made them several times, like here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by TV2007 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-21 11:19:59 (UTC)

If you followed the link he provided, Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost, you'd see exactly this:

Misplaced Pages pages are not:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Misplaced Pages is very lenient considering some of what I see, but no, if you haven't edited anything but your User page, and that has nothing about your Misplaced Pages goals, then no, it's not within the scope of Misplaced Pages. All I think is that he should have left a note more clearly on the User Talk page to save himself some grief if they complain.--Thespian 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing out of line here. Ryulong is most certainly correct. Why he may be skirting policy technically in the way he's going about the deletions, I see that as a good thing. ^demon 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

interesting TV2007 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so TV2007 is a sockpuppet of EverybodyHatesChris and other related accounts. Now what?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're done? The sockpuppet's been blocked, his trolling can be ignored, and we can go about our business. MastCell 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam, ToFA, June 23

I just happened to take a look at the Islam article while reviewing a report at WP:AN3 when it dawned on me (or rather I noticed) that the article is going to make its Main Page appearance as Today's Featured Article on June 23. As many of you are aware, it's generally accepted that we not protect Today's Featured Article. Each day I (or, rarely, someone else) remove any edit protection and add full move protection to Today's Featured Article. But this is a bit different. Currently, the article is on near-permanent semi-protection, due (of course) to vandalism. If we remove the semi-protection from this article, the article will be an utter disaster. Yes, sadly, we all know it. Is it okay if we just leave the semi-protection on or should we (gasp) unprotect and see what happens? -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to our PR, the reason vandalism isn't much of a problem is because other editors will quickly correct it. Perhaps there is some way that can be made more likely to occur.Proabivouac 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of letting the camel's nose into the tent, the ultra-controversial, extremely vandalism-prone nature of this article leads me to believe that this is one case where the FA should remain semi-protected for the day. Raul654 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of losing my minty fresh admin tools, I've always felt that TFA may warrant semiprotection under certain circumstances. I'd say this is one of those times, but that's just me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You wont lose them for expressing an opinion on policy matters - you will if you ignore consensus. However, in this case I agree with you. Viridae 06:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive AGF towards a user with a long, long record of 3RR, edit-wars and POV-pushing

R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), suspended several times (days, weeks, even a full month) from editing because of his constant edit-wars is back and, guess what, edit-warring again, erasing whole passages without justification and randomly putting misspellt German names wherever he can, like here or here ("Garten Botanik" is no German). In spite of his long block log and the repetitive pattern of his demeanour, he is met with extreme AGF by Heimstern (talk · contribs), among others. This is abnormal ! Thanks, RCS 07:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue you should probably raise with Heimstern. It would help if you clarified what exactly his action was, e.g. to decline a report on 3RR or AIV, and now for you to appeal that decision because the past history was not considered. I found a mixture of good and bad edits in the last two days for this user; based on that pattern, I didn't see why he should be blocked again. Please explain further. YechielMan 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Has any dispute resolution been tried? If this really is a complex vandal masquerading as a legitimate editor, WP:AGF places the burden of proof on you to demonstrate how bad the problem really is. For a sample of a report I put together on an editor who eventually got banned, see User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. If things have really gone far enough you could start a thread at the community sanctions noticeboard. Durova 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See here

R9tgokunks has specialised in putting the German perspective into articles dealing with towns and regions now belonging to other countries, especially France (Strasbourg, Colmar, Mulhouse...) and Poland (Szczecin, Wroclaw...) Nothing wrong about that except that he has no knowledge at all of the German language (although he pretends to be German - but he's not : i am German, and i know when somebody doesn't understand a word of what he writes) and of European history and replaces it with products of his imagination ( or ). Just have a look at his talk page and at the history of it as well. Genuinely mad people like him are expandable, i say, and calling their contributions "content" is beyond contempt for serious contributors. My card : de:Benutzer:Edelseider. Thank you. RCS 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if you'd informed me before complaining about my behaviour here. I am making no assumption of faith whatsoever about R9tgokunks; I am simply stating, as several admins have when you have made your AIV reports, that this is not a case of vandalism, and therefore does not belong there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for other admins opinion on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn

I would be grateful if another admin would take a look on this candidate RFC/U and express their opinions on questions risen...--Alexia Death 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to ask such a silly question (I'm new to this), but where exactly do you want me to comment, there, your talk page or where? DrKiernan 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. On that pages talk page would be best :)--Alexia Death 09:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Undo a deletion request?

I don't want to hit a permissions error, so I'll hand this over to an admin. A brand new, 3-edit editor has flagged the thorn in wikipedia's side article of Misplaced Pages Watch for deletion. After making my comment, I thought it odd that no one else had commented on that in the next hour. At that point I found that all that had been done was adding the template and creating the AfD (which is one of the three edits). It was not added to the AfD Log, which is either being unable to follow the instructions or mischief-making (I'd assume better faith if the user had even one edit before yesterday :-P ).

Of course, you'll want to check for sockpuppetry, all the tricks, but I'm wondering if, in this case, my action should be to a) remove the template from the page, and tell them to redo the nom properly if they want it, b) link the page from the AfD Log the way that it should have initially been done, c) leave it up to the admins, it'll be fine now? ;-) --Thespian 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• See /Incidents#Disruption via multiple accounts. Uncle G 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your work on this whole rat's nest. --Thespian 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Page

The article on Frank iero is wrong. He has FOUR dogs, as stated (by himself) in a recent edition of Kerrang!

I'm not an admin but I think you've posted this comment in the wrong place, this is for discussing administrator related actions, if you need help you may wish to leave a comment at the help desk, Cheers --The Sunshine Man 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet user

It is suspected that user Playguy is a sockpuppet of user WikiTweak

For the past couple of days ExcellentEditor has been edit warring with Wikitweak on the mama's family page. This is the way ExcellentEditor reverts the page. and he Wikitweak gets rid of the information calling it vandalism which I disagree with. I thought it was good for the article. Anyway, a 3rd editor got involved to try to solve the problem by making this edit which was meant to be a compromise. He shortens the information and puts it in a different place . However, PlayGuy, suspected sockpuppet of WikiTweak, comes today and reverts it back to the way Wikitweak had it, with incivility in his edit summary. . Also, his only edits have been on ExcellentEditor's page and Ebyabe's page, if you look here . This is what he says to the 3rd editor who got involved to help the matter ] and this is what he says to ExcellentEditor TV2007 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might explain why User:ExcellentEditor, User:TV2007, User:PlayGuy107, and User:EverybodyHatesChris (among others) are all at the same IP. --jpgordon 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation, it would seem that the most likely scenario is that these are socks of the indef-blocked EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs), particularly given an apparent fixation on Coral Smith. Given the generally unhelpful quality of edits from all of these accounts, I've indefinitely blocked the four accounts named by jpgordon (a few had already been indef-blocked for various offenses). If there are more accounts from that IP, chances are they'll turn up soon enough, unless jpgordon feels it's appropriate to block them now. Hoist by one's own petard... MastCell 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. MastCell 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Chainsofhell

This user page was tagged with db-spam. The contents were in full "chains of hell death metal band from new york city formed by drummer jay persad in 2007"

I removed the tag on the grounds that this did not constitute blatent advertising, and that this was a user page, where soemwhat more latitude is usually given. I explained this to the tagging editor (here and here). I included the phrase "If this user is trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform, s/he is dooing a pretty poor job." but tried to focus on the qualifing adjective "blatant" in WP:CSD#G11. Seizing on this phrase, the editor re-tagged with the edit summery "re-added tag - spam is spam, and there's no competetency test to exclude it" and another admin duly deleted.

First, am I out of line in thinking that this page did not constiture "blatent advertising"?

Second, is it unreasoanble to think that my view should have been considered before finally deleting, either by discussing on my talk page, or by bringing the matter here or some similar forum? I know that if I had deleted and another admin had wanted to undelete it would be considered very poor form not to discuss with me first. Is this unsymetrical?

I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia, and delting this page page hardly harms the encyclopeida. But I think there is a reason not to go overboard on deletions, particularly of user pages. DES 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the usual convention was to WP:PROD user pages of inactive editors. There should be no rush to delete user pages. hbdragon88 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the deleting admin. First of all, if I was the one crossing the page, I would probably have prodded the page as I usually do. I crossed the article while I was deleting speedy deletions. The page was a 1 liner about the band, the user didn't make any contributions outside this page. That was clearly an attempt to circumvent our inclusion criteria and a misuse of the article space. I am usually a process freak, but this time I might have gone a bit fast. -- lucasbfr 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me (from viewing the history of the deleted page) that the user's only two edits were to the userpage four months ago. Some latitude is given to userpages, but if it is apparent that the user uses the account purely to promote something, it should be deleted with or without process. Sr13 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original tagger (and thank you for notifying me, DESiegel -- oh, wait, you didn't), I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Is an effectiveness test on spam pages required to see if they qualify for speedy?

Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as Sr13 points out. I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia? No, try "no contributions", period/full stop.

Not to mention the whole issue of how a band (or company, or website, or organization, or any abstract grouping of people, whose alleged user pages I also tag regularly) can qualify as an individual editor. So, nope, perfectly in line with policy -- and common sense -- as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD in limbo

AfD closed as Delete

Would someone like to step up and possibly close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination) please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actualy there was soem kerfluffle about this, see User talk:SirFozzie for my take on it. DES 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/TingMing

The above named arbitration case has closed. TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for 1 year. Please be advised that TingMing is currently indefinitely banned, therefore the 1 year ban will not start unless the indefinite ban is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

docg

Does anybody know what "docg" means (per this )? I've seen it before in vandalism edits. -N 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• d________ of common good? not sure of the first word.... --After Midnight 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt this is anything since he mispelled "against", this word could be anything.. just revert vandalism and move on. — Moe ε 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A docg is one who campaigns against "nazimism". Next question? MastCell 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Does this fact make the d stand for defender?MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think people should refrain from using cryptic edit summaries. --Haemo 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One knows that one has been reading Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard too much … when one sees the above and immediately thinks of Doc glasgow. ☺

By the way: "Nazimism" is, roughly, the following of Nazim al-Qubrusi (the article being edited was Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi), who is a somewhat controversial religious figure. Uncle G 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Here I thought it was just a misspelled attempt to invoke Godwin's Law. MastCell 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did think it meant Doc Glasgow, and I was wondering why nobody had realized this (until I read your comment). --Rory096 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion?

I just locked Muhammad due to edit warring - but I'd previously commented on the issue that lead to the edit warring, but not participated. I took a bit of an ambigious stance, and I'm not sure if I locked it at m:The Wrong Version. I'd like a second pair of eyes to double-check and make sure I didn't overstep any bounds. Thanks, WilyD 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your actions were correct. A very quick glance at the page history shows that edit warring was getting way out of hand, and I didn't see an edit from you recently in that list. Just keep an eye out for protected edit requests. YechielMan 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking images?

Image:Shinichi_Watanabe.JPG hasn't been on the Main Page for over 3 weeks now. Yet it's still locked with the reason given it's supposed to be on or will be on the main page. Minor oversight?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. Savidan 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BAG Joining

Hey, I have been asked to post a notification of my request to join the Bot Approvals Group on here. It can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Joining. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper action by admin Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Aquygen & Denny Klein were deleted per AfD and consensus. One was salted to prevent recreation. User:Omegatron was against deletion of these articles. Against consensus, User:Omegatron used his admin tools to recreate these articles as redirects and then protected them. This is blatant misuse of admin tools and could also be considered wheel warring as he essentially undid the actions of another administrator by recreating these articles. He was asked on his talk page to reverse his actions but he refused. These articles should be deleted per the AfD and deletion review. Omegatron should be admonished for using admin tools to further a dispute he is involved in as well as using admin tools wheel war. --Tbeatty 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the titles go somewhere as a redirect sounds reasonable to me. Keeping them protected prevents someone from trying to recreate the article. What is the issue? --BigDT 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a passing note: Denny Klein was deleted primarily because there weren't valid sources for notability. The way it is now, the article is still there, and can be corrected at such time evidence can be provided. I see nothing wrong with keeping the door open on a future article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

They were deleted and salted for a reason with consensus by multiple admins. Consensus has not changed. Omegatron was involved in two related articles that were also deleted in the last week. His recreation and redirect are direct contradictions to both the previous consensus on those articles as well as the recent consensus on the deletion of HHO gas and Brown's gas. His involvement in both of these articles should preclude him from recreating these deleted articles. This is wheel warring, wp:point and using admin tools to win an argument. It's improper. --Tbeatty 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to discuss content here as that is not the issue (this is a tool abuse case). But Aquygen should not be redirected as it is product advertisement spam/scam. Denny Klein should not be redirected hecause he has no contribution to creating/inventing/analyzing Oxyhydrogen. This is more spam. that discussion was essentially omitted with the unilateral action by Omegatron. --Tbeatty 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Omegatron. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Wonder if anyone can help with this AfD? Sr13 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - noticed DrKiernan and Samir deleting, too :) - Alison ☺ 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I've blocked Asgardian (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. The user ignores discussion, marks major edits and reverts as minor, ignores consensus, removes talk page warnings, edit wars and is somewhat intractable. There's currently an rfc set up and we did look to community sanctions, but the discussion was closed as it was felt that the block log of the user did not warrant such action . Therefore I feel the only recourse is to block the user, initially for a period of 24 hours. I believe the user is disruptive in attempting to prove a point across a number of articles, namely that a literal reading of a header named publication history indicates one should only include details of publications in which a character has appeared, and I believe the user is also disruptive in rejecting community input. Steve block Talk 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Loom91

user:Loom91 has just reverted part of mass action in spite of the presence of an inuse tag and after being earlier requested on the talk page to forebear until I had finished the edit. I was simply away on a lunch break when this happened. The article concerned is a piece of chemical history and I have taken the trouble of reading the original meterial. My edit was incomplete and Loom91 has made a real mess of it by some arbitry rearragements. I can state with certainty that the first paragraph that Loom91 has re-inserted is factually incorrect. The re-inserted definition (in quote marks) is also incorrect.

This user has also admitted inserting material into another article which he/she knew to be untrue - see user_talk:petergans#Equilibrium.

What's to be done about this situation? I would hope that he/she be given an official warning to moderate his/her behaviour. Petergans 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like an editorial dispute. A friendly note on his talk page could be all that's needed. -N 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused merged articles

St. Joseph's High School (South Bend) was just merged into St. Joseph's High School (South Bend, Indiana). Unfortunately, the South Bend article had the longer edit history, so it probably should have merged the other way -- but then the title would have been wrong. Thoughts on what to do, if anything?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the edit histories for you. Sasquatch t|c 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards