Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 28 June 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?

Impersonating another user and religious attacks

Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken text I wrote on one talk page and posted it on another talk page(midway down the mixed edit), effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. ॐ Metta Bubble 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Is there anything that can be done about this? I really feel he's trying to escalate a bad situation beyond a tenable discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming... We're dealing with blockable and bannable offenses here by a user who refuses to accomodate BLP and NPR concerns from several users (including myself) regarding Metta Bubble's behavior. If necessary I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard and try to get Metta Bubble sitebanned for gross impropriety. No need to waste time on a ArbCom RfArb, when any admin can simply make a block or ban. There are other users who will back up this effort. -- Fyslee/talk 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming..." The diffs I posted above speak for themselves. What possible legitimate reason could you have for posting my comments and signature to another page? How would you like it if I went around posting your signature to things?

Your content issues do not warrant admin intervention. ॐ Metta Bubble 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. It is your behavioral issues that may require blocking or banning. I never attached your signature to anything. I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) and my replies (thus preserving the context). You start out here by making it sound like I forged something and then added your signature to make it look like something you had written:

• "... this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself."

You did post that information yourself on my talk page. I only moved it in context. They are your words and signature and time. Don't try to make it sound otherwise. I would never "post(ing) your signature to things" you had not written, and I would not take them out of context and add them to another discussion of another subject. I was only keeping the discussion on the same page, especially since the context also involved other users and your accusations against them. As my response below explains, I am prepared to drop this matter if you don't restore you personal attacks and BLP violation. Otherwise I will go higher up and have a very strong case, since a previous editor who made the same false charges got banned, partially for showing intention (without even doing it) to out another user. That was the last straw after they had already repeatedly publicized private information about myself and made false and unproven COI allegations. You have already outed AvB, but since you may not have understood the seriousness of what you were doing, AvB is being very generous. If you heed his request and don't go there again you may be spared this time. -- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you openly admit it and still don't see how it's wrong. Can someone please explain how Fyslees actions (in his own words "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) ") are inappropriate. I'd truly appreciate this. I'm really sick of this user harassing me and I thinks it's gonna get ugly if someone doesn't set him straight on the appropriateness of copy-and-pasting other users signatures. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to false charges and misuse of this board

I see that Metta Bubble has continued her disruptions, personal attacks, and BLP violations against myself and User:AvB at the Talk:Stephen_Barrett page, and has now escalated the matter by making false charges here. This false charge concerns ONE word which Metta Bubble wrote about me, and which I refactored to a more accurate word (which makes Metta Bubble look more charitable!), and then noted why I did it. The word was a repetition of a false charge from a RfArb. (That RfArb resulted in a banning of my accuser.) That charge was never proven and a repetition is simply a gross BLP violation and personal attack against myself. Making COI charges is a serious matter. Rather than take the matter to the BLP Noticeboard, I simply changed it and explained why, since I saw "no need to make waves." Metta Bubble decided to escalate the matter and reverted it (restoring BLP violations is a blockable offense, IIRC, while deleting such isn't even covered by 3rr) and deleted my explanation. Metta Bubble then took the discussion to my talk page, which I felt was problematic as it split the discussion, removing it from the relevant spot, which also involved other editors. I therefore copied very precisely and carefully (no "impersonation" at all, so she is deceiving this board) Metta Bubble's ensuing comments (they were indeed her comments!) and my own replies and placed them in the existing thread where they belonged, so others would know what was going on. Otherwise it would not be understandable. I also wished other editors to help me keep the BLP violation out of Misplaced Pages, and I made such a request.

She has also vandalized MY heading and is making a big issue out of it with another user (even claiming it was her heading).

Now she is calling me a vandal here (by wikilinking my name to "vandal"). She is getting more and more agitated and is attacking other users as well. Please get her to calm down and just leave the more accurate "POV" instead of the false "conflict" (COI) word in place. That will settle the matter for me.

In the meantime I will continue to remove the BLP violation against me in accordance with the requirement ("must") for any Misplaced Pages editor to do so if it pops up again. As of the time of this diff, the state of this word matter is acceptable to me.

These edit histories tell part of the story:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&limit=500&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Metta_Bubble
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Fyslee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Avb

-- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee considers it a BLP violation that it's my opinion his edits reveal a conflict of interest on the article. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Admin comment

• Why has this user been allowed to get away with impersonating me? Have I brought this to the wrong page? ॐ Metta Bubble 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you summarize your complaints in 100 words or less after my comment. Right now, this is an argument between the two of you that has spilled over onto this board. There is nothing we administrators can do without knowing what the hell is going on.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fyslee (talk · contribs) copied my user post to an article talkspace (replying, inserting my message, then making a religious attack). He admits his behaviour here, stating "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all)." He also deleted my posting about his Arbcom identified conflict of interest, claiming it is a BLP violation. I respected his refactoring though he was already cautioned. Some days later he continues to post religious attacks on me. I see his behaviour as wilfully inciting hostilities. I take impersonation and religious attacks to be critical community issues. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Metta Bubble continues to falsely charge me with "impersonation." If I had written a message and attached Metta's name to it, then that would indeed be impersonation, but I didn't. I simply copied a complete conversation, including sigs, to the existing thread on the article talk page so the discussion didn't get split up, and also because other editors were being attacked by Metta Bubble in that particular thread. Since everything related to that discussion was relevant for others to read, I just copied it. There was nothing remotely related to "impersonation" or any attempt to misrepresent, take out of context, or otherwise do anything improper. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The other accusation about COI is misplaced. The RfArb listed my interests, but no COI was every proven. A shared POV does not a COI make, otherwise no one could edit here. Even a COI does not prevent editing if it doesn't affect the actual edits.

Her COI accusation was clearly a personal attack, as defined by the NPA policy:

• using "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

-- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Religious attack"? Only pointing out the hypocrisy so evident. I admire the ideals of Buddhism, and when a Buddhist so evidently seeks and pursues conflict it seems rather hypocritical to me. She should live up to her ideals instead of making a mockery of them. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Response to Fyslee's perspective: You can see in my second diff above (the insertion diff) that Fyslee made no attempt to identify he was citing text from another talk page. To any other user it would have appeared as if I had posted the comments myself. He is not merely citing me as he states, he is making it appear as though I was conversing with him on that page. Need I also note he continues his religious attacks above? ॐ Metta Bubble 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirdy party comments

• Although not a party to this specific conflict, it is a bit of a spin-off of a conflict between Metta Bubble and me and I am mentioned above. Ryulong, if I can help, please let me know. I am still considering whether or not to ask an admin to step in and explain to Metta that "outing" and damaging another editor's real-life identity are blockable, sometimes bannable offenses. Apparently they do not accept this from me or other editors who have tried. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Avb (talk · contribs) has a conflict with me and seems to be the reason his friend Fyslee (talk · contribs) started attacking me. I haven't outed anybody and never posted information beyond what is already public on wikipedia. If these users want to pursue their accusations I'm happy to answer with diffs to refute any and all claims. However, I see this behaviour as tag-team filibustering. I can't imagine any forthcoming context for justifying impersonation and religious attacks on me. ॐ Metta Bubble 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Metta_Bubble_refuses_to_acknowledge_"outing"_another_editor. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that several points should be considered here. (1) Fyslee may be hypersensitive to the words like "conflict" or "COI" since the ArbCom findings of fact he has been specifically ArbCom cautioned to "avoid the appearance of COI" (2) I think that it was not a good idea to involve religion in his discussion much less criticize another editor about it, (3) perhaps Metta should give more explanation of the form(s) or type of "conflict" meant or addressed, (4) I have questions about Fyslee's aggressive refactoring and claims of BLP on Metta when He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits.. Fyslee may want to reconsider how others might perceive his rather totally involved status with things QW, related blogs, and conventional therapy (e.g vs QW counterparties and chiropratic) as to what constitutes COI vs pronounced POV.

I am unclear (on a prospective basis, not hindsight) how much Metta could have improved Fyslee's citation method that is part of the impersonation complaint and his refactoring of her comment to make her point (quit aggressive refactoring, be even more careful, ask first) w/o getting some flashback from Fyslee. Perhaps he should have broached it with her first rather than *insisting* it was a BLP. His reverting the wording change w/o prior acknowledgement (from Metta or another editor/admin) seems a questionable approach under the circumstances. Hopefully both can draw a breath and consider patching this over.--I'clast 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) He was cautioned to prevent the appearance of COI-influenced editing of article pages, not talk pages. (2) Like any other editor he is not only allowed but expected to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, including himself. Hypersensitivity does not enter the equation. (3) If an editor believes content is a BLP violation, it has to go. Remove first, talk later. (4) Why is refactoring COI/conflict to POV per WP:BLP on a talk page "aggressive"? (5) I'clast writes: Fyslee may want to reconsider how others might perceive his rather totally involved status with things QW, related blogs, and conventional therapy (e.g vs QW counterparties and chiropratic) as to what constitutes COI vs pronounced POV. Am I reading this correctly when I think you're suggesting that Fyslee should view the ArbCom ruling as too lenient and that he should read it as also applicable to talk pages ? AvB ÷ talk 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I'clast enjoys using the threat of a COI as a tool to suppress any discussion that he doesn't like. His disagreements with Fyslee is quite apparent in the ArbCom arguments and his use of a COI threat is just his latest technique, principally as it has had no repercussions onto the threatener (ie/ I'clast), to suppress those that he doesn’t like. Shot info 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued sniping, shot. I filed your COI paperwork long ago with the admins, the subject of most of our original dispute has been removed and presumably most of the COI rendered administratively moot. It is likely something of an administrative hot potato, you should now let it go too (I do not even dream that the filing would have repercussions for *me*). I am not "threatening" COI on Fyslee, if I were he would instantly know it. I am pointing out that there is a fundamental problem with his unilateral refactoring now (post RFAR) of Metta Bubble without more discussion of precise words and intent, and even then the record of discussion should usually be sufficient w/o "refactoring" Talk. Otherwise editors' discussion and meaning get highly distorted. There has been past refactoring to some of my edits (not Fyslee), and I now consider most refactoring extremely aggressive, vulnerable to severe intellectual dishonesty, and potentially, a hostile invitation that takes a lot of restraint to just let it pass w/o meaningful response. After Fyslee's refactoring, the discussion degenerated w/o really getting Metta Bubble's points properly developed and understood, where Fyslee has had cautions about perceived civility. Such haste to declare a BLP removal doesn't seem an optimal response since it risks early breakdown of AGF for the cautioned editor.--I'clast 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AvB, strictly speaking there is no literal limitation in the RFAR caution about "...edits" for Fyslee to just articles, rather that he should *seek consensus* on the Talk pages (which can also exhibit severe editorial "conflict" or COI). Further, Fyslee's finding of fact, above this caution, specifically included incivility etc, where he had tangled with others (e.g. Ilena), largely on the Talk pages, and the only remedy mentioned was this caution verbiage.

If an editor is having a conflict or COI problem with a previously warned editor who can get aggressive and simply rewrite history/comments the way the latter cautioned editor likes it based on his unilateral claims of BLP, such "lenient" interpretation incites the skip-jump escalation to administrative proceedings from a very minor level. Further, one of the problems encountered around the QW-SB-NCAHF space is that some "pro" editors *had* previously acquired bad habits, to varying degrees, about rewriting others' edits in the guise of "refactoring" and for (sometimes numerously and trivially) alleged policy violations. Bad enough to the point of having received direct warning from ArbCom members about this behavior (not Fyslee) *after* the RFAR. Long time readers of QW-SB-NCAHF space should already know now that such refactoring is considered a highly aggressive (and provocative) move without *utmost* caution and civility. I would suggest that Fyslee practice his persuasive writing again (he's pretty good at it) and more often - I think it would have paid early dividends with Metta Bubble. I also think that you three here at various parts of this ANI page should chillout now for 24 hours about each other, just cease fire. Perhaps do a Q&A as you (AvB) and I did, then try to work out a modus vivendi and some reaffirmations of each other.--I'clast 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points of order: cautioned editors are not fair game. They are allowed to edit exactly like other editors. The only difference is that other editors who feel they are ignoring the cautioning, may involve any admin to enforce anything that should enforced, and entered in a log if there is one. Regular editors are not supposed to edit war about what either is, or is not, a blockable or "warnable" offense. And since cautioning is nothing but a restating of normal policy, all (especially partisan) editors would do well to heed the same verbiage. I suggest that your rendering of what happened, clearly marks you as a partisan editor editing on the other side of the debate. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed regarding a chill out. I hope you don't mean I need one; I'm not involved in this particular report and only respond to what's written if I feel what I have to say will help - especially since the report is being ignored by uninvolved admins. In other words, if nothing's written, you won't see respond... At any rate, Metta has tried the "impersonation" trick before, and as far as I can see, it never worked. Perhaps an admin can close/archive this report straight away. It's been a discussion between parties for some time now, with only I'clast, Shot Info and me responding - and we're not admins. AvB ÷ talk 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Centrx and my sigs

Centrx (talk · contribs)

User:Centrx is mass reverting my modifications of my own signatures which is explicitly allowed as per Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Changing your username. Centrx failed to convince Grutness that he has valid points. In addition a 3rd opinion was filed and was responded to, feel free to have a read of it.

Centrx is engaged in a revert war over my sigs on multiple pages including ones inside my userpsace. Centrx believes that I have a malicious intent for modifying my sig. I believe that also violates WP:AGF.

-- Cat 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy talks about removing personal information. It's not like you used to use your real name, so I see no way that you could call Cool Cat something personal and identifying. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly desire to change my sig. Thats all the policy expects. -- Cat 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think resources is an issue and its my time to waste. At least according to the devs I talked to. En.wiki receives several thousand edits per day. Centrx is wasting more of our resources by repetively revert waring over this. -- Cat 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, here's an exact quote of policy: "If you feel strongly about personal information no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." The username "Cool Cat" does in no way, reveal your personal information, so there is no personal info for you to feel strongly about. Because of that, policy doesn't allow you to do what you're doing. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets say you are right for the sake of argument, there still is nothing prohibiting from fixing my sigs. I am allowed to change my sigs and even comments on non-archived talk pages by default. Although discouraged, I am even allowed to remove my comments altogether if I do so desire - especially in my userspace. -- Cat 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason in changing your past sigs other than aesthetic effect? —Kurykh 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am sorting my sigs by year. It is particularly helpful for me. I can explain additional reasons in private if you like. Though, I would like to add (no offense), I shouldn't really need a reason aside from "my strong desire". :) -- Cat 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrx did not say he believes you have a malicious intent for modifying your signature. Regardless, why is this topic back here? At least Centrx has been kind enough to keep this trivial matter off the AN and ANI. Seriously, why is this so darn important to you? (And, to Centrx as well, why is this so darn important?) It takes two to tango; one of you just stop already. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move your mediation committee page? Is that really necessary? And what was the purpose of blanking the origin page and re-adding the same content? Was that in an attempt to make moving the page back more difficult? (If that was your intent, that doesn't do much). -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am more than allowed to move old references to my former username. I did this before with my first RFA. I forgot about the mediation case till recently. Why should I even need to provide an explanation? The complaint is Centrx's mass revers btw. -- Cat 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still rather pointless to continue to 1) remove references to your old name and 2) revert war over it when all it is, is your signature. Damn near everyone realizes that Cool Cat = White Cat at this point. Even if people didn't realize it by the signature, they could equally just check the history of any page you edited and it says White Cat now. — Moe ε 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the MedCom nomination from editing and moves. I think it's generally best if closed nominations not be edited in any way, and this includes their location. Daniel 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? What difference does the title of a medcab nom have to its content. Who is the candidate? Is it a lie to say that the candidate is me? -- Cat 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have been an issue if the second involved party hadn't started reverting harmless changes. I think going back and editing your old sigs isn't really useful, but any argument against it (server load, disruption, etc) can be equally made against reverting edits to old sigs.

Anyhow, this isn't prohibited, and User:White Cat shouldn't have to justify themselves in re. this. It's a personal choice, not a community one, and there's no reason that a personal (albeit retroactive) aesthetic choice should be made by committee. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-06-25 01:03Z

He's been warned about this, twice. Originally he had a bot doing the changes in mass. He is editing community talk pages, so it's not just up to him. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but why oh why does anyone care what he does to his own sigs if he's not being incivil or disruptive or trying to hide who made the comments? (he's actually making it more clear who made the comments) Someguy1221 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he's repeatedly been disruptive about it, and repeatedly told not to do it. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being involved in the previous discussions concerning this, but....why has he been told not to do it? I am straining to rationalize the edit wars this is causing. Someguy1221 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Misplaced Pages and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish, if you look at his userpage. He's actually making it easier for anyone reading old archives to find out the username currently being used by Coolcat, as well as still being able to see Coolcat's contribs (linked to right from White Cat's userpage). I still believe a mere redirect from his old userpage to his new one would be oh so much easier (I'm not finding it possible to comprehend why that wasn't done, looking through old discussions), other users have done that upon changing username. Someguy1221 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish - Not what was claimed: he's clearly trying to whitewash his reputation, given that the simplest thing he could have done was put a redirect at User:Cool Cat -- which he not only hasn't done, but has had the page protected so it CAN'T be done. Presumably he's trying to obscure something like

Indeed it was all to hide my block log. Man am I exposed...</sarcasm> Seriously have you actually seen my userpage? I link to that very log and far more (not that I am expected/required to do so). Also my sig does not link to my block log. Me fixing my sigs is more like "admitting guilt" if anything. Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.

Zscout370 I am not making this hard on myself. There is a person reverting me on multiple pages. And not just any pages but discussion pages (article content isn't in jeopardy) including the ones in my userspace.

If the precondition for me to fix my sigs is my leavening of the project, that can be arranged - though I believe such a demand would be out of proportion. I dispute the validity of those "variety of reasons".

This is a complaint on Centrx's behaviour. Strangely almost no one seems to be commenting to that end. 3rd opinion and Grutness's conversation with Centrx is pretty clear on this. The policy is also clear on this even though people are interpreting stuff not written on it.

I am not the first person to fix his/her sigs people...

-- Cat 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point, but I also don't see what the big fuss is about. If Cat wants to make a fresh start, great, as the old Cool Cat account had more blocks than a daycare full of toddlers, and I can thoroughly understand that. Is it obfuscating GFDL by changing all those talk page attributions? If it isn't, then Centrx, let him do what he likes. Neil ╦ 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I really need to give an explanation for it - just to set the record straight...

• I desire not to be associated as "Cool Cat" from now on. I want to however be associated with the edits (good or bad) of "Cool Cat" since I am the same person. As you pointed out, I have a depressingly long block log. I made no attempt to hide it. In fact I advertise it more than I should. If I desired to "hide" anything I would merely register a new account without using any associated with this one.
• Deletion of User:Cool Cat went to MfD and later deletion review only because User:Ned Scott repetitively recreated the page. He even revert wared with multiple admins over the closures of the MfD. You may not have noticed this but my former talk page is actually a redirect.
• I intend to clear all of the material in the userspace of "Cool Cat" (all of them are redirects) but the talk page. This is maintenance related and does not have any other purpose at least not to my knowledge.

The very point of a signature is to "identify" the person making the comment. Updating it is to better represent/identify the person making the comment. Mediawiki software currently does not have the capability to update users sigs as it is updating their contribution history after an account rename. I think of making a sig to match the username that appears in page history to be good practice.

I also ask you to be civil. No one is "bitching" about anything.

-- Cat 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit point

• Am I the only one who thinks this is getting really ridiculous? Titoxd 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think this is simply the case of a user trying to achieve legitimate intentions (look at User:White Cat if you doubt this) in an absurdly inefficient manner, leaving aside for a moment the bot issue. Please, please just redirect the old userpage before more WP:LAME worthy material is created, although I do believe that reverting White Cat's sig changes is utterly pointless, whatever policies say (aren't we supposed to ignore those?). Someguy1221 23:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  I do not believe Centrix's action has any policy basis, on the contrary he is contradicting some such as Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Changing your username explicitly allowing what I am doing. I do not desire to have a redirect at my former userpage. I do have a redirect on my former talk page which should be adequate for people stumbling on my former userpage. -- Cat 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Although it applies by the spirit and not by the word, lets review m:Right to vanish

  "If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection."

  1. Y "Change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you"
     • This is done as per my request. Page implies this is the "hard part".
  2. N "Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username"
     • Centrx is reverting edits in parallel with this.
  3. N "Delete your user and user talk subpages"
     • It is being implied above that I must have a redirect on my former userpage contradicting the logic behind this.
  4. N "Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name"
     • It is being implied that I need to comply with this in order to be allowed to commit the two (#2&3) items above.

  What I desire to do is in parallel with the logic above minus #4.

  -- Cat 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well, in case anyone is still reading this, I honestly find White Cat's actions to be perfectly reasonable though inefficient (aside from any allegations of unapproved bot edits, and the possible exception of editing another user's talk archive). I still fail to understand what would possess anyone to revert war over this, once one realizes that White Cat has never been trying to hide his past. Someguy1221 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  I really think this whole drama is beyond logic. :) -- Cat 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs and Wikistalking

User:Baseball Bugs has been following me around and will not leave me alone. Some of his comments are rather benign, but his activity is very counter productive. He has commented on a number of articles that clearly have little to do with what he is interested in and everything to do with what edits I make. I just want the guy to leave me alone. Can someone please help? //Tecmobowl 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the allegation, and it is legitimate: Baseball Bugs has edited several articles (not reverted, just edited) minutes after Tecmobowl has edited. ArbCom precedent in the RickK vs. TheRecyclingTroll case has established such behavior as a violation of Misplaced Pages:Harassment.

I'll give Baseball Bugs a stern warning. If he persists, please report him to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 or here again. Shalom 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is a very touchy situation and all i want to do is get the content on here better. //Tecmobowl 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• It might be time for an admin to step in here. //Tecmobowl 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has a history of contentiousness with many users, with being blocked for edit warring, and for engaging in sockpuppetry to get around that block. We have both edited hundreds of articles on baseball, and our crossover has been on very few of them. He has filed numerous complaints against anyone who dares to challenge his edits, and none of his complaints have come to anything, once the admins learn the whole picture of his behavior. After being asked by Shalom (who has since decided he wants nothing to do with this matter) to stop "following" Tecmo (the same complaint Tecmo's sockpupper User:El redactor had made), I have further backed off from engaging him. However, I reserve the right to edit pages that are of interest to me, even if they happen to coincide with pages that Tecmobowl edits. Baseball Bugs 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leave me alone. I am not a sock, you believe that I am ... those are two different things. Stop following me around. Editing pages that interest you is one thing, following me around is another thing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! //Tecmobowl 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence shows that you have engaged in sockpuppetry. And since you never have the courtesy to notify me directly about these complaints of yours, I have to monitor your "contributions" list to find out about them. Your goal, apparently, is to find a way to prevent me from editing any baseball articles that you also edit. In fact, there is very little crossover in our respective articles. But you do not have the right to "own" any page, nor to arbitrarily exclude someone from editing a page just because you don't like that editor. Baseball Bugs 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE READ WHAT I AM SAYING _ GET THIS GUY TO LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!! MY GOAL IS TO GET HIM TO STOP TALKING TO ME AND STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND>>>MY GOAL IS TO MOVE THE FUCK ON>>>AM I MAD - NO >>> AM I TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO GET ATTENTION -> YES!!!!! GET HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!! //Tecmobowl 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One curious recent incident is Tecmobowl's editing of the user page for User:El redactor to remove the information about El redactor being Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. This is in keeping with Tecmobowl's tendency to blank out his own talk page (this, for example), which is considered impolite (and uncivil... see above) under wikipedia standards. Editing of user pages by anyone other than the page's owner is generally frowned upon, and removal of such notices is against the rules. However, Tecmobowl's editing of El redactor's user page in general is arguably OK, since he has been demonstrated to be that page's creator. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note, I'm unwatching this bullshit. Nobody wants to stop it, fine, I'll just bite the guy back. //Tecmobowl 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Today it was proven that Tecmobowl used sockpuppetry to get around his previous block, and today he was issued a 1-week suspension for disruptive behavior. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Metta Bubble refuses to acknowledge "outing" another editor

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonating_another_user_and_religious_attacks

On Talk:Stephen Barrett Metta Bubble has "outed" my real-life identity, damaging both my Misplaced Pages and real-life reputations, brought assorted unwarranted COI accusations presented as "questions", also violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I responded to the questions and explained about the various blockable offenses. I hoped that my explanations would be understood and taken to heart and let it go, under the impression that Metta wanted the conflict to end (see my talk page e.g. here) and had realized there was, indeed, a problem with their behavior. I myself had also responded somewhat irritatedly, and I assumed this was more a question of temper than one of extreme policy violations - lessons learned all around (although I do not believe I have violated any policies here. If so, please let me know).

However - I regularly look at problems here and on the BLP noticeboard to see if I can be of some help. Yesterday I noticed this AN/I report where Metta was accusing one of the other editors they had accused of a COI worthy of an ArbCom arbitration and tried to resolve the conflict. Being mentioned there, I posted some background in the Metta's report. Their responses opened my eyes to the fact that there is no discernible learning curve here.

Here are some relevant diffs (a number of intermediate posts not included):

• post by Metta Bubble
• response by Avb
• response by Metta Bubble
• Avb posts defense against allegations
• more by Avb
• attempt by Avb to explain and resolve the problem
• Avb refactors Barrett talk page to remove WP:BLP/WP:NPA violations & repair "identity outing" etc. now that it has been discussed
• attempt by Avb to discuss the issue
• Metta Bubble denies the problem
• more explanations by Avb
• Metta Bubble denies the problem on AN/I

I would appreciate it if an admin could explain the problems here to Metta and ask them not to "out" other editors?

Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS My user page history (the real-life info had been lifted from an old version) has just been deleted at my request in order to prevent repetition. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, investigating a possible COI, finds information in your User Page history then mentions it in a discussion about a possible COI. You remove the information and delete your User page's history, and note that you want this information kept private. Has Metta revealed this information since you removed it? –Gunslinger47 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it probably a year ago by blanking the page/adding new contents. It was useful at the time as a declaration of my possible COI since I was editing related articles back then. But (as always) it remained somewhere at the bottom of the history. Other editors are not supposed to use it, and that's what I told Metta very early on. Instead of removing it from the article and disengaging from this specific line of questioning, they expanded on it. Regardless, simply editing user page info out should be sufficient. I never expected another editor to do dig up a very old version, let alone doing something like this. As a result of this experience I then had my user page history removed. I haven't heard from Metta since then. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Circular accusations of COI have been a staple of Stephen Barrett and related articles for some time. I must say that the "evidence" here is extremely weak (i.e. you are a health-care critic, so is Stephen Barrett, therefore you have a COI). And digging through year-old userpage diffs and then posting identifying information in article-talk space, in service of such a weak COI accusation, bothers me substantially. I've been previously heavily involved (and now very occasionally involved) in Barrett-related pages, so I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate this situation as an outside admin, but I would urge an uninvolved admin with patience and a streak of masochism to review this situation carefully. We've already had one such conflict on these pages end up in a prolonged and nasty ArbCom case. MastCell 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta was being extremely silly there. The evidence proved the converse (example: it lists many chiropractors). For the rest, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". And the reverse is also true; I simply want this user to understand the situation and never do something like this again. Mastcell and others who have helped to explain this so far, thanks a lot. AvB ÷ talk 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to accusations

• I have never posted information a user asked me not to. <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB>. It was me who first raised <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB> in a general question. In reply AvB outed him/herself by posting links to a website. I subsequently posted links also. <links removed by AvB> Then AvB urged me to reread his/her links. (see last paragraph). S/he was reluctant to discuss the issues and had hoped his/her links spoke for themselves. . His/her explanation was more than enough for me and I was ready to move on. Over the ensuing days Fyslee (talk · contribs) got progressively more aggressive at me, attempting to fan discord about this issue and ultimately resulting in me filing an incident report here. It appears my incident report has fueled this incident report as though the two are related. They are not.

My line of questioning AvB didn't come out of nowhere. We had been discussing each others neutrality for a few days. Early on s/he said to me "I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them." .

I know making COI assertions is a serious business and I don't shy away from this. However, there has already been at least one Arbcom case regarding the Stephen Barrett article involving COI (I think more than one) so I don't see it as breaking propriety to raise the issue during talk page discussion that civilly migrated towards the topic of COI. Thanks. p.s. Please don't split my post ॐ Metta Bubble 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletions to my post above have little to do with sensitive information. The first phrase deleted by Avb was <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB> The second phrase deleted was "In reply". The words "Avb outed" ran together in my original post but have now been separated by a "refactored" notice. Why? There was nothing there to refactor. The net effect is to destroy the grammar of my post and render it unreadable. I'm not surprised Avb attempted this sabotage since my post clearly showed s/he actually outed her/himself. Here is my original defense to her/his accusations . ॐ Metta Bubble 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I once again note that you were quoting information you lifted from a user page I deleted about a year ago. Deletion of information from one's user page (though retaining old versions in the history) is quite sufficient to convey overriding privacy concerns. It tells other users one no longer wishes the deleted information to be used. Quoting a year-old user page version to out another editor is frowned upon just as much as using information, old or recent, acquired off-site. And since that was not enough for you, I have also debated the point, and told you, and asked you, not to use it, and finally had the history deleted altogether. And still you're quoting from it.

Apparently you do not see the common denominators in my changes to your edit. I have again refactored, this time in a way that you will hopefully understand better instead of using it to attack me once again. The following aspects played a role in my refactoring:

(1) Please stop identifying my supposed gender. I no longer wish to be associated with a specific gender or lack of one. When I joined Misplaced Pages, I self-identified as a male, but I no longer do. This was one of the reasons why I deleted the gender information from my user page about a year ago. I have accepted being addressed as a male by many users as a convenience, and will probably continue to do so, but I will not accept it from you. I regard my gender, phenotype and genotype, as a very private aspect of my identity. I have awarded you the same courtesy until very recently; then I decided to address you as a female like some other editors. Please forgive me if that has angered you and feel free to refactor it like I have refactored your edit above.

(2) Please address me as AvB, not Avb.

(3) The web site you referred to is not mine, and it has never been mine. It is owned and mostly run by its webmaster. Regardless, it shows the same problems with Barrett I had already conveyed earlier, not a positive COI but a slightly negative POV. You are inserting new accusations as you go. Are you done now? AvB ÷ talk 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

* Apparently Avb thinks it's okay to accuse me and then delete my defense (twice). Now he's saying I should be banned for identifying him as male. Good grief, seriously, WP:POINT. ॐ Metta Bubble 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for admin comment

"Outing" (linking someone's real life identity with their Misplaced Pages user name) anywhere on Misplaced Pages is not allowed. Doing so to make accusations is worse. Doing so to make unfounded COI accusations is even worse. Quite clearly, Metta Bubble still does not understand the problems caused by outing (esp. linked with accusations like "smell a rat" - "COI" - "Arbcom"). She still denies any wrongdoing, and feels free to do this again, even on AN/I (I've removed some of it). This flies in the face of current Misplaced Pages practice. Metta Bubble also removed the explanation given by User:Hypnosadist on her talk page here with the edit summary (Thanks for letting me know but actually you're relying on gossip and heresay. Good luck with the policy).

Hypnosadist, thanks for explaining to Metta. Would you agree with Metta that you were relying on gossip and hearsay? If you simply responded to my request to explain why outing is not a good idea, could you or an uninvolved admin click through to my diffs given above and give an opinion whether or not this type of public investigative journalism/OR/advertising is acceptable behavior?

The point is not that real-life info can be found somewhere in a corner of the internet; it's being advertised on a live page on Misplaced Pages, the world's #10 website. Should I be monitoring all Metta's contributions here on Misplaced Pages now for a repeat? She thinks doing so would be OK. When something similar or worse stays up for too long, banning Metta will not repair it. We really need to hear her say she won't do anything like this again. AvB ÷ talk 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Partial rebuttal

(1) Everyone is invited to read my diffs which tell the full story before MB rewrote it. (2) The COI assertions came out of the blue. MB had been questioning my neutrality for days , not vice versa as claimed. (3) The "outing" was done by info in Metta Bubble's (unsourced = BLP violation) "general question" (=COI attack #1) linking me with a history at a domain name. Note that mere links are not a problem; it's the context of someone saying e.g. "his website" and unjustified criticism that makes it dangerous. And Metta's freely quoting from privacy-related user page information (containing personal affiliations and a real-life name) removed a long time ago is a blockable offense.

Some concerns

Editors should not make things easy for the dark side. Seeing a searchable page of the world's #10 website connecting my real-life ID with "where you vacation" suddenly makes such details (scattered throughout Misplaced Pages) dangerous. The mention by Metta of these and other details, such as "the size of your family," sounds quite ominous. Suddenly there's the possibility that lunatics who hate my guts on Misplaced Pages could be waiting for me with a gun around every corner. Also note that this outing goes two ways. It informs lunatics editing Misplaced Pages about my real-life ID just as readily as it informs lunatics from both the past (now dug up by Metta) and the present about my Misplaced Pages ID. AvB ÷ talk 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please block this user?

I've had enough. All I asked for was for Metta to say they wouldn't do this again to me or other editors, and still they continue. Can someone please block User:Metta_Bubble for repeatedly restoring unsourced BLP information about myself, here and on the Barrett talk page? The sources offered are a long deleted user page I had also oversighted last Monday because Metta kept quoting from it (diff). Some hours later Metta again quoted from it on this AN/I page, and today again, repeating something I had reverted. Diffs: First reinsertion. Refactored by AvB. Second reinsertion. This is mainly about linking my Misplaced Pages ID with with my real-life identity and a specific web site. These reinsertions simply repeated earlier accusations, did not add anything and were quite unnecessary for the AN/I process. Editors who were there already know due to Metta's insistence that this is allowed, and I say that should be quite enough. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to you in the first place. Quit lying. ॐ Metta Bubble 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Antoni Gaudí

Can some admin please take a look at Antoni Gaudí article?

There's a debate about the infobox and the field "Nationality" among users Maurice27 Xtv and me.

Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that besides the content dispute Maurice has been engaging on gross disruption to prove his point by continuing to tag the article as a hoax when it is blatantly not, then reverting everyone who removes the hoax tag. Content disputes is one thing, incivility and gross disruption and edit warring is another thing. Hence this post on ANI rather than dispute resolution. MartinDK 08:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real".

Those users have edited the article to add false facts, as shown here:

If it wasn't for the hoax tag, the article would have remained stating this gentleman was catalonian national, which is false as catalan nationality does not exist. Therefore, if hoax is to define "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real", I believe the tag to be correctly added.

In any case I may be called incivil as I haven't insulted anybody

In any case I may be accused of edit warring as I haven't touched the content of the article for 4 days, limiting myself at arguing my points on the talk page and adding the dispute tags.

--Maurice27 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, Maurice27, I won't cp your derogatory comments here. Let's wait for the admins to read the talk page and they'll judge for themselves.

Then they'll notice your lack of respect and your insults which have brought you to be blocked several times before.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maurice you seem to misunderstand what a hoax is. This person is blatantly real and not a hoax. You are using the wrong tag which is why you are being reverted. Please do not cause further disruption by inserting the hoax tag. As I explained to you it adds the article to the category of possible hoaxes which is disruptive because it wastes the time of those of us who monitor that category. Your incivility does not exactly help either and this article is not the only one where you continue to insert/change information that is apparently against what the majority believes to be true. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and if you feel that the majority is wrong then all you have to do is provide reliable sources to support that. Repeatedly adding a hoax tag when told not to do so and why is futile disruption. MartinDK 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin is right, Maurice. The {{hoax}} template is used for articles that are patent nonsense as a whole, not for articles that may contain factual inaccuracies. For those articles, we have the {{disputed}} tag. Aecis 10:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27 is a user who, despite making some good edits, has too strong feelings about some facts. This, makes him loose (sometimes) respect to other users and he starts making personal attacks (last example, or just see his rich block log, in fact I already decided once not talking with him anymore until he apologised, but that day never came) in spite of bringing references. His answers to many discussions are simply "this are lies, try again" without justifying himself nor answering the questions. He usually doesn't try to find a consensus solution: his solution is the only possible, and even if everybody agree in a consensus but him, he continues reverting (last 3RR broken) or/and discussing (trolling?), which makes loose much, much time to many other users. Examples can be found in Gaudí, Talk:Catalonia or Talk:Valencian Community talk pages, among others.

I am really sorry for writting in this way about another user, but I think I (we) have lost enough time before reporting his way to contribute.

About Gaudí's nationality, I have already exposed my reasons in the talk page. I think the solution that Aecis is already NPOV and it can be a good solution. If however most of the people thinks different (which until now it is not the case), I will accept it and I won't continue discussing.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This thread and the attention from uninvolved editors seems to have resolved the issue without the need for further preventive blocks or protection of the article. If any further issues should arise make sure that you take it to dispute resolution before the incivility gets out of hand. MartinDK 10:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets

I have been documenting a case of sock/meatpuppets against a user in the sandbox User talk:72.75.70.147/sockpuppets (started before my IP was reset by a power failure), but as 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) they have been posting personal attacks against me on article talk pages (see Talk:Gary Coull and Talk:Jing Ulrich) and the deletion review for an article that I tagged for speedy deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 23#CLSA), accusing me of intentionally changing my IP address/username, when both my talk page and others linked to it make it very clear that my DSL connection changes at random intervals (as it did just a few days ago).

OTOH, this edit shows that they have been using both a registered account and an IP account to make their malicious edits against me at the same time ... I have tried to move our discussions into user space, but they (a) have not left any messages on my talk page, and (b) have not responded to messages left on any of their various talk pages.

Throughout this incident, I have tried to maintain Civility, but after their latest attack, I decided that I should probably post something here. —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note asking the user to please discontinue making any attacks or personal remarks. Sometimes, that is enough to defuse a situation. If problems continue please let me know. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, but they have already been warned by myself and others, and I doubt that they will even notice your warning ... given that the content of their continued personal attacks indicates that they have not read any of the messages I have left on article discussion pages or their own (and sockpuppet) user talk pages, e.g., I have explained about my IP changing randomly, but they still accuse me of using multiple IP accounts to circumvent admin blocks and to be a "TROLL," I don't think that they even realize that messages are even being left for them in user space ... except for vandalizing and deleting warnings from user talk pages, all of their communications have been on article discussion pages or the DRV project page. —72.75.85.234 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:867xx5209 has tried to delete their attacks from the talk page (including one from their sock account, Chance in HK (talk · contribs)), but they still have not offered any comments or apology for their actions. —72.75.85.234 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised account

Umm...we may have a rouge admin or compromised account: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Main_Page&diff=140792037&oldid=139821505. Since this is serious, I'm brining it here first. If it happens again, someone should get on the steward channel. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a single incident, so it might just be a mistake. Still, worth keeping an eye on... thanks for the report, R. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And Ryan has reverted it. If only I could do that myself :). --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the message at the top of his talk page, he's on vacation right now. So either somebody else is using his home computer while he's gone (a sibling perhaps), or he left his account logged in from a cyber cafe he was using, and somebody else found it. Either way, I'd recommend a warning to him to be more careful with account security, especially as an admin. And perhaps a preventative de-admining until his return from vacation in July/August (though for that I'd wait until we see if it continues to happen, or just the once). --Maelwys 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, though it seems the person I conflicted has the same idea) And my best guess would be a compromised account, because the message on his talk page says he may be editing through WiFi networks and cybercafes. Maybe (s)he forgot to log in.

Account temporarily desysoped by Shanel. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at his/her contributions suggests this might be possible, as the mainpage vandalism occured some two hours after some typical contributions. And I see he's been de-sysopped. Flyguy649_contribs 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins should be able to force an account to log out, not effecting the actual account. This would help recover accounts where the usurper does not know the password. Until(1 == 2) 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but if he does know the password we've done nothing, and temporary blocks have pretty much the same effect. One day we might have it so anyone on wikiholiday can't edit to prevent this kind of thing, who knows? SGGH 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with, AndonicO has regained full control of his account and has been resysopped. Luckily there was no lasting damage. I also changed the title of this section to something more appropriate. Majorly (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a Bad Idea to ever edit with an admin account on a public computer? 201.81.193.237 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (Fvasconcellos (t·c), at an Internet café, checking before I log in :)—will somehow "validate" this comment when I get home) —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In a way, yes. Probably it's best to create an alternate account. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you must do this, you can gain a measure of security (from keyloggers, anyway) by copying/pasting letters to enter your password. Feezo (Talk) 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for what has happened. Apparently, someone overrided the password on my laptop when I wasn't there (I don't know how exactly, but something to do with pressing shift and typing "administrator" somewhere), and saw that my wikipedia account was logged in (with "Remember me"). He vandalized the Main Page, and then stopped. He does not know either my password to my computer or wikipedia, which are both according to policy (over 20 characters comprised of random letters,—both capital and lower-case—numbers, symbols, and spaces). Even so, I will no longer use "Remember me", as it seems the computer's password can be bypassed. Once again, my deepest apologies for the trouble. · AndonicO 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So a button that admins can use to force someone to log out would have helped. Until(1 == 2) 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A security tip (for Windows, not WP): at the login screen, press CTRL+ALT+DEL twice if using the Welcome screen to get a logon box up. Log in as Administrator, no password. Change the password for this account when you're in, and write it down. This is something of a "security hole" in Windows XP. This, that and the other 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent stalking

I logged on today to be greeted by a surprising message from Matt57 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. While Matt is usually an edit warrior on Islam-related articles, he has now decided to oppose me in a content dispute on Cuteness. And to my greater surprise, I find he also has decided to oppose (and revert) my edits on a number of articles that he really hasn't frequented. I know it isn't nice to say but I'm inclined to consider this stalking. Aside from the pattern of reverts alone, he has also made comments that suggest this is some sort of dispute against me.

His major edits today so far, in order:

1. "This editor Behnam has given me problems too"
2. - Re-adds the image subject of my content dispute, calling me a vandal at the same time ("Behnam, please dont vandalize this article")
3. - Section titled "Protect articles against POV vandalism" related to the Cuteness content dispute.
4. - Restores a claim at an article that he does actually edit - this one really isn't stalking, though it is definitely warring against me.
5. - Restores an image I removed at Black people, an article he probably has never edited until now. He explains this with the "I mind it, the picture is relevant to the article," which taken with the lack of a talk page case or anything else, seems best described as a "blind revert." He undid my edit awhile back where I "hope nobody minds" .
6. - Now follows my edits to Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment with a warning to other editors about my previous edits there.
7. - Asks for the other disputant's email to be enabled. I wonder what that is about...

Some of these edits seem to be blatant stalking, in addition to violations of AGF and perhaps other conduct rules. The key distinction according to WP:HAR is whether or not these edits intend to harass me. If I was really some vandal, spammer, or SPA I wouldn't argue that this is stalking as such users are regularly checked upon. But Matt has called me a vandal here, and has undone a variety of my edits on unrelated pages. He and I have had reasonable content disputes on articles of common interest before - perhaps he is still sore about those. What is certain is that I feel harassed by this.

In any case it may be that I'm taking this wrong, so I'd like others to review the apparent stalking here, and if it does seem that stalking is the case here, please enforce an appropriate remedy to discourage this kind of behavior. Thanks and sorry for the lengthy post. The Behnam 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look... Georgewilliamherbert 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to carry on with the content issues in the meantime. I didn't want to get dragged into edit warring out of frustration over his reverts so I figured I'd bring the matter up here. The Behnam 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this technically violates WP:STALK but seems pretty innocuous so far. I have asked him to explain on his user talk page, and pointed out the policy. We'll see how the discussion goes from here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. Hopefully this will resolve without further incident. The Behnam 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate wasting admin time over small stuff like this but since he raised this issue, I'll jump in. STALK does not apply: "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them". I didnt do that. What am I expected to do? He's removing valid sourced stuff and forcing other editors to give up. This is basically an aggressive and contentious editor if you look at their contribs. You guys tell me what I should do. Here he removed the picture of Knut saying "source does not suppose this". Who here agrees with that? Then he removed the picture a 2nd and a 3rd time until the poor editor who put these pictures in said "I am retiring from this dispute". He accuses me of edit warring? He's been blocked for edit waring 2 times in April. I've had problems with him/her before where he edit-warred and removed relevant information which lead to me making a separate article for Parvin's sister (which was a good result so thats ok). Anyway, you guys tell me if he was wrong to remove Knut's picture and see how that poor editor gave up defending the very valid insertion of that picture there. I consider this matter resolved and am willing to discuss his picture removal issue at the talk page there. --Matt57 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, searching through ANI history it seems you have a history of stalking. I think you should WP:AGF, don't violate WP:STALK, and just calm down.--Flamgirlant 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flam, I was about to mention that. Likewise, I was accused of stalking by Kirbytime two times on ANI. He was the only one who made that claim against me and he is now an indef banned troll. That explains his claims of stalking. Anyway, I'll AGF and all that stuff now. --Matt57 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the devil himself accused you of Wikistalking. If you do something that annoys other editors, maybe you should stop doing that. Looking through your contribs it is obvious you have an agenda to push here. I recommend editing articles that don't relate to Islam. That's still Misplaced Pages too.--Flamgirlant 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You just started editing 6 days ago so I dont think you're aware of this website much. If I was "annoying" someone and in the end they got banned as a troll, who is most likely the annoyer here, me or the troll? Quoting many admins here, the troll "exhausted the community's patience". --Matt57 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After a dispute at Islamofascism on June 2, Matt stalked me to The Holocaust, an article I've edited a lot and he had never edited. He reverted me after I removed an unreliable source. Matt restored the poor source, and added another one, which would have been great, except the new source didn't say what he claimed it was saying. I don't mind someone checking my contribs and turning up to edit helpfully, but when someone follows me because of a dispute, then reverts me in an area they clearly aren't familiar with, involving more work for me or other editors, it falls within the definition of stalking. SlimVirgin 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that incident have to do with this case? --Matt57 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows that you have a history of getting into disputes with users, then following them around and generally reverting their changes on other articles. Regardless of validity of your changes, which have in at least some cases been good and in others bad, this violates at the very least the heart of what "Wikistalking" is, if not the wording. --Haemo 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalking means that I pursued that editor or article, just to harrass them. I didnt do that. If I see a bad edit, and that happens to be from an editor with which I've had disputes with recently, how should I proceed in order to not cause an allegation of 'stalking'? --Matt57 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that you're following other editors around and often being "trigger-happy" in reverting their edits, because of your prior dispute with them. You also appear to be pulling in your dispute with them to unrelated pages. I would suggest not tracking the edits of users who you are in a dispute with -- you should recognize that your personal judgment is probably compromised to some degree, and just disengage. --Haemo 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. Thanks for the nuetral input. Alright then, I think I just have to be more careful from now next time I'm in dispute with these editors so I dont cause an allegation of stalking. --Matt57 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to call an edit bad, but when you reverted Behnam and accused him of vandalism, there is definitely something wrong. And then you proceed to gang up on the talk page and poison the well. There is much more to this than meets the eye, it seems.--Flamgirlant 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its certain you're someone I've met before or you wouldnt be saying this with all this ferocity. I wish I knew what your original username was (I have a hunch). Anyway. I'm talking to Behnam about this on cuteness and this should be resolved now. --Matt57 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Please WP:AGF as I had never heard of you before this. This is a problem between you and behnam, please don't try to drag me into it. It isn't my fault that it is easy to find tendentious edits in your contribs.--Flamgirlant 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone for that matter who edits Islam related articles has 'tendentious' edits. Thats how it is there. Its just a big POV mess (e.g.). I think this matter is closed now. --Matt57 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should apologize and promise not to continue this behavior. It amazes me that even after this ANI post was active you dug up one of my insignificant edits from two weeks ago and have been interrogating me about it quite extensively on my talk page. And do you really think that you can avoid responsibility here by bringing up Kirbytime? Kirbytime may have complained about you, but he got banned for repeatedly requesting child porn and leaving little rude messages in the hidden text on his user page. He didn't get banned for having problems with you alone, so don't think that his end justifies your continuing behavior. It is completely baseless to compare my complaint about your behavior here today to Kirbytime. I don't understand what clicked in your head today that you woke up and started wikistalking me, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop, apologize, and not do it again. I don't know why you needed to stress me but you shouldn't have. Thank you. The Behnam 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Insisting on apologies doesn't always help things, but...

Matt57: if Benham thinks this is harrassment, and a bunch of admins here think what you're doing is harrassment, then you should consider whether what you're doing is in fact reasonable behavior or not. The claim is not false or trivial, as you indicated you felt it was on your talk page. It's not "closed". If you just stop now, nothing's going to happen, but if you do it again it's going to be hard not to take some sort of preventive action. Please listen this time: we're taking this seriously. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. --Matt57 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari running amok

Admin Naconkantari had been quite, say, liberal with the delete button as of late and is ignoring others' attempts to approach him about it (see and ). One glance at his Talk page reveals that he is leaving a wake of confused users. Some of his deletions are kosher, but he is deleting a number of pages with incorrect deletion reasons or with quite loose interpretations of speedy criteria. Editors who question his deletions are just told to go away to DRV.

This of course started with his 3000+ deletions of fair use images without checking to see if a rationale was provided (see User:TomTheHand/Fair use for the list); perhaps a mistake, but his unwillingness to help clean it up or communicate about it is no mistake. He is now deleting articles in the same slipshod manner, including one today within a minute of when the editor created it, despite the editor's obvious intent to expand the article. Not every editor instantly craps out a perfect article.

I intend to block this user if his behavior continues unabated and undiscussed just to prevent the hours of admin time to clean up his messes. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is related to the fair use image deletions. I have dealt with those separately. The recent deletions are of articles that fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and I will continue to delete articles that fail these criteria. Naconkantari 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't see. But both the image and articles share two common aspects: 1) You are sloppy. Going through and deleting thousands of images without checking for fair use rationales and not removing them from their articles is sloppy. You are also deleting articles for speedy reasons that don't even apply. Also sloppy. Both cases, someone has to clean up after you. 2) You are downright rude to anyone who approaches you about your actions, or you ignore them outright. Unacceptable. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that your example was deleted by another admin almost 45 minutes later because it still met the same speedy criteria? Use dispute resolution if you feel there's an issue; your incivility and threats of blocking are completely unwarranted. Shell 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article later is moot and you know it. The point is that he deleted it instantly and then told the editor to take a hike. Dispute resolution is well under way, I assure you, but I am posting here to gauge support for a block just so I and others and stop playing cleanup. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look I just created the Gayla Earlene page and within 2 minutes it was deleted. Did not give me a chance to return to the article to update it and bring it to a notability place. I asked him to give me a minute and he treated me rudely. If he has the right to remove article that fast, then there would be no articles on Misplaced Pages! Articles are works in progress. I have created other articles and I have gotten the to notabilty. Whats the guys problem? I think he needs to take a chill and let other editors accomplish what Misplaced Pages is all about. "Being a community that works together!" Junebug52 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion gives admin the rights to delete crap in less than a minute after creation if they are extremely fast. Also to the person who created this thread, Requests for comment is that way. FunPika 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nacon's doing a fine job. You should be uploading non-free images with rationales; it is policy, after all. It only takes two minutes. Will 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all I do not think my article was "CRAP" and second, if that be the way we are to act as a community, I do not know if I want to be a part of it! Articles are placed by the thousands on here daily. If everyone of them were deleted before the editors could work on them, then there would be no articles! All I asked for was some time to get it up and cited. He did not give me that opportunity. That to me does not seem like a good admin, but someone who has a power issue. Just my opinion, but it's the one that counts! Junebug52 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If every article on Misplaced Pages were crap, they would all be deleted. As it is, they're not because not all of them are crap. As for the power issue, I find it interesting that someone who's so inexperienced in the Misplaced Pages community is apparently knowledgable enough to recognize an admin power trip. What, exactly constitutes one?⇒ SWATJester 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do all that in ONE edit. FunPika 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Amooooook, amok amok amok!!!!! Admins gone wild! College admins exposed! Admins doing the WILDEST deletions, the SPEEDIEST deletions, the dirtiest, nastiest, RAUNCHIEST DELETIONS!!!! Articles so bad you'll just want to spank them!

Oh wait. This isn't a late night TV commercial. If a page isn't notable, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Spike Wilbury's intentions to block Naconkantari for the stated reasons. --172.162.201.79 03:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a very civil remark. Even if you do think that this does not belong on ANI and that new editors are too ignorant about Misplaced Pages to know admin abuse when they experience it themselves you should be able to phrase yourself in more appropriate ways. It is these kinds of responses that drive editors off the project. Maybe you should try reading WP:BITE MartinDK 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good example of this page being used as a substitute for dispute resolution. Please, if you and several others have an issue with this fellow's deletions, take the time to gather evidence and enumerate policy violation, in RFC format on Requests for Comment. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is in process. But since this involves use of admin powers, other admins might want to take a look at the relevant delete logs from time to time, pending the result of any dispute resolution process. DES 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, y'all. WP:BITE. It took this coming to ANI for someone to go to User talk:Junebug52 and explain nicely about well-formed first edits. Don't let vandalfighting cross the line into biting new editors. Spend the time and talk more. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur per Georgewilliamherbert. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone said this, and I found Swatjester's comment particularly unhelpful. RxS 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing, vandalism after final warning & constant reversion of legitimate edits

Re:User:GiorgioOrsini - Multiple offences in a few articles and talk pages: removing legitimate tags after final warning; blatant POV-pushing; destroying absolutely necessary corrections of grammar, formatting and POV problems; personal attacks (mostly by describing other editors' legitimate edits as vandalism). IP check request for this editor is here. I originally posted this at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism but someone removed it, saying I should post it here. Please see the individual's edit history for a full account of his infractions. Spylab 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This person did contribute absolutely nothing to the Neo-Nazism - Section Croatia nor to the Ante Starcevic entries. Both articles are heavily referenced in Serbo-Croatian language which (s)he does not know ('Can someone explain it in plain English? Spylab January 13 2007' ) - which means that (s)he cannot read references nor pass any valid claim about POV-pushing. As to his(her) understanding of the modern English language grammar - my comment is not necessary - here are two examples of his (her) knowledge (, ). Also (s)he never ever elaborated disqualifications (s)he was throwing on the Edit summary lines nor ever supported them by any valid and verifiable knowledge of the subject (s)he wanted to 'handle'. When facing with direct requests to elaborate other editors work disqualifications - (s)he regularly avoids it by diverting discussion or throwing threats ("you'll be blocked"), accusations like 'removing legitimate tags' (who made them legitimate - may I ask him(her)?), self-praising his(her) work like here ('What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior."')

--Giorgio Orsini 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would only second to Giorgio's concerns and ask the administrator who would be in charge of handling this case to carefully examine Spylab communication to other editors.--Modelsides 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that I have also reported Modelsides below for violating Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I have requested an IP check to see if Modelsides and Giorgio Orsini are the same person, since their editing and talk pattern is very similar.Spylab 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd for a new user, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/69.132.198.186

You'll see in there he blatantly attacks me, even though said user has only made 2 edits, and has never come in contact with me. Let me come straight to the point: this is CINEGroup, no ifs ands or buts. I'm not sure if a checkuser would be valid, given the length of time CINEGroup has been gone. Any suggestions? Oh, expect him to show up shortly as he has a pattern of following me. --Ispy1981 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally changing a single word in an article is not sufficient to warrant a 24h block, but that's one heck of a nasty edit summary. Ispy, I'm sorry you had to endure that.

However, it's really impossible to guess from a single edit who the sockpuppeteer is. There isn't a pattern of evidence. I'd say the only thing to do is block the IP and hope he doesn't bother you anymore. Shalom 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very unusual indeed. I've got no problem thinking that the anon is another editor acting anonymously, but at this time, at most I think they should be warned (which has already happened). If they make a similar edit summary, block them for 24 hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal standpoint is this. The personal attack is secondary. I get attacked and my userpage vandalized on occasion because I am a newpage patroller and recent changes patroller. The feeling I get is due to this , which I know is a personal essay and not really beholden to the same standards as policy. However, in looking, this IP comes from the same place (generally) as the other IPs in that group, including one who impersonated Julianna Mauriello, the actress who is the subject of the article where the edit summary comes from. I can't call that coincidence. However, I'll drop this as it doesn't seem as though it has escalated yet, with the understanding that I may be able to bring it up at a future time. Thanks. --Ispy1981 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

I would like to complain user HanzoHattori who on 20 May 2007 wrote this. I have added some text to Anna Politkovskaya article and he called it "truly idiotic writing". I am tired of this "My sources are better and you are an idiot" approach. Vlad fedorov 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay... And what do you expect us to do for a single comment made a month ago? If it's an ongoing issue, you could try dispute resolution or third opinion. Grandmasterka 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to complain because I was blocked due to friends of HanzoHattori. And looking into block history of HanzoHattori, I see it is not the first time he abuses other editors calling them "fags" and falsely accusing other of violations. Vlad fedorov 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a history of personal attacks and edit warring. This isn't exactly a single comment.--Crossmr 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

False sockpuppet accusations

I am here to formally object to activities by User:Elonka, a longtime harasser of mine (who in the past was at one time permanently banned for it), as well as User:SlimVirgin.

For a while I was using the IP address of User:216.165.158.7 and not signing in to try to avoid frequent harassment from User:Elonka and others over past conflicts. I made no attempt to pretend that the account was another account or to unfairly influence votes or any objectionable activity that would make such an account a sockpuppet account. In fact there are absolutely no rules against simply not signing in if you have an account, nor against giving up an old account and starting fresh. As part of a conflict, some editors made some accusations that were untrue, and the IP address was blocked with the (entirely false) explanation of "Sockpuppet of banned user". This was explicitly undone, because I was not a banned user at all, and no sockpuppet use was happening.

Elonka, who has a long history of making false accusations against me (still obsessed over an incident that happened years back in which she was banned for inappropriate behavior), jumped on this opportunity and placed a sockpuppet tag on that user page. This was as false by an admin. Then later Elonka, instead of returning the false sockpuppet tag, snuck in a category of "Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of DreamGuy" which is also false, but apparently was not spotted. She also then specifically created a page called "proven sockpuppets of DreamGuy" to place that IP there, to try to use as evidence against me. I have tried unsuccessfully to remove these pages, but she keeps adding them back. (This crusade of Elonka's to try to accuse me of sockpuppeting is especially ironic considering her request for adminship failed thanks to removal of proven sockpuppet accounts, as well as a backlash against a sudden influx of meatpuppet accounts with little to no active history on this site.)

Now User:SlimVirgin, an admin who also has a long history of personal conflict with me (stemming from years back when she decided she was going to put her full support behind complaints raised by another editor, User:Gabrielsimon, against me, only to discover that she was backing the wrong horse, and the guy she was protecting eventually had to be blocked for POV-pushing, personal attacks, and frequent use of sockpuppet accounts -- and renewed recently when she made sweeping changes to the WP:EL project page without consensus and was reverted by myself and other editors), has shown up to protect the user page with the false category tag about sockpuppets there.

I would like an unbiased admin to remove the false accusation. The permanent block that was placed there can also be removed because my local DSL has probably switched the IP on me several times now, and in any event that was completely out of process and totally pointless to begin with. DreamGuy 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've spent a year trolling and stalking her. Preemptive dickery on ANI is unlikely to be a winning move - David Gerard 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like a fairly typical protection due to a revert war. It may be meta:the wrong version, but SV was following the protection guidelines and not editing the page. So I'm not too concerned about SlimVirgin's actions, but Elonka's are another story; she certainly seems to be beating a dead horse with this sockpuppet thing. Other opinions? Mangojuice 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering how few reverts got in there, and SlimVirgin's history, it really does not at all look like a standard protection due to a revert war, but if we want to give her the opportunity to explain herself and undo the action, that's fine too.

Elonka's efforts here go beyond merely beating a dead horse into knowingly making false accusations to try to damage another editor's reputation... it is also worth noting that she made a Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of DreamGuy in which she wrote "This category lists confirmed abusive accounts (sockpuppets) used by DreamGuy." which is absolutely false. The user page in question is the only account that gets listed on this category, so without that tag the category would have to be removed. She has also gone around tagging all sorts of IP addresses (some I found quick are , , , ), many of which are merely standard AOL proxy IPs (used to be my ISP), a few were IPs my new local DSL hooked me into, some are completely unknown people who crossed her path at some point, and none qualify as any sort of sockpuppet. She has also gone so far as accusing all sorts of random people as sockpuppets of mine, most recently User:2005. DreamGuy 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jayjg's block message is most instructive here: "Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.165.158.7 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Re-blocking. He's using his IP to go wild, and to avoid scrutiny)". It seems like you're trying to shift the subject away from the abuse that's occurred to nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged. - Merzbow

Jayjg's block message is simply false... there was no going wild or any attempt to avoid scrutiny. There simply was no sockpuppeting involved in any way, shape or form. I think some admins got personal messages from Elonka making certain accusations that they took at face value and acted on them before realizing that they were completely false. I suspect that the compromise to keep the IP blocked but to have me just sign on was merely some face-saving involved, as the block had been based upon the idea that I was a banned user using the IP to get around the block, which is false. The end result here is that that tag gives an entirely incorrect description of events and is being used solely to try to lash out against an editor she has a history of harassing. Andf the phrase " nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged" completely misses the point that no sockpuppeting was involved at all. DreamGuy 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few editors agreed that that was exactly why you were editing via IP, to avoid scrutiny. See User talk:216.165.158.7 Jayjg 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's not a CheckUser request to back up the sock puppetry claim, it shouldn't be pushed around like that. It's one thing to suspect and gather evidence (which should then be presented at the CU), but another entirely to arbitrarily act on it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He admitted the IP was his. Jayjg 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing more DreamGuy's statement about Elonka declaring random people sockpuppets (the given example being User:2005). It's fine to think 2005 is a sock, but outright declarations about it should be avoided unless a CheckUser proves it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, as you know, I followed the events surrounding your latest block, and am familiar with the background further back in time, too. I'm sorry to see Elonka pursuing her old resentments yet again. Per my edit summary from last time round, I'm removing the sockpuppet category she added. Meanwhile, it doesn't make any sense to bring SlimVirgin into this, even if there is unfinished business between the two of you. Slim is in my experience never one to nurse ancient grievances, and I hope you won't, either. It rather weakens your complaint about Elonka's long memory for a slight. I see nothing wrong with Slim's protection, and am leaving it in place.

I don't want to be the one to meddle with the now empty category Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of DreamGuy. Could somebody please speedy it, or does it have to go via WP:CFD? I'm not familiar with the niceties of categories, but keeping empty cats around seems counter-intuitive. Bishonen | talk 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Zscout370. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

DreamGuy, I have to admit confusion as to why you're accusing me of harassment, considering we have practically no contact. We don't edit the same articles, we don't post on each other's talkpages. Could you please provide some diffs of how exactly I'm harassing you? --Elonka 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll answer that. Accusing someone repeatedly of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARRASS (WP:STALK). That's how. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be some serious misconceptions here about what Checkuser is for. Please, review the page at WP:RFCU, in the table where it says "Obvious sockpuppet" and the solution is, "Block. No checkuser is necessary." In DreamGuy's case, he routinely admits that the accounts are his. Just read his posts at User talk:216.165.158.7. Or check this other recent account, 69.19.14.42 (talk · contribs), where he logs on anonymously to issue personal attacks from an IP at a highway rest stop. Also, in terms of harassment, I would point out that DreamGuy has been making a series of false statements here. I'm not harassing him, I actually have minimal contact with him. However, I do feel that he seems to routinely blame me for different things, regardless of whether or not I'm even involved in that particular dispute. For example, see this recent post, where he called me a "moron" in a dispute that I had nothing to do with. Or this one, where he's attacking me in another dispute with which I have zero involvement. Or here where he's accusing me of "getting Slimvirgin to do something," which is again completely false. Please folks, look at things clearly here. Just because DreamGuy says I'm harassing him, doesn't mean that I am. For my part, I'd be happy if DreamGuy would just remove any Elonka-related page from his watchlist, delete my name from his memory, and move on. That's definitely what I'd like to do. --Elonka 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to make sure that DreamGuy's IPs are publically marked as sockpuppets? Does he continue to use them? I think this is at the core of the issue. If marking those accounts as sockpuppets is right, it's right, and we should do it regardless of who does it. But at the moment it looks like calling those IPs "abusive sockpuppets" is not widely agreed upon, and in that case I wouldn't think marking them as sockpuppets is right. And in such a circumstance, marking them as sockpuppets is pushing towards a particular conclusion... which, given your extensive prior history, must feel like unwelcome attention. Mangojuice 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me say those comments Elonka pointed out from DreamGuy recently are unacceptable, even considering he's under stress. Mangojuice 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." Elonka’s Sockpuppet Evidence Page suggests that she is tracking Dreamguy's movements very closely, whether he is logged in or not. Mooneye 216.91.240.14 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Mango) Someone who is systematically using anonymous IPs to avoid scrutiny (and yes, DreamGuy is continuing to use anons as recently as this week), is of course going to rebel against the idea that there's a central repository showing all the accounts in one place. Especially because some of his anons have been independently blocked for incivility, personal attacks and revert wars.(related ANI thread) I would also point out that these blocks have been reviewed and upheld by multiple people.

The reason it's an issue, is because it's an effective tactic on DreamGuy's part. He spreads out his policy-breaking behavior on multiple anon IDs, gets small blocks here and there, but they all look like "first-time offenses" because it's not clear that they're all from the same person. In this way, he has been able to dodge an extensive block on his main account, because he spreads out the blocks on other IPs.

As these anons are being identified and blocked, his behavior seems to have been understandably escalating. What he seems to be doing now (in my opinion) is trying to confuse the issue, edit war to remove the tags from his confirmed sockpuppets, and then systematically clean things up to try and get the IPs unblocked so that he can continue using them.

As far as this ANI thread goes, I think that instead of the community questioning me as to why the tags are on the anon accounts (especially as I'm definitely not the only person adding sockpuppet tags to DreamGuy's IPs), I'd say it's an equally fair question as to why DreamGuy is even removing tags from his accounts in the first place, which seems like a clear COI, especially on the one where he's openly admitted to using the account. Also, I'd like to point out that me adding tags is not a recent provocation on my part -- The tags that I added, were done back in April 2007 when that particular account was blocked. It's just this week, that DreamGuy has been going through and trying to remove tags from some of his anon IDs. My guess is that this is because he was recently blocked on the core "DreamGuy" account on June 17 for some disruption, which is why he's now trying to re-activate some of the other IPs.

As for DreamGuy's recent charge of harassment against me, I'd like to point out that this is his standard reply when anyone tries to rein him in, is to immediately cry, "Harassment!" It's his primary response. Either that, or deleting warnings off his talkpage, along with an uncivil edit summary, and/or insisting that those who are warning him should be punished instead of him.

In summary: DreamGuy has been clearly told by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs) that he is no longer allowed to use anon IPs, because it'as a violation of WP:SOCK "using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny". But DreamGuy not only continues this practice, he is now trying to whitewash the records of the previous IPs that he has used, sometimes even using one sock to try and clean up the record of another sock. It is my feeling that a record of his sockpuppets should most definitely continue to be maintained, to discourage him from continuing this "shell game" practice in the future. The easiest way to do this, in my opinion, is simply to add a category to each of the accounts, so that they can all be seen via Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of DreamGuy. We do this with other sockmasters, we should do it with DreamGuy as well. --Elonka 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"(reply to Mango) Someone who is systematically using anonymous IPs to avoid scrutiny" Or to avoid WP:STALKing. The difference between that and legitimate "scrutiny" is in the eye of the beholder, and as the person accused of stalking, you're not entitled to make that judgement yourself, or to present it to others as a fait accompli. I don't know anything about the facts, but you've not objected to his statement that you were banned in the past for harassing him. Maybe you should stay away from him, and leave any "tracking" effort or anything to someone who doesn't have a past history? (and, you claim you hardly have any contact, but from your own side of this argument, David Gerard saying that Dreamguy "spent a year trolling and stalking" you contradicts that) --Random832 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I very much object to the statement that I was banned for harassing him. Back in January 2006, DreamGuy made his usual claims of harassment when I was requesting that he stop being uncivil. David Gerard initially took the complaints at face value and issued a block, but then quickly undid it when he realized what was going on. David Gerard has also since been helping with getting DreamGuy's sockpuppets blocked. --Elonka 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Matrix Prime

The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) has a few troubling tendencies in their editing that might be worth an administrator taking a look at it. I realize that pointing out this kind of stuff can sometimes just antagonize and engender this kind of annoying behavior, but, here goes.

• Blanking sections of talk page that criticize their posting behavior
• Accusing users of "vandalism" when, in fact, they are responding to (sometimes undoing) their edits, or otherwise making edits they disagree with.
• Marking substantial -- indeed, many -- edits as "minor". Marked one such edit as minor six minutes after I asked him to review WP:MINOR (and five minutes after they blanked that request).

There ya go. Am I being too sensitive to this because it's 3:30am and I can't sleep, or should someone step in and try again to help this editor out? --EEMeltonIV 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the information submitted by EEMeltonIV. I certainly would not consider The Matrix Prime a model citizen on Misplaced Pages, but it's not yet time to block him. I'll leave him a message. Shalom 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Elan School

Kappa (talk · contribs) contacted me yesterday to ask me about the deletion of Elan School - an article that Kappa created. I speedied the article as spam becuase the tagged version read like a brochure - hardly surprising given that I later discovered that large chunks of ther article were actualy copyvios from the school website. I left Kappa a message to the effect that I would happily undelete (the was a safe version to revert to) but asked him to make sure that he kept an eye on the article to prevent the copyvios creeping in. I woke up this morning to find the article was at DRV and that Kappa had left an exceedingly uncivil message for me on his talk page .

I'm a very new admin and would appreciate some feedback on this. Clearly the article shouldn't have been speedied because there was a safe article to fall back to but was it unreasonable for me to ask Kappa to make sure he kept an eye on the article before I undeleted it? I'm sure I saw something somewhere that we shouldn't keep articles if they weren't being maintained but I can't remember whether this was official. I'd appreciate some guidence for the next time I run into this kind of situation. Cheers Spartaz 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just undelete it now, and the problem is over. Kappa's comments with the profanity were unhelpful, but it's peanuts compared to the stuff you will face later as an admin (many people tend to be a bit touchy with things you can do as an admin, and which they can't easily reverse, and reactions to this vary from the understanding, to the annoyed, to the downright rude). :-) Don't take it too hard that you deleted something by mistake, admins do make mistakes, and that's OK as long as they acknowledge them, as you have done. Kappa is semi-retired from Misplaced Pages, and has been for a few months, and it is not really his responsibility (or anyone else's) to maintain and watch over articles, on an all-volunteer project that is a community responsibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the speedy deletion was a mistake, but you seem to have acknowledged that and so it doesn't really matter. The incivility is definitely uncalled for, but I would probably shy away from placing any sort of requirement, even informal, on an editor to maintain a page — it sort of implies that you're apportioning some degree of blame, even if that's not your intention, and can be taken the wrong way. --Haemo 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) Well, I'm not going to comment on the speedy (too late here!) but that comment was uncalled for. I left a message on their talk page & we'll see what happens. You might, as a courtesy, maybe point out this conversation on ANI, so they can weigh in - Alison ☺ 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- :*I notifed Kappa four minutes after raising this thread. I have now restored the article. Thanks everyone for the support and advice. Spartaz 09:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC) I know it says 'resolved', but I'd like to reaffirm a sentiment that no-one except Kappa has expressed here thus far: it is always important to check the history before deleting a page. That's why the link is duplicated in the CSD tags. --Random832 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lamename3000 -- off-site mediation appropriateness and other issues

I was wondering if this attempt to hold mediation off-site is acceptable? I've observed other problems with this user, such as attempts at "forum shopping" to ensure the inclusion of Wii Points in the article. One attempt at "forum shopping" was a template that he created linking to the article, which I nominated for deletion and which was successfully deleted. He even has a page calculating who holds to which viewpoints. He made a mediation case recently, but selectively chose who participated in it and deleted someone else's comment because he didn't deem it "wise" to mention it, even though Neo Samus was involved in the discussion (as a matter of fact, so was I). I also see he has resorted to vandalism on at least one occassion. Drumpler 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not review this case. However, I have a couple of quick comments:

1. The "vandalism" diff above is not vandalism.
2. It is permitted for users to seek mediation offline if that's what they want to do. Shalom 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if that's Misplaced Pages rules, then there's nothing I can argue, however, I have not found one rule in the dispute resolution process that allows such a thing and I can also see a potential for abuse here, as their "mock mediation" seems to relate both to the article itself and its content. I will continue to track the case, however, the vandalism noted above was posted on a user page, not the talk page itself, and was removed by another user. Drumpler 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a simple mistake, and not on purpose. I think you can cut me some slack on that incident, since it is easy to confuse User pages and talk pages. LN3000 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it was an accident, then you certainly have my apologies. However, I do have legitimate concerns beyond that and do not even feel that is the focus. What I'm mostly concern with is why you feel you have the need to have an off-site mediation process (your's was rejected and you only included a selective handful of whom to include as is), what the purpose of the process is, what your intention for the process is and why the process can't be followed through on Misplaced Pages (as it seems to reflect article content). I'd also like to know why you deleted the comment off of Neo Samus' page informing him of the mediation case, even though he himself was involved in the discussion? I'd have preferred you followed the dispute resolution process if you had concerns with other editors, but that's entirely out of my hands. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you often come off on article talk pages with an "authoritative" and "argumentative" tone and it makes it hard for others to discuss with you. Drumpler 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained myself. But I'll do it again. The mediation request was NOT mine. I deleted the comment off of Neo_Samus' page after talking to him about the issue, and he agreed that he should not get involved in the mediation until all the original people accepted. I was not the one to choose who to be involved in Mediation, or else I would have asked for people who had not previously denied mediation. My suggestion for mediation was open to everyone. The reason why I thought it'd be best to do a semi-offsite mediation was because obviously no other on-site method of resolving this has worked. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you seem to be coming off as a bully, with some weird agenda. Stop attacking me, as I have not done anything wrong. LN3000 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Where was this discussed with Neo Samus? Perhaps I missed the diff. Drumpler 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't miss it, it's just not available to you because Neo_Samus emailed me in private. I'm sure if you ask him, he'll back me up on my claim.LN3000 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lamename3000, Drumpler: this isn't an admin matter. Admins have no special concern with regard to mediation, onsite or otherwise. The cited "vandalism", if it was that, is old and trivial. The rest of your discussion does not belong on this page, so take it elsewhere. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would take it elsewhere if only I knew where to take it. :) It has been my assumption that this is the correct place to take it, but since I'm assuming it isn't, I will cease posting on this page. Good day. Drumpler 20:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just have one comment on this matter: Lamename made 2 user space pages (which Drumpler put speedy delete tags on, and they were deleted). Yet lamename wasn't warned about this. I would like to know why he wasn't warned. Both user space pages were clearly not acceptable. RobJ1981 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that, and it is not needed to keep trying to dig things up to get me into trouble. LN3000 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wherebot suspicious bot behavior

User:Wherebot is a bot designed to search for possible copyright violations. It produced a Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations report for the The Humanoid Project page, which has since been tagged for speedy deletion. The suspected violation consists of links to www material used as reference. There is no copyrighted material on the Misplaced Pages page (and actually nothing with copyright notice in the linked material). --Rogerfgay 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to come from this site. Od Mishehu 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{db-copyvio}} tag. The question of whether or not it's a copyvio needs to be looked into - it's not blatant. Od Mishehu 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a malfunctioning bot, Wherebot produces some false positives by nature. That's why it only reports, humans must do the actual tagging. It does seem like the first sentence of the article was a copy and paste. The entire "goals" section was lifted from . I'll remove that right now. --W.marsh 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Those amount to small quotes that are properly cited. It's unimaginable that such a thing would produce a copyright problem; or the entire practice of writing non-fiction would cease. Websites that allow posting of complete articles have dealt with this problem extensively. In response to the very few web publishers that objected, specific guidelines were set up by the courts for the amount of material that can be copy-pasted - republished without permission. I really don't see any chance at all that the material on the page could be a copyright violation; even if as you said elsewhere - the fact that there is no copyright notice on the source pages doesn't prove it's not copyrighted (although I don't think it's evidence that it is copyrighted either. --Rogerfgay 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They weren't presented as quotes, but as core parts of the article's prose, such as the "goals" section (which was not cited). This is simply not acceptable... Misplaced Pages articles are not to be cobbled together prose copied directly from various copyrighted articles. --W.marsh 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go. The article will remain as is - I mean after you've made the edits you prefer. I'm a writer with a lot of experience in non-fiction writing - not a bureacrat. I know that when "the facts" are being re-written to suit an argument, that I have better things to do. The goals were in fact cited. That's why it was so easy for you to find the source material. --Rogerfgay 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was uncited when the tag was added, and it was still uncited when I removed the section. The presence of citation tags still doesn't make it okay to copy and paste, but they weren't even there as you claim. --W.marsh 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop accusing other people of bad faith? You accused everyone of bad faith when they patiently explained to you about our non-free content criteria, you accused me of bad faith when I merely enforced Misplaced Pages's rules . Read WP:AGF. Misplaced Pages IS NOT LIKE OTHER WEB PUBLISHERS. This is something you must understand. We have rules that are much stricter than other websites. That way we can proudly say we are the 💕 with original freely licensable content. We do not accept copy/pastes from other websites. -N 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

82.10.209.215 -- POV pushing and uncited, weasel-worded changes, refused to back down and consistent reverts

This user has made a number of POV and weasel worded edits to a number of pages in the ever-raging EMFs and health related articles (Electrosmog, Electrical sensitivity, Electromagnetic radiation and health). User reverts any attempts to restore an attempt of NPOV to the article, and consistently fails to cite and/or support his statements. User also has removed existing cited reference material that differs from his/her POV. I am sure that intent is good, but consistent reverts and re-edits appears to be bordering on vandalism. Would appreciate warning and redirection to Misplaced Pages policies in the short term. Topazg 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but certainly stubborness. I think s/he is already familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies, given the acronym use of NPOV, NOR, etc. I've left a friendly suggestion on the IP's talk page to cool off and discuss the issues on the talk page instead of making rapid-fire edits to the articles. We'll see. MastCell 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

202.6.146.39 messing with Mythbusters

202.6.146.39 has repeatedly edited the Mythbusters article, adding in a highly POV, unsourced alternate history and claims of fraud, etc. The mess has been reverted several times by several people, only to have it return. User has recieved warnings, including being told not to counter the reverts, but has continued. The wording of the additions suggests that the user might be writing about themself. This needs to stop. Jax184 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest issuing a block to cool the user off, because all other communication methods have failed, judging by the user's contributions and the article history. Maybe 24 hours? --Evilclown93_(talk) 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 24 hours. I'll keep an eye on the IP and take further preventative action if it becomes disruptive. Shadow1 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Blahman1985

After reverting his vandalism of John Kim (his first edits), Blahman1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harrasing me, undoing some of my edits and leaving block-warnings on my talk page (all other of his edits). Lars T. 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page, so we'll see how he responds. It looks like he may have logged out to continue anonymously though. Leebo /C 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :This is a valid complaint. I would recommend a 24h block for harassment of Lars T. and 3RR even though the user has not been warned. In the future, Lars T., please warn users before you notify us. Believe it or not, it sometimes gets them to stop, and it's the right thing to do. Shalom 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected a user who throws around block warnings won't care if he received one. Lars T. 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still worth saying something, and it's probably better to write a personalized warning, rather than a templated one. Leebo /C 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Skymac207 operating under an IP?

Apparently Skymac207 (talk · contribs · block log) is under an indefinite block for vandalism and incivility. An IP user, 74.75.120.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), recently signed comments on Talk:Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) with "]" The editing pattern looks similar enough that I doubt it's impersonation. The IP has had several questionable edits of late, though I don't know enough about them to know if they should be reverted. Powers 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for incivility and suspected sockpuppetry. You're right, the editing patterns DO look similar, although I'm wondering if it's someone trying to get Skymac in more trouble than he already is. Shadow1 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well either way he/she shouldn't be doing it, right? =) Should I revert the IP's recent edits? Powers 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on editors on external sites?

skipsievert (talk · contribs) has created a sort of "diss blog", if you will, insulting editors who disagree with him on Talk:Technocracy movement. It makes attacks on Hibernian (talk · contribs), Kolzene (talk · contribs), and Isenhand (talk · contribs). Here's his profile. Skip has been blocked twice already for incivility and making personal attacks, and he has been edit warring on Technocracy movement pretty much nonstop for months, regardless of how valid the claims of others are. Since he's showing pretty much every sign of tendentious editing, while doing little to improve the articles he works on, I'm considering an indefinite block, but I feel I need a separate opinion.--Wafulz 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance, but it doesn't look pretty. If the user has made some positive contributions in the past, I would probably just go with a block that is longer than the last one issued with a stern warning that block lengths will increase if behaviour doesn't change. If there are no positive contributions, just go straight to indef, but be prepared to deal with unblock templates to follow that. (Note that I can't past my firewall to the external sites, my comments are only based on the on-wiki activity.) --After Midnight 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The first two sentences on the blog are "We are a group of second and third rate thinkers that are trying to find our place in the world. Someone named Kolzene brainwashed us (he is a Wiccan) so now we promote some stuff he wrote." It just goes downhill from there. Since he not done anything but edit-war, I'm going with the indefinite block.-Wafulz 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The off-wiki stuff is somewhat unpleasant (though far from the worst that's out there), but I'm a little uncomfortable placing too much emphasis on it. After all, off-wiki conduct isn't subject to the same policies (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc) as on-wiki conduct. That said, I suppose it is worth noting as supporting evidence, and Skip's on-wiki conduct has been sorely lacking as well. Indefinite's a long time; I might go with a week, but I don't feel strongly as I think the chance of reform here is relatively low. MastCell 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I (and other users) have repeatedly tried to calm him down, but he definitely has a bone to pick with some organizations/websites out there. He often goes out and removes content just because other editors have added it, such as this (which he labeled an original conclusion), but was quickly sourced once I reinserted it saying just a citation was enough. He'll also regularly go through and wholesale revert content over a series of consecutive edits regardless of relevance or discussion, and his usual reasons involve talking about how the people who inserted it are "just some bloggers" or something similar.Example 1 Example 2. It's gotten to the point the collective patience of myself and of other editors who are working to source and improve the article has been exhausted. He's just been unproductive in his two months here, and I don't see it improving at all.-Wafulz 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now there's a new bit of data I missed. You should not personally perform the block, especially not indef, if you are involved in the dispute. Is this the case? If so, you need to convince another admin (or the community) to perform the block, or proceed to dispute resolution as if you were not an admin. --After Midnight 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved. I've been mediating for several weeks and trying to guide the users- I haven't actually contributed to the article except minor suggestions here and there. Anyway, I've reverted the block pending further discussion.-Wafulz 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify my comments above: I'm not against blocking him for a longer period of time, given his ongoing problems and lack of learning curve after the prior incidents. I did think indefinite was a little long, but that's just me. As to recusing yourself, I trust your judgement as to whether you are sufficiently disengaged to utilize the tools yourself. Perhaps others could chime in with their thoughts about the length of a block, if any? MastCell 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell. As far as block length, I figure that if you indef if will probably end up getting shortened later anyways, so I would do 1 week with a 0 tolerance policy after that, and make sure that they know that you will be watching when they return. --After Midnight 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've set it for one week, with this warning.-Wafulz 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets contributions and contributions

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser says that no checkuser is needed for disruptive throwaway account used only for a few edits, so I am posting this here.

I noticed an anonymous linkspammer contributions adding an external link to a community forum site on three different Asian music pages. I reverted these per WP:EL and posted warnings. Shortly after the final warning, another user account contributions appeared and posted the same links to the same pages again, and this account has been used only for linkspamming.

I suspect the account was created to evade the warnings and avoid potential blocking. Please investigate. =Axlq 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, seems pretty obvious. I've indefinitely blocked the named (sockpuppet) account, and blocked the IP for 72 hours for both egregious spamming and using multiple accounts to do so. In the future, you can go to suspected sock puppets, but in clear-cut cases with ongoing spamming that needs to be stopped, I guess this is faster. MastCell 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick. I didn't know about the WP:SSP page; I was going by Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Dealing with violations which said to post here or at WP:AIV - and because vandalism wasn't involved, the only choice left was to post here. =Axlq 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem; for really obvious ones like that, AN/I is fine (and probably faster). More complex cases, requiring some investigation, are best handled at WP:SSP. MastCell 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.252.64.50

I’m not sure how to report these sorts of things, so I apologize if this is the wrong venue, but someone should check out the edits from User:71.252.64.50. This users' edits border on everything from nonsense to racism to character assassination. User has been twice warned, but not blocked, and is still editing as of today.

Here are some diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mamma_Mia%21_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=140986721

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=140541379

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=140521444

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wedding_anniversary&diff=prev&oldid=139471943

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim&diff=prev&oldid=139458835

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Longwood_University&diff=prev&oldid=139457124

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=York_High_School_%28Virginia%29&diff=prev&oldid=139450677

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2007_Major_League_Baseball_Draft&diff=prev&oldid=136649360

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=135873332

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EEMeltonIV/Archive3&diff=prev&oldid=135142526

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=135137941

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Longwood_University&diff=prev&oldid=135130648

13. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=134828957

14. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=116273259

In the future these types of problems should be reported to WP:AIV. If the vandalism continues this editors will be blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Colintj

Colintj (talk · contribs) has made exactly one edit, which was accusing Crum375 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of being a sock puppet, citing an anonymous message on a blog as "proof". I've reverted the edit and given a stern warning, but this entire affair smells an awful lot like a sock account of a banned user. Valentinian 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Colintj's edit doesn't show up on the contribs list. I guess the toolserver must be busy again. The edit was made to User:Crum375's user page, see the edit history there. Valentinian 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit is there, you had a typo in your post. Thatcher131 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Thatcher131. I'm not a regular on this page. :) Valentinian 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the wild, wild west of wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&curid=2805368&diff=141012848&oldid=141001864

MaxPont has personally attacked me. My behaviour is not being disruptive. MaxPont is the one who is being disruptive. Read the comments. He is insulting me and attacking my integrity as an editor. He is telling everybody to ignore me. This is discussing. QuackGuru 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky deletion

Certain users have proposed a "merge" of Controversy in parapsychology into Parapsychology, but what they have described doing is completely deleting the content and creating a redirect. This is not a merge, it is back-door deletion. The controversy article has already undergone one failed AFD, and I feel that those disgruntled with the Keep are inappropriately trying to delete content they dislike by proposing this "merge", especially as they advocate for simply deleting a large portion of the controversy article not found elsewhere entirely. VanTucky 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can they cite an applicable Misplaced Pages:Criteria for sneaky deletion? --tjstrf talk 19:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Parapsychology is already 43kb long, and that it's section on controversy does not reach the same level of depth that the controversy article does. On length reasons I believe the split was appropriate. --tjstrf talk 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a word to that affect on the Parapsychology talk page. Also, after I have brought up this circumvention of the deletion process, User:Nealparr has stated that he simply doesn't care if it's deleted outside the proscribed system for deletion. VanTucky 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam

Lvmtridas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be spamming. The vast majority (if not all) of his edits are to add links to www.newmedia.ufm.edu. I cannot tell if the links themselves are worth keeping as they aren't in English. IrishGuy 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irishguy, thanks for the notice. Having checked a few diffs, I'm pretty sure this is an account dedicated (almost?) exclusively to spam. I'll warn him uw-spam, and I'll revert as necessary. Let me know if I mess up. :) Shalom 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I found a suspected sockpuppet: Lvmxavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shalom 02:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also Ivanmorales (talk · contribs). I think I'll take this case to WP:SSP. Shalom 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that the link be added to Shadowbot. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The Peter Nordin page is being tagged with a resume tag - three times today. I originally built the page, and researched other Misplaced Pages pages with similar subject before creating it. I note that no other similar page that I found was tagged as a resume (and most often not as biography either - see Peter Nordin talk page). I've tried to engage in a constructive discussion on the biography classification. It appeared as though someone who was trying to best me in another discussion posted the resume tag in an effort to irritate me. Then another editor jumped in to repost the tag twice when it was removed. The biography classifications are informal. The resume tag is inappropriate and distracting. --Rogerfgay 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This seems to be an article ownership (WP:OWN) issue, with Rogerfgay stubbornly refusing to listen to criticism. The article is resume-like and 2 people so far have pointed that out. At any rate the adding of the tag isn't vandalism. The removal of it may be edit warring. --W.marsh 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Respondent W.marsh is the person who posted the tag with the apparent motive of harassment. He began unconstructive debate on content at The Humanoid Project and followed my edits / work to Peter Nordin, where he is now escalating conflict. He has now also been joined by User:N, who engaged in similar behavior during the creation of the page. --Rogerfgay 07:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, W.marsh, an editor for 2 years with almost 40,000 edits, has nothing better to do than harass a new editor with less than 250 mainspace edits whose sole purpose is to create and add content related to Peter Nordin. Please read about conflicts of interest and article ownership, and work to improve the article content rather than warring over tags. Thatcher131 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the inappropriate tag and I won't have to waste my time with it. Warring over tags is not what I'm interested in doing. The article is in the same form, containing the same kind of information as many others of notable persons. Published Misplaced Pages information points out that especially new contributing editors are probably working within a limited and possibly related subject domain (just as I am), possibly because they have knowledge about the subject that they have decided is worth contributing (which is what I'm doing). It's not likely that someone who's been contributing on Misplaced Pages for a few weeks will have created a wide variety of articles, and not really uncommon for people who have contributed content for years to have remained within a subject area. --Rogerfgay 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Style-wise the article is in bad shape. The fact that other biographies are also poorly written is not a justification for keeping this one poorly organized as well. Tagging the article places it in Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing style editing. In theory, there are some Wikipedians who prefer to clean up articles rather than create new content (see WikiGnome and WikiFairy) and they find articles needing attention through these categories and tags. In practice, there are not enough WikiGnomes and WikiFairies, and these categories are always backlogged. However, this again is not an argument that your article should not be tagged, unless you wish to deprecate all such tagging, in which case you can start a conversation at the Village Pump. If you choose to rewrite the article yourself you can remove the tag once it is in better shape, although it would be best to solicit a third opinion from someone else. If you do not wish to rewrite the article then I'm afraid it will have to remain tagged until someone else does. Thatcher131 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogerfgay, you've been running into a lot of trouble since you joined because you have not taken care to listen to what people are saying. Remember that one of the most important aspects of Misplaced Pages is the tenet that "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." You should be more open to experienced editors' suggestions and try to work within the consensus framework. There is no reason to start a conflict over every minor change to an article. nadav (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful AfD closes

The Sunshine Man (talk · contribs) has been performing a lot of non-admin "closes" at AfD. I would not complain if he were doing it properly, but the one with which I was concerned, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wolfhart Grote, had two Weak Keeps, several Deletes, and a lot of anon sock-puppetry. It may be no consensus; it is not consensus to keep. I reopened; could someone check his others? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have been polite to consult me about this before starting an ANI discussion, yes I admit I was wrong about that close but non admins can close deletion debates as keep (per this part of the deletion proccess), you did not bother to reply on the article talk page so I think you are looking for trouble by bringing it to admins and not responding to legitamite comments, yes I was wrong about that closure but you are forgetting to assume good faith of editors and to stay cool when the editing gets hot. The Sunshine Man 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks like Septentrionalis is not cool, though I will agree that you should have been told that this discussion was started. I think that this page is the correct place to bring this topic. Septentrionalis did not ask that you be censured nor attack you, he just stated a concern and asked that someone check it out. --After Midnight 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the others and I will likely revert the close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III in a short time (10-15 minutes) if no one posts anything here to the contrary. --After Midnight 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to revert this one Echelon (warez) AfD as well - with 2 Keeps and a weak Keep vs 2 deletes (including the nom), it should probably be re-listed. EliminatorJR 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that Sunshine Man feels I was not cool. In fact, I was in a hurry; if I had more time, I would have gone to DRV, but the above was my last edit before an enforced break of several hours, and I was interested to know whether I had found an isolated case of dubious judgment or if there was a wider problem. It sounds like Sunshine Man will be more careful, which is all we really need. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the close of Thomas Meehan III re-opened, consensus was clearly in favour of keep, and the same iwth Echelon (warez), consensus was clearly in favour of keep. The Sunshine Man 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I reopened Thomas Meehan III. I did so, because IMO it was not clear. IMO the positions were split with valid argument on both sides. I don't know what the ultimate decision of this AFD will be, but I believe that this is not the type of AFD which is clear enough to be closed by a non-admin. --After Midnight 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of The Sunshine Man closing AfDs is not one that appeals. This left me terrified. Moreschi 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Answering questions when the answers are being monitored leaves you more vulnerable to them being wrong because you are under stress and want them to be right, you didn't have admin coaching so do you actually know what its like? The Sunshine Man 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No coaching should be needed. You either know things or you don't, and you either have an opinion on a matter or you don't. The key is not a right answer, but your answer. MSJapan 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(to The Sunshine Man) No, I did not have admin coaching. You're either clueful or you're not. Both my RfAs were spur-of-the-moment things because I was bored on a couple of afternoons. Going by what you wrote there, you evidently have not a clue as to what one of our most important polices is going on about. Nor this one either, come to think of it. Moreschi 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, any uninvolved (in the AfD debate administrator) can revert a non-administrator's close of an AfD, to either re-open it or close it with a different outcome. In this case, it is clear that a number of these closes were downright shonky, and some more disputable. Currently, AfD's must be "unambiguously keep or merge" to be closed by non-administrators, from my understanding of the deletion process. Although TSM was trying to help, and we should assume a certain amount of good faith, the all-out offensive he responded with here against Pmanderson (rather than address the actual issue) was very much like his response to some comments in the CW RfA. Daniel 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was right about this AfD, who knows about the next few. The Sunshine Man 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IP range vandalising user pages

This IP range 69.225.*.* has been constantly page blanking userpages and their talk pages for over a week now. I think this is getting out of hand. The range traces back to AT&T Internet services in California, this is from the WHOIS report PPPoX Pool - bras2#.skt2ca 69.225.48.0 - 69.225.63.255, here's another range 69.225.32.0 - 69.225.47.255. So I think the range is 69.225.32.0 to 69.225.63.255. Any ideas what should be done here? Momusufan 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the frequency and severity of attacks, really. If you can get me some links to some affected pages, contribs of some offending IPs, or contribs of some users who've been active cleaning up after this, I can see if there's a preferred method of response. There's really quite a few options; the more I (or anyone) knows, the better. You can post here, post to my talk page, or email me, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You can find most of the IPs here since about 12 June. An effective range block would seem a little excessive, to me. -- zzuuzz 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, those are some big ranges. I've identified 69.225.48.0/20, 66.166.0.0/15, and 69.104.0.0/13, so far, in a guesstimated order of frequency. I've watchlisted common targets, and will sprotect as needed when this one crops up. Hopefully this can be put to rest. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Those ranges (except the /20) are too large to block, so reverting seems the best option. Prodego 00:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They're all originating from the Modesto area. Page blanking and juvenile vandalism. Someone mentioned calling the NOC for AT&T and trying to trace them. I just do the RBI thing - Alison ☺ 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori removing {{Nrd}} from images he's uploaded

Hi, HanzoHattori, who has had problems inthe past with copyright issues, is removing tags from images he's created (e.g., ). Someone please ask him (once again) to stop. He's had a history of doing this with images before. The Evil Spartan 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest just having someone else revert those edits (someone other than you or me, for that matter); both of us have had enough negative dealings with him that I doubt it would be well received for either of us to revert, regardless of policy being on our side. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, stalker conspirators. I asked you, what's wrong with the "copyright issues", including on the talk pages (including on the linked one). I didn't get any answer, still. But I see you (you two + Vlad) are trying hard to take me down, constantly, for whatever reason. I find your continued harrasment, frankly, quite creepy. --HanzoHattori 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotional account

J-publicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be doing promotional work for various Chicago-based journals (hence the name). He/she is creating various articles that are are really nothing more than brief adverts for the journals. Can anyone take a look? IrishGuy 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan

The page is under heavy vandal attack. Please investigate. (I do not have the time, this is a rush msg) -- Cat 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, that's unusual. Semi-protected for 12 hours, since the sole activity today seems to be vandals from dynamic ranges and the people reverting them; seems isolated to today, so hopefully they take a hint. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in AfD

I've had my eye on Hardworker111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ever since this occurance on DreamGuy's talk page. Now that Hardworker111 is involved in this Afd for an article he's created, I got really suspicious and dug a little deeper. Here's a list of likely socks I've gathered:

• Whateverisclever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• Teniii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• RandomJoe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• RandomJoe125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of RandomJoe123)
  
• BlahBlahBlah124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as puppeteer)
  
• Tiptop356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of BlahBlahBlah124)
  
• Dr.Headache (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of BlahBlahBlah124)
  

As you can see in the Afd, both Hardworker111 and RandomJoe123 voted "keep", with RandomJoe123 apparently coming out of retirement just to vote (and a nice cover-up story on Hardworker111's talk page), which promted me to file this report. From RandomJoe123 to Dr.Headache, those were all established to be the same person here, by Muchness and the admin Nlu, who blocked the socks. Teniii was also accused there, but never blocked, although his answer to that accusation clearly isn't one of a new editor who is wrongfully accused. To complete the circle, Teniii was easily tied to Hardworker111. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?' title=User:Teniii&oldid=128667984 old user page] used to be exactly the same as Hardworker111's current user page, until Hardworker111 edited it, which Teniii clearly doesn't mind (same goes for Teniii's talk page).
All these users obviously have very similar editing patterns, mostly on Dynasty Warriors-related pages, and now the Afd. I think this mess should have been cleaned up completely back in February, but here you go. I hope an admin can sort this out.--Atlan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got a message saying I should participate in this "conversation". Okay whatever. What do you want me to admit? that me and User:Teniii are the same person? whoa thats real hard to figure out, we only have the exact same user pages. I just made a new account in place of "teniii" but i still sometimes use that one. Other than that I really am not going to discuss this any furhter. If you want to block me from wikipedia have fun with that. and i hope you had fun digging through my history for hours on end, haha. I think I'm going to leave wikipedia for good now anyway so i actually suggest you ban me for good, becaus ei don't think i'm coming back, wiki is getting boring. Seeya later. Hardworker111 10:35, 27 June (UTC)

Oh and b4 i go, i'm admitting i have been spamming Atlans page, so PLEASE BAN ME. I'm basically begging for a ban cuzz wikipedia fucking sucks cock. I want a reason never to return. Hardworker111

• Blocked, per user's own request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's one. Now what about the other accounts and the double vote on the Afd?--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Modern North American Ford trucks

72.80.151.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be continually editing this template to remove information and make it unreadable. It doesn't necessarily fall under "obvious" vandalism, but it seems to be detrimental to the template. Looking at the recent history of the IP shows removal of information from similar templates over the past few days. There are also some cases from this IP of obvious vandalism. Moonside 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's escalated into blatant vandalism now. Going to continue to revert for this and the other pages he's editing. Moonside 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Doofus119

The User:Doofus119 is nothing but a BLP violation, created by a User who has no other edits to his credit. It has just been blanked by another User who used his/her first edit to blank the page, which is probably the right thing to do. Could somebody please delete this page? Corvus cornix 23:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation, but a CSD G10 candidate. —Kurykh 23:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the page. —Kurykh 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Custerwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been having a few problems with edit warring & mutual incivility with regard to Battle of Washita River. See also Talk:Battle of Washita River. I became aware of the dispute as a result of HanzoHattori's post on an unrelated talk page, Talk:Native Americans in the United States, which I have on my watchlist. I posted a reply that perhaps WP:ANI would be a better place to take the dispute

A few diffs:

Personal attack/incivility from Custerwest:

• directed at whomsever:
  • "I wonder who's the idiot..."
• directed at Hanzohattori:
  • "What kind of jerk are you ?"
  • "Damn your head, jackass... I would kick your damn ass of ignorant monkey. You are just a damn idiot..."
  • Are you an editor... or just a damn troll?"

Incivitilty from HanzoHattori directed at Custerwest:

• • "My dear litle revisionist..."
  • "You know where you can put your little blog? Yes, you guessed."
  • "Enjoy being banned."
  • "I told you where you can address your grievances. Go bother the US Army."

Somewhere in the midst of this, The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs) initiated an RfC on HanzoHattori, which documented numerous past incidents of edit warring and personal attacks; however, the RfC has since been deleted, possibly for procedural reasons. Meanwhile, I placed level 2 warnings about personal attacks on both HanzoHattori's and Custerwest's pages. I'm coming here with this because since I placed those warnings, HanzoHattori has come to my own talk page, apparently under the assumption that I'm an admin, to reiterate complaints against Custerwest. I again suggested coming to ANI; HanzoHattori appeared reluctant, perhaps because of a past history (as The Evil Spartan had been documenting) of run-ins with the bureaucracy leading to blocks on grounds of 3RR violations and personal attacks.

I will say that despite HanzoHattori's past history, s/he has shown at least some modicum of control here. For example, the edit warring on Battle of Washita River has ceased, at least for now; HanzoHattori has not continued edit warring or violated 3RR, and for the most part hasn't exactly been namecalling. Most recently HanzoHattori has added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to the article, which in these circumstances is completely appropriate & warranted.

Meanwhile, Custerwest has all in one day massively rewritten most of the Battle of Washita River without any effort to seek concensus once it became clear there was disagreement with his/her edits, and based in large part on sourcing to his/her own blog-style website, which so happens also to be called Custerwest. I have been tempted to revert the article back to what it was before Custerwest began editing earlier today (on a brand new account), but I lack sufficient knowledge of the article's topic to be feel confident about items of fact that might therefore be changed.

It seems like some help might be needed from level headed admins to intervene here so that real concensus can develop between the editors on that article, without this continued rancor. Thanks. --Yksin 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The RfC appears to have been deleted for this reason . The creator seemed to change his mind I suppose, but given the history of blocks, the length of time, and on-going incivility with more than one editor, an RfC might be a really good idea. Perhaps it should be recreated.--Crossmr 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This RfC has nothing to do with the problem. That was a case of self-promotion in wikipedia by User:Custerwest who maintain this web site and has strong POV. He calls military operations against native American Indians a legitimate "anti-terror campaign against Black Kettle's Cheyennes". I do not know if this can be qualified as racism. Custerwest also made offensive comments of racist nature ("monkey", etc.) with regard to Hanzo, which caused reaction. I do not think that Hanzo is really at fault here, although I tried to mediate the conflict and explain that everyone must be civil .Biophys 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While that may be, this user has a history of incivility which doesn't involve custerwest. I didn't suggest he recreated, just that the possibility of one should be considered heavily given the past and on-going nature of this user's behaviour.--Crossmr 02:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This RfC was started by a user who has nothing to do with article Battle of Washita River, and he has no debates with HanzoHattori or Custerwest, as far as I know. An RfC is usually about a long-standing conflict of users, which they tried but failed to negotiate. Biophys 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the RfC have anything to do with the article. I suggested the RfC be about hanzohattori. He seems to have a long standing civility issue going back in to last year.--Crossmr 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see that I too brought complaint on HattoriHazo's uncivil behaviour on that Noticeboard under title "Personal attack". I refer to Hanzo's phrase "truly idiotic writing" in regard of my edits. Unfortunately I was unable to join the RFC on Hanzo, but I would surely join it in the future because Hanzo's uncivility passes all the reasonable boundaries. Vlad fedorov 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, his comment was about writings, not about you. This is not a personal attack.Biophys 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether he refers to the user as idiotic, or their writing as such, its uncivil.--Crossmr 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NO his comment was about me. Biophys is friend of Hanzohattori. Please note that Biophys is not objective here and just advances Hanzohattori case. He also often contacts admins to defend Hattori. Please, see there that Biophys acknowledges uncivil bahvior by Biophys. Vlad fedorov 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I think you should just sit quiet after you made me blocked "by mistake" for the thing I didn't do at all. Are you stalking me since, looking for a better case? --HanzoHattori 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage vs Jimbo Wales

Michael Savage, who I gather is some sort of firebreathing far-right talk show host, seems to have pulled a Colbert on his show. Note the headline on his (horribly designed) website - "This is Jimbo Wales, the man who owns Misplaced Pages and calls it the Haditha Massacre!". Not surprisingly, a lot of POV-pushing anons have responded by hitting Haditha killings and Haditha with the insertion of personal commentary, POV language, unsourced material, blankings etc accompanied by charming edit summaries such as this one. (Jimbo has indeed edited the article though only once, as far as I can tell, and had nothing to do with the term "Haditha massacre" being mentioned in it). I've removed the worst of the rubbish and semi-protected Haditha killings for a short period until the Savages move on. However, I'd appreciate it if people could watchlist both articles for a bit. -- ChrisO 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That website is straight outta 1996.-Wafulz 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugliest website ever. Until(1 == 2) 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a dynamic IP posting personal attacks on Talk:Haditha killings, see and . --Coredesat 07:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the radio nutjob. The reason why Jon Gaunt (one of the UK's equivalents) has been protected for a very long time. I'd suggest semi-ing the talk, as the only IPs in discussion, I can see, are trolling. Will 12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SEO at Business.com giving out bad advice

• Business.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see What To Do When Your Company Misplaced Pages Page Goes Bad. I think we should review Business.com to see if the author of this article has been practicing these tactics on the article about her company. Additionally, we should post a careful rebuttal and offer better advice to the readers of this journal. Please assume good faith. I believe the writer is inexperienced with Misplaced Pages policies. This is an opportunity to educate, not flame. Jehochman 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good for us to learn their tactics ... so we should keep an eye on any company related article being cleansed of negative material via these tactics. --Ragib 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to her followup article. Anyone who follows her advice will be creating a ticking time bomb in an article's edit history, waiting only for a Misplaced Pages-savvy journalist to run across it. I believe a clumsy execution's resultant investigation here or at the COI noticeboard will also show up in Google results, making shenanigans even easier for the media to find. If companies are willing to black-hat their ways to "good" Wiki-putations, they deserve whatever comes to them. We will be waiting. --Dynaflow babble 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of their advice is not so terrible... "don't use corporate-speak", "don't copy from press releases", "describe what your company actually does in plain english". 9 out of 10 corporate editors never figure this stuff out. "Change 1-10 to text" complies with the MOS. And half of the intro shouldn't be criticism of the company... I guess there's some exception to this rule, but most companies don't call for that kind of treatment. It's kind of weird, their advice is presented diabolically, but a lot of it is basic stylistic stuff we should do anyway. The only really bad thing I am seeing is the "Bury the bad stuff in noise" suggestion, you see this with articles where anything remotely negative is instantly followed "Others argue..." kind of stuff. --W.marsh 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The stuff straight out of the manual of style is no problem, really. If a company is willing to clean up the language on its page for us, even if they think they're being sneaky and evil, it's alright with me. However, the "bury with noise" thing is a different story. There's much more of a spirit of malevolence there, and consequently, there's a whole lot more potential for it going wrong. If an RC patroller's interest isn't piqued by massive additions of text, you can bet that the "watchers" of that page (and if a company has a reputation suitably odious to have a "bad" Misplaced Pages article on it, there will be plenty) will quickly notice, start reverting changes, and bring the problematic editing onto the radar of the appropriate noticeboard. Uh oh; it looks like the noise has already reached Business.com's article. --Dynaflow babble 01:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures advice isn't so bad either. It's not 100% bad, but the parts that are bad could cause a lot of trouble. Jehochman 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the Starbuck's Talk page concerning this, and then I noticed that other editors had already seen the Business.com article and had started looking very carefully at the formatting of that article. This puts the collateral damage score up to 2 two now. --Dynaflow babble 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures one is great, actually. In my experience with press people, it helps to make sure they fully understand what releasing content under a free license - where you expressly relinquish control - actually implies. But more free content is fundamentally good - David Gerard 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the moral is don't tell everyone how you plan to be sneaky about things. Until(1 == 2) 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was at the Supernova conference in San Francisco last week, representing Misplaced Pages on a panel. Afterwards, the head of web marketing at Proctor and Gamble asked me about the ethics and tactics of editing articles about his company and their products. He raised the point that there was no obvious place on Misplaced Pages where corporate marketers could find guidelines for this. I haven't yet found a page that deals with this issue directly. Anybody know of one? If so, we should make it more prominent. I did offer him some suggestions, the main one being not to edit articles about your own company directly, instead use the talk page to refute inaccuracies and offer independent sources for the information you want presented. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know of one? Yes. WP:COI. People with a possible conflict of interest should add content to the talk page and let others add it to the article. WAS 4.250 11:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Contact us" link on the sidebar of every page leads you through how to flag problems with your company article. Ideas and edits to make these pages more helpful and obvious are most welcomed.

I think this article is not a matter for a panicked response, but an opportunity for gentle guidance. We're a top 10 website. We're mainstream. People aren't sure how on earth to approach us, and we don't want them scared to do so. Every experienced editor (and especially every admin) must be ready to exercise their diplomatic skills on these matters - we must consciously play nice with the rest of the world.

(And it's really special fun spending half an hour on the phone explaining to a linkspammer why what they're doing is likely to be counterproductive and will look like spamming, because they never think such a horrible term could apply to them ...) - David Gerard 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a "FAQ for Companies" page... instead of just shuffling them to OTRS which might not really be necessary to deal with issues that come up. If we're really sure a page like that doesn't exist, I'll get to work on creating one. --W.marsh 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I regularly present at conferences to corporate webmasters, and have summarized my thoughts at WP:SEO. Select portions of this could be borrowed to start a WP:COI/FAQ page. Jehochman 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

there is clearly a need for such an FAQ page. --Fredrick day 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

false and slanderous statements

4.224.213.253, Can someone stop this user from making false and slanderous statements about me on Misplaced Pages? Gperigo 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)gperigo

Not an admin, but showing diffs would help. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll do this for you; 4.224.213.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That IP wasn't the one who made the change, and it's been reverted by you anyway. You may also want to read our guidelines on conflict of interest --Steve _(Stephen) 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

217.35.112.97 (talk · contribs)

It appears that this IP has only been adding External link spam for about a month. I've undone everything I can and left a talk page message; can an admin please watch this account? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.youandyesterday.co.uk is kind of interesting. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of those come from 81.138.149.33 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The same two IPs are also adding another Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biggreenswitch.co.uk%2F -- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot?!?

DeadEyeArrow has made over 10 edits in one minute, which is over bot speed, and this isn't a bot account. ~ Wikihermit 03:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple edits such as categorization or stub sorting can be done quite quickly, particularly through the use of tabbed browsing. Perhaps they're running AWB? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are any of these bad edits? It looks like they were done quickly but it was just fixing obvious typos. I don't see where the harm in that is if someone wants to do it. --W.marsh 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd concur this is AWB use fixing ablum to album --Steve _(Stephen) 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack no, I'm not a bot. I just use tabs extensively. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a speed is certainly possible using tabs, even making the edits manually; see my deletion log for instance, looking for the 9 deletions dated 14:30, 12 May 2007. (It was easy enough for me to check before the deletions started that they were all legitimate, and then it was just a case of tabbed browsing and copy/pasted deletion summaries to delete them all.) --ais523 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same thing with tabs. I don't usually think "bot" until I see a sustained rate of editing at high speed, one quick burst can easily be done using tabs. Seraphimblade 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep—I've done over 10 deletions a minute with tabs :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Per policy of blocking users for making legal threats, I'm submitting 70.250.39.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a block after he referenced legal action in his edit remarks. I'm currently researching the refs in the article to make sure everything's above board. Trusilver 04:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And now presumably a sockpuppet of the previous IP address Family Broadcasting Group, Inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing the same action. Trusilver 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me. This one's pretty unambiguous. --Dynaflow babble 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the IP and the SPA's version, while should not be changed, until the situation is resolved here. The official policy on WP:LIBEL applies here. If the assertions are not properly sourced, they should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've requested a CheckUser to determine if the users are the same. We could use the duck test on this, but I'd prefer technical evidence to cement it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man Championship Edition

User:KieferSkunk will not abide by arbitration given by User:SeanMooney regarding the article Pac-Man Championship Edition. I request a complete edit block of the page. He behaved once he was given the limitations, but now he's trying to violate the arbitration already given, which is contrary to all other similar articles. I'm tired of talking to a brick wall. JAF1970 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration? --Woohookitty 06:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind providing the admins a link to the case? If this is arbitration in the Misplaced Pages sense - i.e. by the Arbitration Committee - Arbitration Enforcement is that-a-way. -Jeske 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, "…arbitration given by User:SeanMooney…", what do you thing the guy means? (probably this)--Van helsing 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling, harassment, vandalism and probable sock puppetry

User:Modelsides appears to be a sock puppet account mainly created to troll my talk page, harass me and vandalize legitimate tags in articles. See that account's edit history for details.Spylab 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a great number of editors concerned by Spylab incivility, name calling, and lack of any effective knowledge of the encyclopaedia entries this user regularly edits. Many anonymous contributors - who did not like this user 'edits' - are marked as someone's puppets - without a proper verification done by a check user. Please, see the history of this user contributions.--Modelsides 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Case in point above, which includes blatant lies. See edit histories for an accurate picture. Spylab 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that. You repeatedly refer to modelsides as a troll/vandal without providing any diffs. If you have a case to make, do so by providing diffs. Even after providing diffs you're still acting uncivil by tossing that language about. If you really feel the need to revert something you can do so without using that language.--Crossmr 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Modelsides' edit history is very short, and almost every edit goes against Misplaced Pages guidelines. As the edit history clearly shows, the very first posts are comprised of unjustified harassment on my talk page. Other edits include the repeated deletion of legitimate copy edit needed tags from the Neo-Nazism article. Since that editor's edit history is very short, it is much easier and efficient to look at the edit history than to look at links to indiviual offences pasted here.Spylab 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Modelsides smells very socky to me, and is clearly harassing Spylab. CWC 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Modelsides' user page alone speaks volumes. They obviously aren't here to build an encyclopedia...

Possible sockpuppetry?

This user, although a few various warnings and comments have been left on his Talk Page(s), seems to be using multiple accounts to build up consensus regarding the inflation of sales figures on numerous music artist and discography pages. I'm not sure if sockpuppetry is actually occurring here, but there seem to be similarities running through these, such as the focus on female pop-music artists (Britney Spears, Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey, Avril Lavigne, etc.), misspelled words and abbreviations and a general aggressive attitude. Can this be checked out? - eo 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Scary Boo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CutyViolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raloft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jojo D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sparking sparky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lili Lou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 194.30.223.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It would appear that way. I remember having to protect Talk:Avril Lavigne when things got too wild a week or so ago. Agathoclea 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also hate to jump to conclusions, but puppet show, anyone? This makes me think we're probably dealing with someone who... let's say, probably needs more guidance than just standard warnings. In the interest of good faith and possible circumvention of policy aside, is there any validity to their arguments? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more;

• Violet4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prinna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Danielkamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boardguy8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NOMKLLP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Znypes00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incidentally, semi-ing won't help here, they were all created over a week ago, many on the same day (3 June). Most have very few edits, the exception being User:Znypes00, although even theirs are pretty SPA on certain articles. The socks are being used to avoid 3RR (see for an example. Not sure if even a checkuser is needed here, is WP:DUCK a good enough reason for blocks? EliminatorJR 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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