Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 17 July 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?

Help

User:Symbiote-Spidey keeps making disruptive edits to Spiderman: Friend or Foe. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.BlueShrek 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ⇒ SWATJester 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.BlueShrek 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ⇒ SWATJester 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.BlueShrek 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ⇒ SWATJester 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock of User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- FayssalF - 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:WinterT. -- FayssalF - 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:LeopoldSenghor7. -- FayssalF - 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:FayssalK. -- FayssalF - 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

..... → User:IndividualBrain. -- FayssalF - 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. The same thing has been done in the past by Bobblewik, who finally gave up only after repeated rounds of escalating blocks, hiatuses and resumptions, and by Hmains (under Bobblewik's initial influence), who somehow escaped blocking but acted likewise, breaking off under pressure each time the campaign attracted notice and opposition, only to quietly resume it at a later date. (For this background, see Bobblewik's block-log and talk-page, and Hmain's talk-page in its history, repeatedly, almost from the get-go: Dec 2005, June 2006 and straggling on through the summer, Sep 20006, Oct/Nov 2006.)
Long discussions at Misplaced Pages:Manual of style (dates and numbers) have failed to reach a consensus either for linking years or for de-linking them, giving the matter a status alike to that of other stylistic differences (e.g. "British" versus "American" spelling) for which there's a general principle of "don't go around articles changing the style from one way to the other". It was for stubbornly breaking this principle that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked.
Now Lightmouse is repeating the very same pattern of behaviour: First as Editore99, and then under his present name, he's been stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks. Quite a number of other editors have complained, but Lightmouse has mostly ignored their complaints. A month ago I warned him to stop, filling him in on the background. He laid off for a month, then resumed making edits such as this. I warned him again, more strongly, earlier today, but he has since carried on with edits such as this. He's made no effort to get consensus for his campaign by re-opening discussions at the MOS page.
His edits are not all bad, and I, personally, even agree with some of his year-delinkings, because he tends to concentrate on articles for quite recent stuff. He also does much other, largely useful editing at the same time, with units and such -- but this almost makes matters worse, because it means that a straightforward revert of the date-delinking also undoes the good stuff. (He's gotten complaints about some of that other stuff, though, and reacted to them with equal stubbornness.)
Anyhow, since complaints and warnings have failed, admin intervention seems to be the only way of handling this. I hope this is the right place to ask for it. -- Lonewolf BC 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it myself. What difference does it make? These links are not of any real use anyway. --John 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Not policy nor consensus. Corvus cornix 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or consensus either way, right? – Quadell 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a stern final warning. Please report further activity of this type here. --Richard 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy is he violating? The BC/BCE thing was decided by the ArbCom, that no one should change one to the other. But there's been no such decision here, has there? Or am I missing something? – Quadell 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why would he get a "stern final warning" for something like this? --John 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a year) should be abandoned. Corvus cornix 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's no general consensus either way. So I shouldn't threaten to block people for linking years, and I also shouldn't threaten to block people for de-linking them. At least, that's how I read it. – Quadell 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit that this is an ambiguous situation. I researched it before I left the warning. I researched it again quickly and revisited my thinking after reading Quadel's comment.

I think we all understand that there is no consensus to link or de-link years. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly indicates that it is permissible to link years (else why would they show how to do it?).

WP:BRD suggests that it is ok to be bold but that, if someone else objects, then you should discuss and develop a consensus.

Someone (User:Lonewolf BC) has objected to Lightmouse's de-linking and asked him to stop pending formation of a consensus. Ignoring the opinions of others and editing unilaterally in the face of opposition is disruptive.

According to the BRD model, it would have been permissible to revert Lightmouse's edits. However, that probably would have been more confrontational than necessary.

I don't think any admin relishes the idea of having to go through each of Lightmouse's edits and rolling them back if the consensus were to decide against his de-linking campaign.

Blocks are meant to be preventative; not punitive. The purpose of a block in this case would be to limit the de-linking until the issue can be discussed in an appropriate forum.

Discussion and consensus are crucial to working in a collaborative community.

--Richard 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere. -- FayssalF - 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said Richard. However, I think the best would be to help coach Lightmouse towards making more productive edits, rather than talking about blocks for what seem to me, from a very cursory sampling, to be more good than bad edits; edits with which I too see certain problems, but which are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Discussion and consensus are vital here and I'm disappointed at how little attempt at dialogue was made with Lightmouse about his edits before threatening him with a block and reporting him here. Experience has shown repeatedly that the community is not able to attain a consensus either for or against linking standalone years, and that there are editors on both "sides" who passionately believe they should or shouldn't be linked. I should say that I often delink standalone years as part of a copyedit myself. Perhaps the solution to this issue would lie in discussing with Lightmouse on an individual basis the merits of his edits. If there is a concern that he edits somewhat robotically, then perhaps he could be restricted to a certain speed of editing. Finally I'd say, with all respect to everybody involved in this, it really doesn't seem worth anybody falling out over, to me. --John 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message inviting some coaching. Wikignoming is not inherently bad, you know, and this energy to make formatting changes could surely be tapped rather than thwarted. We'll see if they want to work with me. --John 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I agree with what you wrote. In my defense, I admit that I was editing under time pressure yesterday and reacting to an existing series of exchanges between LonewolfBC and Lightmouse. I was simply trying to reinforce what LonewolfBC was saying. Comparing LonewolfBC's exchange with Lightmouse against your exchange with him shows that there is indeed a "kinder, gentler" way to communicate. It is a lesson for me to learn. --Richard 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my kinder and gentler approach. --Richard 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere2. -- FayssalF - 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, Hmains lately has been "testing these waters" again, with edits such as this one, made under the edit-summary "copyedit".
I'm quite disappointed that anyone would suggest that this datelink-stripping is okay on the suppositious grounds that the links are not useful. The whole point is that there is no consenus about the worth of the links, and that in the lack of such consensus it is not right to go burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link. An equally speedy and thoughtless campaign of adding such links would be just as bad. I'm also disappointed at legalistic suggestions that some formal ruling is needed before preventative action may be taken against this. Surely a commonsense application of principles is enough, and if not then how is it that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked for his date-link stripping? For all I know there has even been a ruling, but I don't think it ought matter whether there has or has not.
With regard to approaches to Lightmouse, and the fittingness of mine or Richard's, one must read through his talk-page's history to judge that well. Complaints about the date-link stripping have been continual, and Editore99/Lightmouse had "blown off" every one before mine, in one way or another. The same has been generally true of other complaints he has gotten. When entreaties have already failed, warnings are in order (followed by enforcement, if the warnings are not heeded). If Lightmouse has seemed more receptive to John's "kinder and gentler" approach, that might well have to do with his being under threat of a block. That said, I wholly agree that Lightmouse is doing plenty of good work and that this energy ought be "tapped rather than thwarted".
-- Lonewolf BC 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Hmains' edit except maybe that the edit summary is less than wholly accurate. I do have a problem with this edit you made with the edit summary " rv illicit datelink-stripping", which looks rather WP:POINTy to me. I'm also not sure if it is helpful to bring together these two editors whose only common factor is that they delink date fragments. So do I and many other users. If you ever see any user "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", and you believe it matters, feel free to come back here and raise it again (though preferably after you have made a proper effort to establish dialogue with the user). I see no evidence of this in the edits of Hmains. --John 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If his past behavior is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before Mr. Mains returns to "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", unless it is made clear to him that this is no more acceptable than it has been in the past. He generally has begun his rounds of this activity tentatively, but soon throttled up to spending all or substantial portions of editing-days making such edits. The issue is identical to that with Lightmouse -- indeed, the pattern of editing behavior and of interaction with other editors is eerily alike -- so this seems like the sensible place to raise it. The context is all here. I would not put anyone in the same category who delinks year-alone dates merely in the course of judiciously editing articles. -- Lonewolf BC 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:76.182.220.150

I am deeply concerned about the edits I see by Garry Denke (talk · contribs) (who also apparently contributes as 76.182.220.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). He has recently spammed a number of talk pages with fairly well-written pseudoscientific/pseudohistorical religious "theories". By itself, this is a problem but easily dealt with. My bigger concern is that Garry Denke has contributed to and started a variety of semi obscure articles over the last two years (e.g. Seven Spirits of God, Scroll Trench), and made small factual changes to topics like geomagnetic reversal. Some of these contributions appear legitimate, some are transparently false (e.g. magnetic reversals do not occur in less than 39 years), but others are plausible sounding statements that I am unqualified to judge. I worry that he may have inserted a variety of problematic content that was too obscure to notice.

I would appreciate it if others would investigate his edit history and take appropriate action as necessary. Particularly useful would be someone knowledgable about Stonehedge. Dragons flight 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The last swing of the VGP from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere in the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic reversal took only 38 yr.

<copy of abstract removed. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)>

Speaking of knowledgeable

One entry found.

knowledgeable

Main Entry: knowl·edge·able

Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij-ə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Date: 1829

having or showing knowledge or intelligence

— knowl·edge·abil·i·ty \ˌnä-li-jə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

— knowl·edge·able·ness noun

— knowl·edge·ably \-blē\ adverb

John

Okay, so it's nonsense that some scientist believed in the 1980s. "n analysis of the available sediment records of the four most recent polarity reversals ... yield an average estimate of about 7,000 years for the time it takes for the directional change to occur." (Clement, Science, 2004 ). If one only cares about the time it takes to go from slightly S oriented to slightly N, then obviously the time required is neglible because you catch it just on the transition, but that is not at all the same as asking how long the reversal takes as the pole slides through a 180 degree arc. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oy, a bit high brow for Clement. Dipole flip is three (3) days. The whole arc; degrees / minutes / seconds. Homo erectus is the discoverer. The discovery date; Middle Pleistocene. In the beginning top "Ionian" Stage. Here is the discoverer's "Photo". "So easy a Caveman can do it". Go ahead and laugh, whatever. Watch one, then you correct Wiki. I know that you dislike ancestors. However; give the founder full credit! Nobel Peace Prize for Homo erectus! Garry Denke 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC), User:Garry Denke, User talk:Garry Denke Garry Denke 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Garry, you're not helping your cause out by using the Chewbacca defense. You're only proving Dragons flight correct. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight Chewbacca (Trojan horse) Defense employs non-dipole technical jargon, vs., Earth's dipole "so easy a Caveman can do it" Homo erectus eyewitness account, The Evil Spartan. Just thought you'd like to know you've buried Dragons flight with your link. John

Hey Dad, how do you spell Stonehenge? John

Studyhedge. Universal Magnetic Field. Garry Denke 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

The IPs which have been used include: 71.147.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.139.10.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.6.214.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.92.33.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.156.123.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.236.190.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 65.34.130.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.94.98.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.147.16.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.21.56.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.1.22.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.246.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.232.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.132.151.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), many others. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Misplaced Pages "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a daily thing. -- azumanga 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment One of the IPs he's used is already restricted from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. Blueboy96 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - NeutralHomer 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to Christian artist Nicole C. Mullen and Kenneth Copeland's daughter and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. Nate 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I don't know how to perform a range block, but hopefully an admin who does will read this. If not let me know and I can make a quick post to wikien-l. --Fang Aili 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Comment:I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), right here. -- azumanga 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

Check out this edit from 68.90.62.217 (talk · contribs) before a current vandalism spree diff—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MMBabies (talk · contribs) doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. hbdragon88 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought -- I suggest putting a freeze on new members with that username, just in case the other Mmbabies entertains any thoughts. -- azumanga 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No need, Azumanga ... any users with nicknames similar to him will be hard-blocked on sight, per WP:U. Usernames similar to known vandals are verboten. Blueboy96 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs) exists though. Viridae 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably what he meant. Where in Houston do you buy guts that big? He exposes the WMF to serious legal danger with his threats and has a large chunk of his hometown unable to edit for some stretches, and he wants to be unblocked????? Blueboy96 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This user has repeatedly deleted cited material over and over from the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and has been violating the NPOV and AGF policy with false comments about the Freedmen descendants and pushing his POV all while claiming that the article is filled with “uncited materials”. I made changes to the article, but he deletes each change over and over again. He claims that I committed vandalism and “libel” to the page, but if you look at the entire page history, I have contributed to the article with multiple numbers of cited materials and the user whose he claimed I vandalized states that I didn't vandalize the page . He's accused me of being some user named "JohnC1" in the “talk” section and I've deleted his edits to my information page, but more have taken its place . He tagged my page with "This user is a sockpuppet of JohnC1" and I had no idea what that was until a fellow user told me. I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage. This person keeps harassing me on the page and now he wants users who have contributed to the article blocked (as you can see from the page history link above) and making some bogus claim that people contributing are "Freedmen that should be blocked" with another piece of unfactual information . Someone constantly manipulating the page to push his agenda makes no sense and I'm hoping that an Admin can resolve this because this is out of control.Stormshadows00 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Clearly a content dispute. That being said, nothing rankles me more than one hair-brained editors accuse other editors of "vandalism", as if we can't tell the difference. A spade is a... But seriously, can't you guys work this out on the talk page? The Evil Spartan 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A user suggested consensus, but that's not doing any good since he keeps doing the reverting, the "he's a sockpuppet", and the "libel" and "vandalism" claims. And reading all this other stuff below about me....if I'm a "sock" then why did I say "I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage"? Now I'm a "sock", an "SPA", a "SPA sock", an "Anti-Merkey SPA", a "SCOX troll", a "Freedman who should be banned", AND "JohnC1"?! It would be easy to just look at the page history or talk page and see what I contributed that warrants speculation and to see Merkey's actions with not only me but other users. This is exactly why I would like an Admin to straighten this out and to see that Merkey is causing disruption in the Freedmen piece and unwarranted harassment. Stormshadows00 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merkey has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a troll, sockpuppet, etc etc. See SCOX Issues User:Kebron here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269 as well as User:Stormshadows00 here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive270 He has been banned from Misplaced Pages twice before for EXACTLY what he is doing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users&oldid=74046215 reverting edits that are CITED and claiming that HIS POV edits can remain. --Kebron 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…, …Proabivouac 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please... continue to make vague accusations all you want. The truth remains... Mr Merkey makes wild POV changes to articles. I and others revert them and are accused without proof trolling, of being sockpuppets of this user or that. I have asked over and over if there was anything wrong with my edits and the only thing wrong was that I was editing articles that Jeff Merkey edited. --Kebron 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And the truth remains that anti-Merkey SPAs continue to troll this noticeboard.Proabivouac 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Is there any evidence to call Stormshadows00 an 'anti-Merkey SPA'? SPA yes, but the edit history seems to consist of good-faith edits to a single article, and a resulting conflict with Merkey's rather vexatious editing practices. WP:AGF if nothing else. --Aim Here 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that AGF is exactly what the anti-Merkey SPAs have very consciously abused. We could have one hundred and one anti-Merkey only SPAs here and each would assure us from the bottom of their keyboards that they have no idea what we're talking about, while we would be required by the quaint tenets of our religion to overlook the obvious. Merkey can be a problematic editor, but how often does that result in posts to ANI by relatively new editors? Where Merkey is concerned, it happens all the time.

Stormshadows is an SPA. Maybe the quick post to ANI which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls is coincidence. Okay, but you can't get around this. That's not just an SPA, but an anti-Merkey-only SPA, and one who's been allowed to contribute for several years now.Proabivouac 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty unlikely that this is anyone's forty first edit.Proabivouac 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that a few days previously, Merkey had used the same forum to complain about Stormshadows00, so, newbie or not, this forum had already been brought to Stormshadow's attention as the appropriate forum to complain about other editors. In any case, not even Merkey claims that Stormshadows00 is an anti-Merkey troll - that's your invention. Merkey is accusing Stormshadows00 of being John Cornsilks, who is not a SCOX user or troll, but a Cherokee that Jeff has clashed with on Cornsilk's message board, and he was trying to leverage that accusation against Stormshadows00 in this content dispute (since John Cornsilks' account was blocked from WP, for non-Merkey related reasons). Please keep up. When you're seeing anti-Merkey trolls that not even Jeff sees, then I suggest you reevaluate your methods.--Aim Here 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Stormshadows00 was an anti-Merkey account, but an SPA and not a new account. Which is fine, but suspicious. What is far beyond suspicious are the contributions of the other editor who has commented above, which admit only one common denominator.Proabivouac 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you made one reference to 'Anti-Merkey SPAs' plural in this thread (after pointing at the user contribs of only two editors, one of which was Stormshadows00), and then a reference to him as an SPA doing something 'which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls'. Forgive me for not overlooking the obvious but what you wanted to imply was fairly clear and warranted refuting with facts. --Aim Here 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved user (I had never even heard of Mr. Merkey before, let alone edited anything related to Native Americans) I find Mr. Merkey's behavior troubling in this instance. When confronted with a user that claimed to be new, he not only reverted him several times, but would not initially answer on the article talk page, other than to accuse User:Stormshadows00 of sockpuppetry. Would someone more knowledgeable look at this please? (I realize that Mr. Merkey seems to get continuously trolled, but that is absolutely no excuse for this WP:BITEish behavior.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonfairfax (talk • contribs)

I think Proabivouac is, in good faith, trying to thwart the announced intentions of certain users on the Yahoo! SCOX message board to come over here to Misplaced Pages and harass Merkey. Naturally, he's therefore suspicious of anyone who (a) has a short edit history, and (b) engages in conflict with Merkey. However, Merkey's editing behavior is so chronically problematic that nearly all editors who encounter him, newbie or veteran, become embroiled in some sort of conflict with him, even if they try to give him the utmost benefit of the doubt. So, while a new account that has rapidly clashed with Merkey could be a SCOX troll, the likelihood that it's not is great enough to mandate assuming good faith of the new account, unless there is further evidence to demonstrate that its purpose is harassment. And, even if it were a SCOX troll, the concerns expressed here by Stormshadows00 are concrete enough to be verifiable. Giving a disruptive editor like Merkey yet another free pass on his behavior, simply because someone offsite said they'd try to harass him here, seems to be focusing on an immaterial threat and disregarding a known, ongoing problem. It should be easy enough for an administrator to take a look at Merkey's edit history and determine for herself or himself whether Stormshadows00's complaints are baseless or well-founded, and whether Merkey is a disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages or not. alanyst 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see at least three SCOX trolls listed above. I think this Stormshadows account is an SPA sock and these others accounts are SCOX trolls here to revert. I need to be sysoped so I can deal with them since they seem to still be here. Perhaps Jimbo will sysop me for 24 hours to clean up this mess. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, I think that's a very bad idea. You're directly involved, and thus, lack the neutral view on the problem to sort things out in a way that maintains oversight and such. Instead, let us find a sysop to whom this can all be explained, as well as your preferred resolution, and let a more neutral, calm voice sort things out. This should help us keep our actions transparent and accountable. ThuranX 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why we ask uninvolved admins to act rather than ones in the middle of some conflict... Georgewilliamherbert 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Billzilla

This user has now gone beyond pushing it too far. He was already warned for, after asking a reasonable question at Talk:George W. Bush, taking it to the level of trolling (blanking other's comments, calling Americans idiots, etc.). Now it's cemented on his talk page (calling, for example, me a dick). At risk of sounding rude, is this user just young, is he dense, or is he trolling? The Evil Spartan 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, he is now warned. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and blocked for 24hours. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and now protected the page to stop Billzilla from removing blocknotice. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the heading as User:Bishzilla and I was wondering what on earth she was doing in a content dispute. Viridae 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You could have warned me before I clicked Bishzilla's name to see who you were talking about!! Phew (or should that be "aaaiieeeeeeee!!!"?)! ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did too, Viridae - I cannot imagine what kind of dispute 'Zilla could have been involved in (well, that left anyone un-crispied enough to post here, anyway!) KillerChihuahua 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) giving this reason, which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking. I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson has shortened the block to 18 hours. OhNoitsJamie 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by Pascal.Tesson. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at WP:FUR#13 July 2007 I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. Peace.Lsi john 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. Peace.Lsi john 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Attempting to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for attempted murder; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed.

However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. Peace.Lsi john 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• To assist in the closure of this matter and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:
  Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.

   I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

   Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

   It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

   A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

   DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

   I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.

3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
4. I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. Peace.Lsi john 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--VS 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. Pascal.Tesson 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here:

1. VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
2. I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
3. I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly:

1. I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks.
2. Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts here. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago.
3. In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know WP:CSD is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate.
4. I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above.
5. Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it.

I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --VS 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, so sorry, but has it occured to you that you were very rude with your template, and any editor can remove any template or manually written message whatsover from their talk page? I'm also somehow missing the part where you have any reason at all to block DreamGuy. Please clarify this. "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. KillerChihuahua 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I too fail to see where DreamGuy was harassing anyone. Being blunt and harassing are two different things. Also, please be careful about any blocks you do to established editors you may be having a dispute with...post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence before a block is done. Why was the original block for 3 days? Lastly, any block of an established editor, no matter what you may think of them, needs to be posted for other admins to review.--MONGO 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

A website - http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml - appears to have copied a Misplaced Pages article and placed their own copyright tag on the page. I wasn't sure of where to report this so I guessed this would be the best place. The article is Kayvan Novak, see also the discussion at Talk:Kayvan Novak. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the procedure is to list it at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks, and to contact the website to ask them to remove the content. I'd do it but it's probably best if one of the editors involved in the article takes care of it. -- lucasbfr 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I and another editor contacted the website and looking at the page now, http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml, they have removed the copyright logo and give credit to Misplaced Pages and IMBD now. — Moe ε 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads used in Kurdistan Workers Party and other related articles

Deleti (talk · contribs) (doesnt that sound like delete?) had been repetitively uploading same copyrighted images for quite some time now. He has been warned many times. I request admin intervention. -- Cat 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked over the last few contributions of Deleti to the PKK article, and they are mostly images that are later deleted. I have indef blocked Deliti for uploading copyvio images but would welcome other admins review of my actions. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have used a shorter definite block initially, had the user at least acknowledged the warnings. Since they just kept at it, IMHO an indefinite block is warranted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The images still need to be deleted. Though I would reccomend keeping the PKK flag as "fair use". I'll write a rationale now. -- Cat 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought delete the flag too, it was from FOTW and was poorly converted from gif -> png. I have reuploaded it as a gif with proper format, source, fair use license and rationale. -- Cat 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All images were deleted and deleti was indef blocked. -- Cat 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delefi (talk · contribs) is uploading copyvios despite the indef block. Please end his misery. -- Cat 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed this one, too -- obvious sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Deleti to identify the puppetmaster. -- Cat 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for independent Admin oversight

Recently User:SlimVirgin has become involved in Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). While I appreciate the assistance of an admin in trying to sort the issue out, I feel that because I already been in conflict with SV on a discussion of Richard Gere/Cindy Crawford BLP, I feel he is not impartial enough to deal with my edits. Notably, he has removed well-sourced criticisms I made of the Baker case (that appear in three independently verifiable newspapers) and has made a long diatribe about my COI even though I have not edited the article directly in some time. He has even asked me not to discuss my proposed edits on the article talk page. He has now threatened to block me, and I feel I am being bullied by an Admin.

I would like to refocuss the discussion on the text to be reincluded, which has strong support from other editors. the discussion is here:

I would like to request that SV recuse himself from the article and that some other independent admins look at the issue with respect to gaining consensus on the disputed text. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a she. Have you tried to discuss this with her on her talk page before bringing it here? Viridae 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing on the article talk page. I ask that SV refocuss her efforts on building consensus, and not on trying to stifle my ability to comment on the text by saying I cannot discuss the proposed edits on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, all BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as articles. Crum375 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My criticisms of Baker's case were picked up by three independent sources in the UK. They come well withing BLP guidelines. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The point is that BLP concerns are allowed to 'stifle' anyone's ability to discuss things on the article's talk page. Crum375 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Sparkzilla's side in the content dispute, but don't agree with him that SV has been acting in bad faith. She unprotected the page and the only reason me or someone else hasn't readded the deleted material is that we're still working through the issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't go into detail here because of BLP. In brief, Sparkzilla has been engaged in a real-life campaign against two individuals for the last couple of years. He has brought this campaign onto Misplaced Pages, and has repeatedly added details of his allegations against them to a BLP about one of them. The allegations involve legal and financial fraud. Several editors and admins have asked him to stop, to no avail. Therefore, I asked him today, per WP:BLP, WP:COI, and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing to stop commenting on those individuals, whether in articles or on talk pages (he has been posting links to the offending material on several talk pages in an apparent attempt to spread the allegations). Our discussion is here.

As for his claim that I've been in a previous conflict with him, this is simply an attempt to play the "she's involved" game. My only involvement with Sparkzilla is when he arrived at BLP in May and started posting endlessly to the talk page about a dispute he was having at Richard Gere, which I was not involved in. He then tried to change the policy to suit his position. His changes were reverted by myself and others, and he was asked by several of us to take his dispute about Gere to that talk page. That's my only involvement with him, and I didn't even recognize his name when I started dealing with the current BLP issue. I do, however, recognize the same intensity of approach that caused him a problem on the BLP page. I'll be issuing a block if he continues to allude to the disputed allegations, because the situation has gone on long enough, and previous requests from other editors and admins seem to have made no difference. SlimVirgin 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Sparkzilla's involvement in the talk page discussion of the Nick Baker article, because his relationship to the subject is stated and the journal that he runs is, in my opinion, a credible English source of investigative journalism here in Japan. SV's opinion in the dispute is also appreciated and, like I said, we're working through the issues involved. Cla68 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla runs a free city guide with a limited circulation for English speakers in Japan. It's not a strong-enough source for allegations of fraud. The only newspapers that have picked up on the story are three local advertising sheets (which may also be freesheets) in the UK, and even they didn't repeat the substance of his claims. Contentious BLP claims need strong sources, and in this case that would mean the mainstream press.

Also, as the city guide appears to be self-published (by Sparkzilla and his wife), V also kicks in, which says that third-party self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs. SlimVirgin 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because Metropolis is free doesn't mean that it isn't a credible news source. It does contain a city guide, but every edition usually contains an article or articles on issues going-on in Japan, usually issues that non-Japanese living in Japan might have interest in. The article's author's names are on the articles (as opposed to most mainstream Japanese press stories, which don't state the author's names, but are still considered to be credible) and the article's sources of information are stated. Those local newspapers in the UK also appear to be credible, even though they're not mass-market publications. I believe the sources pass the credibility test. But, why are we discussing this here instead of the article's talk page? Cla68 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if the fact that a trusted administrator has enforced a particular policy in the past were to mean that she could not enforce it in the future, who would be left to do so? All administrators are expected to enforce BLP. If you find yourself repeatedly in conflict with SlimVirgin over BLP, it is probably a sign that your edits fall too often on the wrong side of that policy.Proabivouac 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, do not misrepresent our previous conflict. I took the Gere/Crawford issue to the BLP policy page because there was/is a valid issue regarding what I saw was the abuse of the word "sensitive" in the policy. At no point did I change the text of the main BLP page article -- I discussed proposed changes on the talk page only. I suspect you have serious WP:OWN issue on the BLP page so I let it go. After you basically told me to go away I knew it would only be a matter of time until you came back.

Also please do not misrepresnt my magazine. It is a weekly 80-page city guuide with 30,000 distribution. It is the No 1 English magazine in Japan read by 50% of the foreigners who live here. It has already been established that it is not self-published. For god's sake, what else are you going to try?

Even so, my allegations against Baker's support group are in three independent newspaper sources that were published in Baker's home area. They are notable, relevant and verifiable and well within BLP policy. After you deleted the items without reason, the disputed text has been discused by other editors on the page -- all except you. Other editors disagree with your asessment of the content and your attempt to use COI issues on what is basically a content sidpute is not appreciated. I feel strongly that you are trying to stifle discussion of a content issue using the authority of an Admin.

Given your continous denigration of my edits, and my magazine, and the reliable third-party sources which note my criticisms of Baker's case it is reasonable to suggest that you are carrying a grudge and I once again ask that you recuse yourself from further comment on the article -- there are plenty of other admins who can deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if you are indeed the publisher of the disputed material, it would seem that it is rather you who should recuse yourself, per WP:COI.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Following COI policy I have been discussing the proposed edits on the article talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay.Proabivouac 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, once you have admitted you are COI, and have been told to back off, you should do just that. Let other neutral editors deal with the situation. My guess is that there is no one there with a POV in the issue, except you. The rest just want to make sure that BLP, V, NOR, NPOV and UNDUE are carefully adhered to. Crum375 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, ith respect to COI policy I am allowed to discuss proposed edits on the article talk page. I am also happy to abide by the consensus of the editors on the page. Actually, I have been working to remove POV by Baker's supporters who like to present claims as facts ;) -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your posts must not attempt to repeat the disputed allegations, or link to websites or previous posts that repeat them. Please be very clear about that. SlimVirgin 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Posts and allegations are well within BLP. Three independent sources. I suggest we both take some time away from this issue and let the other editors discuss the proposed text on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to read my previous interaction with Sparkzilla, given he's claiming it makes me "involved," it was on BLP talk in May, in several sections starting with Conflicting claims, Sensitivity, and Addition of recent paragraph. But most of it is in The meaning of sensitivity, and Proposed text for public figures.

As you can see, I was one of a number of editors who were opposing his proposals and asking him to stop posting so much about Richard Gere. To quote Risker: "Sparkzilla, you have been asked repeatedly, by many editors and administrators, to keep the questions about Richard Gere in either the talk page of that article or the BLPN section with reference to that article. Your continued insistence on discussing it here, in the talk page of a policy that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles containing biographical material about living persons, has become disruptive. Please stop." SlimVirgin 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will recall there were actually two discussions: The first was a discussion of the actual Gere/Crawford issue. The second was a discussion of changes to BLP policy that used the Gere conflict as an example (something you clearly did not understand at the time). Each item for discussion was in the correct place for discussion. I was bullied off of the BLP page by you at the time, but chose not to persue it at the time. You have admitted that you were in conflict with me then and given that conflict, I once againa sk you to recuse yourself and to let another admin deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that Sparkzilla has been warned-off this article by two trusted admins and other editors - I am curious why he would bring this here. He misrepresents that his current position has strong support from other editors. At the latest count three for and three against. He also misrepresents the position of his magazine here. There are over 2,000,000 foreigners in Japan - is he suggesting that his magazine (which is restricted to the kanto area around Tokyo) has over 33 readers for every single copy? An amazing feat!!!David Lyons 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the header; Sparkzilla would like the views of a third party administrator on a particular matter. He then gives his reason, a past history of dispute with the other party. It is quite simple, and this is the correct place to make the request.

It then gets a little muddied by the content of the debate, and the basis of the previous conflict, being bought here by the parties involved. Despite this being an entirely inappropriate venue for the discussion it does give some indication why a neutral admin is being requested (and what said admin is likely to encounter). LessHeard vanU 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint regarding unwarranted ban by SlimVirgin - Abuse of Admin powers in content dispute

Sorry this is so long, but I would like to register a strong complaint regarding my recent ban by SlimVirgin. I feel strongly that this ban was unwarranted, and that it was an abuse of admin powers in what is a basic content dispute.

This discussion revolves around the removal by SlimVirgin of text and sources that support my real life citicism of the support group of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) . This material had already passed through an RFC and was deemed acceptable as long as there were extra sources -- two new sources were subsequently provided by other editors. After the text's deletion without discussion by SlimVirgin I sent a mail to the RFC respondents to ask for their opinion on its removal. A copy of the mail is here

Sending this mail resulted in a six-hour ban by SlimVirgin on the basis of COI and BLP violations. These claims are unfounded. The ban followed attempts by SlimVirgin to stop me discussing the disputed text on the talk page with other editors. In this lengthy diatribe about my COI issues she said, in violation of COI policy, that "I'm going to ask Sparkzilla to stop editing this article and refrain from commenting further about the Bakers on this or any other talk page".

There is no COI issue. Since I declared my COI on the article I have only discussed edits involving sources that reference my commentaries or my magazine on the article's talk page. There is also no BLP issue as stated on the ban because there are three independent newpapers that have referenced my claims and the claims have also been addressed by Baker's supporters. Three editors on the talk page currently think the text should be reinstated.

My points

1. It is easy to say I have COI issues, but after COI discussions several months ago which ended in me revealing my identity, any proposed edits concerning my own magazine and commentary have only been posted on the article talk page in full conformance with COI policy.
2. The so-called BLP violation is part of a content dispute which is supported by three independent newspaper sources currently being discussed on Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). I have to wonder how we can discuss the sources without linking to them?
3. The disputed text and sources was removed unilaterally by SlimVirgin without any consultation with other editors on the page and with no reference to the previous RFC
4. The disputed text (after more sources were added) was deemed acceptable in a previous RFC
5. Criticisms of the support group have been an integral part of this article since its very early days
6. There are three editors on the talk page who support re-inclusion of the material
7. I have been in conflict with Slim Virgin in the past and I have already asked for assistance to stop what appears to be a vendetta against me in the section above- unfortuantely no action was taken.
8. SlimVirgin refused to recuse herself from the page to let another admin deal with the page. Why is it so important that she alone must deal with it?
9. SlimVirgin also defensively denigrated my magazine's notability and that of the other sources. Why do this if this was simply a COI/BLP issue?
10. I was then banned for asking for help from respondents to the original RFC and my mails to those editors deleted.

I did an RFC and I added sources; I have only discussed proposed edits on talk pages. There are multiple independent sources that support my commentary. I have followed policy properly only to find myself banned. I would like to ask once again for SlimVirgin to recuse herself from the article and to ask non-involved admins to check the sources and confirm whether or not is acceptable for me and other editors to discuss them on the article talk page. This is a simple task -- the sources are short .

I would also like to ask the following questions:

1. Is it WP policy to block a user for sending a letter of request for help to previous RFC respondents?
2. Is it acceptable for an admin to ban someone based on COI issues when they have been following COI policy?
3. Does BLP policy means that controverisal claims, however well sourced, cannot be referenced in talk pages?
4. Is it WP policy to use admin powers to suppress participation in a content dispute?

I also sincerely hope that I will not face further sanction for bringing this issue up. The actions of powerful admins should be always be allowed to be questioned in an open environment without fear of reprisals from either them or the people who support them. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the above, I'm surprised the block was only for six hours. You seem to have a vested personal COI interest in this case, and it is best for all considered, you in particular, to leave off editing the article. Period. Corvus cornix 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the main article concerning my edits at all, in full conformance with COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Corvus cornix. When you are an obvious COI, you should walk on eggs. Take a back seat, let the neutral editors work on the article, and limit yourself to pointing out obvious factual mistakes, once. Don't lobby or promote your COI POV in any way, and when told to back off, do so. In this case, there are many neutral editors involved, the facts are known, the issue remaining is how to best present the information given our very strict BLP related rules, combined with V, NOR, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Stop attacking a neutral admin who is simply following our BLP rules. Crum375 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have been arguing for. I took an RFC, I added sources, I refrained from directly editing the article, I discussed on the talk pages - all according to policy. Now that the text was arbitraruily deleted any attempt to discuss it on the article talk page or with previous RFC respondents has resulted in a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just learned that user Sparkzilla is the author of the op-ed that started this dispute. On that basis alone, Sparkzilla should not edit that article. He can comment in talk and provide any sources he wants added, leaving other editors to assess the material on its merit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you think of my COI, I have followed policy properly. I have not edited the article directly regarding my commentary. I have commented in talk and provided sources in full comopliance with policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, FYI, I've also asked him to stop commenting on talk — and in fact to stop commenting on the Bakers anywhere on Misplaced Pages — because he was engaged in a real-life campaign against them. He has been posting his opinions widely on various talk pages, urging editors to add material for him, and including links to the disputed editorial and other articles he's written in real life, which is all being cached by Google. I feel he needs to withdraw entirely from being involved in this on Misplaced Pages for reasons of BLP and COI, and to allow the other editors on that page to write the article and discuss it without his constant requests that material written by him be restored. SlimVirgin 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent me. I have not posted info about Baker "widely" on other talk pages, other than to to discuss this COI issue and to ask for help from the previous respondents to the RFC, who had accepted the text. According to COI policy I am both allowed to cite my own sources, and I am allowed to comment on the talk page of the article. It is also not unreasonable that I should also be allowed to discuss the text with editors who previously approved the disputed text on an RFC without incurring a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I brought the original RFC precisely so that non-involved ediotors could comment irrespective of any COI. This is what the policy says:  : Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

I have strictly adhered to this guideline, yet now I have been banned. The policy exists to help editors like me who have a conflict of interest deal with the situation. What is the point of the policy if following it correctly results in a ban?-- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Disclosing a COI does not eliminate it, and it appears it is going to be difficult for this editor to adhere to WP:NPOV. We're each supposed to write content in NPOV fashion, not advocate our respective self-interested positions to meet in the middle. -- But|seriously|folks  23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have not edited the article directly and have conformed with COI policy throughout. I have also provided independent sources to deal with NPOV issues. Please tell me the actual BLP policy that I have broken and tell me why I am not allowed to ask for help restoring the approved text without incurring a ban? -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just do not edit the article. Provide sources and recommendations in talk and let others make the changes if they think that these are necessary. Avoid giving personal opinions on LPs: discuss the article and not the subject, and you will be fine. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a soapbox for personal opinions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have done. However, given that I have been doing exactly as you say and have been banned for it, I wonder if you can assure me that if I was to comment or assist other editors regarding my sources on the article's talk page or in mail discussions with RFC respondents such as yourself that I would not be banned again? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sparkzilla: I think you are missing the point. As an admitted COI, the issue is not your editing of the article, but your promotion and lobbying for your own publications as a source for a highly controversial BLP article. As I noted above, you should provide your material once, which you have already done, and then step back and let neutral editors handle the BLP and sourcing issues. When an admin removes your controversial material per BLP, you don't restore it as you've done - you step back. This applies to anywhere on the Misplaced Pages site. So just sit back, the neutral editors already have your material, let them work with it. And do not under any circumstances restore controversial BLP material that has been removed, or you'll be blocked. Crum375 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I took the original text once to RFC. Secondly, after its removal by SV without discussion I did not restore the disputed text to the article, but followed policy by commenting on the text in the article's talk pages, or to ask for help from previous respondents to the RFC. I am concerned that I was penalised for following policy, and concerned that I will be punished again for discussing it on the article's talk page in future, even though this is part of COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla doesn't seem to be getting it. If this continues, I support another block to get his attention, since the first one just wasn't long enough to provide enough time for proper reflection and reading of the relevant policies is seems. The only question is, how long this time? FeloniousMonk 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me the exact policy I have broken. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT for starters. How about WP:HAR as well. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to ask for assistance regarding a content dispute. It is not disruptive to question the removal of well-sourced material from an artcile. It is not disruptive to discuss a ban, which apears to the the result of following policy. Can you tell me the policy violation regarding COI or BLP please? Also can you tell me who I am supposed to be harassing? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add WP:BLP - restoring improperly sourced controversial BLP material that has been removed, after several warnings, is a blockable offense. Crum375 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It was established in the RFC that the material was acceptable. Confimation that I criticised the support group is available in three independent reliable sources, easily satisfying verifiability and NPOV issues. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, let me clarify this for you. This is a case of COI aggravated by the fact that you are involved in case about third-parties. COI on subjects you are involved yourself, such as editing an article about yourself, or your newspaper, is difficult enough. When the COI involves comments your newspaper is making about others, it is even more difficult, and to such extent that you simply should avoid any perceptions' that may be construed as improper. So, I would advise you to make your comments in talk page, allow others to make the edits, and avoid any type of canvassing for the material's inclusion. Hey, if the material is notable, significant and and well sourced, I will re-add it myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All I asked for initially was for some external help to deal with the issue. I appreciate your offer to help. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, to avoid making this more difficult for yourself, accept the feedback given to you and take a break. I believe it will do you good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have kindly indicated your desire to help I will leave the issue for now. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, once an admin, or any established user for that matter, declares controversial BLP material as improperly sourced and removes it, you may not restore it, regardless of any previous RfC decisions. The proper way to handle that is to discuss it, and reach consensus prior to restoring. Additionally, if you are an admitted COI, and in your case also the author of the controversial material, you should not be promoting your COI POV - you should stick to providing raw facts, and let neutral editors discuss the BLP issues. Crum375 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing it to reach consensus on the talk page and with previous RFC respondents - but was banned for doing so! It was the attempt to suppress that discussion that I am concerned about. Please note that I have only discussed what is in the external sources and have not promoted any agenda (in recent memory) on WP that is not already inside those sources. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Constantly repeating poorly sourced WP:BLP violations is indeed a WP:BLP violation, and given your campaign against the individual in question, you should simply stay away from commenting on them at all on Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The items are not poorly sourced according to WP:ATT. My comments about the case were reported in three independent newpapers in the UK. Three other editors on the page, and the repondents to the RFC agreed that my commentary can be cited as a claim with the sources provided. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Sparkzilla, you say "There is absolutely no BLP violation" - can you appreciate that as a COI pushing his own contentious BLP material as source, you are in no position to be a neutral judge of that? This is why you must step back and let neutral Misplaced Pages editors deal with the BLP issues. Crum375 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. That's why I... 1) took it to an RFC that said that my commentary could be used if sourced appropriately. 2) There is no further COI issue from me as I have discused the re-istatement of the text only on the article's talk page and with the repondents to the COI (and here). I have behaved properly when it comes to my COI. In fact, it is SlimVirgin who has gone against consensus by removing this material, and I would like to ask why it was removed without discussion when it is porpoerly sourced, has pased through an RFC, and why I was banned for challenging that removal? -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am "completely right", then you should just step back. As the author and publisher of the material in question, you are not neutral, hence you can't judge the merits of a BLP case. The RfC, as I explained to you, means nothing, since BLP issues evolve, and an established user removing contentious BLP material can only be reverted by subsequent consensus - certainly not by the COI whose material was removed. So please stop this campaign, as it's becoming very disruptive. Crum375 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis

It also appears that Sparkzilla is controlling the content of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), a free city and classified-ad guide in Tokyo that he and his wife publish. The history shows him removing negative content and fighting to restore anything positive, not all of which is reported accurately.

For example, the article said: "In 1999 the magazine started "Glitterball", an annual Halloween party at Velfarre, a large club in Roppongi. The party, which has about 2,000 attendees, raises funds for various children's charities in Japan, including Make a Wish Foundation and the YMCA Challenged Childrens' Project."

The edit was sourced to The Japan Times with a dead link. In fact, the Japan Times article is still online, and it does not entirely support the edit. In a March 2006 article entitled "A good cause: Expat charity balls are some of the biggest and most expensive draws on the social calendar. Where does all the money go?, the newspaper writes:

Another popular evening out on the cheaper end of the scale is Metropolis magazine's Glitterball party. The Tokyo-based English weekly holds its annual Halloween dance party at Velfarre in Roppongi.

It is not traditionally a charity fundraiser, but for the October event the magazine advertised that some of the money raised would go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Japan and the YMCA.

However, advertisements for the party did not specify how the money was to be raised.

Mark Devlin, CEO of Crisscross KK, Metropolis' publisher, admitted the group was not as organized last October as they had been in previous years.

"We did not have a clear idea of who to give (the money raised) to," Devlin said.

As they have been doing since 2003, 500 yen of the 3,000 yen advance and 3,500 yen door ticket prices was earmarked for charity, while those who received free tickets were asked to give a 500 yen donation at the door.

Devlin clarified the event, which had about 2,000 attendees last year, also makes a "moderate profit" for the magazine.

Crisscross donated 503,000 yen each to the two charities, according to Devlin.

I've fixed the article so that it sticks more closely to what the source said. SlimVirgin 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why bring a mnor edit on a minor page not relevant to this discussion if not to muddy the discussion? Please do not distract the issue. The older edits to Metropolis were already the subject of a COI discussion where Mangojuice said "I feel his behavior on the central articles (Metropolis, Crisscross) was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict" -- again my actions were well within COI policy. Personally, the party is not as big a deal as you have made it, but I will leave that to other editors to work with your changes. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting selectively again. It's neither a minor issue nor a distraction; it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is about how you seem to be editing Misplaced Pages to further your business interests and personal campaigns. You created the article in the first place, which was not a good idea; you're reporting what sources say inaccurately; you inserted a dead link to a source you misrepresented, even though the article was available online, which meant people couldn't easily check what it said; you're removing negative material that appears to have been sourced correctly; and Mangojuice actually said that your inappropriate editing has to stop. That was back in May, yet here we are again. Your actions in several articles are a clear example of a deeply problematic COI, and it really does have to stop this time. SlimVirgin 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not insert a dead link - the Japan Times has recently changed their archive policy to allow non-registerd users to access their archive - so all links have recently become broken. Secondly, my company is notable and has multiple independent sources to say so. Thirdly, the page has been under constant attack by people who would like to insert libelous material, which I have removed according to COI policy and which was confirmed as appropriate by MangoJuice after an extensive COI discussion . I would like to bring this discussion to a close now, and I hope you will also do me the courtesy. Thank you.-- Sparkzilla talk! 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC is about SlimVirgin not Sparkzilla

I'm not going to discuss any of Sparkzilla's COI or WP:CANVAS "violations" here. This incident is reporting innapropriate actions of User:SlimVirgin regarding his dealing with Sparkzilla.

Sparkzilla canvassed my talk page, with a valid concern. I have been both for and against some of Sparkzilla's stances on certain webpages.

SlimVirgin promptly removed this request from my talk page saying it violated BLP. I do not understand how it could be violating BLP. WP:CANVAS maybe, but not BLP. Sparkzilla describes his problem and asks me to give comments/advice about appropriate steps.

The removal of another editors talk page comments, and citing an innapropriate guideline is Harassment.--ZayZayEM 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Sparkzilla added the WP:BLP-violating content to your Talk: page, which is why it was removed. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages, even User talk: pages. Jayjg 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. SlimVirgin is acting against the consensus of the RFC repondents and of the current editors on the page. As ZayZayEm says this issue is not about my actions, but about the abuse of admin powers to restrict my right to discuss properly sourced material on the article's talk page and with the RFC respondents. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, you as a COI promoting your own contentious BLP material to be used as a source, cannot possibly be neutral, thus you cannot judge the BLP violation. A previous RfC does not trump any established user who decides to remove contentious BLP material - there is always new evidence and developments in a case. In any case, it is not for you to determine, but for the neutral editors. Crum375 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

but BLP supercedes consensus in cases where the BLP limitations and consensus for inclusion conflict. It's that simple. SV seems to me to have enforced BLP zealously, and against some possible COI. I don't see why this whole debate's still ongoing. ThuranX 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The material is sourced appropriately. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, given your campaign against the individual in question off Misplaced Pages, please accept that you are in no position to comment on whether or not this material violates WP:BLP. As I said above, going forward it would be best if you didn't comment at all about this individual on Misplaced Pages, here, on someone's User talk: page, or on the article Talk: page. Focus on other articles - there are about 1.5 million from which to choose. Jayjg 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. The consensus on the article's talk page and on the RFC is that the sources ARE approporiate. Are you really trying to tell me that three independent newpapers that reported on my comments in the UK are NOT appropraite sources? Don't tell me to go away. Even with my COI, I have a right to discuss the removal of properly sourced material on the article's talk page and I also have the right to complain when I am harassed and banned by an admin while discussing the removal of that material against consensus. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This distortion has to stop. The more you write, the more I see how unclearly you describe events, and that makes me wonder even more about using your publication as a source.

The background, one last time: You and your wife publish a small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan. In that publication, you have written very critical material about a living person who was convicted of a crime. You wanted to add to the Misplaced Pages BLP about that living person that he and his mother had lied to the public to obtain fraudulent financial donations and political support. You claimed that your allegations were based on a defence document that someone had leaked to you, which you published on your website. This had no signature, no date, nothing on it to indicate its provenance. It was apparently originally in Japanese, but someone had translated it; again, we don't know who. You then sent out 25 e-mails to various publications and other interested parties in the hope they would pick up on your story. Three very small classifed-ad papers in the UK did, papers that are local to the area the accused and his mother came from. They are not independent sources, or reliable sources for this kind of claim. They are taking their information entirely from you, and you're not a journalist or professional researcher — in fact, I found an interview you gave in which you explicitly say your magazine doesn't hire people with publishing, editorial, or journalistic backgrounds. Even those papers only alluded to your allegations, but also didn't dare publish them in their entirety. Your publication has no editorial oversight, and apparently the person whose name was on one of the articles doesn't exist.

It terms of BLP and COI, it could not be worse. Despite this, you've spent huge amounts of time posting these claims in one form or another on various talk pages, trying to get someone to add the material back for you, either entirely or in part. It has to stop, and there's no point raising it whenever you can, because it's a crystal-clear case of a serious BLP and COI violation. And in the article about your city guide, an article you created, I see more of the same attempt to talk up whatever you do, and remove any criticism.

The bottom line is that you must stop focusing on self-promotion. SlimVirgin 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, even I am trying to say stop. Using external sites to validate your own statements, to add to an article you're editing, about something you're working against, is COI of the greatest level, and that COI leads to BLP violations, becaues it's making an end run around basic libel to multi-stage libel. Just move on. ThuranX 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Why do you insist on completely misereprenting my publication and the sources? I find it amazing that you can know so much about me and my magazine without having lived in Japan. Firstly, my magazine is the No 1 English magazine in Japan, an 80-page weekly city guide with a certified (ABC) distribution of 30,000 copies/week. Its readership of 67,500 covers 50% of the foreigners in the Tokyo area. It employs 40 staff and has an independent editorial team of four full-time people which has produced hundreds of articles and commentaries over the 12 years it has been in publication, including many, many articles more contentious than Mr Baker's issue. Over the years we have employed hundreds of freelance writers, and currently employ or have employed writers who have worked at NHK, {{The Japan Times]], Bloomberg, The Sydney Morning Herald, Time Out and other well-known newspapers and magazines in Japan and throughout the world. I have been profiled many times as a leading publisher in Japan (see sources on the Metropols WP page). A casual look at the magazine's website will easily show that your claims are bogus.

I also forgot to mention that I also published my commentary about Baker's support group on my news site Japan Today. Japan Today (check on Google - no link so I am not accused of promotion) is the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world with two million page views/month and an Alexa ranking of approx 20,000 which is equivalent to the website of the Japan Times, Japan's largest distribution Englihs-language newspaper . The site is run by an editor who has 20 year's experience at The Asahi Shimbun.

So I am not just the editor of a "small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan". That is why my comments regarding the bahaviour of a Japan-based support group's media strategy are relevant and notable in their own right.

As an aside, why are you bringing up the removal of the defense documents? I did not contest your removal of the defence documents and it is not related to this issue. My editorial team will shortly make a public statement regarding their authenticity. My claims are not based on that document alone. Even so, the fact that I made such a claim was reported in other sources.

Each of the newpaper sources that reported on my criticism of the case fully statisfy WP:BLP: They are independent of me, they have independent editorial teams and they are widely distributed in Baker's home area. Whether they are free or not is immaterial (although se below). These sources are deemed acceptable by the RFC repondents AND by many editors on the article's talk page.

Further, if you were really concerned about this issue you should have submitted your comments like other editors on the article's talk page as part of consensus building instead of trying to force me off the page and then banning me when I ask for help regarding your removal of the material under the pretext of a bogus BLP and COI violation. In fact on the article's talk page right now you are being asked by two editors why you have gone against consensus in this case.

It is pretty clear given the kind of bogus research you are doing on me and my company that you are not interested in consensus regarding the actual sources, but are instead interested in denigrating and harassing me. I ask you to stop harassing me and misrepresenting the sources (see below) -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FACT CHECK UPDATE: I checked the sources website and The Citizen , which reported on my criticisms of the case, is actually a PAID-FOR newspaper with a weekly circulation of 32,000 copies (readership 80,000 copies). Pretty reliable source, I'd say. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FACT CHECK UPDATE 2: I checked the Swindon Advertiser, which despite its name is also a PAID-FOR newspaper (circulation around 20,000 every day with 58,000 readers). These sources are clarly reliable. There is no BLP violation. My ciriticisms of the case are reliably sourced and should never have been taken out without discussion. Banning me for daring to object on the article's talk page is an abuse of admin priviledge.-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This disruption has gone on long enough. We're long past the point of decreasing returns accomodating Sparkzilla here; there's only so much disruption of this page and the project we're expected to put with for such a trifling set of gripes. It's time for Sparkzilla to drop this and move along: there's 1,885,720 articles at Misplaced Pages, and if he's genuinely interested in contributing to the project he'll have no problem finding some not related to those that gave rise to the imbroglio that need improvement. Otherwise he simply confirms the objections already voiced here about his method of participation and makes further blocking all the more likely. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not distruptive to question the actions of an admin. I want to know, given that there was no BLP or COI violation, if I can expect to be banned for continuing to follow COI policy, or for asking RFC reposndents for help, or for asking that properly sourced material be restored by an admin who deleted it without consensus. This is a fair question. Sparkzilla talk! 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But as advised to you on these pages as well as via email, you are not doing yourself any favors in pursuing this the way you are pursuing it. Listen to the feedback given to you by your peers here and elsewhere and take a well deserved break from commenting on this subject, before making it worse for yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking, my opinion is that the sources you provided are not reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss why on the article's talk page and come to consensus with the other eiditors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, please stop it. Your amount of posting here, to promote a personal COI agenda, is clearly excessive. I would urge you to start editing other unrelated articles, not connected to your COI, or you could be blocked for disruptive behavior. Crum375 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask, most humbly, why I should be further penalised for highlighting an administrator's abuse of WP rules, when I, in turn, have now proven that I have done wrong with respect to COI or BLP policy? I made an RFC, I brought in reliable sources. I only discussed on the talk page. Yet I was harassed of the page and banned by an admin when I asked for help regarding the removal of text without discussion. Surely this request, which has been focussed on my actions for some time now, is actually about SlimVirgin's actions, which were against COI policy, BLP policy and admin priiledge?

I would also like to ask if I am banned again for being so bold to report an admin, where I can take this issue next?-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude. You're looking for ways to get your opinion into the article. "they quoted me" still presents a COI. Get over it. You know youre' wrong, and almost a dozen editors have told you to drop it and move on. Why don't you understand that no one is going to let you put your own quotes into the article? ThuranX 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you are getting frustrated, but it's frustrating for me too. I don't see why I am being penalised when my actions have been in line with COI and BLP policy. If I can get an answer to my question above I will be happy to move on. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, I believe you would get a more sympathetic hearing here if this claimed 'consensus' that BLP was not being violated by your links was actually demonstrable by support of that statement on this page. I see no such support, and as such am forced to the conclusion that there was no such consensus. Hornplease 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)c

Sparkzilla, amongst all the well-connected journalists you claim write for your magazine, I cannot find one google entry for a "Kirsten Holloway" the reporter who is credited with writing the feature which contains the majority of the contentious material you are trying to include in this article. Why is that?David Lyons 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are discssing the wrong item. We are talking about my commentary and its reporting in three newspapers, not the Metropolis round-up of the case. Sparkzilla talk! 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, one might have thought so, but since you edit of an hour or so ago, where you introduced the credentials of the writers working for your magazine, it seems entirely pertinent to raise the question of the bona-fides of the reporter on this Metropolis article to which you attach much importance. David Lyons 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

She wrote the article for us, with the help of our editor (who had worked on the previous article) and left Japan shortly after. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but given the nature of the feature in question, would it be correct to describe the writer as an 'investigative' reporter, or at least a "journalist"? Am I to understand from your response that Kirsten Holloway, wrote just the one article in her career (where-ever she is now in the world) or was she writing under a pseudonym?David Lyons 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we have had hundreds of freelancers work for us. Some stay a while but most come and go. I have no idea where she is now or what she is doing. However, I was satisfied with the work she and our editorial team did on the article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You response speaks volumes.David Lyons 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of discussion so far

A brief summary. In the section above I have clearly established that...

1. I followed COI policy correctly at all times by only discussing the removed text on the article's talk page
2. I provided multiple reliable sources -- which have been established to be daily paid newspapers with medium circulation numbers)-- therefore there was no BLP violation
3. My own publications have a very wide readership in the foreign community in Japan
4. I am a leading publisher in Japan and have enough notability to comment on the media activities of a support group

And that...

1. The admin removed material without consultation
2. When I questioned the deletion the admin tried to silence my opinion on the article talk page - a clear abuse of COI guideline.
3. The admin then blocked me stating bogus reasons (COI and BLP issues) when I contacted previous RFC respondents
4. The admin defended themselves by denigrating my company, my position and the sources (all of which is bogus)

So I would like to ask my questions once again as nobody seems to want to answer them...

1. Is it acceptable for an admin to tell me not to discuss an issue on the article talk page in violation of COI guidelines?
2. Is it acceptable to be blocked for asking for help from RFC respondents using the pretext of COI and BLP issues, when there are no such issues?
3. Why has no admin here even questioned SV's behaviour - is it typical for admins to stick together when one is accused of misconduct?
4. Why am I now being warned off of this topic, told to that stop, that this is the "wrong way" and that I am being "disruptive"? I have done nothing wrong, so why am I being treated as the accused?
5. Is it is typical WP policy to label an editor who is trying to defend themselves against admin abuse "disruptive" so they can be blocked or that they may give uip (and so that the questions remain unanswered?
6. If I am doing this the "wrong way", what exactly is the right way? Is there a WP oversight process that deals with admin misconduct, or is this as good as it gets?
7. Is it ever possible to have any action taken against admin abuise - are admins above reproach by ordinary editors?

These are serious and reasonable questions that require proper answers. I appreciate your efforts to answer them. Thank you for your comments. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing that derives from an editorial constitutes a reliable source. See Misplaced Pages:Fact laundering. If a reliable source reported as fact that certain things happened, that is reliable, under our meaning of the word. If a reliable source reports, "John Smith, publisher of the Arkham Advertiser, today accused Dr. Henry Armitage of Miskatonic University of dabbling in the dark arts," that is merely proof that John Smith made a certain accusation. Any attempt to use such a source as proof that Armitge does in fact dabble in the dark arts is merely Fact laundering. Thatcher131 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. In accordance with WP policy the text has always been stated as being a claim. That the claim exists can be reliably sourced. Check the discussion on the article's talk page for proposed texts stating it as a claim.. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very existence as an unproven claim made in an unreliable source bars its inclusion. The fact laundering essay was written in response to an Arbitration case regarding Jack Hyles, a controversial religious leader. One of the issues in that case is that a former colleague had self-published a critical newsletter against Hyles, alleging marital infidelity and other misdeeds. At one point, the Chicago Post, in reporting on Hyles, wrote, "a former friend and colleague has accused Hyles of infidelity and other misdeeds." At the time, I too thought this was sufficiently reliable to include in the article. I have since changed my view, and parties here are advised to read through the case itself. If it is impermissable for Misplaced Pages to report "John Smith cheated on his wife" because the only source is unreliable for some reason (celebrity gossip magazine, self-published by Smith's political or business rivals, etc) then it is also impermissable to suggest that Smith cheated on his wife by referring to an unreliable accusation. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi and especially Quotation_of_material_from_an_unreliable_source. Thatcher131 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was a good answer. I wonder why it has taken so much effort to get here, but I am grateful for your input. Now, would you say 1) that my magazine is a reliable source 2) is my op-ed on the Baker case considered to be self-published? Secondly, there is a follow-up feature story in my magazine which supports the assertions in my op-ed, specifically it mentions the fact that Baker came to Japan two month's before his arrest. I am worried to add the link in case I get blocked again :( The article is the only investigative piece written on the Baker story, and was completed after the trial wehn other media had lost interest. Is this follow-up feature considered self-published, and can it be used as a reliable source to confirm the op-ed? -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear the the media had forgotten about the case, the Japan Times has not lost interest - they ran an article on Sept 13, 2005 and also Oct. 21, 2005 about the pending appealStatisticalregression 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not printing an article for two years -- one article being a non verifiable opinion piece another off the kyodo wire -- sounds like they have lost interest to me72.130.169.226 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They printed like 5 articles on the subject - I think the lag might have something to do with him being convicted...and they reported on the subsequent appeals in 2005.Statisticalregression 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla blocked

I have blocked Sparkzilla without expiry while the community and admins debate how best to manage this problem. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest a ban from editing Nicholas John Baker, Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), or any other article on a topic where his newspaper has taken an editorial stand, including their talk pages, enforceable by blocks, for a period of time (say 3 months at the outset) to see if he can learn and adapt to our culture. However, his last response to me suggests a glimmer of hope. I will write a more detailed answer about the content question on the article talk page. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with a topical ban anyway or to give him another chance. His disputatiousness is certainly a concern. Thatcher131 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whew. His contentious arguing per above as well as all over the place were getting exhausting. He either doesn't get what COI and all of the people in this discussion are trying to tell him, or he just wants to try to bully his way through with no regard for Misplaced Pages policy. He should remain blocked unless he promises to stop editing any article which has any connection to him, whatsoever. Corvus cornix 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th_nomination)

The article was listed on 4th July and procedurally correctly relisted as 4th nomination. (the 3rd nomination (from 2006) now sits on the 4th July 2007 list of archived Afds). I have been struggling to get the original nominator to relist it, he seems unwilling to and I do no want the Afd to close with no consensus so that it can raised again on afd. It is a waste of everybodies time. I have even told the nominator that I am willing to change my comment to delete if it will push consensus one way or another.

I feel that the Afd hidden from scrutiny, not listed and still open after 11 days is abuse of process.

any suggestions? Mike33 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note this is not an invitation to comment at the afd. When the afd is correctly relisted or you comment using the article afd notice, that is good faith. Commenting at the afd using this link isn't welcomed. Mike33 03:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone can comment on AFD until it's finally closed. At any rate, AFDs are normally only relisted due to lack of participation... this one is eligible to be closed now. --W.marsh 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Something's weird here... was this AFD ever properly listed? The version listed on 7/04/2007 was the third nom (closed by me, coincidently). If the fourth nom was never listed on an AFD day log, it is not fully valid. Sorry if I misread your initial post. --W.marsh 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I would suggest closing AFD4 as invalid and relisting, and notifying everyone who participated in AFD4 of what happened and link to AFD5. Mike33 is right, linking to it only from the article can give a skewed consensus. --W.marsh 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've relisted the Afd. Just a reminder to editors who do rename Afds to ensure that you also update the Afd log to take note of the rename. There is nothing more frustrating that being unaware that you are involved in an orphaned afd. Mike33 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it needs further mass debating? --Steve _(Stephen) 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is now closed. There was a complete 11 days to gather consensus, which was achieved. If anyone is dissatisfied with the result, they may seek review at WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed so the consensus is invalid. --W.marsh 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie being flooded by spa keep votes

Since about 23:00 this AFD has been flooded with Keep !votes by new users with no previous contributions, as if it was publicized on a blog or mailing list, with many of them unidentified. I saw at least one AFD semiprotected not that long ago. Is there a way to at least task a bot with identifying the unsigned contributions? It is just about impossible to keep up with the flood by searching the history file to identify them as spas. Thanks. Edison 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Great God in a bottle. I can't even find the original deletion reason in that utter mess - oh, wait, there it is, just below the SPA tag. Might I suggest that it should be thrown out and restarted, this time semiprotected? I can't see anyone digging through there to find the signal in the noise... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be closed today? —Kurykh 03:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like, yeah, in a few hours. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet bit the bullet and closed as delete. Angry DRV in five... four... three.... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this edit to the AfD to be very troublesome. Can we block this clown gentleman? Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Just as a quick note, I do not think it really appropriate to call that editor a "clown." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense on that AfD frustrated me. I probably shouldn't have called the editor a clown. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who nakes threats like that should be immediately blocked. Corvus cornix 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the edit which Pablo cited above by Atari2600a, , Atari2600a says "Misplaced Pages can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Misplaced Pages at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up." Does this sound to any one else like a threat? Or just a user expressing concern that "something bad" might happen to Misplaced Pages if we deleted a particular article? Atari2600a had 6 sensible edits before this AFD, dating back to last November. I'm not sure whether the flurry of Keep !votes toward the end was an effort by one user with a variety of hijacked computer accounts, or the result of a posting somewhere asking people to come to Misplaced Pages and "save" the article about the movie. Typically they would sign the Keep vote with their first name and their location, in a very consistent pattern, without having created a Misplaced Pages logon, and without using four tildes. This consistent pattern suggests it is either the work of one person, or that someone told readers somewhere to click on a link to the AFD, then add a Keep vote and sign with their name and city. In most cases, when I tracked down the IP addresses in the history file and checked them with Whois, the city matched the claimed city, such as "Henry W in Boston, but that same IP address was used to post a vote by "Scott in Wisconsin" "Bryan in California" was indeed from California, and added 2 keep votes. "Marcel Netherlands" was from there. "Fornequiem Canada" was from there. "Steve from Ontario" and "Eckostream from Quebec" were from where claimed. These votes were still of an unusual and distinctive pattern. Edison 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination): apparent vandalism

• The AfD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination) has been closed, but at its start instead of the verdict "keep" or "delete" is a short vulgar poem. Its history says that this is not the result of an edit after the AfD was closed. Anthony Appleyard 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced this colorful poem with a proper close. Folks, please remember that this is supposed to be a respectable academic enterprise.Proabivouac 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, it's supposed to be a good-faith attempt at a reasonably serious encyclopaedia. Have we lost all sense of humour? I'd have clarified it, perhaps, but I'd certainly have left the quote in For Great Justice. Maybe that's because I'm old enough to instinctively respond "We are Devo!" when asked "Are we not men?" but it's a bit harsh to slap the guy for it. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was really not valid, it was only listed at AFD for a few hours (see above thread on this AFD). It needs to be re-opened and allowed to run the full 5 days, I have left a note with the closing admin. --W.marsh 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been listed since the 4th, then reposted for consensus. Then it seems to have snowballed to a delete. --Hemlock Martinis 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read above as I requested... it was not listed on any AFD page until a few hours before it was closed, so only people who had the article watchlisted would see the AFD. --W.marsh 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was listed here, although incorrectly (as 3rd nomination instead of fourth), on July 4.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which means the 4th was not listed. --W.marsh 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th got listed as the 3rd. Everyone was able to see it listed as such from the 4th of July. I don't think a miscount of which nomination it was, makes the whole Afd null and void.--Atlan (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th never appeared on the AFD page... the 3rd did, which was long since closed... people just looked past it as some weird error. it was also not linked to by AFD moniters. It was simply an invalid listing. Listing some random past version of an AFD is not a substitute for listing the current AFD. --W.marsh 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't aware of that.--Atlan (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings from talk page

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) was warned a few times about his recent contributions. However, he decided to remove the warnings, which goes against Misplaced Pages's best practices. In addition to that, he called me a troll in the edit summary. Please take a look at the warnings that he removed from his talk page. His behavior is unacceptable. And removal of warnings about his unacceptable behavior is also unacceptable. — Alex 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, he just restored his structure at the AFD he participated in (see here). This can be considered offensive by some users and is meant to influence the vote for deletion. — Alex 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to remove the warnings if he so wishes. Viridae 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no maybe about his uncivil behaviour and personnal attacks, he even summarily accused all Ukrainian editors of Russophobia. This is the user with the longest rap sheet of name calling and gross incivility and here he goes again with personal attacks and uncivil insinuations. This behaviour needs to stop.--Hillock65 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you want another thread to slander me behind my back in retribution for this? How long should I defend my edits against nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki? If a passerby is free to paste some outrageous allegation on my talk page, anyone is free to remove it as well (especially as the relevant "case" was closed by an non-involved sysop with the summary "beyond ridiculous"). --Ghirla 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to please refrain from personal attacks and get your facts straight (I'm not 15). I've seen even ten year olds make great contributions to Misplaced Pages. As long as a user is unbiased and makes good contributions, it should not matter how old the user is. It was my choice to post my age, and I've done so at my own discretion. I feel I'm a fairly neutral person (yes, I know everybody says so), but I guess I'm not the one to judge. But neither is a person who calls everybody a troll, makes personal attacks, and violates many of Misplaced Pages's policies. — Alex 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" can be considered inflammatory and a personal attacks. If you have some evidence, just put it on the table. Dont just make accusations. Its our job to evaluate on the basis of edits not by looking at onse birth certificate or passport. --soum 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To administrators: this report isn't as much about the removal of warnings as it is about the user's behavior. As you can see here, he continues to make personal attacks, even after being warned. And after making personal attacks he tries to hide the evidence by removing warnings from his talk page. This is exactly why I reported him, something definetly needs to be done. Steps in dispute resolution were already tried (including RFC), and this user was warned in an ArbCom case to refrain from personal attacks. I believe it was AndriyK's ArbCom case, if this qualifies for ArbCom enforcement. — Alex 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, here's the bit that can qualify for ArbCom enforcement: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo warned. — Alex 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, from discussing the issue Ghirlando is starting his usual name calling and frivolous accusations. After numerous RfC's and ArbComs about his incivility this attitude still persists. What will it take for him to get the message?--Hillock65 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another message left by a user that was subsequently removed by Ghirlandajo: . — Alex 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? Bishonen | talk 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I thought this wasn't "as much about the removal of warnings" (despite the heading). Aren't users permitted to edit their talk page as they see fit? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, within reason. There's certainly nothing prohibiting users from redecorating their talk pages, or deciding what their structure ought to be. But it's unacceptable to make other people say what they didn't say on one's talk page, and removing serious warnings is generally frown upon. Digwuren 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Digwuren. Removing warnings is fine, whether "serious" or not. "Frowning" is possible in some situations--it's all according--but that's not carte blanche for you to pester somebody you're in conflict with by restoring warnings they have removed, as you do here. What's the interest, anyway? If Ghirlandajo removes a message from his own page, it shows he's read it; what more do you want? WP:NOT a battleground. Please leave the pages of other users alone unless you have something to say to them. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? The only legitimate use you can put another's talk page to is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think other people need to see. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

This is one of several recent threads in which someone takes umbrage at a contributor removing warnings. Have we somehow been unclear on this? Any editor, regardless of block log, validity of warning, or who left said warning, may remove warnings for any reason or no reason. If anyone replaces the warning, they are engaging in edit warring on another contributor's talk page, and that is Not Acceptable Behavior. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why nobody has done anything about it yet. Ghirlandajo keeps reorganizing the AFD. The AFD can't be protected from Ghirlandajo's edits, because that would prevent others from voting. I'm going to report his reverts to the 3RR section. — Alex 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks Like I can't report it to the 3RR noticeboard, but I feel this requires some kind of punishment. When has a user gotten away with so much trolling, personal attacks, and revert warring? I know you might tell me to go to ArbCom, but what makes a long-term abusive user so special over a short-term one? If nobody can do anything, at least please explain why, that way I know what to do if this happens in the future. — Alex 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience, after a few years here, that users who have been with the project for several years are are relatively active (and known), are allowed to bend (or break) the rules to an extent that new users would find it impossible. Further, WP:3RR is the only policy that is seriously observed; violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA are common and rarely penalized, particularly if they come from 'older' editors. It is a sad occurrence, but there is no other explanation I can provide for why epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished. Unfortunately, the only way you can try to deal with that is to start a lengthy process - with RfC, mediations, and eventually ArbCom in the end. Even more unfortunately, judging by the proposed decisions of an ArbCom involving myself and Ghirla, it is likely that such violations of those policies will remain unpunished and commonplace. And perhaps the most unfortunate is that this is paving a way for Wiki to degenerate into the level of flaming Usenet discussions, with all editors who can't stand such uncivil environment gone from the project :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to prove that my statement is not factual you need to demonstrate: 1) that the author of this thread is not a minor; 2) that he is not a nationalist; 3) that he does not coordinate his attacks on fellow wikipedians off-line. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is impossible to sustain. --Ghirla 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I think Misplaced Pages operates under burden of proof. It is you who have to prove he is, in fact, what you claim him to be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's idea that the one accused should demonstrate his innocence reminds me of the NKVD 'justice'. In many cases, the defendants were explained, that they must prove that they are not guilty - not that the NKVD was obliged to point out alleged guilt. E.J. 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Ghirlandajo should be the one that demonstrates his innocence then. — Alex 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of it. Another act of incivility. Ghirlandajo leaves a comment on my talk page, I respond, and then he doesn't respond back, deleting the comment I left on his talk page. If this continues and everybody refuses to do something about it, I WILL file for ArbCom. — Alex 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As people keep telling you, there's no policy violation in someone refusing to talk to you. If you believe that there is an underlying policy abuse beyond the discussion, you can take it to (an uninvolved admin, here, etc), but they will not be sanctioned for removing the talk page comments. They're allowed to do that. It's ok. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cjmarsicano declaring his work here as copyrighted

See the top of his userpage. I assume it's a protest of fair use policies, just my guess. Videmus Omnia 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was leaving the user a talkpage note about this, and by the time I had finished, Ryulong had already blocked him. Newyorkbrad 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone should remove that "licensing withdrawn" message. He can't withdraw the license on his edits made under GDFL and any claim to the contrary is confusing and disruptive.--Atlan (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted me on my user talk page stating that he no longer contributes under a license that is compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation (CC-NC-ND 3.0) which is blatantly stated on his userpage. In a lack of what to do in this situation (and the fact that he editted following his withdrawal of the GFDL from all of his contributions), I have currently blocked him indefinitely. This user has been on Misplaced Pages longer than I have, and I know that this is because of the fair use policies and how it forbids him from adding nonfree images of Hello! Project members as they are living individuals. But what should really be done here (my indefblock lifted, or does he go the way of Alex756 (talk · contribs))?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread immediately above. I was going to give him a little time to respond to my note before blocking. But given that you've blocked, we'll see if he posts an unblock request and what he might say in it. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like ParthianShotPioneer-12, who was banned. --Iamunknown 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this resolved? His Talk page still says This user affirms and believes that the First Amendment supersedes the Wikimedia Foundation's ill-advised policy on so-called "non-free images" and that the use of these same so-called "non-free images" is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act of 1976.. In other words, he seems to feel that he has a legal right to post whatever he wants, regardless of whether his postings follow Misplaced Pages policy. US law has no bearing on Misplaced Pages policy. Corvus cornix 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to with Ruylong to multi-license under GDFL and a CC license within Wiki's grounds to be determined later by me. As for the talk page notice, I still maintain my right to publicly state my views on what I see as a heavily flawed policy regarding such imagery. CJ Marsicano 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that this is a privately-owned website, and as such, US law has zero meaning here. right? US copyright law has as little meaning on Misplaced Pages as the First Amendment does. Misplaced Pages makes its own policies. Its policies may be more restrictive than US copyright law, and that is the case here. And you just said above, that the copyright you will follow is to be determined by you. No, it is to be determined by Misplaced Pages, or else you need to edit elsewhere. Corvus cornix 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread or misinterpreted what I said. Many Wikiusers have multi-licensed their contributions before, I have not yet decided on what the full scope for my contributions will be. --Ceej 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, U.S. law does have some bearing on our policies, but we reserve the right to make our policies a superset of the law, and to formulate them in such a way that minimizes legal exposure. --Iamunknown 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act would more than adequately protect Misplaced Pages against "legal exposure" (a term George Carlin would no doubt have a ball with: "Legal exposure? That sounds like you could whip your dick out in public but not wave it at someone!"). Ryulong, at my request, provided me with a link to the resolution in question... oi vey, what a mistake those guys made! --CJ Marsicano 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you "feel" that, but you have yet to show that your interpretation abides by Misplaced Pages policy. Until such a time, you should take down your "feeling" from your Talk page. Corvus cornix 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where I draw the line. The statement on my Talk page will remain. Cjmarsicano 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you feel (or think), the Board has determined that a stricter interpretation of the Fair Use parts of US Copyright Law is what is best for the Foundation. As Misplaced Pages is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, that stricter interpretation applies here, too. You aren't the one who has the potential to be sued for improper fair use. And as others have pointed out, the Bill of Rights (of which the First Amendment is a part) does not apply to a privately owned site. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. Period. ···日本穣 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

69.142.43.130 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption. Just64helpin 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... I only saw wikilinking and adding uppercase to proper nouns. Can you provide diffs for reverts? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks are of items already linked, hence overlinking. Not a huge deal, but it's been going back and forth for a while. Just64helpin 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed request to desist on the talkpage. As this is an ip it cannot be certain that the historical non Godzilla edits were this particular individual. If the complained edits continues after the warnings/requests then perhaps a short block to get the editors attention might be in order. LessHeard vanU 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User refusing to remove image from his signature

Per policy, users are not allowed to have images in their signatures because it increases the load on the servers. Cunado19 (talk · contribs) is refusing to remove the image after I asked them to remove it. Maybe they'll listen if an admin told them. --Matt57 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll make any arguments that a non-admin won't be able to make, but I'll talk with Cunado19. Sancho 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As Cunado19 has explicitly pointed out to you, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And if you'd bothered to read his talk page you'd have found several previous discussions of the issue, in which he's already explained at length why he thinks the rationale for the guideline doesn't apply in this case. That's his right. If you disagree, feel free to address his argument, on his talk page. Zsero 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me or to Matt57? Sancho 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "rights" to do anything on Misplaced Pages elucidated? So far as I know, there are only two rights - fork or leave. Corvus cornix 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User demanding to know identity of another user

On my talk page, User:Danko Georgiev MD has requested that I reveal my real life identity. This seems contrary to wikipedia policy and seems to be harrassment. I have posted the usual wikipedia warning template about the protection of anonymity both on my talk page and on his. --Mathsci 19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a request, not a demand, and seems to have been asked in light of claims on your part. If you're using your academic credentials to bolster your arguments, it's likely people want to verify your credentials. KP Botany 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you try a simple 'no'? It seems a reasonable request. If you make any claim on Misplaced Pages, you should expect to be asked to back it up with some evidence. It's when they tell you what your identity is that you have problems. -- zzuuzz 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS He also appears to have asked this after you challenged his assertion of someone else's credentials. In other words, you told him that he failed to supply evidence to support his claim of someone else's credentials, now he has asked you for yours. "You claimed that Rabounski is a "professor of mathematics", yet this does not appear to be the case. You have supplied no evidence to support your claim." I think this is a minor request on the part of one user to ask another for credentials. IMO a simple decline would probably be more than enough, Mathsci. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems zzuuzz has the same idea. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, could it possibly bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute if an editor claimed to have all sorts of academic degrees or professional accreditation or be a college faculty member when arguing from authority in editing disputes? Edison 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrator has confirmed on my talk page that demanding or requesting my identity is contrary to WP policy. How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician? Mathsci 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that that is the question, Mathsci, how could you have made them without being a professional pure mathematician. And the administrator is in the wrong, as no demand for identify has been made. KP Botany 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very informed remark. Please look at the article on Affiliated operator and Von Neumann algebra before making further comments. --Mathsci 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both articles need serious work to their introductory sections. KP Botany 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you find a mathematical error? --Mathsci 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, and I haven't looked for one. What I found was an error in introducing the concepts to a general audience. This can be done, and should be done for articles in a general encyclopedia. Please look at WP:MOS for ideas. If you rewrite the introductions for a general audience, post a request on my user talk page, and I will review them. KP Botany 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

These are topics which are only covered in advanced postgraduate courses. I would not expect anybody without a knowledge of spectral theory for unbounded operators even to have a motivation for looking at the article on affiliated operators. Why do you think you could contribute to an article at this level? Why do you think all mathematics articles should be written for a general audience? --Mathsci 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent -- This appears to be rather about your personal desire to show you know more about math than other people, than it is about math articles on Misplaced Pages. This is an unusual tactic for a mathematician, one I'm unused to encountering. Advanced postgraduate courses? Sorry, general prerequisites would be Linear Algebra and a good Probability course--and you know this, or you're not a mathematician. But I'll promise to try not to solve anything with compact operators, while you're discussing unbounded operators, showing my mathematical idiocy any more than I already have--good grief. (Don't worry for the mathematically less genius, I didn't say anything, I just guessed at some random words and popped them down--wouldn't know a differential from a split dual salt shaker if I were paid to know.) KP Botany 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This remark is completely uninformed. Look for example at the 250 or so articles in the category algebraic geometry. Almost all of them are at a postgraduate level. A large number of wikipedia mathematics articles, probably the majority, constitute a sort of mathematical encyclopedia. There are several of these reference works in existence in print and the wikipedia is providing its own valuable version. These articles are usually written by practising mathematicians. Some might find this revelation surprising, but that is no excuse to attack the messenger. --Mathsci 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal for a small group of experts? LessHeard vanU 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately mathematics on the wikipedia, as in real life, has a rather complex hierarchic structure. That is why for example the articles on Morse Theory or Donaldson theory assume some prior knowledge. If you don't like them, you can always try to improve them or vote for their deletion.--Mathsci 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That argument would only make sense if people who are not professional mathemeticians invariably make mistakes, which is not true. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what you say is true. People with no mathematical training would almost invariably make mistakes when editing articles on higher mathematics. If they did not understand the particular piece of higher mathematics, they normally wouldn't have a clue about what they were writing. They might not make mistakes if they were simply copying and pasting something written by somebody else. --Mathsci 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Appeals to authority are discouraged (with prejudice) at Misplaced Pages, for exactly the reasons indicated above; certification of identity is not possible. Professional mathematicians (or any other expert or professional) should have access to the reliable sources that can be used in the article to support whatever position they are maintaining on the talkpage. If it cannot be cited then it cannot be in the article. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all statements in wikipedia articles should have verifiable sources, e.g. biographies of living people. When a user such as Georgiev makes an elementary error in mathematics on a talk page, such as confusing infimum and minimum, all that can be done is for WP editors to point this out and hope that he/she understands. If it is a typical calculus error made by freshmen, that is unfortunately what it is. It is quite unfair to confuse such a statement with an "appeal to authority". --Mathsci 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered

How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician?

to be an appeal to authority, albeit in good faith. Simply, it is an unanswerable statement when there is no ability to verify editors credentials (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification detailing why this did not/cannot happen) on Misplaced Pages. It is best to stick with the strengths of your argument - and the good faith assumption that folks can understand it - than refer to qualifications that cannot be easily checked. LessHeard vanU 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI I did in fact reveal my real-life identity by private email to CH in my first talk archive (September 2006). He did advise me there that more detail should be provided on my user page to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that has arisen here. Apart from quoting interchanges like this with other WP editors or administrators, I see no other way of confirming the statement on my user page while retaining my anonymity. --Mathsci 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another userpage of mine needs protecting...

Can an admin protect this page, per more vandalism from IP's, including this edit. Much appreciated. Davnel03 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected by Evilclown93. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Kirbytime

This indef blocked editor (he may have been community banned, I'm not sure) has been using socks, please see the checkuser report. Would someone please block these socks? Arrow740 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the results of these latest CU results, and Kirbytime's failure to heed the suggestions of this thread which resulted in an indefinite block, per Jpgordon's Kirbytime's own suggestion, it may be appropriate to affirm a community ban. Additionally, sockpuppets User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and User:Xveolgvzr have not yet been blocked.Proabivouac 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've permablocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and Xveolgvzr. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags on spam article

The article for Lyriel (band) is blatant advertising and does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. The page's creator, Eclipica, has repeatedly deleted the tags that identify it as such. C1k3 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone is removing the speedy tags, do a regular nomination for deletion. If they keep removing those tags, then further steps can be taken. ···日本穣 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You've replaced the Db tag with a prod tag, which doesn't do any good. The creator of an article may not remove a db tag, but they are perfectly within their rights to remove a prod tag. You should warn them about removing db tags and after four warnings, take it to WP:AIV. Corvus cornix 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should have used {{db-band}} instead of {{db-spam}}. I've placed the proper tag. --Edokter (Talk) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eclipica (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the db-band tag. Since his only contributions are to Lyriel (band) and apparently does not want to play by the rules, I suggest a short block. --Edokter (Talk) 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the {{db-band}} as it's obvious the notability is disputed. Please take it to AfD. ···日本穣 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed does not mean invalid. There was not a shred of an assertion of notability, and it was a blatant CSDG11. Deleted. ⇒ SWATJester 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user namespace?

User:Re3fx50 and User:Ashley0030 appear to have created usernames in Misplaced Pages solely to post supposed sexual solicitations (and phone numbers) on eachother's pages. Don't know if this violates any one policy, but it's certainly a misuse of Misplaced Pages that's fraught with ethical and legal issues. - Special-T 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both deleted. Misplaced Pages is not free webhosting. They were clearly not here for the encyclopedia. Not blocked, but I suspect they won't come back anyway. Mak (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The good news is that 1800-IMA HOTTIE WITH A BODY!!!!!! is probably not a real phone number. :) That's school like vandalism. I warned them both, please tell me if they continue, but I dont see a good enough reason to block them at the moment. ---- lucasbfr 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and action. - Special-T 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated speedies and removal of refs

XAndreWx (talk · contribs) is re-adding removed "speedy deletion" tags to more than one article, and removing references from Third city of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 0

Perhaps a word with their mentor User:G1ggy might help? LessHeard vanU 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off. My rationale for doing so is that he is editing in a distruptive manner, and basically, he just needs to cool off. Клоун 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

63.227.40.66 (talk · contribs) is link-spamming

63.227.40.66 (talk · contribs)'s only contributions are adding the same link to several pages. I've cleaned them all out. Can someone take care of the spammer? --Edokter (Talk) 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to place a warning such as {{spam}} yourself as an admin is not needed for that. ···日本穣 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought spammer IPs were usually soft-blocked. --Edokter (Talk) 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone deserves to be warned first as they may not be aware of the specific policies or guidelines prohibiting their behavior. The IP hasn't done anything since being warned, so unless they continue, there's no reason to block the IP. ···日本穣 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a problem...

I went to help an editor asking at the help desk about "How do I post an article to wikipedia?" Upon checking out his page I found this. Which may be a problem. I have to leave right away, so I can not tend to this as I would like, and trust that some bright spark amongst you would take up the gauntlet, so to speak. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked both the userpage and the usertalk page. Both should be speedily deleted. -Jmh123 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. IrishGuy 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block for indef sock puppet

Could someone block Fâtimâh bint Fulâni (talk · contribs · block log), a sock puppet of Kirbytime? I have a question: When clerks do the checkuser and they find a likely or confirmed sock of a banned user, shouldnt the sock puppet be banned right then by the CU admin? --Matt57 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni. No comment on the CU question... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Typically, enforcement of policy (up to and including blocks for sockpuppetry) are the responsibility of the applicant. Applicants who are not administrators can forward requests to the admin noticeboard for enforcement, if needed. Clerks who are administators are invited, but not required, to assist with the enforcement of relevant policies." Daniel 00:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do from now. --Matt57 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerks are just editors who help to keep the page organized; they do not have checkuser access. Generally the checkusers prefer to leave enforcement to others so they don't have to put up with charges of conflict of interest. Thatcher131 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush vandalism

Someone has, I think, vandalized this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/Bush

I will copy/paste so you can see what I mean:

"George H. W. Bush, U.S. President 1989–1993, his First Lady a shit load of fathers ago from your moms dad, but you get the picture"

would someone mind fixing this please? Thanks!

Fixed. For future reference, see Help:Reverting -- zzuuzz 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted comments on my talk page.

User:Klaksonn made this edit to my talk page. First, his insinuation that I can't edit because I am a Salafi is very prejudiced. Second, Nasibi is a religious slur and was very hurtful. Third, I was only reverting a large edit this user made to the article on Ali, a respected Muslim figure, without discussing it first on the talk page. He then reverted my revert and insulted me again in his edit summary. I request a temporary ban on this user to let him know this isn't acceptable, though I will abide by any decision that is made. Thank you for any help, this is very distressing. MezzoMezzo 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange image deletion requests

User:Fethroesforia uploaded several images going back several months with comments like "Picture taken by me" and tagged them cc-by-sa2.5. Now, the user is requesting that they be speedily deleted because: "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of picture taker has claimed legal action after i accidentally uploaded thinking i could upload his picture as mine, and no assertion of permission has been made." That's quite an accident. Should we go through and delete all of the user's "self-made" images on the theory that we cannot trust the user's claims? Should the user be blocked? Is anyone else suspicious that the account may have been compromised? There's something odd here. -- But|seriously|folks  01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe those would be the actions of a compromised account, so he probably shouldn't be blocked. To be safe, I think that speedy deleting any images he has tagged as this incident, not all of the images he ever uploaded, should be deleted and restored if permission is granted. — Moe ε 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try asking the user if anything else he uploaded as "his" might have mistakenly not been taken by him. Shell 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned about Image:Berlin Wall Plaque.jpg, which has already been copied to Commons, but he seems to be dealing with them there. There's a little more explanation at his Commons talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I asked him, he answered, and I'm satisfied now that he hasn't left us with any problematic images. I skimmed through his upload log and it looks like all the others are album covers and logos. The story about his father threatening litigation still doesn't sit right, and I'm not happy with his repeated statements here and at commons that he took the photos himself, but as long as the images are gone, I guess it's not worth thinking about. -- But|seriously|folks  08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

see Mmbabies and TV station articles (combined with older discussion)

I've combined this heading with that of the Mmbabies discussion already started above; please comment below that heading. Nate 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sock of Kirbytime (impersonating an admin)

Jerpeegordon (talk · contribs · block log) impersonated an admin (,) and is most likely another sock puppet of Kirbytime. He's trolling as usual and playing with Misplaced Pages. All his other edits are strange blank edits with no input. Could someone block this user as well? thanks. --Matt57 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, whats wrong with that? It wasnt random. This editor created his account at the time of Kirby's CU report and impersonated an admin. Its reasonable to assume that its Kirby again.--Matt57 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't check contribs. Anyway, it's dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hvarako consistently pushing POV

The article Operation Storm was first edited by User:Hvarako on the 13th by adding balant non-sourced POV attack wording and then moving the page to "Oluja Genocide". The changes were reverted, following which he reverted back to his version no less then 5 times in the last three days. I fear this will just continue. He was warned by User:ChrisO on his talk pages to read about NPOV, to no effect. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, during the reverting, he also violeted the 3RR rule on the 13th. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin review of mass deletion/moves of talk page sections please?

69.177.242.99 went to a dozen comic character talk pages, removed the deb ates about merging alternate forms of characters, and relocated them to the WP:COMIC discussion on the same, three weeks after his move to merge ALL alternates ended in a no consensus. It looks like he's trying to shore up support for his opinion, but at the same time he's taking the choices out of the hands of the editors of those pages, which is the opposite of the apparent lack of consensus on the WP page, where editors instead called for figuring out standards for such merges and so on. This seems like some sort of unethical behavior but maybe there's a policy I don't know about allowing this? ThuranX 06:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at deleting a single revision appears to have failed

I have twice tried to perform a selective deletion of a single revision within Hangover that contains a phone number in its edit comment, without success. Can someone else try this, and tell me if they can make it work? -- Karada 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done it just fine. You've left your revert in, but that particular revision is now deleted. --Deskana (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that I have to make a null edit to the page (ie. add a space here, remove a space there) for the edit history of an article I've "history-cleansed" to be updated for me. Maybe that was the problem? Daniel 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Even after a purge? That usually works for me (remember a purge can be done by going to edit the page and then changing action=edit to action=purge, or many people have it as a tab thanks to custom monobook.js code) ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried a purge, and it made no difference. Could database server lag have been the problem? -- Karada 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated moves from experienced editor

This editor claims on his userpage to be an experienced editor on the Farsi WP. In recent days he has four times moved 2006 Lebanon War and although I twice left warnings on his Talk, he has not responded, nor left any messages anywhere. I hope this is just a misunderstanding, but the most recent move ended with another user cutting and pasting, and if this keeps up, the disruption will only get worse. I've contacted a Farsi-speaking user to try to sort things out, and I've move protection for the interim. Any ideas? Tewfik 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not a fantastic thing to be happening, given the current situation of the naming dispute. Daniel 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block on New England

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

Yesterday a disturbing situation arose on the nomination page for TomStar81 for admin. New England accused me of having nominated him, Tom, bec ause he nominated me for admin. This is provably false, Stillstudying nominated me. This page shows the series of exchanges between that user and myself, I blocked him for 24 hours, and lifted it after telling him I would block him again if he continued false statements. I was concerned at the time, and still am, that these false accusations would color the election process. I warned him that continued false statements would result in another blocking, and he made additional false statements last night on the RfA talk page. He stated I have no right to block him for making false statements - at some point, I do have to do just that, or give up any pretense of enforcing our policies! This was so obviously wrong that I felt I had to act this morning when I read it. I have blocked him for one week for making false accusations. I made Deskana, a crat, aware of this, and he advised me to post the block, and the reasons for it, so they cuold be reviewed. I believe he is absolutely correct. My comments to him are here, I hope you will support me, and make a stand for our policies on false accusations and wikipedia assume good faith which he has grossly violated. I cannot stay on wikipedia if users are allowed to simply lie about us, repeatedly, without any consequences! I spend at least 20 hours a week working on articles, and I try to get along with everyone, but I simply cannot stand by and let this person continue to lie about me. At some point, there has to be some accountability for this kind of slander. I felt I had to take a stand and do something about it. If I am wrong, the block should be lifted, and I will leave wikipedia. I cannot stay and have false statements made about me repeatedly. It is simply wrong, and against our basic policies of not allowing personal attacks. Thanks to anyone who reviews this matter. old windy bear 10:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Object to this block. Admins should not block users with whom they are in conflict for any reason, regardless of how good their reasons may be. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The block is problematic as the blocking admin was involved in a dispute with the blocked user and should be undone by an uninvolved administrator so that New England and OWB can seek dispute resolution. -- Zamkudi 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked per my reasoning above and similar reasoning provided by Daniel and Deskana . Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should post my version of the story here. The first comment that I made on the RFA was that "it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him" 1. Soon after TomStar told me not to "ead to much into it. I didn't ask him to nominate me, it came up unexpectedly when he discovered I wasn't already an admin" 2. And I replied saying I wasn't opposing because of this 3. TomStar then replied that he laughed at it himself (presumably being nominated) 4. eventually, oldwindybear decided to bloc me the first, and unblocked me. He didn't wish for the comments to stay on the RFA page, so I moved them to the talk page, but he quickly reverted this, and threatened me with a block on his talk page (not mine). But another user reverted bear's edits back to my version. Bear would then later post this on the RFA talk page 5, to which I replied with 6 (the action I presumably blocked for), and then notified 'crats via WP:BN of the situation. Deskana then called it a non-issue here and here, but I was blocked anyway. New England 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And for what its worth, TomStar never said on his RFA, its talk page, or my talk page, that he wasn't the one to nominate oldwindybear. In fact, I'm not sure he really takes issue to my comments. New England 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose I should put my story here too. I was the nominator of oldwindybear. New England had to know that, I told him, before he posted here. So once again he is openly posting false statements. This whole incident arises out of his insinuations that the bear nominated TomStar in return for nominating him, when in point of fact, I nominated the bear, which anyone who read the record knew. I am leaving wikipedia, except for following up on this, because I am outraged that New England gets to post false accusations all over the encyclopedia, and is protected in doing so. Stillstudying 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you review my statements and find me the part where I said there was conspiracy. You and OWB are the only two to talk about such a plot. New England 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can not and will not speak for the Bear. For me, your insinuations run rampant. Your wording is clear, at least to me. You knew I nominated the bear, and kept repeating the same lies. And you came here, after knowing, beyond a doubt, that I had nominated the man, and repeated the same old false accusations. What other conclusion could a rational person draw than something was inappropriate about the alleged "you nominate me, I will nominate you" scenario you draw. The only thing wrong with it, was you knew it was false, and that I nominated him! I find it incredible that you are protected while making slander after slander, despite knowing it is false. Stillstudying 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB should've either dropped it and written NE off as a jerk for ignoring the facts when brought to his attention, or brought it here for an uninvolved admin to review. That said, NE should've admitted he was wrong and moved on instead of digging in his heels about it. This may be what happens when immovable object means immovable object. Mutual apologies and move on, perhaps? ThuranX 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would be fine with me, I think the record is clear. I would certainly stop arguing if NE admitted he was wrong. I can't say I blame the bear for blocking him when he kept repeating what he knew was a lie, but that said, as you said, he is not going to gain from this. Stillstudying 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would too, but I don't like tone in the above statement. and OWB needs to apologize too. New England 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for oldwindybear, but my interaction with him over a year tells me he would probably apologize if he was online to do so. I will certainly apologize if NE admits he was wrong, and I will write the bear and make him aware that everyone is willing to resolve this with no further quarrelling, which I think is reasonable. I would prefer to resolve this, and not go away, I worked half the weekend on rewriting a movie review. Stillstudying 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Via Email, and posted at his request: "oldwindybear is at work, and cannot access wikipedia. He will apologize to New England, if New England admits that the bear was not nominated by Tom, but by Stillstudying. Everyone can agree that this was poorly handled, by everyone, and we can all go about writing articles, instead of arguing! for oldwindybear who will post at 4pm or thereabouts." --Jonashart 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I knew the bear was not able to go online! I personally don't think he did anything wrong, but too many people disagree, so I will admit I was not perfect either, if NE finally admits he should have stopped when he knew that the bear was nominated by me, and there was nothing involving Tom in the nomination except he formatted my nomination.Stillstudying 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously man, what is this about? You're trying to get a confession? "I'm sorry I said TomStar nominated you when the first edit to your RfA page that's viewable in the page history was by him"? This has crossed the line from a non-issue to quite possibly the most ridiculous request for a confession ever. --Deskana (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to it if you two (SS and OWB) agreed that I never mentioned a conspiracy or anything of that type (and you admit that you cannot blame me for your interpretation of my comments, as they are not within the realm of my control). I would also like OWB to admit he was wrong in blocking me b/c of COI and because a 'crat had declared it a non-issue. And I want SS to apologize for calling me a "pathological liar" as he did here. And I ask that OWB block you (one day) for violating WP:NPA and that immediately afterwards he honorably surrenders his adminship. New England 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) amended 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana Hey, I am sorry you feel this is absurd or ridiculous, but blame me for this, the bear is evidently at work and unable to say a word. All I wanted, personally, was an admission that I nominated the man, and that anything said otherwise was wrong. I am sorry you feel that is ridiculous, but frankly, i feel you have gone way over the line in protecting someone for making false statements. BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE. As for NE, you are being fairly reasonable, actually, and I personally would apologize for distressing you, since you have been reasonable of late, and never mention you again - I cannot speak for the bear, but messgaes on my talk page indicate he is not happy with me for pursuing this, so I would assume he would do most anything to end this, ha. (He is probably afraid of you Deskana, I am not - I only have 500 edits, and am not an admin, so there is not much you can take away from me!)Stillstudying 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To NE, yes, I would apologize for calling you a pathological liar, that was unreasonable, if you admit finally that I nominated the guy. I actually find you being reasonable, which frightens me. Stillstudying 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Deskana here. The whole thing sounds like a tremendous waste of encyclopedia-writing time. I'll never get back the few minutes I spent reading it. Move along folks... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are right, and move along I will, between laughing. I cannot speak for the bear, but since NE is the only person who has mentioned his giving up his adminship, I would laugh at that. I doubt he will, and would urge him not to. I have to agree with Wknight94 that this has been a tremendous waste of time we could have been writing articles. I suspect you can demand all day, and get nothing. Even Deskana, who is blunt to a fault, has not mentioned blocking me, or the bear surrendering his adminship. Actually, the bear asked Deskana to review this, and the tone was he would accept Deskana's ruling, it was me that has argued. In any event, I see we will solve nothing. I won't ask to be blocked, and I urge the bear to stand his ground, though I expect him to take a more reasoned tack, which is just his way, I would be genuinely surprised if he yielded an adminship which got not one opposing vote because of this. Even if he was wrong, he asked Deskana to review, and anything further was said by me. I won't apologize to you with those conditions, and I won't write anything more either, as Deskana and wknight are right that this is wasting time. You can demand all day, and get nothing, and at least ThuranX acknowledged you were wrong on the issue of who nominated who. Stillstudying 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this from the outside, it seems like a non-issue which was escalated into a conflict despite efforts to calm things down by outside editors. That in and of itself is mildly problematic. However, Oldwindybear then used admin rollback and blocked User:New England. The block was completely and utterly against policy; not only was there not much there to warrant a block, but Oldwindybear blocked someone with whom he was in the middle of a heated argument. If you find yourself in a dispute and believe the other party is violating policy and needs to be blocked: don't do it yourself. Post it to WP:AN/I; there are over a thousand uninvolved admins who will step in and, if appropriate, administer the block. This was an out-of-process and abusive block; I endorse the unblock. Admins generally aren't desysopped for one episode of bad judgement, but please learn something from this - especially as a new admin (and I count myself in that category), it's wise to err on the side of caution when using the tools and seek outside opinions here before doing something like this. MastCell 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoping this marks the end of this, OWB has asked me to post the following: "Let me settle this matter, so we all can concentrate on real issues, lol. I have asked Jonashart to post it for me, as I am at work, and cannot. This needs to be settled, I should not have imposed the block, despite feeling I was under personal attack. What the heck, it was my first controversy, and I did ask Deskana an outstanding crat, to review my decision literally seconds after making it, so I tried to ask for appropriate review. I acknowledge I should have come here, and posted the problem, along with the record of Stillstudying nominating me, and let someone else make the decision. I will say I asked immediately for crat review, and posted the issue here, when advised to do so. I was not online, so could not remove the block, which I would have, once Heimstern Läufer found it inappropriate. Live and learn! New England, it appears I should not have blocked you, so I owe you an apology for doing so, and apologize. I still feel your conduct was wrong, but others don’t, and so be it, the system has spoken, I accept it. I will not resign. 66 people voted for me, without a single opposing vote, and you are the only person who has called for my resignation. I wish Stillstudying had let this go, I was at work, and unable to contact him. I sent messages to his talk page by email to editor Jonashart, who can confirm the emails, and that I asked Still to stop. (see ] I think I handled this appropriately after the block, and have learned from that. I will do better next time. Now I have articles to write, and as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. Wknight94 is right that enough time has been wasted on this matter. I am sorry I was at work, and unable to settle this earlier. – Oldwindybear by Jonashart by email"

"you are the only person who has called for my resignation"- Uhhh, where? I've not seen any statement to the effect of that. --Deskana (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I stated that earlier. New England 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana Deskana, I am not trying to irritate you, since oldwindybear, who I respect, has asked me to stop, but he got that from reading this by New England, which is posted on this page: "and that immediately afterwards he honorably surrenders his adminship. New England 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) amended 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I assume the bear can read this from work, but cannot log in, which is typical of employers. But it is on the page, New England asked him to resign. Stillstudying 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, NE is unblocked, OWB has apologized and learned from the experience, and I think we're done here. The good thing about admin actions is that they're (virtually) all reversible. Live and learn, as OWB said, and let's move on. MastCell 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Accept that I now have two blocks on my log for alleged WP:NPA violations. New England 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And Deskana can strike those from your record. I should have listened to the messages oldwindybear sent me to stop. I still feel NE was wrong, but I should have stopped. Stillstudying 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Deskana do that? Not to my knowledge unless he changes your username. Anyway, just gather up diffs explaining the situation in case anyone asks. Or even make a user page explaining it all ---- in a nice way of course! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, blocks cannot be expunged from the block log. However, you do also have the unblock noted, with the summary that the block was incorrect. Another thing you can do is make a permalink to this discussion (like so) and keep it on your userpage or talk page. If the block log ever becomes an issue, you can point to this discussion as evidence that the blocks were inappropriate. Unfortunately, that's the best that can be done. MastCell 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of why extreme care needs to be taken when blocking. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought a bureacrat could do anything! I stand corrected! Stillstudying 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MastCell and Wknight95 are correct, I can't expunge block log entries. Every single thing an admin does can be undone by another admin, so that's the end of this issue. --Deskana (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring and removal of citation tags

There is an extensive edit war going on at Thriller. One user is repeatedly removing citation requests without providing any citations.--124.176.6.98 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a section on the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to comment? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is being discussed; feel free to mention any edit warring that crops up, but I'm tempted to slap a {{resolved}} on this, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about user Petri Krohn

Diff

A whole long tirade of accusing Estonians of being Nazis based on rumors and without any sources, with in my mind is just an attempt to wage emotional warfare against anybody identifying themselves as Estonian. The final statement however(I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet.) is the worst and that in my mind falls under category 'gross incivility'. I Hope something is done to stop these attempts to drive certain editors away sole based on their nationality.--Alexia Death 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we somehow ban Korps! Estonia accounts from this noticeboard? It is annoying to spend the better part of a day watching their endless and meaningless diatribes on high-traffic noticeboards. The purpose of this page is not to entertain them on a daily basis. --Ghirla 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Troll ignored.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this case with skepticism because Alexia Death, in my opinion, does a lot of tendentious editing. However, in this case, Alexia Death's claims appear valid. The AfD comment by User:Petri Krohn is off-topic, inflammatory, incivil, and violates WP:BLP if the person he names is still alive (unclear). Rather than bring this case here, Alexia, did you try asking nicely for Petri to strike his inappropriate comment? That's the normal first step. Jehochman 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his talk. Theres a discussion about this. He shows no remorse. As to striking, this AfD was archived soon after his comment, so that cant be done.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the edit is particularly problematic, as Korps! Estonia was indeed exceedingly reluctant to admit the fact of the Holocaust in Estonia and the participation of the Estonians in the extermination of Jews in the country. I will remove Petri's comment to prevent misunderstandings. --Ghirla 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have undone that removal. It is an archived page.--Alexia Death 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that your goal is to escalate the problem rather than defuse it. Sigh... --Ghirla 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As to my WP:TE violations, i take it quite kindly when proven wrong nicely. So far all I've gotten is flaming. By nature my goal is neutrality. Next time, if I seem to be doing that, I ask that somebody let me know, preferably with sources/reasons and without accusations?--Alexia Death 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthering my message to User:Digwuren acouple of days ago, i must say that your content and personal disputes must have an end. Answering Petri's message at Ghirla's talk page earlier today, i'd say that there are many admins who had balls out there. It just would take time for a single admin to block around 12 editors from both parties. Blocks can vary from 24h to indef according to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL for starters. As you'd note from Ghirla's talk page, no admin has agreed w/ their actions (i.e. sorting by nationality) as it is the case w/ the opponent side actions as well, and the majority of 1700 admins won't agree as well. I am afraid admins would start to block all the involved accounts once similar and related issues are brought again to the ANI. -- FayssalF - 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So your view is that there are problems, but lets not deal with them?--Alexia Death 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been ill advised to bring every petty dispute to this page hoping that your opponent will be blocked. The view that block shopping is efficient has some currency in the project (see Piotr's message above), but I assure you that no amount of ANI bickering will resolve your dispute with history and fellow wikipedians. You are mistaken in believing that regular abuse of this page (look how the heading is phrased) will result in character assassination of your opponents. --Ghirla 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Im rather getting the feeling that character assassination is being attempted on me... As to abuse or advice, I'm a thinking person, and I believe that seeing wrongdoing and doing nothing is like letting cancer grow, you are spared of radiation therapy, but you will die. Ultimately I believe what I am doing now is to the good of the project.--Alexia Death 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd have been blocked by now as per my message above. You and others (from both camps) are lucky to be still responding here. As i explained, it is a bit tiring for a single admin to block all the accounts involved in this mess. But, we'll wait for other admins view if they are willing to help in that matter or not. -- FayssalF - 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Id like to see policies i've violated(with diffs) to deserve a block in your mind. Ive always tried to be civil, to keep my cool and ignore provocations... I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion without accusations. I'm at a loss for words at this point...--Alexia Death 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you really. Here's a nasty personal attack on Ghirlandajo, in this very thread where you assert your civility and cool and bemoan the "accusations" and "character assassination" you're victim of. Do you have any idea of of the amount of valuable work Ghirla has done for the encyclopedia? It's shameful, no matter what your present disagreement, to call him a "troll". I've never seen even any of his professed and long-standing opponents/enemies say such a thing. (Piotrus? Am I right?) And it's pretty oblivious to paint yourself as the put-upon innocent in the very same thread. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I admit, Tad uncivil, but block material? I will refine from reacting in the future. If I will be blocked for this I expect that Ghrila is blocked in proportion to his incivility and hostility compared to mine.--Alexia Death 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember the distinction between being "civil" by using the prettiest words you can find and actually being civil by working to get along with people and minimize drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the second part is much harder to achieve than the first when one party as openly declared that the other should somehow be stopped from even being in the discussion(or getting them to leave WP would be dong the project a favor)....--Alexia Death 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support handing out blocks in all directions. This has got to stop, WP admins don't have time to prance around with every incidence of provincial hatemongering breaking out on Afd. Hand out blocks with circumspection (a few hours at first to show we mean it, and after that escalate block lengths until the situation improves). Anyone "pouring some more gasoline on this flamefest" (P. Krohn) should be smacked with a block. Anyone wikilawyering or forum-shopping for blocks, or reverting attempts to defuse the situation (A. Death) should be blocked. I will back any admin taking this approach, even if they err somewhat on the draconic side (but do keep blocks short at first), or if they don't catch every offender at first go. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit, that I undid the diffusion attempt without reading the advertisement on this page and under impression that editing an archived page was the right of ether the author or and admin. If this was wrong, I apologize and wont do it again. --Alexia Death 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another note, As long as blocks are given fairly and on BOTH sides by a neutral admin, I support it. The situation is out of hand, and if the solution is my time out then so be it. As long as this hostility stops.--Alexia Death 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

One more note, I will not own up to wiki-lawering and forum-shopping as I do not see myself having done either. I did not report this to get Petri blocked, i reported this so it would be publicly condemned and he warned from not doing it again.--Alexia Death 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs for which each editor is blocked should be presented here, and blocks will be issued if needed. Certainly both sides are to blame, but block duration may vary depending on level of aggreviation and past behaviour.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I here by call ANYONE to post any and all diffs offenses I should be blocked for. How can I learn if if no-one points at my faults objectively. Blanket accusations without diffs are not welcome. If no diffs appear, I shall assume that acusations were made with intent to scare me away.--Alexia Death 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I left you a reply at your talk page. -- FayssalF - 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting the admin tools ready

Here we are. I've just issued a block of 48h to User:RJ CG for tedious tendentious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also User:Petri Krohn was blocked for 72h for provocative comments and random accusations at AfD. Shall we stop here or wait for another offender? -- FayssalF - 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to block people for "tedious editing," we are going to be very busy indeed. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking inveterate edit warriors (of all sides on all issues) for persistent WP:OR violation (read: trolling!) is in general a very good idea. I think you should pay attention to nationalist namecalling and civility issues as well. Without a tough line against dominant “trolls and their enablers”(Larry Sanger) Misplaced Pages-like projects will never win reliabilty. I'd suggest that high edit count will not be regarded as giving a sort of immunity. If one has much to contribute he should do it, taking into account that this is not his ego-project, but a collective one. New users should be encouraged to join in by a tolerant and warm atmosphere, which is non-existent as of now.
After all I can only concur with Piotrus's complaint that “it is a sad occurrence... epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished”. I've hear such unfounded accusations - initially by petri Krohn, then by Ghirlandajo - for months now, and there's been no sign of this ever stopping. E.J. 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I say it again. I support tough line as long as its dealt fairly by an unbiased admin(s), because its the only way to have order, even if it means that when I am out of line, I get put into a time out.--Alexia Death 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To NYB. Have you checked his contribs in question? Restoring non-stop his OR? This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately and as everybody knows about both camps' extreme POV pushing and incivility. Is there any other solution? -- FayssalF - 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the substance of the block, just on your apparent slip of typing "tedious" for what I assume was meant to be "tendentious." Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks and sorry for the inconvenience NYB. I've corrected it. By the way, it is tedious indeed. -- FayssalF - 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a period of a week for their tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. (i.e. tags and redirects). -- FayssalF - 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn blocked for 72 hours

FayssalF, thank you for demonstrating that block shopping on WP:ANI is so efficient these days. "This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately" - and, given your prompt "reaction", you will see tons of forum shopping on this page from the same accounts. "Tedious editing" - this is a nice justification to block a person who never revert-wars and who alone has the stamina to oppose a dozen one-purpose Tartu accounts in their attempts to white-wash Estonian authorities of charges of Nazi collaboration. I point out that no disruptive Korps! Estonia account has been blocked to maintain some semblance of objectivity. User:Digwuren is happily "at work" on his "new" masterpieces: Anti-Estonian sentiment and Estophilia. Instead, a productive non-Estonian, non-Russian contributor was chosen as a victim. In short, words fail me. This is beyond ridiculous. --Ghirla 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LIFO. As i said many times, if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked. So i decided to start from today's violations. If there's any other admin willing to go ahead than i'd be helping but i can't waste 48h of my time doing that alone. So, i've decided to block on the spot. Of course, it is ridiculous for you because you are directly involved as well. -- FayssalF - 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked" is a bad rationale. This is not the approach I expect from experienced administrators. This is both a token of the admins' ineptitude to handle a rather complex editing dispute and a potent signal to the trolls what they are expected to do in order to have their opponent blocked from Misplaced Pages for a considerable period of time. It was not Petri who started flamefests on this page. He is a contributor with a long history of valid contributions, something which can't be sad about any of this detractors. They stirred up trouble in order to have him blocked, and there you have it. It so happens that I learned about the incident while discussing the ArbCom's latest ruling that "In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions". Could you refer me to such a discussion in the present case? --Ghirla 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the rationale Ghirla. If someone accuses others of hiding Nazi agendas than they shoudl be blocked. -- FayssalF - 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that his comment was deplorable, it should be viewed within the context of the wider debacle which saw trolling accusations flying in all directions. Furthermore, I believe that 72 hours is way too harsh, given that: 1) he had no prior blocks for incivility; 2) did not abuse AN or ANI for forum shopping; 3) maintains the policy of one revert per day; 4) has a long history of valid contributions which have nothing to do with Estonia. --Ghirla 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF is doing the right thing. I fully support his approach and the blocks. Tom Harrison 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it's too late to support. There should have been some sort of prior discussion. This is no "emergency situation". --Ghirla 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Late? Do you still think that my actions were half legit? Prior discussion? There have been many and we won't waste our time again and again. These blocks are meant to to stop the bleeding in times of "emergency situations". -- FayssalF - 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to read Ghirlandajo's pontification on the rights and wrongs on this case, but we should not forget his own disruptive and unfortunate actions in this whole sorry debacle. I am referring to his attempted classification of editors by nationality in the course of AfD discussion. If blocks are being handed out liberally, this outrageous action by Ghirlandajo seems qualify him for one as well, if we are to be fair here. Balcer 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block shopping again, Balcer? I recall that the relevant discussion was archived. If you need to reopen the can of worms, please go to WP:AN. I see nothing criminal in calling you Polish. People voted along the ethnic lines, there's no denying that. The entire vote spotlighted the power of ethnic cliques in Misplaced Pages, it is hard to deny that too. When I attempted to put the sad truth to words, three ethnic cliques created an outcry. In other words, we are expected to put up with the ethnic cliques and keep silence, or to be subjected to outrageous accusations of racism. I'm not going to oblige them. Ethnic cliques are a problem that undermines the foundations of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies. --Ghirla 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously not true as I voted for deleting the article, definitely not along the ethnic line existing in your imagination. Balcer 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using the noticeboard to snipe at each other. Tom Harrison 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about "customer confidentiality" in coporate articles

I reverted and warned User:Marcomm for deletions of large sections of the article Celestica. He then reinstated his changes with edit summaries like this one. I'm reasonably certain that we don't give in to tactics of this type, but I wanted to check first, since I've never dealt with this particular situation before. I'm also going to bang a note on his talk page asking him to be more specific, since this info seems to be readily available anyway. Dina 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the info is readily available, it can be sourced - facilitating the argument that nothing confidential is being released. WilyD 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Marcomm is editing as "cls corporate". That's a COI and needs to be stopped. Corvus cornix 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It may be wise to refer this to WP:OTRS, if it continues to escalate. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bloating"

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

The user Xezbeth persistently deletes additions to the page which are trying to make the page not problematic. The page lacked any third party sources and has almost no information about the actual subject. He claims that the page is being "bloated" even though the additional text has done nothing but provide vital information and could be trimmed down. He also removes links that add third party information on the subject.

On the Articles for Deletion, which I put forth, two people have said to delete the page, one person has said to merge all the pages, and one person has stated that the main page needs to stay but the others need to be checked for deletion. One user, Xezbeth, just makes and attack and is starting trouble. The guy even blatantly lied in his subject heading by saying no one suggested a merge when the third person, Haemo, did, and a merge would be the obvious way to reconcile the split view point where most people agree that the pages have serious issues. Xezbeth didn't even bother putting a real answer for his vote and then he thinks that he can try and keep the page from being improved? NobutoraTakeda 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting Xezbeth on a talk page yet?-Wafulz 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. NobutoraTakeda 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How good of you to ignore the multiple keep !votes on the AfD. Anyway I don't think there's anything warranting admin attention here. the wub "?!" 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Four multiple keep votes. 2 only said keep for the main page. One was his and he said it was just abuse of rules without a legitimate reason. Then he keeps others from trying to fix the page. Obviously if I am trying to improve the page that I am not ignoring keep votes. NobutoraTakeda 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With your very first edit being the nomination for deletion of said article, I can understand how Xezbeth is somewhat miffed. I also have to wonder if you're not someone's sock with a very specific agenda. New users generally don't jump into article deletion right from the start. That said, Xezbeth does seem to be reverting sourced additions to the article without much thought. Someone with more knowledge of the subject matter should look into that.--Atlan (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I already began the entry on the delete that I had to create a registered name just so I could propose a delete. It was more than what a prod could handle. I was happy to just go around and comment on articles or point out problems without a name but this article needed to be put up for lacking third party sources that establish notability. No one has been able to establish notability for the other pages, only the main page. And being new gives Xezbeth the right to edit in that way or to follow me to other pages? could an admin please readd the third party sources or give me an explanation on why they are not appropriate on a page that lacks them? NobutoraTakeda 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am involved in this issue. The fact that the Chaos Space Marine Legion pages are not high quality has been noted by WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, although admittedly nothing has happened about it. As such, I don't think that a good faith effort to improve the pages (possibly including merging them all to Chaos Space Marines) would be rejected. However, that's not what has happened here. NobutoraTakeda has edited in a very aggressive style, including many comments (eg ) which are uncertainly uncivil and at least verge on being personal attacks, and as such there is a understandable reaction that he his not necessarily editing in good faith, which has led to his changes to Chaos Space Marines being reverted. My suggestion here would be that Nobutora attempts to edit in a more friendly fashion, and perhaps that he produces what he considers to be an improved version of the page in a sandbox somewhere, after which it can be compared with the current version when this has cooled down a bit. --Pak21 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What does "an aggressive style" even mean? You linked to a page in which a guy is owning the page because of his name, a page of a person who has issues with me and is trying to bother me, and two pages in which people attack me for being new. My edits to Chaos Space Marines added third party information. I tried to compromise by improving a page I criticized. If that is aggressive and not good faith, I don't think anyone could ever be editing in good faith ever. NobutoraTakeda 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"An aggressive style" means edits involving phrases like "You keep accusing others, but you seem to just erase anything that wasn't put in by you", "You also blatantly lied", "The person who reverted my edit is a blatant liar", "You have a problem with the truth" and "You were unnecessarily rude and you have no excuse for being rude". See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Pak21 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Heimm Old 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem?--Atlan (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The clue is in the title. It's not a cut and paste move, though, Heimm Old; it's a merge. The article List of banks in mainland China has been merged into List of banks in the People's Republic of China. This is fine. Neil ╦ 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And the requester is a sockpuppet of a banned user attempting to get other people to flame up his old wars. SchmuckyTheCat

Vandalism

I recommend that Roaringbug9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked. Whilst not particularly offensive, the majority of postings from that user id have been puerile.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.12.224 (talk • contribs)

Blocked indefinitely, obvious vandalism-only account. You can list similar situations on WP:AIV in the future.-Wafulz 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock of banned user Libsmasher

On May 11, 2007, JzG indefinitely blocked User:Libsmasher. On May 16, Coelacan blocked User:147.103.49.141, apparently as a Libsmasher sockpuppet. Both blocked accounts displayed a great deal of interest in Mike Farrell, especially in posting a biased account of his role in helping an injured prisoner in El Salavador. ,

Now a new anon, User:121.208.181.37, has surfaced and is making very similar edits. Back in May, the banned user posted to a right-wing website about his/her banning and said, "I'll be back." I suspect that this promise is being kept and the new anon is a sock of the banned user.

I've rewritten the Mike Farrell entry for NPOV and RS, but I don't have time to check all the new anon's edits. JamesMLane t c 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... Libsmasher and his IP sock were focused on adding that same LA Times citation, which the new IP has also added. However, the tone of the new IP is a little different, and the new IP maps to Canberra, Australia, for what it's worth (the old IP was a military IP in Virginia). I'm a little hesitant to declare it a sock right off the bat, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Other thoughts? MastCell 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jem Godfrey/Frost*

The articles for Jem Godfrey and Frost (UK band) are being repeatedly vandalised, in part by Godfrey himself judging by his blog. I've reverted them both to archived pages from some time ago, probably losing some useful edits along the way, but I couldn't see any other way of removing the erroneous content. Would a block on editing be in order? Bondegezou 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

... and see Andy Edwards also, and I suspect further related pages. Bondegezou 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've permablocked Gullpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalizing the Andy Edwards article among others. Which others do you suggest? From a quick scan, other accounts have enough good-faith-looking edits that I didn't want to block without further details. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML formats

The above article has been drastically edited by 62.49.39.98 (talk · contribs) without NPOV. This user is clearly supporting OpenDocument. He has added many points to "Shortcomings of Office Open XML" section without any reference, and removed some points from "Shortcomings of OpenDocument" saying "I do not believe this is true" and asking for "discuss first - links." (He has never participated in discussion.)

This user has been warned by Kirrages (talk · contribs) on 2007-05-30 for not following core policies and his edits on the same article have been reverted by many users. I'm concerned that this user's behaviour is likely to extend to a revert war. eDenE 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ew. AFD'd. Will 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unresponsive newbie POV-vandalising

Can somebody please put Republic of Gumuljina on their watchlists while I'll be away? It's been under rather persistent attack by a somewhat clueless n00b who insists on blanking it because he doesn't like it. Currently blocked, but likely to come back. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Jfwambaugh 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Panoramic tripod head - User repeatedly adding copyvio spam

User:John Spikowski (aka User:24.17.59.171) keeps adding a large amount (roughly 4k) of copyrighted text to Panoramic tripod head (see for most recent diff). The material in the table is diectly copied off the manufactuerers' websites, complete with warranty terms and the like. Even ignoring it being a copyvio, it is COI-spam, and the list of companies whose websites he steals the content from happens to be identical to the list of sponsors on his own website. I have tried to explain this to the user (see Talk:Panoramic tripod head, as have other users, however he has once again reverted the content back into the article. His most recent revert removed edits to the other parts of the article as well. Since it's both copyvio and spam, I'll be re-deleting it, but I expect it'll be back in short order. Since I've tried explaining this to him the best I can (and citing the 27 or so relevant policies), I think it's time for an admin to have a talk with him... Thanks, Bushytails 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree that this is unsuitable material, but is it actually a copyright violation? Simply including information from manufacturers' websites is not necessarily violation - did he lift exact wording? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every word of it is directly lifted from the manufacturers' pages, copy and paste. Bushytails 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it myself and left a comment on the article talk page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Googling any random set of words indicates a copyvio.-Wafulz 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He tried replacing the page with a redirect to his web site, I reverted it again... Bushytails 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he seems to be vandalising it ... Bushytails 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun. He's headed for a block if he keeps this up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Got a hornet's nest that needs sorting out

Last night, I blocked User:Gaimhreadhan for 3 hours after a final warning for WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations, when he used edit summaries to attack another editor User:Vintagekits like "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?". Combined with repeatedly referring to a fairly new editor User:Brixton Busters as a sock of a user who had previously used his Right To Vanish, after ignoring requests from myself and User:Tyrenius to not do so.

Since I'm peripherally involved (I am Vintagekits mentor from previous editing conflicts in this area) in this, I asked a couple other admins to check it over. They agreed that the incivility and 3RR violation deserved a longer break. of the admin responding to the AN3 report.

User:MarkThomas, who is currently in an ArbCom case of his very own on related issues relating to Northern Ireland/Ireland articles Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, used the platform to attack me. Since things are probably not going to be sorted out amicably, and as the initiating party on the ArbCom case Mark is in, I would like to have some uninvolved admins take a look at the conversation on User Talk:Gaimhreadhan, and sort things out. SirFozzie 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially considering the latest comments, referring to Irish Republicans as Green Nazis. SirFozzie 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That’s it as far as I’m concerned on Misplaced Pages, having had to put up with this crap for long enough with this , and being advised not to edit this article. I then get this from an administrator , , , , because he disagrees with me. I then have to put up with this , and this user is running amok all together on this user . And now this Green Nazis. So what’s it going to be, open season on Irish wikipedians, or those interested in Republican or Irish history. Could someone around here tell me what articles I can edit without being abused? I can take the abuse don’t get me wrong, but only if I’m allowed dish some of it out or at least respond. --Domer48 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As an outside/neutral admin, I've been asked to look into this, which I will do later this afternoon. However, in the meantime, I have blocked User:Gaimhreadhan for 24 hours for calling other editors "Green Nazis" shortly after coming off a 3-hour incivility block. That comment, IMHO, is completely uncalled for and quite offensive. More sorting out to come. AKRadecki 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User continuing to violate fair use policy after warnings

User:Jackgill06 has on multiple occasions re-inserted fair use album covers onto discographies in violation of our policies as expressed at WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8. For examples; . I have informed the user of policy regarding this issue , after which the user continued doing so. Following that, I warned him that I would recommend he be blocked if he continued . Subsequent to that, he continued re-inserting the fair use images . I've undone the editor's changes and request a temporary block of this editor. Thank you, --Durin 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours. Please review as necessary. (ESkog) 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Just for information: 172.143.209.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (using a different IP) added a general discussion thread on Talk:Doctor Who tie-in websites. I removed it as per WP:TALK, and he then added in again (now using the IP listed, which he used from this point on). I deleted it again. He reverted me for the second time, and I warned him on his talkpage as I reverted. I'm now stuck at WP:3RR. The editor then left a rather unpleasant note on my talkpage, which I replied to. However, his threat to simply change IP shows bad faith; Eagle-101 on IRC advised me to report this here.--Rambutan (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP's talk page. If the IP continues inserting commentary not directed at improving the article, you may go past 3RR.-Wafulz 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Be very carefull sanctioning Rambutan's actions. WP:TALK (which is a guideline, not a policy) does in fact not condone in any way the removal of other people's comments. The removed comment was indeed discussing a tie-in website. Rambutan also has a habit of twisting the rules to his advantage, often regressing into a wikilawyering contest and a WP:POINT spree. Just take a look at Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)‎ to see what I'm talking about. --Edokter (Talk) 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that thread lends itself to improving the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK does condone removal of comments, where it says "...are subject to removal". And, Edokter, I'm not twisting any rules, it's not directed at the article. Everyone else: thanks for your support/help.--Rambutan (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance on Abduction phenomenon and User:Chris Riland

User:Chris Riland claims to be Michael Menkin, who is the proprietor of stopabductions.com. For the last several months he sporadically pops up on the abduction phenomenon and Tin-foil hat articles and posts self-promotional material about his experiments with a polymer-based "thought screen helmet". He was blocked for vandalizing Tin-foil hat in February. I have been deleting the material and attempting to explain why it violates various and sundry policies of ours, namely WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:COI, etc. He has also objected to the redirect of his AFD'd biography to the "Tin-foil hats and paranoia" section of Tin-foil hat, which, though it could have been a less insulting redirect, did link to a small discussion of his "research". The redirect was deleted and salted by Zscout370 a couple of months ago in response to an OTRS ticket. Today User:Chris Riland began posting lenghty diatribes about me on his talk page, as well as repeatedly posting a long essay about his helmets at abduction phenomenon. Based on what he has said about me on his talk page I feel like I will inflame the situation if I participate any further. Could an admin intervene? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

user 89.241.165.69

he appears to be vandalising or bullying on the wordsley school wikipeida page about pupils can someyone please block the user of stop the page being edited thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.94.75 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, please report vandalism at WP:AIV. I will check this one out. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple IP's all adding the same comment over a period of several days. I semiprotected the article for two weeks until the end off school term to give the chance to tire if the 'fun'. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I was debating that myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. :) KillerChihuahua 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment/Invasion of Privacy

Since 26 April, User:Sethie (see also Special:Contributions/Sethie) has been demanding I confirm his speculations about my personal identity, has publically stated who he thinks I am based on those speculations, and threatened that upon my refusal to confirm or deny his speculations about who I am, he will remove a link that I had added, which he has now done, see and the dialogue here User_talk:Dseer. There is no policy requiring disclosure of personal identities based on such threats or speculation, no policy requiring removal of a link based on such threats or speculation until I confirm or deny his assertions about my identity, and the point is irrelevant since other editors have supported keeping the link. Furthermore, if all links could be challenged and removed on such a flimsy basis, there would be utter chaos. Such threats to reveal someone's alleged identity and remove material if not done, and then actual removal of material as threatened in retaliation for failure to induldge such extreme behavior, should not be tolerated. I've warned Sethie about his actions to no avail, now I expect strong action taken against Sethie to have the harassment, invasion of privacy, and general intimidation stopped. --Dseer 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator User:FayssalF abuse

I would like to report an administrator abuse in the article Anti-Estonian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The abuse consists in administrator FayssalF (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) blocking one party in the dispute Digwuren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). The dispute is between the the named user Digwuren, who created the page with the following content:

Anti-Estonian sentiment, also referred to as Estophobia (Estonian: Estofoobia) generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia.

See also

Estophilia

Russian-Estonian relations

and the user Mikkalai (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who redirected the article to Russian-Estonian relations:

Russian-Estonian relations were established on February 2, 1920, when the Bolshevist Russia recognized the independence of the Republic of Estonia

Timeline (from page and talk page history):

• 16:50, 10 July 2007 User Digwuren creates the page
• 18:16, 16 July 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Russian-Estonian relations), first edit of user Mikkalai on the article
• 18:58, 16 July 2007 Digwuren (Talk | contribs) (264 bytes) (Undid revision 145046753 by Mikkalai (talk) Reverted blanking.)
• 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) and 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Alexia Death (talk · contribs) comments in the talk page that the page move might not be appropriate No person bothers to answer.
• 17:03, 16 July 2007 Digwuren makes a gramatical comment on a userpage, not related to the subject
• 17:16, 16 July 2007 FayssalF leaves a message on Digwuren's talk page:

Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks.

• 19:15, 16 July 2007 FayssalF blocks user Digwuren and gives reason totally different than that of the warning:

Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment

• 19:17, 16 July 2007 in the article the folloing occures: Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (40 bytes) (Reverted edits by Digwuren (talk) tow last version by Mikkalai), i.e. page move

There is no sign of warning given to user Digwuren prior to blocking him. (See the history of User talk:Digwuren) As a result, User:Digwuren would be prevented from editting other articles .

Requested action:

• 24 hour block (or 7 day suspention of sysop powers) for User:FayssalF for abusing sysop power (absence of warning for the reason given at the time of block, taking sides in a dispute and blocking one side)
• unblock the user Digwuren, due to incorrectness of block (if user Digwuren has be warned for something else, that's a different question, treat it separtaely, and apply the policy as needed)
• undo the page move
• put a delete tag for that page and start a RfD, discuss it there. :Dc76 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected the redirect of Anti-Estonian sentiment to Russo-Estonian relations. Tom Harrison 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have thought about this in length and even tho this particular block is a bit flimsy on the evidence side, I support User:FayssalF in his actions to achieve adhering to the policy, and at least basic Civility. I actually support in these cases the modus operandi of block on sight and then discussion about the length, because certain sections of WP have become near intolerable.--Alexia Death 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure exactly what's going on, here, but it seems likely that Anti-Estonian sentiment was going to be built into a duplicate of the recently deleted Estophobia (see afd). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed. I call that a WP:POINTy disruption of Digwuren trying to go on recreating an article which has just been deleted. -- FayssalF - 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Digwurren on his unblock request claims that this is not the case and stub was created as a fresh start without the faults of the deleted article... Believing him falls under WP:AGF. --Alexia Death 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would say the block time is definitely too long. Comparing it to other editors incivility who got blocked in this digwuren could have earned a max 48 hour block, not one week. So I would request the block time to be shortened. Suva 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• I support extension of Digwuren's block to one month per his long history of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption. I specifically refer to such attack pages as User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn and User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians. --Ghirla 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How about blocking User:Digwuren for disagreeing with User:Ghirlandajo in a number of previous discussions. The discussion here is not about block of Digwuren, but block of Digwuren for reason of edit warring of the article Anti-Estonian sentiment. Address my objection, not the general relations between Digwuren and Ghirlandajo, in which I am not interested.:Dc76 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your assertion that I engaged in discussions with patent trolls does not hold water. I have never discussed anything with Digwuren, because trolling is not a valid ground for discussion. I'm prepared to scrutinise your and Digwuren's concerted efforts to add biased material into Transnistria-related articles. If you are found to have transgressed the principles of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria, the issue will be reported on WP:AER. --Ghirla 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• User:Dc76 is asking about my 7 day suspention of sysop powers. I haven't answered you yet as you haven't asked me before! Have you approached me Dc76. Let me assure you guys i never block someone for 1 day if s/he had been blocked before for 1 month. That what would be ridiculous. -- FayssalF - 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I have not asked you before. Should I have? I thought that blocking without warning was an obvious abuse. You have state 100% clear your reason when blocking, and you can not block without giving prior warning. On the second issue, I fail to understand you comparison 1 day/1 month. Could you explain, please. tahnk you.:Dc76 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Look. Too many warnings are already TOO MUCH. Please count them a few days ago, and today. Do you believe that we have to warn people every single day when it is clear that their POV pushing and edit warring is so extreme? How many formal or informal warnings have all these 3 people received so far? -- FayssalF - 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  What 3 people? Digwuren. What 2 other users you have blocked today? Please, check the links you show me: they tell me nothing. The second link is to the block you applied today. I've seen that. Don't point me agoint to it, point to something new you have to say. The first link ou give me is you sharing oppinion with Digwuren about incivility in the discussion that he and Petri Krohn have. If it is the case, show the exact differences with the exact incivil remarks, and block them for that. Don't give x as reason when you are blocking for y. And no, I do not see evidence of Digwuren "extreme POV pushing and edit warring", I am not telepatic. Give 3-4 diffs. Otherwise, it's talk in vain. :Dc76 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  The charges of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption leveled against Digwuren are irrefutable. That he supported Dc76 in POV advocacy on Transnistria-related articles is not a valid ground for unblocking. --Ghirla 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Digwuren never edited Transnistria. Either give diffs, or don't floud this with empty accusations. If you have problems with Digwuren's edits, discuss those part edits. What does all of this have to do with transnisria??? :Dc76 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby feel its appropriate to state that if such heavy handed blocks(witch i approve) are being handed out, they should be handed out to ALL participants. I here currently see one active participant in this whole mess, who is in spite numerous civility warnings still allowed to continue his emotional warfare... I have no doubt however that reminding this will earn me a block as well.--Alexia Death 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I told you many times that i can't follow your circus here. Admins are editors as well. There are 1700 admins who had balls out there. If anyone of them is willing to block all of you or unblock the 3 then i'd have no problem. I can't do that alone. I've got plenty of things to do. I can't be blocking and answering your questions in the same time. Please don't label admins as abusers if they do block all the competing teams' members. -- FayssalF - 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your actions for the most part and I would never scream admin abuse so lightly. Unfortunately what this mess needs is an uninvolved admin with a heavy and fair hand who HAS time to sort this out and place the deserving on the naughty chair. Or it will get much worse, I fear...--Alexia Death 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear FayssalF, You blocked without giving proper reason. Anyone reading the reason should be able to find the evidence. You this case, there was not evidence to support the reason you gave. And that says it all. About other behavior of Digwuren, please block him for that, not for something else. And give diffs that can be checked. Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence? Is it so hard to organize things well when you block? This should be a good lesson for you to be better organized. How can you "fight vandalism" when you are unable to properly present the evidence? You are an admin, and people expect you to be an example of shortness and clearness, not longlyness and vagueness. I have nothing against you personally, but the admins are not "to have balls", they first have to have some basic traning.:Dc76 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It was tendentious editing and edit warring, right? So? "has balls" was an expression used by Petri Krohn yesterday at Ghirla's talkpage. I just gave it a context here! As for my block rationale of Digwuren, then you must keep in mind that he was warned of WP:HARASS 90 minutes before he was found edit warring. So are you satisfied w/ my level of training now and experience? -- FayssalF - 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence, please, but no, I'm not. :-) Seriously, I am not. You've just shown me one of the diffs that I have presented above when I introduced the case (are you assuming I did not read what I introduced?): your warning at 17:16, given about something else, not about your reason for the block, which based on an edit he did at 18:58. Your warning did not say: "if you edit one more article the way I don't like, you'll be blocked". B/c that's the only thing which, if you would have said at 17:16, would be violated by his action at 18:58. Why do you consider his action at 18:58 was related in any way to the previous disputes you two have? I see no connection, and so will any passer by. If this would have been as part of a long patern of disruptive editting on 7 articles, you would have said so and you would have listed all 7 articles. But you wrote something else: "Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment". So, stop justifying now and waste everyone's time. Undo your actions, and next time, when you block, argument correctly. And yes, I do expect higher quality from you than from anyone you block. :Dc76 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we have different POVs. I don't agree w/ you. I told you we do block for tendentious edit. We don't have to give warnings to same user everytime Misplaced Pages is in trouble. So according to your logic i can harass someone once before receiving a warning and go edit warring twice expecting to get another friendly warning? It doesn't work this way and there are admins above who fully endorse my actions. I am not sure if they are of high quality according to your standards.

You haven't even informed me or approached me before coming here. Shall i consider that sommething of bad taste? You said you don't have to. Fine and really it doesn't bother me. Cheers.... -- FayssalF - 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, Fayssalf: I warned Digwuren about a different instance of WP:HARASS earlier the same day. You do the math: the contributions of this editor add up to a net negative. They eat up and deflect the energies of potential actual content contributors. I support the block, and I support briskly lengthening blocks if he keeps up the disruptiveness. The wikilawyering about the warning versus the block is pathetic. Misplaced Pages is not a system of law, it operates on common sense. The principle to invoke here is quite simple: we don't let people who're not here to build the encyclopedia roam free. In the long round, we don't keep them around. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it's not a battleground. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

You probably refer to this "helpful" comment. Who deleted it and on what grounds? Petri Krohn was blocked for a more civil comment for 72 hours. It seems to me that some editors have a licence to badmouth their opponents. --Ghirla 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that Digwuren in the past has been blocked for 3RR mostly, and for incivility related matters up to 3h only, I am suprised with the block duration of a week. The user may have wanted to rewrite the deleted article into something more civil and neutral, and we should not assume bad faith that he was attempting to be disruptive by recreating afd article. Recreation of that article, if confirmed, would indeed merit a block for disruption - although I think 24h would be enough. Currently, however, I am not sure we have grounds for blocking: was Digwuren uncivil, revert warring, or creating content forks? On the other note, there is certainly no reason for blocking of FayssalF, and even if we reach a consensus that his block was too strong, if he agrees with it, there would be no need for any suspension of sysop powers (unless it can be shown that bad judgment was not an accident, but a common pattern).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, I recall your similar statements in regard to User:Molobo. Your attempts to shield that troll from blocks (and associated wheel-warring) had a detrimental effect on a large swath of articles for an extended period of time (the issue of "pet trolls"). I don't see substantive differences in the behaviour of Digwuren and Molobo. Furthermore, I am surprized that you can take Dc76's demands seriously. This is not what I expect from an editor of your experience. --Ghirla 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LIFO and blocks would be issued on the spot as i said above. -- FayssalF - 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think this issue should be left alone. Digwuren has a block review template on his page, that should be enough. — Alex 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close the discussion: I have to say one last thing: the issue I've rased by bringing up this case has not been addressed in the dicussion. The answers received from FayssalF are more troubling than I would have thought: instead of admitting it as an error and correcting on the spot (I would have disagreed it was an error -it was not- but well ... it would have been a way out to save face), he only tries to jusify himself, giving me as "new evidence" one of the diffs that I provided when introducing the case, and the diff showing he has put the block in question. This is sign of incompetence (the admin is not able to properly present the case. forget if there is a case or not. not even to present the case correctly!) And what his "blocks would be issued" means, a threat? I expect action as requested when I introduced the case, and if Digwuren was indeed guilty of something, unblock and block him properly. :Dc76 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my response above. -- FayssalF - 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the reviewing admin: FayssalF rocks! Tom Harrison 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurocopter_tigre is modifying my talk page comments

All began when i added an OR tag to a map in the article Chernivtsi Oblast, that claimed to be based on the Ukrainian 2002 census, but actually conflated two ethnic self identification (Romanians and Moldovans) in just one: Romanians. User:Eurocopter_tigre quickly deleted my tag, including a personal attack in his edit summary: Since I did not want to participate in an edit war (another supporter of the Romanian POV began reverting me in the mean time) i decided to discuss the matter on the talk page. However User:Eurocopter_tigre deleted part of my message, changing its meaning: diff. Assuming good faith, i decided to warn him that this behaviour is unacceptable on wiki (using a standard template, as the policy recommends): diff. However, he deleted this warning claiming it's a "false warning", and when i tried to restore my original message, he modified it again, this time using personal attacks in his edit summary: diff. This happened again when i tried a second time to undo his modification, personal attacks in edit summary included: diff. Note that i have nothing against user deleting comments from their own userspace, but this time i considered necessary to note the deletion of the warning by User:Eurocopter_tigre to show admins that the warning was refused and had no effect (on the contrary, after the warning, he began to attack me).Anonimu 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, User:Anonimu it's well known as an disruptive editor, who is always in conflicts with other normal editors, which are really trying to improve that kind of articles disrupted by Anonimu. The warnings which he did put on my talk page, were a result of an edit conflict, so were removed immediatly (however, I preserve my right to administrate my talk page exactly how I want). Also, I didn't personal attacked Anonimu, he must misunderstood me. When I said the word "communist", I was reffering to his edits (my personal opinion is that his edits are communist - that's definitely not a personal attack), not directly to him. Content added/removed by Anonimu is usually removed/included back by many other effective users. --Eurocopter tigre 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the continuos slander by User:Eurocopter tigre.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The rv of Anonimu (See Romanian Communist Party) come with "per consensus on the talk page", while the consensus there is actually the opposite of what Anonimu does. :Dc76 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While this has nothing to do with the above, i must assume good faith and ask you to check again the talk page of the article you refer.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please stop bickering here. This page is not part of our dispute resolution procedure. Don't forget what the ArbCom ruled on the issue: "Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts". Do you really want reprisals? --Ghirla 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What i really want is the community to see my comments the way i intended them to be seen (i.e. the way i wrote them).Anonimu 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Anonimu? Just a bit of advice: Don't report other people for conduct that's no worse than your own in the same dispute.
A term like, "communist vandalism" is inappropriate. However, so was, "nationalist vandalism", which was your term, which the "communist vandalism" comment was directly in response to. Don't bait people and then complain when they take the bait.

How should i call the disrespect for the self identification of 70,000 people and the imposition of the term those people did not use? (Note that my edit was nothing more than an OR tag)

Also, you should know that any and all users are allowed (not encouraged, but still allowed) to remove warnings from their talk pages. It is considered acknowledgement that they've read it. Putting it back after they've removed it is not acceptable. So, don't complain about them removing something that you had absolutely no right to put there in the first place, okay?

where did i put back messages deleted by users from their userspace? This was about another user tendentiously modifying my comment on a talk page of a mainspace article. (of course, if you consider the talk page of Chernivtsi oblast User:Eurocopter tigre's own talk page, that's another matter)Anonimu

Seriously, I'd take Ghirlandajo (did I spell that right?)'s advice and stop bickering. And, especially, stop behaving just as bad as (or worse than) the people you report, expecting people to take your side. Bladestorm 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i hope this was only a misunderstanding due to you not checking the diffs with enough care. otherwise, i expect some excuses for your accusations.Anonimu 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll reply all in one block. (You should really try to avoid breaking up other people's comments like that unless it's entirely necessary. It makes it hard to tell who said what, especially considering my name is only appended to one third of my comments now.)

I suppose I may have been slightly glib with my take on your adding warnings to his talk page. Twice, within the same conflict, you added warnings to his page, where neither was terribly appropriate. (here and here) I suppose you're right, they weren't the same tag... just two different warnings, related to the same dispute, on the same person's talk page. Wow. Big diff. But, you're right. Still technically different.

As for the more personal stuff, like, for example, how you should take the disrespect etc etc etc... I'll just say this: When you characterize someone's edit as "nationalist vandalism", their response of "communist vandalism" is, in no way any worse than your own. And, though his edit summary wasn't appropriate or to be condoned, it still remains true that it was in direct response to your edit summary, which made your action just a little bit worst. (That is, if I ever say to someone, "you, sir, are a moron!", and he replies with, "No! It is YOU who are an idiot!", then you better believe I won't complain to people about having been called an idiot.)

Also, just a note: You should avoid claiming that people edited your comments. The diff you provided (here) shows him changing the subject heading. That's substantially different. You believe it was nationalist, that's your opinion. However, there's no need to poison the well right in the heading. It's far more appropriate to simply choose a neutral heading, and then address your concerns. Is changing the header necessary? Nah. But it is not the same as changing your comments. Huuuge difference. If he'd changed your comments, then it'd be treated far more seriously. Bladestorm 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Boham

Posting IP user has been blocked Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

there is someone with the user name Justiceleague1 that keeps posting slander in the dissusion section about me. I will not tolerate it, Period.

What is on Boham's page is true!

I would be more then happy to fax you a retainer agreement signed by myself and Mr. Boham, just let me know.

I'm going to see if there is any way I can get an IT person to find out who this person is!

Sincerely, <personal information removed for privacy reasons> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.50.250 (talk)

This IP and its sockpuppet users have been blocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeals process for banned editor with protected talk page

Some time ago, I (among a number of other admins) dealt with an editor who was banned for ongoing personal attacks directed at, and abuse of, another editor. His talk page was also permanently protected at the time of his final indefinite block, as he had been using it for soapboxing and further abuse.

The banned editor emailed me recently demanding that I unprotect his talk page so that he could file an apppeal on the basis that his block was 'absurd'. (It later came to my attention that this editor had made the same request of another admin, who also denied his request.)

He insists that Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block compels me to unprotect his talk page so that he may use the {{unblock}} template to explain why he should be unblocked. I feel that I am under no such obligation. I have advised him that blocks can be appealed through the unblock-en-l mailing list or by emailing a member of ArbCom. Have I missed anything? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, no... it doesn't compel you to unprotect his page if he has bee using it for disruption. He can email unblock-en-l or a member of arbcom. Of course if he is continuing to be disruptive and harassing via email he can always be reblocked with email functionality turned off...--Isotope23 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Although you are under no obligation to do so, I think the user should be given a second chance with his user talk page. If he then uses it to appeal the block, that can be dealt with under the normal rules of Misplaced Pages. Make it clear, though, that if he abuses it once more, it will be protected and never unpretected again. Od Mishehu 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I should have mentioned that this editor had had his talk page protected on a previous occasion for making personal attacks while blocked. The page spent some time unprotected following a commitment to avoid further attacks. The present indefinite protection resulted from an insistence on pursuing further harassment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, they've shown just about what they're probably going to do, if you unprotect it this time. Unless it's been a good long time, since the last incident, I don't see much reason to entertain this. As you mentioned, they can contact unblock-en-l or ArbCom for appeal. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialdemocrats

Relatively new user Socialdemocrats seems to have gotten a very raw deal. He has repeatedly been warned for vandalism and was actually blocked for 24 hrs two weeks ago. The problem is I've gone through his contributions and I cannot find a single diff of vandalism. Apparently another user accused him of vandalism (months ago) over a content dispute, Socialdemocrats removed the warning from his talkpage, and other users have reverted him since them, accusing him of "vandalism" every time he reverts. While he has not been civil (telling other users to "fuckoff") no one ever bothered to tell him civility is policy. I suggest someone unprotect his talkpage, archive it for him, and coach him. Perspicacite 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading his list of contribs and wars, I don't see any reason to unblock. SirFozzie 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal of sources, and controversial edits

One of the articles started and written almost entirely by me, Stefan Báthory, which has the status of GA-article, has entered a dispute. An editor, User:Str1977, came out of nowhere and started to change the name of Vlad III Dracula to Vlad Tepes. After a great effort invested by me, where I used sources to help my argument, Str stopped changing the name. After a while, however, he changed the name of the article without attempting to discuss the matter, even saying that "I do not need to discuss everything on the talk page prior to making edits. I followed the advice of "being bold"." The two discussions can be found here and here. I have been civil throughout the discussion and decided not to react to rude comments such as "educate yourself." The move of Stefan Báthory to Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed is, in my opinion, a wrong decission to make, because in English, he is known as either Stephen Báthory or Stefan Báthory--with the latter being the more popular version of the two. Addentum: I forgot to say that Str had also removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact. Please see here. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, I agree that it's not appropriate to move Stefan Báthory to Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed. Only nationalism may be behind this proposal. --Ghirla 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism? I am not Hungarian. And I have asked Anittas to tell me whether I should move the articles to Stephen. I am more than ready to do this but I have got no reply but a note that I was reported (for what I wonder)?

I don't know what his intentions are, altough he claimed to have made the move in order to distinguish him from the other Bathorys. I only know that it is wrong. On top of that, it is quite a coincidence that a while after we had our first dispute, he went on to add a controversial edit to Candide, knowing well that I argued against its existence. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We have the naming conventions to go along with. "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (WP:NC). "Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed" is not acceptable, because it is not used in the English-language academia. Please compare this and this. If you need a third opinion, just let me know. --Ghirla 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anittas jumped much to quickly as many things he complains about, only a few are true.

I am quite disappointed as after our rocky start (regarding the Dracula issue, which I still think justified) he seemed to be a bit more cooperative.

(PS. He violated 3RR yesterday and I did not report him. And now he reports me though I have done nothing. (So much for turn-around is fair play.) This a content dispute. Str1977 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You had an equal guilt in that edit warring, as I did. Changing a title and removing sourced material, as I have shown above, is not what I would call "nothing." --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 is an experienced and careful editor; I would be very surprised if he were motivated by anything but a desire for accuracy. Maybe a third opinion would be useful, to the extent that Ghirlandajo has not already given one. Tom Harrison 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict: It may well not be an appropriate move, but Str has expressed an interest in discussion on the article talk page, and no one has responded. Please Get Thee Hence to discuss - amicably and civilly is always best - as this is a content dispute (in other words, This is not the page you're looking for.) As a further suggestion, "FYI: Your recent actions are being discussed on AN/I" is more polite than "I have reported you" (what is he, a miscreant child you're telling tales on?) and "Str1977 put a paragraph break in" is more accurate than "removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact" - please re-examine the dif. KillerChihuahua 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you talk first and then act; not act and then talk about what you've done. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Double edit conflict) From reading the talk page, it sounds as though discussion is ongoing and that Str1977 is asking "what are your specific objections?" I think this simply needs a WP:RM and consensus about the content. Possibly a WP:RFC to get more opinions about the title of the article as well as content. I'm not convinced admin attention is needed - at least not yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it is recommended to archive this thread. This page is not the place to ask for third opinions. --Ghirla 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please archive it. I am astounded at the vitriol directed at me. Though I have asked Anittas to clearly state his objections and to reply specifically on the Istva issue, he has not done so. Nevertheless, I have now moved the Istvans to Stephens, as I had already considered that alternative too.

Thanks KC and Tom for your postigns. Thanks Ghirlandajo for your reasonable attitude (no hard feeling about the first reaction). Str1977 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Action to Protect Coelacan

Unfortunately admin Coelacan is the target of an Internet smear campaign by an anon user. . Needless to say, all of the accusations of this anon are false. He was implored repeatedly by Coelacan and others to discuss and not edit war.. However, he kept on moving to other articles which were then rightly protected to prevent his edit warring. In addition, this user may be a previously banned user seeking to harass editors on this project. Perhaps permanent bans and other action is appropriate. Ramsquire 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan is an admin. He can protect his userpage if he wants to. There haven't been any edits there since 2 July; conversely, there's no need for anons to be able to edit it. Shalom 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not about Coelacan's web page. But rather the continued destructive behavior of this anon. He is going to other Internet sites spreading lies, and may be involving law enforcement in this campaign. Is there nothing that can be done to stop this. I have a strong feeling this is just the beginning. Ramsquire 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are kooks out there. This one seems contained to a single website. I don't think it's worth bothering. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fully protected User:Coelacan's user page. As is stated above, he is an admin, and can if he wishes unprotect when he returns. I have left his talk page open at present.--Anthony.bradbury 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Coelacan consult with the Office to determine if they have any comments or suggestions on this situation. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Dangerous-Boy

I am posting for review and comment an indefinite block that I have just placed on Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs). This user was a party to the recently concluded case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, in which the decision emphasized that the parties were immediately to discontinue all forms of harassment of and personal attacks against one another. Nonetheless, on three successive days, Dangerous-Boy placed offensive quotations on his userpage mocking two of his former adversaries in this case. That the quotations were aimed directly at these two users is apparent not only from the selection of the quotations themselves, but from direct evidence including links in the edits and the edit summaries. Dangerous-Boy persisted in this conduct in the face of two strongly worded warnings by this administrator and went so far as to post a link to WP:STALK on his userpage to express his disdain for my input on his edits.

I think it is well-known that I am not quick to block, certainly not to block indefinitely, and view doing so as a true last resort. I have advised Dangerous-Boy that in this context, an "indefinite" block does not necessarily mean a permanent one, and that I will lift the block if he clearly and unambiguously promise to stop this type of behavior. Given the sad history of this overall situation and the clear ArbCom ruling, however, I felt that this behavior could not be allowed to continue. Review of and comments on my action and the reasons for it are welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom was very clear that "Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute". You and dboy had a dispute about quotes from macbeth, wild allusions to the Roman empire and some perhaps taunting edit summaries. Since dboy is doing things on his own userpage, not on talk, mainspace, and usertalk pages, I find this block highly inappropriate. However, because you are a fair admin, I'm willing to assume good faith here unlike the situation with another individual that also indef'd this aforementioned user. DaGizza does not seem to have lost sleep about the "offensive quotations" and I fail to see why you would, considering that the arbcom fiasco is over. Its not like Dboy has been sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and vandalizing. He's only ranting on his userpage, probably getting something off his chest. I dont see how this he is being "dangerous" (haha) at all. Perhaps time to cool down, but an indef block, especially when he has never been (legitimately) blocked before is a little outlandish.Bakaman 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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