Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:05, 30 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:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Misplaced Pages, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Misplaced Pages is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Misplaced Pages as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: . There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment . I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Misplaced Pages out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Misplaced Pages standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Misplaced Pages, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I feel I am being harassed by ILike2BeAnonymous since he recently stated " It IS a park that allows dogs off-leash; THAT'S WHAT YOUR REFERENCE SAYS. Why are you so god-damned STUBBORN? " Here, after I made this contribution. This user and I in addition to many other people as is evident by the tone and arguements on his talk pages and the Richmond, California talk pages have had many run ins up to this point. But his use of extremely uncivil language which was totally unprovoked is making me feel badly. He is also shouting by using all caps, and refering to me negatively in an edit summary. He has now begun an edit war as he has also reverted another editor's cleanup of my original addition which may be seen here.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I think he should be blocked for his threats.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He also called my attempts to dialogue arguements as "mini shit storms" here¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this excuses anything, but why are you guys even arguing about the difference between "allows dogs off leash" and "leash free"? -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, he immediatly alters any edit i make to the Richmond article and i felt his edit in this case didn't make much sense, another editor then altered the text and it made even more sense and i agreed with that, IL2BA then reverted that edit too. I am discussing the issue to avoid another painful edit war which if you flip through the history of Richmond, California are very destructive and time wasting.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You've come here because you want him blocked for making threats but you haven't provided any evidence of him making threats. Please provide links to him actually making a threat. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about his intimidating and threatening languge. Whatever you call it, I believe if you make comments such as calling someone "godamn stubborn"hereand calling my discussion "mini shit storms"here does constitue an insult/insulting language, if its okay to talk to people like this, please tell me, but otherwise he should be blocked.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely incivil, yes, but not necessarily personal attacks. And arguing about a "leash free" park and a park that allows dogs to be "off leash" is incredibly lame. —Kurykh 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What is lame or isn't is irrelevant INHO, since this page is to discuss incidents. Now IL2BA began the arguement not I. And the arguement was over whether it was mostly over whether it was a dog park which he claimed it wasnt, and he claimed souces said it did not when in fact they did.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Cholga changes that ridiculous signature of hers it makes a mess of the page --Hayden5650 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's so ridiculous about it, does it bother you? Would you be so kind to please explain, funny i noticed it is a bit long.

IL2BA also called my edits mini shit storms here (this is a separate offense and duplicate of the Richmond talk page)see it here

So calling me "godamn stubborn" is not a personal attack and it's okay to say that to people on wikipedia?¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to repeat what I clearly stated above. —Kurykh 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to say something. This is just part of the harassment Il2B has done. If you just look at the archive of Richmond, California, you can definitely found some evidence regarding his incivility and stubbornness. From his tone, I can see that he sometimes thinks like he own the article. For example, he accuses Cholga for "twisting fact", calling his edits vandalism. He has altered Cholga's comment before. He has also came very close to violate 3rr when he got into a very heated argument about a picture. He is definitely uncivil.

But he does make a lot of good edits around here, and doesn't deserve a block just yet. I think what admin should do now is to give him a warning and tell him to assume good faith. Chris! _{my talk} 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreaded Walrus might be able to comment on this. Chris! _{my talk} 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Personal Attacks clearly states: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." calling me "godamn stubborn" and saying i cause "mini shit storms" are clearly insults at my person and writing. "godamn" is very offensive to many religious people aswell. IL2BA has a history of disruptive editing as is evident by the talk pages of Richmond, California, and his own talk page. I request a second opinion. I feel he should be at the very least warned that if he does this again he may be blocked temporarily.71.142.91.34 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (was signed out)¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but it seems like I have to say it: get a thicker skin. While his/her comments were, of course, inappropriate, your apparent oversensitivity in this minor incident and your inability to drop it when appropriate is not helping matters. —Kurykh 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"get a thicker skin?" are you serious? If i were to start calling people goddamn this or godamn that i would with no doubt be warned and if i called peoples comments shit storms the same would happen. Is there anywhere i can appeal this desicion? He should be warned or it should be policy that you can call peoples comments shit storms and refer to other users as godamn stubborn. I have a thick enough skin, but he should be punished as fairly and consistantly as anyone else, or the Misplaced Pages Personal Attacks page should stop reading as follows, ""Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."" REGARDLESS OF WHICH MANNER IT (AN INSULT OR DISPARAGEMENT) IS DONE. This is not a minor incident this is a persistant problem with this editor. Check his discussion page he's been warned many times for this sort of thing, consistantly. He has a very agressive, dismissive and cavalier tone. He doesn't apologize or acknowledges his mistakes. If someone insulted you and no action was taken when would you drop it?¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also not a minor incident because he did it on three separate occasions linked to here. I don't think its fair that he gets to insult and disparage me anywhere he wants and there are no consequences, he should be warned and i would like an apology.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs}

Harden up a bit. He is obviously a straight-shooter and you can't handle it. Mini shit storm is hardly an insult, in fact I find it rather humorous. --Hayden5650 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the time or place to make such ridiculous insinuations, about what i can and cannot handle. As for him being a straight shooter, I didn't know straight shooter now inlcuded people who's talk pages are full of warnings for misbehaving. If I called the way you talk a mini shit storm I hardly think you would enjoy it or find it humorous, its was obviously not a joke but a term of disparagement.¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IL2BA's inability to works with individuals here is indisputable. Also protecting a user who is uncivil is extremely bad practice, I think, because it encourages user who has a history of disruptive editing, to continue his incivility and editing in bad faith. Chris! _{my talk} 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And Hayden5650, go read WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA if you really think personal attack directing at an user is funny. Chris! _{my talk} 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cholga, I see you are still adding to this discussion, some what obsessively. You have alerted us to your problem, we all now know about it and are aware of the situation. You now need to let it rest and then if it happens again, an admin may intervene. You seem to have come here hoping an admin would block IL2BA at the drop of a hat, it doesn't work that way. Not when he wasn't downright attacking you. Please, for now, just let it go. Have a cigarette and calm down. You have laid the groundwork now for any future 'attacks'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs)

Are you an admin? And why didn't you say that in the first place instead of say you found what he said about me funny? I am just talking, don't call me obsessive. I didn't know there was a limit to dialogue.71.142.91.34 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two posts by Chris here that I agree with completely. ILike2BeAnonymous is often overbearing, uncivil, and has often argued basically ‘I don’t like it’ without providing any specifics about what it is he finds objectionable. The Richmond page is a classic example of this. And I would add to that that it seems as if ILike2BeAnonymous makes a game out of following Cholga around and finding fault with just about every Cholga edit.

That said, IL2BA does occasionally make good points. But his overall demeanor in handling edits he objects to is uncivil and unprofessional. It would be helpful if an Admin put him on notice.--Fizbin 13:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most people here that IL2BA can be aggressive and confrontational at times, as well as being particularly quick to be uncivil. I had a run-in with this user myself back in February, see this section of my talk page.However, I feel that in this particular instance, as with the case I linked above, IL2BA is being uncivil, and not particularly making personal attacks. While I am not saying that being uncivil is acceptable, I feel that there is a distinction between personal attacks, and uncivility, and that this falls into the latter category. And in response to User:71.142.91.34, and to state the obvious: No, User:Hayden5650 is not an admin. --Dreaded Walrus 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cult

Re: persistent linking by a cult on http://en.wikipedia.org/Dudjom_Rinpoche

Nyingma.com is a site setup by the cult of Aro (http://www.aroter.org/). This cult is run by an Englishman who claims to be a prophet (Terton) and his group has been denounced as a fake inauthentic lineage (masquerading as Tibetan Buddhism) by high lamas. Furthermore there have been shocking behavioral accusations about the practices of this cult by former members. Links to Nyingma.com will be contested. Sylvain1972 and members of the the cult keep reposting the link and have reported my editings as vandalism. They hope to recruit unknowing people interested in the holy Dudjom lineage with this link as they have done in the past. Can I have some action by an administrator please. For more information and evidence please contact any moderators on the largest Buddhist forum, E-sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/). I await your decision.

Abecedare

There are group of editors who are removing cited references at Vedas. If any thing goes a bit out of the way there are multiple editors who are falsely voting a majority instead of answering to the context. They are taking advantage of my previous ban as a shield and don't try to answer to the point. Upon asking why a cited reference from Arthasastra is being removed, I am being told I am edit warring. None of the replies at the talk page are to the context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vedas&diff=147634861&oldid=147634284

On the name integrating a stubby section. Editor decides to remove a citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vedas&diff=prev&oldid=147141174

Looks like they editors want to distort the truth and are taking things personally. BalanceRestored 10:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes such as this should be settled using the dispute resolution procedure. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who may not have the background on this situation, a while back BalanceRestored was put on indefinite block for disruptive behavior, but that block was unilaterally lifted by Vassyana, supposedly on a zero-tolerance basis. Since then BalanceRestored has resumed the pattern of soapboxing and failure to comply with WP:RS. Unfortunately, Vassyana does not perceive any violations of the zero-tolerance arrangement, and thus has not re-instituted the block.

Abecedare and other editors, including myself, have been trying to deal with the disruption, but it is tiring. The current content dispute on Vedas involves WP:FRINGE claims of a religious nature made by BalanceRestored. When asked to provide better sourcing for the claim that an additional "unknown Fifth Veda" of Hinduism exists, the reply is that it is secret, like the methods for making an atomic bomb: ]. That would explain why this novel claim is unknown to academics, and considered patent nonsense by other regular editors of the aticle. The personal attacks ("editors want to distort the truth") and claims of a conspiracy to cover up the "truth" are red flags for WP:FRINGE claims.

The current ANI is similar to this previous one along the same lines. Note that some uninvolved editors had difficulty even understanding what BalanceRestored was saying at some points because the line of argument was so incoherent.

I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: . The current edit warring is a violation of those conditions, as are the personal attacks, and I think that the block should restored on BalanceRestored. Even if the pattern of disruption is not clear to editors outside the Hinduism project, BalanceRestored violated one of the terms of being unblocked by reverting the article twice in a period of less than 24 hours and , which should earn an automatic block under the so called "zero-tolerance" policy. Buddhipriya 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I am being lenient in general to people in this situation. BR is not the only person who is clearly subject to blocking under the rules, and they do not have the restrictions BR is under. I have previously imposed a block on BR for violating parole conditions. I admit BR can be difficult to deal with and that I believed there is some language barrier to communication at points. There's a difference between being difficult and being disruptive. This is clearly a content dispute and should be resolved as such. If this cannot be resolved on its own and the behaviour continues, all offending parties (including BalancedRestored) will be subject to preventative blocks to get the message across. Vassyana 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that "BR is not the only person who is clearly subject to blocking under the rules" suggests that you may think that some of the editors who are trying to deal with this disruptive user are acting inappropriately by removing the WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material being repeated added to multiple articles, which seems to me to be punishing the victims. It would appear from the above post that the "zero tolerance" conditions which you put into place no longer apply to BR in your view. Can you please clarify if that is so? The fact that you are not enforcing the probabtion restrictions suggests that you have chosen to unilatterally lift them. Buddhipriya 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe another's edits are wrong, and they are not vandalism, edit warring is not acceptable. Dispute resolution is the appropriate venue for content conflicts. I have not unilaterally lifted the restrictions (which would be fine anyways, since I unilaterally imposed them instead of just giving a {{secondchance}}). I have instead decided to use my discretion (along the principle that blocks are not punitive measures), instead of blindly enforcing a set of mechanics. A certain measure of my leniency comes from the observation that BalancedRestored is striving to improve Misplaced Pages in good faith and that he adapts when what he is doing wrong is clearly and civilly explained to him. Again, I admit there is a certain language/communication barrier and that in some cases (especially when dealing with subtle or complex concepts) a reasonable amount of extra effort is required to communicate effectively. Vassyana 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rlest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked Rlest for 24 hours for incivility. He's been warned god knows how many times over the past few days, and then proceeded with this. Thought I best post it for review, I would like to see him come back (with the same account this time) with a more constructive attitude, but I very much doubt this will happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly endorse. He knows he's supposed to be civil, and he knew what to expect if he wasn't. --Deskana (banana) 12:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see he has been incivil, but he is a good editor, and has usually been friendly and civil in my experience with him. He says he has left; what can be done? Lets just hope he doesnt deicde to leave for good. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this? The 17th time he's left? Don't worry, he'll be back. As far as the block goes, sure it's endorseable, but it seems to me he was pushed to the brink having to deal with Miranda (not that he is innocent). These two seriously need to banned from interacting with each other, nothing good seems to come from it. -- John Reaves 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I am staying away from that person as best as possible. Besides, this notice didn't help in order to calm the situation. Yet, to inflame it. I don't want to work in a disruptive environment. Miranda 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Qst (Userspace) (talk · contribs) for the duration of Rlest's block, after seeing this edit summary and this disruption. - auburnpilot talk 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this user's disruptive conduct continually tolerated? The problem here isn't Miranda. This is his fifth account that we know about, and he was grossly insulting and extremely disruptive in his flame-out as Qst (talk · contribs · block log), and now he is continuing the same misbehavior and personal attacks as Rlest. He violated his disappearance conditions from the Qst debacle, which were to avoid all association with his previous accounts. How many more second chances does this guy get? --MichaelLinnear

• I blocked a suspected Rlest IP at SSP for the length of the current block. To answer MichaelLinnear, we tolerate him because he generally behaves and does lots of work. He is prone to these flare ups but I'm not personally persuaded that his bouts of disruption outweigh his contributions just yet... Spartaz 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Linnear. This is ridiculous. Especially given the attitude of "I have 11 months of editing and 20,000 edits so I'm better than you", which is ridiculous and disruptive, and now outright attacking Miranda. ⇒ SWATJester 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well - according to his userpage, he is going to return under a new username, one he does not want to disclose. I wander if who he is will be apparent when he does come back. -- Anonymous Dissident 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it usually is. -- John Reaves 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He just never seems to learn...He was formerly Qst, then got blocked and started sockpuppeting with Rlest... It's going around in damn circles, and he's not changing one bit. --Dark Falls 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, he was Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) before Qst. - auburnpilot talk 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt he 1.Tellyaddict 2.The Sunshine man 3.Qst and now 4.Rlest? -- Anonymous Dissident 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) He was also FPT, too, see this. Yes, I do agree that he was a good contributor, but so was User:Encyclopedist. Encyclopedist got banned for personal attacks and trolling on different user's pages. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, because I see a pattern of 1.) creating an account 2.) making edits to that account 3.) running for RFA 4.) personally attacking others when the RFA fails, etc. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, but decided against it, because of conflict of interest and time concerns. Miranda 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you were rather offended by recent diffs on his talk/user page Miranda? That is why you were going to propose the ban? I just think he is angry about some things. He was civil to me, always, and he designed by user page, which was kind. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A ban might be a little harsh, but he's going to be in a helluva lot of trouble when he gets back. Civility and NPA are one of the most important policies on Misplaced Pages, and noone should be allowed to sidestep it. --Dark Falls 08:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't ban productive users for an outburst of anger. Let's hope he'll compose himself and come back in a good form. Peacent 08:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated, it might not be apparent whether he comes back at all: i think the last things he put on his page, what with insulting Miranda, were just a wiki-suicide, at least as Rlest. He says he'll be back under a new username, but whether we will know who he is is not clear at the moment. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Peacent has made a very good point. What he did was out of anger and to some extent, we can't actually blame him since all these has happened within one month of his last failed RfA where he was tagged and blocked as a sock of banned user Molag Bal. He tried to explain that he wasn't guilty but nobody actually tried to reason with him and whatever happened with Miranda was just him finally "losing it". Come on he has done more good for this wikipedia then most editors combined. I will always see him as an editor who most users should look up to in terms of his contribution to Misplaced Pages as a whole and banning him would just result in us losing another good editor. What happened to Miranda was wrong but he only did all of that out of anger and frustration which was gathering inside him for the last couple of weeks..Please Give him a break..He deserves another chance and blocking him continuously won't help with that cause..--Cometstyles 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should give another chance. He's had plenty already. Twice already he has created an account, become very productive, be the nicest person you've ever met, then he attacks someone, gets blocked, asks for forgiveness, and returns. I'm tired of having to deal with his "retirements" and incivility. I don't really care that he's been provoked, and I don't care he's been productive in the past. It's not an excuse to violate policy. We should deny him the pleasure of seeing us discuss his actions and forgive him when we know he'll strike again. But, alas, for the sake of WP:AGF, I say we give him one final chance to calm himself down, but I recommend that if he attacks one more person or leaves another insulting edit summary, he should be indef blocked/banned (yes, I said ban). We've put up with him enough times, already. --Boricuaeddie 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

PrisonPlanet attack site

Alex Jones decided to write an attack/outing piece on a Misplaced Pages editor and encourages vandalism of Misplaced Pages. . The vandalim has already started. Since Alex Jones and PrisonPlanet.com are synonomous, it seems that PrisonPlanet.com should be treated as an attack site. --Tbeatty 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If specific attacks (and I mean attacks, not honest criticism, however misguided) on that site are linked on Misplaced Pages, just remove them. Block persistent offenders if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While I do not like the contents of the site, there is clearly no "outing" going on, unless they are in fact "disinformation agents", which is highly doubtful. It seems to just be an overly harsh critique. Treated as an "attack site" seems a bit harsh, but I do not think PrisonPlanet is used other then in discussing itself. Unless of course this is an end run around getting the Alex Jones (radio) article deleted by labeling it as such. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See external links to prisonplanet.com.

Yikes. A while back we had some hyperaggressive POV-pushers insisting it was a reliable source for global warming articles, but I had no idea that links to it were so widespread. Raymond Arritt 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Didn't know you could do that external link search thing. But anyway. All those links are on talk pages, except for a few which are links to interview mp3 when the person in question appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. Eg. Greg Palast article has a link to an interview on Alex Jones. That should obviously stay. ... Seabhcan 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is alot, oddly it seems it appears heavily on Morton's page, the irony. The links also seem to appear mainly on talk page, or when citing interviews with people, most likely those who have done interviews with PrisonPlanet or on Alex Jones' radio program and those interviews are being used as sources, which is fair. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are primarily talk page links. Even IF we had a policy against these links, I don't think it would affect links outside articlespace. Circeus 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There also seem to be a few linked Reuters and agency articles which are hosted on prisonplanet. If someone wants to track down these articles hosted on another subscription-free site, be my guest - but it seems a little unnecessary. ... Seabhcan 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: It seems Tom Harrison is going around stripping out all links to prison planet. This may be ligit, but I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain his reasoning here? ... Seabhcan 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

eg. Tom removed some material here that could have been easily resourced to Fox News. I have done this in that case, but I don't want to be chasing Tom around wikipedia cleaning up after him. ... Seabhcan 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I started reverting the ones that are republishing of other articles. Hopefully Tom will be careful and only remove ones that are PrisonPlanet articles if that is his issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He is now removing cited interviews, can we get another admin to rule on this. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source for anything except what its operator thinks, and we have no way of knowing that they correctly "republish" the work of legitimately reliable sources. No article should cite them for any matter of fact. It cannot be used to support controversial material about any living person, except maybe Alex Jones, and even then only as a primary source. An external link to the site might be useful as a primary source or in articles about conspiracy theories, subject to other policies about linking, undue weight, etc. Except in these rare cases, links to prisonplanet.com should be removed. Material cited to there should be cited instead to a reliable source, or removed. Controversial material about living people cited to prisonplanet.com has to be removed until a reliable source is provided. While many of these are from talk pages and archives, there are over 300 of them. I suspect this is a reflection of the enthusiasm of the site's fans. I took out those that failed our standards and those that violated blp. I left in those I thought were appropriate. Comments are welcome, but they probably belong on the blp notice board or the individual talk pages. Tom Harrison 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you attempted to see if any of them are incorrectly republished? You do realize that most links you removed are not citing PrisonPlanet, they are citing the republished article. Instead of re-citing these you simply removed them entirely as sources. Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources. Thank you. If you choose not to I will work on readding them tomorrow, your goal should be to fix material, not remove it, and if you did not even verify if any articles were republished incorrectly, I am not sure why you would make that judgement. I know Morton is your friend, however this unilateral action which is removing citations, is not the proper way to vindicate him. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources." Hell no. If you want that conspiracist nonsense in the article, you put it in and source it. If it is about a living person, it better be sourced well. Tom Harrison 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Washington Post is conspiratist nonsense? I will revert your removals tomorrow, it seems you did not even read any of them before going on your way. In the furture be more careful regarding citation removals. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you have been removing links to mp3s of interviews with the article's subject. When Greg Palast is interviewed, and that mp3 is available, that is certainly suitable for the Greg Palast article, regardless of your personal dislike of the Alex Jones radio show. ... Seabhcan 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what encyclopedic purpose is served by giving our readers convenient links to mp3's of Jones' radio show, except from the page about Alex Jones. Tom Harrison 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Or about the person being interviewed and their quotes from that interview, which you removed. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, it is clear from that reply that you have personal issues with this particular radio show. But it is not policy to remove links to interviews - wikipedia has thousands of links to interviews. Perhaps you should consider refraining from making edits on this topic. Your personal bias is clear. ... Seabhcan 18:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Tom is actually paying attention to what he is removing, just removing everything he can find. Unless a consensus forms on this issue here I will go through the links tomorrow individually, those not related to BLP issues in anyway will be reverted. Or unless of course Tom properly recites the material of the republished works and interviews without the links. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Prison Planet is just some weird conspiracy website run by this guy. It is always good practice to pull unreliable sources from Misplaced Pages. It surprises me that they were ever used here in the first place. Tom should continue. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is that, but its also a radio show that attracts several big name interviewees. Eg Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, etc. Further, it has good resources of news agency (Reuters, etc) reports without subscription needed. This is handy for many articles which may be reprinted elsewhere, but with subscription. ... Seabhcan 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting, why don't you recite it? I've seen cases where the conclusion drawn from the Alex Jones cited stuff was 180 degrees from the actual material. They are not reliable sources and restoring them when you know there are legitimate sources available is spam and possibly vandalism. --Tbeatty 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, Actually I think we should never use an option piece from Alex Jones as a source (except on his article page, maybe) but we are talking about reprinted agency sources and first hand interviews. Those are certainly RS (but if you can find a different, subscribtion free copy of the article, I say use that instead.) ... Seabhcan 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PrisonPlanet is not reliable enough to cite as a primary source for interview transcripts. It is not clear that PrisonPlanet has a license agreement with the copyright holder, as reliable source newspapers do, to reprint articles. Especially fee based articles that the web site is circumventing. This is the difference between linking to a reliable source using reprinted material and an unreliable source such as PrisonPlanet. It is not acceptable to cite except in reference to itself. --Tbeatty 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Tom to fix his mess, his response was "Hell no", Will you do it? Asking others to correct sloppy work is not appropriate, do it right, or do not do it. However if you want to take up the task, that will be more then better then me reverting, will you? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is conspiracy focused, many academics and even governors have given interviews to Alex Jones. It would be like removing all information of Newton and gravity from Misplaced Pages as well as his works because he attempted to find codes in the bible or transmute materials to gold. Further the interviews being cited as reliable sources, and further the republishing of articles is not being fixed, Tom is effectively removing sources instead of re-citing them as asked, his response was "Hell no." because he believes Reuters and the Washington Post are "conspiracist nonsense" Again I will revert the citations tomorrow since they are valid republishings, and only Tom who has not checked them, states they are false and inaccurate republishings. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How does this 'republishing' process work exactly? Tom Harrison 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, Most articles in all newspapers are republished agency pieces, as you know. Reuters stories are printed in newspapers from here to Iran. That Alex Jones also prints them, does not make those stories unreliable. ... Seabhcan 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So why should we link Jones' site instead of a reputable newspaper? Tom Harrison 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to. For example, while you just deleted material on Loose Change, I went and found the same story on Fox News and restored it. Do that in future rather than disruptively blanking material, please. ... Seabhcan 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Nonsense. This is not an interview with Jones. THey have clearly stated an intent to disrupt and manipulate Misplaced Pages and have attacked individual editors. WP:BADSITES was formally rejected but the arbcom decisions cited there are useful.

This site did none of the below:

1. Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Misplaced Pages contributors;
2. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
3. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians

Therefore it is not an attack site by Arbcom's standards. Further one article on it, does not make it fit any of those either, as we all know a certain admin was outed, that publication did not become an attack site. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You don't think that this sort of nonsense is the type of thing Arbcom has in mind? How is asking people to vandalize his user page not sponsoring harassment? Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A page which contains an attack on an editor and provides a handy link to his user page is an attack page. How many such pages a site must have to become an official AttackSite™ might be debated - several other undisputed attack sites have interesting material alongside the attacks - but when the user pages of our contributors are defaced with obscenities alongside "Internet smear info" and a link to the attacks, the distinction seems somewhat academic.Proabivouac 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Tbeatty's original accusation that this is an "attack site" appears to be a little bit of an overstatement. An "attack site" is a site that exists purely to attack people. Prison Planet is probably better characterized as an alternative-press news and opinion site; most of its articles are reprints of news articles elsewhere. It doesn't appear to be any more of an "attack site" than, say, Fox News -- another news site that also carries aggressive opinion articles.

The article in question, written by Alex Jones and another contributor, expresses concern (in language that would on Misplaced Pages be considered uncivil, yes) about the alleged systematic introduction of bias into Misplaced Pages by an administrator deleting articles that they disapprove of. While we may disapprove of the language, this is a serious issue. If an administrator is really unilaterally deleting articles such as Movement to impeach George W. Bush -- a well-sourced article on a highly notable subject in current events -- that's a freakin' huge problem. --FOo 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Morton's page: what is listed there is "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (deleted & redirected to Movement to impeach George W. Bush)". Alex Jones need glasses. Circeus 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack site, it's a conspiracy site, and currently it contains a vitriolic personal attack on a Misplaced Pages administrator in good standing. If that attack is linked to, it should be removed as an attack. If other items are linked to in articles, they should be removed simply because we don't regard conspiracy theorists as reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So Issac Newton needs to be purged from Misplaced Pages? Jessy Ventura? Do I need to go through the wealth of people who have believed or currently believe in conspiracy theories? How about History and Discovery, they often cover conspiracies, there is also PBS. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are not reliabe for anything you mentioned. Since PrisonPlanet is only known for conspiracy theories (unlike the other people you mentioned), it is wholly not reliable. --Tbeatty 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have yet to get what is being repeatedly stated here. Alex Jones is not being used as a source for most of what was removed, the site is simpyl holding republished articles, that are being removed. The citations are not being fixed, simply chopped out. Care to fix them? Is it too much to ask of someone to fix the mess they made? I will go about fixing it tomorrow as I stated, if noone has by then. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf...it would be best if you want to continue editing here if you moved on and stopped confronting those you had prior disagreements with. As a ban evader, you're very lucky to still be here editing at all.--MONGO 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a new accusation, file another RFCU, this will be your third accusation to fail. Fairness and accuracy for all, then I believe it was rootology, now nuclearumpf, I am sure you have more once that one fails. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the wikipedia definition of "attack site" as defined in previous ArbCom decisions. If the sites stated goal is to disrupt Misplaced Pages and harass contributors, it is an attack site. This is what Alex Jones wrote and that's what his minions are doing. Read the comments, compare the commentators to contributors on User:Morton_devonshire talk page and you can see the disruption. Morton is not an administrator. No administrator is unilaterally deleting anything as the target of that article is not an administrator. Like everything there, it is full of misinformation and lies and that is also why it is not a reliable source. --Tbeatty 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So when they republish a Washington Post article, they are lying about what? Since the sources being removed are not Alex Jones articles, but republishings of WP:RS sources. Are you going to fix the citations? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When they republish a Washington Post article, they are committing a copyright violation, and in general we can't use that as a source either. Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."--AnonEMouse 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you do not know they are committing copyright infringement by reprinting a Washington Post article. They may have a license to redistribute the article. Removing links to the website based upon alleged copyright violations is fallacious. --Iamunknown 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, the Washington Post may be reprinting the article from AP, UPI, or Reuters. If the Alex Jones site has a license to reprint wire stories, than it is perfectly fine to link to those stories, particularly considering that lots of newspapers eventually take their old articles down or require payment for them. I agree we shouldn't be linking to his opinion pieces, unless we are citing his opinion in the article about him, but it sounds like that isn't actually happening. Natalie 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis. PrisonPlanet is a partisan, fringe site that cannot be considered a reliable source for factual information of any type. The best parallel I can think of is with LaRouche-related articles, where (according to Arbcom) LaRouche publications are citeable as sources on the LaRouche movement itself but not for other purposes. We can cite PrisonPlanet for discussing Alex Jones' views as such, but cannot consider it a WP:RS for factual materials. As for wire stories, we'd have to check that the stories are being printed verbatim and not being edited to support a particular viewpoint. Since this would require a second, more credible source for comparison, why not simply link to the more credible source? Raymond Arritt 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That we don't know how to tell if it's licensed is an excellent point. I found an email address on the washingtonpost web site, and asked. Let's see what they say. --AnonEMouse 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself (and another user is attacked there far more harshly than I am) I care less about the issue of attacks than the unreliability of the site as a source, and the misuse of Misplaced Pages for promotion. I think there are some other websites run by the same guy: infowars, prisonplanet.tv, jonesreport.com, maybe others. Tom Harrison 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the personal attacks -- I've had Wikipedians call me worse things, and have a pretty thick skin about it all. But keep in mind that it's Alex Jones who is asking for the vandalism, and Prisonplanet.com is his site. So yes, I think it's fair for us to remove all links to an attack site, as we have done with the infamous Encyclopedia Drammatica.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to attacks on wikipedians should be removed. Links to copyvios should be removed. Citations should go directly to the original source ("Washington Post, Smarch 32, page A1") even if it does not have a freely accessible URL (See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources). Linking to a copy of the article hosted on another web site is a copyright violation, plus there is no way to know the article wasn't tampered with. Links to partisan sites should generally be avoided except if it is the subject of the article. (i.e. Link to Hamas' web site in an article about Hamas but not in an article about Irsaeli politics.) So, link to Alex Jones' web site in the article about Alex Jones, if he has one, but don't link to it anywhere else. This is a standard application of the WP:EL policy, what's the problem here? Thatcher131 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my interpretation. The reason for this notice was an alert that a specific attack piece was just written and to be on the lookout for vandalism and attacks. Removal of the links as you outlined above has always been policy but perhaps more pressing now that Misplaced Pages is under assault from "undercover truther" meatpuppets recruited by Seabhcan on their discussion page. --Tbeatty 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I have no influence over Alex Jones or the people who read his site. I was, however, trying to stem the tide of IP vandals and SPA by convincing them to edit properally and get involved. Tbeatty is cheery-picking comments to smear me. ... Seabhcan 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't cherry pick anything. I provided the link to your complete post. It looks like you are recruting "under-cover truthers" to come by every once in while and argue for inclusion of truther stuff. Sounds like a meat-puppet. Smells like a meat-puppet. Must be a duck. --Tbeatty 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That one comment was one of dozens, and part of a larger structure known as a "conversation". Anyway, it would be pretty damn stupid of me to have "recruited" secret meat-puppets and then told you about it, wouldn't it? Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. ... Seabhcan 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear you were asking like minded members over there to come here and take part in AFD debates, no? Basically, we need under-cover truthers to come out and help every now and then. Not secret, but really bad form if you ask me. RxS 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asking those interested to refrain from vandalism and SPA and to get really involved in wikipedia. Just asking them to vote on AfDs would have no effect, as you know. SPAs are excluded from the count. ... Seabhcan 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the quote speaks for itself. Full quote and more discussion: . RxS 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• pulls out tin foil hat* I think this proves Seabhcan is part of the secret USSR communist propaganda machine attempting to plot world domination by hiding missles in Puerto Rico and Trinidad. Seabhcan, do you defend yourself against our overwhelming proof of one sentence in the midst of pages long conversation? I thought some of the people here did not like conspiracy theories? I think everyone needs to lighten up, some people have their panties in a bunch over a certain "other article." --SevenOfDiamonds 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SevenOfDiamonds personal attacks and incivility

Has made repeated attacks:

I have informed him of the policies several days ago: ]Ultramarine 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you mention your lying about reading a source? Then arguing the source did not contain something? I have ceased assuming good faith, but have made no such attacks. Myself and numerous other editors are just getting tired of Ultramarines refusal to read sources across numerous articles he posts on. The first post is the culmination of Ultra lying, then admitting to it, then 2 minutes later stating he found a source, read the entire thing, and still did not find the information, meanwhile still not knowing who the group was that held the tribunal even though its the first thing mentioned in the source. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for NPA of calling you McCarthy when you stated One presumably is the article by a member of the Communist National Lawyers Guild. The connection was drawn when you decided to call the National Lawyers Guild a communist institution. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I leave the content dispute for the talk page of the article in question. Such a dispute is no excuse for personal attacks.Ultramarine 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If there has been some breach of WP norms of civlity with UltraMarine, it has a lot to due with the frustrations he creates among editors with whom he argues with. This is because of some rather classic tenacious editing, in particular in circular and repetative arguments on the talk page that just go around in cirles, repeating over and over, and enaging in lines of unproductive argument that seem more to provoke frustration than to settle any honest disputes. This takes several forms, including pretending not to understand (despite being explained cleary over and over), pretending not to see what the source says, claiming to have read it, but showing ignorance of what the source says, or just denying that is says what it clearly does, and bringing up diversionary issues, such as provoking old, settled arguments (or creating silly new ones), and generally creating a confusing mess on a talk page that makes it hard for anyone else to follow (and the original issue gets burried). Eventually it gets resolved but only after other editors tell him to stop, and a huge effort and waste of space, over a small matter that would be resolved normally by a normal editor in just a few back and forths. If the tactic is to create frustration, in doing so it certainly succeeds. Editors do assume good faith until the breaking point when it becomes obvious that the arguments are artifically maintained, seemingly, for its own sake. I'm not saying being uncivil is ever justified--its not--but sometimes there is some responsiblity and a clear role being played that generates it, among an otherwise very civil editor.Giovanni33 02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with Ultramarine. These editors continually try to add unsourced, POV and non-consensus material to articles. They have admittedley thrown WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to the wind because they are unable to achieve their personal objective of original research and biased articles. This is an encyclopedia, not their personal blog space. --Tbeatty 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, UltraMarine never said any of this sort. That has been your song and dance, and your claims have been proven false. You just don't like certain encylopedic topics, and call them "OR," in order to justify your blanking well sourced material against consensus, I might add. WP is not censored, and the threshold is verifiablity.Giovanni33 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty still calling things OR after 5 sources said it wasn't, still will not tell me how many sources are needed after I presented 10, before she would stop citing WP:FRINGE. I think you are hitching your post to the wrong bandwagon TBeatty. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ultramarine is the one causing all the problems. I ask that a neutral non American administrator look at his edits. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be the conservative American POV on everything. Thats what they want. Most of the world is not the same POV as Bush and his followers. Bush has only 25% support in America and even less in the rest of the globe but they want Misplaced Pages to be the 'PR branch' of the Bush white house. Bmedley Sutler 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who hasn't been involved in this matter (just to point out I'm not an admin, though am not American either), incivility and rude comments cannot be justified by claiming the recipient is "causing trouble". Even if they are, that just means both parties get disciplined. Also simply having a source does not mean something should be included. There are certain people that believe the world is run by space lizards - should they be taken seriously? I haven't looked at all the comments in question, but some highly unreliable ones have been mentioned (such as the Syrian media). John Smith's 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Which is the difference between 10 WP:RS sources, and Ultramarines insistence that the National Lawyers Guild is Communist and sources from most countries other then America are not WP:RS. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  PS discounting Syrian media as a whole is pretty xenophobic. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  A content dispute is no reason for you to start insulting people.Ultramarine 16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I find it worrying that you've accused me of xenophobia after making one post - that is not assuming good faith and only makes me believe the complaints against you have real weight. It is well known that the Syrian media is heavily controlled and restricted. My assessment of their unreliability is not one based on nationality but the circumstances they have to work in. That does not mean they cannot tell a truth, but the bias that results from the restrictive laws, censorship, etc in Syria means they should be avoided when possible on controversial topics. John Smith's 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Considering recent events that show the US has used propaganda on the domestic audience and has further by "accident" had psyops used on the domestic media through its picking up of operations aimed at other states, would you then agree the US media is now also not valid for controversial topics? You cannot discount a country based on a poor rating by a US or US-ally watchdog group. Further censorship, as in they cannot report on X, would not lead to faulty information, just no report on X. To attempt to remove an entire country based on ... our assumptions of the level of censorship is far from the point of WP:RS. For instance again, the CIA asked a newspaper not to reveal a document on the basis it would reveal intelligence gathering methods, this is also censorship, can we then exclude that paper from WP:RS from now on? We as editors cannot generate the marker for WP:RS. The media of the US is no more reliable then that of any other nation. Unless of course you live in the US. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  And this is the typr of content dispute that UltraMarine has had to put up with as well as personal attacks. "no more reliable that any other nation" shows a profound ignorance of the difference between free nations and a free press and nations without that. To have to deal with those types of inane disputes as well as personal attacks is above and beyond what should be required. UltraMarine deserves some sort of relief. --Tbeatty 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Freedom of the press would not be the press with-holding documents or sources for the sake of the government. Nor would it be a press that is under attack by PsyOps, or the states propaganda machine. It would also not be a media that highlites page 1 as Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades ... But you enjoy your free press. The irony of people citing the American press as "free" when they have been reported as the one of the most influenced by government, "white house correspondence dinner" comes to mind, is pretty ironic. Do you know what was the cited reason in the media when the first Atomic Bomb went off? ... an ammo hold blew up. That was of course a lie, planted by the government in the media. --SevenOfDiamonds 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  You're telling me that Reporters Without Borders is a "US-ally watchdog group"? They're critical of some aspects of the US media, even if other countries come out worse. Also the US is more reliable than other countries, though it's worth checking the sources themselves for reliability. You don't seriously think the US media is no more reliable than the North Korean media, do you? John Smith's 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Do you? Perhaps you can give me some examples of North Korean news you studied and determined to be wrong? Probably not, which is pretty much my point. Yes I do consider groups that operate out of the US or allied countries, to be a bit bias. I am sure all the countries cited as unreliable would as well. If you want an example of censored media, you can read the articles out of Cuba a few months before they appeared in the US, about the US support of Carilles or Llama, known terrorists. Then ask, who is the really censored media? Again, to rule out Syria, and the other nations the US does not agree with, note they all get low ratings according to these groups, not too big of a surprise, would make Misplaced Pages seem a bit xenophobic. --SevenOfDiamonds 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think most right-thinking people would trust the North Korean media as much as the US. I've already said I do not believe the Syrian media to be "always wrong", merely that the controls placed on it mean that such articles should not be taken at face value and are best avoided if discussing controversial topics, just as I would avoid citing Fox News. John Smith's 09:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  I would be fine with that bar, but the line in the sand is not being drawn equally. And I believe we as editors really should not be excluding the media of nations on the basis of a report by two groups. I am not really sure where the "right thinking" issue comes in, I try not to associate people with political parties here on Misplaced Pages. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suspect" edits on Talk:Straw-bale construction

I am becomming concerned about Sunray's persistant refactoring and moving of comments during this active discussion on Talk:Straw-bale construction. several nonsense edits such as '&ot to topic headders such as this edit, and unnecessary renaming such as this. Comments were purposly replied to in specific locations in response to questions/comments and the continued refactoring of other peoples comments, such as this and this edit can significantly can change their meaning and is dangerously becomming close to a WP:POINT and WP:3RR violation. Talk pages comments are meant to be a record of a discussion; moving or editing these comments is a concern as it can significantly can change their meaning. I am an Admin, however I am involved in the discussion and am requesting that Another admin please monitor this discussion. Thanks--Hu12 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from Sunray

Background

Hu12 and I disagree about a link, which he seems to think is spam while I say it is a valid resource. The link was at first being promoted by the site owner User:naturalhomes. Naturalhomes was told by several users, including me, not to promote the link. He stopped doing so and in discussion on the talk page I agreed to take a look at it, along with all the external links for the Straw-bale construction article. Meanwhile it was registered as a spamlink by Beetstra, here. I placed a note on the WikiProjectSpam talk page that I did not think that the link was spam. After some discussion, on July 18, Hu12 stated:

"... since the decision is now being discussed on the article's talk page, if it is found to be relevant, informative and should otherwise be included, a neutral and independent Misplaced Pages editor (other than Naturalhomes may add it..."

I agreed with this and added the link to the article on July 20, I was, thus, dismayed to see that Hu12 removed the link five days later.

The current issue

Faced with this reversal, I initiated a poll to get other views on the matter. In the instructions I requested that poll respondents discuss the matter in one section and vote in another. When the respondents, including myself, began to stray into discussion, I moved the discussion to a separate discussion section to leave the vote section relatively clear. This prompted Hu12 to revert me.. I countered, and tried to explain why I was doing this. He has continually reverted me and has now violated WP:3RR (I have not). While he contends that my behavior is suspect, I believe that his is way out of line. A block of Hu12 would be in order so that we can get on with the voting on this matter.

Additional notes:

• Tracking down spam is a very important task for Wikipedians and I try to do my share.
• The link is obviously not spam by any reasonable definition of the term. It may, or may not, be a valid external link, which is what the poll is about.
• Of those who have voted up until now, all but me are from WikiProjectSpam.
• It is possible for WikiProjectSpam participants to become overzealous in their actions. If they begin to abuse their power, they will not be doing Misplaced Pages a service. Sunray 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatent misrepresentation of the facts

The dissagreement with the link is based on Misplaced Pages policies. This was explained by another editor on the 16 July 2007 on User_talk:Beetstra#Removal_of_link_on_Strawbale_construction. The link initialy was added with a conflict of interest by User:Naturalhomes. As was suggested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#http:.2F.2Fspam.naturalhomes.org, citing directly from the Advertising and conflicts of interest policy it should be discussed on the articles talk page by neutral and independent Misplaced Pages editors. Unfortunatly prior to any consensus being reached on Talk:Straw-bale_construction#External_link_proposal the link was reinserted by User:Sunray on 16:45, 20 July 2007 here and on 00:14, 28 July 2007 here. Both under the assumption that one person is consensus.

After further investigation, the link was infact found to be inappropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject. and does not help to expand the article, as an appropriate external link should.

Revisions to remove simple and obvious vandalism do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to WP:3RR. Under Discussion page vandalism Where "An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place". this was not at all the case with User:Sunray edits. Stated above User:Sunray was intentionaly moving discussions away from their intended place, and in doing so is considered vandalism (1st revert: 23:08, 28 July 2007, 2nd revert: 01:35, 29 July 2007, 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 July 2007, 4th revert: 02:18, 29 July 2007). Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies WP:EL and WP:RS), which is opposite of User:Sunray's position, this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --Hu12 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you have it folks. When Hu12 made this report, he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation." He has since revised that point of view and is now saying that I have violated 3RR, moreover, he now accuses me of "WP:POINT,"" vandalism," "sneaky vandalism..." More to come no doubt. I've explained my actions above and at the 3RR noticeboard. I'm not about to escalate this, but I do think that Hu12 needs to be reined in. Sunray 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I would suggest that a quick review of the various allegations will reveal that, despite some transgressions of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, there have been no serious policy violations, save breaking of 3RR. I think that 3RR should be reviewed and appropriate action taken. In the interest of cooling this thing down I can live with that and hopefully we could then all go back to working on an encyclopedia. Sunray 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey?

My old user talk page was just posted with a survey asking a bunch of semi-personal questions in connection with work on the VT massacre. I don't recall contributing that much to it, so I'm guessing it's "phishing" of some kind, although it could be honest and legitimate. I just wonder what to do about it, if anything. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The red-link user has posted similar questions to many users in the last few days. Baseball Bugs 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By all appearances the guy is who he says he is; the email address and so forth match up as shown here. I don't see anything of obvious concern. People are free to reply or not as they see fit. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks have tried this sort of thing before -- on the fly "research" about the strange animal that is Misplaced Pages. With a redlinked userpage and no understanding of how Misplaced Pages actually works. I expect the user is legitimate, at least in the sense that yeah, they're probably writing some paper, but misguided, not just about Misplaced Pages, but about researching online communities as well. No userpage is a clear indicator that this researcher hasn't spent any time actually looking into how Misplaced Pages works. My suggestion is to post to their talk page your concerns about their actions, or ignore it. There's no rule against it, so far as I can tell. However, the promises that one's privacy won't be violated, while possibly meant sincerely, are not something I would trust as a matter of course without more information about the methodology, intent, etc. of this survey. Cheers Dina 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this user has been blocked and some of his edits reverted. I am concerned that this is a rather heavy handed move, as the requests appear to be made in good faith. Obviously, nobody needs to reply to this user's request for email responses to his survey. Was this truly harmful to the encyclopedia?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor offered up a quite sincere seeming apology and was unblocked. I have posted some advice about ways he could handle such matters better on his talk page and I suggest that other's with strong opinions do also, as he seems inclined to listen. Dina 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Videmus Omnia

I have blocked Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) for 31 hours 1 week 48 hours for his harassment of users Alkivar, Mike Halterman, and NeoCoronis. For three hours straight, Videmus Omnia was tagging images uploaded by these users for deletion, and then flooding their user talk pages with the relevant templates found on the image tags. I had to open up the user's last 500 edits to see when the action started (and a few minutes deciding upon a block length that was not too long or too short which lead to what his block log is currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming has become a concern as of late, see . I've been trying to discuss this issue with Sfan00 (see User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Talk_page_spamming). It's no surprise that users may become overwhelmed when faced with over a hundred notices. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) To get back to the topic: get Videmus Omnia to agree to stop, there's no need for a block. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Videmus Omnia, you blocked him/her half an hour after she stopped, so the block is quite pointless. —Kurykh 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you opt to block, rather than discuss this with the editor in question -- especially after he stopped tagging images? It even appeared to be making a difference, as Alkivar appeared to be responding to them. I've always known Videmus Omnia to be a very reasonable editor, and though I've differed with him before about images, he's never failed to respond in a sensible and reasonable manner when asked. --Haemo 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the point in this block either, and it seems a bit punative. Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in hours, and stopped editing a half hour before the block. Also, there appears to be no attempt at discussing the situation before placing the block. Leads me to believe it should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's talk page spamming and harassment. I will agree that I did not recognize the time stamps at the time, but the activity that was occurring was highly disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be harassment, but when it stopped half an hour ago, blocking will do no good, at best. Or backfire, at worst. —Kurykh 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As said, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. I don't think blocking him will do anything, especially without prior discussion, and may just end up disenchanting a valuable editor. --Haemo 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that he be unblocked, but if he persists once he returns to editting tonight or tomorrow, I will reinstate the 48 hour block (given my block message that he would have not received can be perceived as a warning).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was consensus that VO's actions constituted harassment, then that would make sense. But leaving some sort of notice on the uploader's talk page is mandatory. Is your only objection the manner of the notices? Besides the extremely long list of image violation notices, it doesn't seem to me that VO did anything objectionable, and even that seems to have been a mere error in judgment. (It's also possible, as I stated below, that he was planning to compact the notices after the tagging was complete, although I don't know that.) Either way, I don't think you should block him without a clear case of harassing. Since you have already blocked this user four times, and reversed yourself each time, I think it would be best if you let someone else judge whether his behavior is worthy of a block or not. – Quadell 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that he was going to compact anything (he would have done so at NeoCoronis's page, Mike's page, and Alkivar's page once he was done with their images, but he didn't), and the two blocks in between my initial block of sockpuppetry (which it turns out he was not abusing multiple accounts) and the 48 hour block were going to be the 48 hour block, until I was advised that the first was too short and the second was too long. If he returns to the wikistalking activities when he resumes editting, I will block him, as I did give him a warning this time (and I have not been in any such conflicts with him).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I've been offline, and came back to find that all this drama had happened. I'll try to address the various facets of it below, but first I'll try to explain how this whole thing came to pass.

First, I'll make my position clear that I'm an opponent of non-free content, except in certain, very limited circumstances. My primary work is obtaining free content from copyright holders, and non-free content often directly competes with my ability to obtain it. A celebrity has no incentive to release a quality free-licensed image to me if a non-free image already exists on the page.

My normal method of patrolling for illegal (by Misplaced Pages policy) non-free content, until recently, was to hit 'random article' and check the image descriptions on the pages that came up, tagging as appropriate. I'll watchlist those images until problems are resolved. I noticed that, on one of those, User:NeoCoronis had removed the "rationale required" tag without adding a rationale. Further investigation showed that this was a continuing problem, and in fact NeoCoronis had uploaded dozens of non-free images without rationales. I investigated and tagged all of them.

This got me wondering if going after problem uploaders was more effective than "random article". I got acquainted with the upload log, and the first two uploaders I looked at there were User:Alkivar (upload log) and User:Mike Halterman (upload log) - two that happened to be on my mind because I'd been dealing with them lately. I was actually kind of surprised that these two experienced admins had also uploaded dozens of non-free images that didn't comply with policy - many of them fairly recently (so the statement that the policy didn't exist at the time of upload doesn't apply). So I tagged 'em. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Now that Videmus has been unblocked, lets discuss the overall issue: are such massive warning campaigns appropriate? I've seen image taggers apply over one hundred no-rationale warnings to several users. Some users managed to address the no-rationale concerns by adding a canned rationale to all images regardless of their current usage. Other editors appeared distressed. Sure, image tagging is basically inevitable, but there is a better way of going about it. Betacommandbot, for instance, did not target individual users. Users saw a trickle of warnings over many days and managed to address the no-rationale concerns. I suggest that we implement some sort of guideline for limiting image warnings to, say, a dozen per day, or institute another measure to limit what has been perceived as harassment. If waiting a little bit before informing a contributor of each and every untagged image will improve image retention and rationale quality, then it is a courteous and appropriate measure. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone through pages and tagged images for cleanup; often, you'll get dozens of images by the same person tagged. Typically, what I do to minimize the "damage" is to post one template of each "type", and then list "Also Image:XYZ, Image:PQR, etc" for each subsequent violation. This seems to work well. --Haemo 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A question arises... If I review some editor's log and found some images that need some tagging (no source, no rationale, replaceable, ifd, etc...), what should I do?:

1. Start tagging the images as I see them
2. Tag only the first N.
3. Count how many image needs to be tagged and, if there are more than N, tag none of them.
4. Some other option

I for one, would follow 1. But it seems it's not the best option here. --Abu badali 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just be reasonable, IMO. You don't need to post the same warning dozens of time. Post it once, then just list the violations after it. WP:DTTR applies here I feel -- it's the spamming of talk pages that causes the problem. --Haemo 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it appears people have been using scripts to do this. Perhaps they could modify them so they automatically do this? --Haemo 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends, if the images are obvious copyright violations (free license on unfree images), then you have a responsibility to list them for deletion. If the issue is one of rationale, as appears in this case, then you should consider whether these images were uploaded during the license-tag-only days. Many productive contributors have images in their upload log that they did not add a rationale to, this oversight was not necessarily done in ignorance of policy. I would say that engaging users in a dialog and informing them of a major backlog would be the best way to approach the problem. Then, determine an appropriate timeline for the user to address these concerns based on his/her available time. If a user breaches the timeline, then just tag the images anyway, but I think you'd encounter a much smoother and more productive response by not using a redundant amount of templates. (e/c) ˉˉ╦╩ 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag the images, yes, but don't spam their page with messages; use existing message templates, and just append further violations. I am strongly opposed to the notion that we should restrict tagging images that have copyright problems because the the uploader's talk pages are "too full". However, I am equally opposed to filling a user's page with dozens of cookie-cutter warnings. I think my solution, above, is the best of both worlds. --Haemo 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a secondary concern here: some editors simply don't have the time to create specific, properly-worded rationales to a hundred images in the grace period before deletion. Your approach works well most of the time, others may work better some of the time, the main ideas to keep in mind are flexibility and courtesy. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(partially copied from VO's talk page)

As for the many image-deletion notices, VO uses a tool (which I also use) that automatically notifies the uploader when an image is tagged for deletion. When I see that I have left many notices on a user's talk page, I finish all my tagging, and then I go back and compact the warnings -- simply saying something like "This applies to the following images as well. . ." It seems likely that VO was planning to do this. How would you know without asking him? That's why it was terribly inappropriate for Ryulong to block VO without discussing the matter with him first. – Quadell 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the tool be modified to automatically do this; I know WP:TWINKLE has similar functionality for vandalism warnings. --Haemo 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. But in the mean time, let's not block users for using an imperfect tool. – Quadell 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are responsible for edits they make. The use of javascript does not mitigate this. If a user's tool(s) are causing them to act poorly, they should reconsider whether their use of said tool(s) is appropriate. It is not acceptable to leave several dozen duplicate warning messages. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I use a monobook script, which tags the image and notifies the user with one mouse click. This is unavoidable due to the sheer volume of illegal images and the small number of people attempting to enforce the policy. Today was the first time I've heard of the WP:TEMPLAR essay, but I remember thinking "Man, that's a lot of notices" and wondering if I should remove or consolidate them. I didn't because a) it would take the user about 5 seconds and a couple of mouse clicks to remove the warnings if they didn't want to see them, and b) I figured someone could simply ask me to remove the warnings, or to not leave the warnings, and I would be happy to cooperate. But I'm conservative because I don't want to face baseless accusations, such as Abu badali has, that I'm "sneaking around" trying to delete stuff without notifying uploaders. Better too much notification than too little, unless someone tells me otherwise. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The concern here is about the quality of and basis behind notification, not the quantity. Your actions were completely avoidable and you made a deliberate choice to proceed with a questionable method. Yes, there is a disproportionate amount of image janitors than, say, recent changes patrollers, but this is not an excuse. There is no pressing need or immediate deadline to provide each and every image with a rationale. Tagging dozens of images by the same uploader at once is quick but sloppy. Our goal here is to retain as many images as possible and ascertain their proper use, not to enforce an anal retentive adherence to rampant deletion of every image that requires some attention. Give uploaders, especially established contributors, the opportunity to fulfill these requests by partitioning the bulk of images so they can address rationale concerns in a reasonable amount of time. If you don't, the quality of rationales is compromised or the notified (spammed) users may become stressed out, incensed, or simply apathetic. ˉˉ╦╩ 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: reading the comments below, I see that Videmus Omnia has assumed responsibility and apologized. Hopefully this is now a non-issue. ˉˉ╦╩ 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm still getting hyper-spammed on my talk page by bots and others. I'm just letting things go till the server implodes, personally. 23skidoo 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That could easily be fixed by bringing your uploaded images into compliance. The above statement demonstrates the problem handily - most problem uploaders are making little effort to bring their images into compliance with the policy. Videmus Omnia 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's actions in regard to this block

The drama caused by Ryulong's block included this uncivil remark to a user who originally challenged the block. This shows he does not feel it was inappropriate to tell another user "You stay out of it." Five users commented on Ryulong's talk page, saying that his block of VO was too harsh or not appropriate. Two minutes after the last comment, Ryulong blanked his talk page, cutting off discussion. Anyone can remove comments from their talk page whenever they like, but I think this is inappropriate in light of what's gone on here. I'm an admin too, and I occasionally will find in necessary to block another user -- but I don't do it without prior discussion, I don't snap at users who challenge the wisdom of my block, and I don't try to cut off discussion or remove criticism. I think all of these were inappropriate. – Quadell 05:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking without a warning does concern me. While I do consider the mass of template messages disruptive, I'd hope we could resolve these things by discussion of some sort, before resorting to harsh action. As for Ryulong's behavior on his talk page, I have a strong impression there's a history here that I don't know about? If that's the first time they've spoken with each other, it seems to be a very unusual response. Currently, Videmus is unblocked, and the discussion seems to have moved to this noticeboard; both are probably for the best. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, as an admin, tends to be a little less verbose than most when dealing with discussions and decisions. However, his often curt attitude has never really been a serious problem in my opinion, since he nearly always acknowledges input and learns from other users' comments -- even if he is less than expansive in his response to them, especially when there is prior history in the air. I don't think anything else really need to be said here -- anything that can be learned by those involved here, has been at this point. --Haemo 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been shy to challenge Ryulong when I believe he's gotten it wrong. This isn't one of those occasions in my opinion - I think he had a valid basis to block and was right to dispatch Abu badali promptly from his talkpage. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He blocked a user for a "talk page spamming" (in his opinion) that had stopped half-an-hour ago. Even if we do not discuss about posting obligatory messages being a blockable offense, the block as completely wrong because of the timing. If this was a correct block, it would still be a correct block for any admin to come an block Videmus again today, then another admin to block him tomorrow, and so on, since checking the user's timestamps and talk page is not necessary.

I was also not shy to challenge Ryulong, but his response was terrible. He asked me to "stay out of this" in the first response, and shut down the conversation as "RESOLVED" when he found himself unable to respond specific questions. --Abu badali 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You were completely uninvolved in the issue, and you had no reason to get involved whatsoever. I blocked him, was asked about it, agreed that I'd open up to wider input, but you were harping and saying that "HE DID NOTHING WRONG. THERE'S NO HARASSMENT. UNBLOCK HIM IMMEDIATELY," and I didn't need your input. I saw 500 edits and nearly a megabyte of memory used with those ridiculous consecutive warnings (there was 75k on NeoCoronis' page alone). I archived the discussion because I thought it was over. I unblocked Videmus Omnia, and found the autoblock and removed it. And then there's this waste of server space. I still did not need you involved, Abu dabali, as I am quite sure that you are on thin ice with the community already. There is no reason to be overly dramatic or confrontational about a block that has been undone due to the fact that there was a half hour between Videmus Omnia's last edit and my block.

And Quadell, you should stop encouraging this stalking. No one should feel the need to suddenly go through an administrator's upload log, use some sort of script, tag every image (within policy) for deletion or fixing, and then give the administrator the general warning that "If you don't act now, this image will be deleted in one week." As is described below, Videmus Omnia's actions appear retributive to NeoCoronis, Mike Halterman, and Alkivar, as is the current RFCU set up by Videmus Omnia. In my way first block of Videmus Omnia, and my following interactions with him, I privately discovered his original account which he left under a right to vanish or something like that, and I am sure that if I could remember the account's name, and check that user's actions, we may see that this is not a first time action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've been the victim of a meritless block and incivility by User:Ryulong, as can be seen from my block log. The 17 June incident, where he indef-blocked me with no warning or notification on a baseless accusation of abusive sockpuppetry, and then was grossly incivil on IRC (where I had to go to request unblock), is detailed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Incivility by Ryulong. I thought about pursuing it at the time, but he repeatedly deleted the evidence page I attempted to create, and he had fully protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ryulong. He apologized and I dropped it. But now my block log now shows 4 blocks by Ryulong, all of them unjust. I'm sure Ryulong does good work, but I'm of the opinion he's far too trigger-happy with the "block" button, and needs some serious work on civility and willingness to discuss perceived misuse of his admin tools. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Three blocks are all related to this event, and they were trying to find a block length that was not too long or not too short, and if I could, I would wipe the middle two blocks from that log to reflect my final decision in this matter. The end result is that you are not blocked, but if you persist in activities, you may be blocked in the future, and if I do it, I doubt that there will be an issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you could cite the policy that led to your block? Videmus Omnia 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have no consensus for that interpretation of policy, as has been pointed out to you before. It's no more harassment to go through a problem uploader's logs than it is to go through a spammer or vandal's logs for purposes of cleanup. Videmus Omnia 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is harassment when you post 70k text of messages on the user talk pages of people you just happen to be in a conflict in.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that in WP:HARASS, could you please point it out to me? Videmus Omnia 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is common sense that you don't repeatedly place the same message on the talk pages of other users. That in itself is harassment. You don't need something explicitly stated on that page to say what you did was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet I would have been perfectly willing to desist had someone asked. Was there a reason you didn't ask prior to your 3 blocks? Videmus Omnia 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated in many places, I mistook a message on your talk page for a warning for such activity, and I later discovered that the block had been placed half an hour after you stopped. There are only two real blocks placed by me. The other two were undone and tweaked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this closed then? With the conclusion of a misunderstanding between 2 good fau=ith editors? SqueakBox 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To image taggers...

...(me included – I am by no means perfect) please take into account the feelings of others. If you feel that multiple images uploaded by the same editor ought be deleted, leave said editor a custom message, engage him or her in discussion, but don't leave multiple templated messages, and especially do not leave 50 kB of templated messages. Please. --Iamunknown 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sage advice. – Quadell 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is the consensus, I'm happy to comply. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's view

I don't think the original block was a good idea. Discussion would be a better way to deal with users who are applying policy in ways we may or may not feel is appropriate. However, others above are right that we should move beyond this. Often, when I see a serial image upload problem, I'll make sure that each relevant template gets posted once, then provide the user with a link to his/her upload log, stating that I have processed other issues with those images. I think this strikes a reasonable balance between keeping Misplaced Pages as maintained as possible, and not scaring off contributors who may be valuable outside their misunderstanding of our (admittedly complex) image policy. (ESkog) 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An unaddressed issue

Am I the only one who noticed that that two of the three users that VO checked up on were users that VO had just criticized for being uncivil in unrelated disputes? VO criticizes Alkivar for being uncivil, Alkivar tells VO to "step off," VO checks Alkivar's contribs for images. Mike H describes VO's RFC on Alkivar as "stupid sniping" (which I think was a bit much, but that's neither here nor there), VO demands an apology or retraction, Mike refuses, VO checks Mike's contribs. Both times, VO posts 50+K of warning templates.

The timing is very troubling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to defend myself by saying that I thought the whole affair was stupid (reporting Alkivar, who I've just learned to deal with). VO had just assumed that I called him stupid, and ordering that I apologize. Obviously, since I never called him stupid in the first place, and pretty much in a corner that I must apologize, I did the difficult thing and said no. Then I got all the messages. Sure, they were valid (I'm not going to say they weren't), but the timing on this is very "tit for tat," and I'm really not convinced otherwise. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If true, this is cause for concern. I've drawn Videmus' attention to this thread in the hopes of hearing their version of the story. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I didn't intend any malice. But I can see how that would be perceived. I unreservedly apologize. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll Address It: Systematic attacks (this is no tool problem, folks)

(I was just doing this big writeup, MIB, when you wrote that)

This isn't a tool or script problem and it is serious. I've already made comments about Videmus Omnia's egregious behavior in the last week here, on the Amy/JamesRenner case. The no-warning block was completely justified. He targeted those people intentionally. I'm thinking we are observing someone with some serious issues, or in the middle of some kind of crisis. Evidence.

• Conincidence 1: James Renner

• Punishment for disagreeing. This started out as image-related, and grew to a massive attack four AFDs taking place within a matter of hours. on various fronts. Videmus Omnia is, as we speak, driving a mass deletion a BLP and A COI and a related image deltion concerning a notable journalist (who's also directed a movie based on a short Steven King story). Omnia's main grudge is that the guy contested Omnia's opinion about fair use. The guy is a journalist and he wrote a book about the article topic - and he used the picture in his own book, and he tried to explain that to Omnia. Omnia seized on this information to report him for COI. There was already a BLP talk going on, abut the naming of suspects in a murder case - which is debatable as to who was right - but Renner doesn't know wiki rules, and he got tripped up and even blew his cool after Videmus had 4 different "trials" going on for him at once. He organized this rashly in one day - to a newbie expert (and famous) editor, who couldn't wikilawyer back.

• 1. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic
• 2. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic

::::* 3. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic started by someone else as an outgrowth of 1 and 2

• 4.

::::* 5. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_Renner started by someone else as an outgrowth of 1 and 2

• Conincidence 2: Neocoronis

• Punishment for ignoring him? Neocoronis removed the fair use tag from an image that he had put a fair use tag on. He asked her why she did that, - but she never had a chance to answer because he had commenced with the tagged for deletion of ALL her images within TEN MINUTES. This reminds me of the temper tantrums I've seen grown adults throw. Given that he keeps doing such severe things when people don't answer him, or engage as he wishes, I have the impression that he hates being ignored, and if ignored, he will attack. This has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. It speaks to something else.

• Honestly - right now I'm glad I have no images on WP. He would probably delete them or mark them for deletion

• Coincidence 3: Mike Halterman

• Videmus Omnia had demanded an retraction from Mike Halterman for calling the Alkivar's request for comment against Alkivar 'stupid sniping' because Videmus Omnia felt it implied that HE was stupid (which was completely ridiculous, from my point of view). Within TEN MINUTES, Videmus Omnia was deleting marking hundreds of Mike's images for deletion. Coincidence???

• Coincidence 3: Alkivar

• Made an Request fo comment on Alkivar, and fast-forwarded it to a real RFC.
• Videmus Omnia started out the RFC by asking Abu badali to certify it as the 2nd party (Abu badali had been harassing contacting over and over Alkivar and others). This is WP:CANVASS, as well as inappropriate, given that Abu badali was involved in the initial (trumped up) accusation against Alkivar.
• He is taunting Alkivar by tagging for deletion all his Alkivar's pictures, obviously.
• And he made a bizarre accusation of sockpuppetry (Videmus Omnia requested a checkuser on Alkivar). Oddly enough the 'accused sockpuppet' was accusing Videmus Omnia of being a sock of Abu badali).

'My take: This is a guy with a severe drama addiction, and maybe worse. At the very least he's wasting a lot of time and energy that should be spent on substance. Another weird thing is that once I started calling his behaviors punative, he started saying other people were punative (no I dont have the link, but it was in the past 24 hours). Anything he is accused of, or described as, he describes other people as doing the same - when they aren't. Like accusing Squeakbox of stalking him, for no reason at all - while he is stalking (and harassing) others. I feel like I'm watching someone in a movie.BlueSapphires 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are melodramatic and over-the-top. "serious issues"? "massive attack"? "temper tantrums"? Citing WP:CANVASS for a single message on one person's talk page? "taunting"? "bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry" (when Hidey Ho was blocked by an uninvolved admin for being a sock)? "severe drama addiction, maybe worse"? I'm not saying you're wrong about everything you've said -- I'm saying your thesis is severely blunted by your overreach. – Quadell 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And also undermined by the fact that the BlueSapphires account was created on 29 July 2007. Why hasn't this poster used his or her primary account for this? Durova 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You. You made an WP:AN and RFCU on me, after I pointed out on RFC/Alkivar the above information for context.

2. This may well be my primary account anyways, as I want to detach from the identifying info in my talk page. Assuming you don't get me indef blocked with the aformentioned false accusations.BlueSapphires 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with both of you, it doesn't stop the evidence from being correct. ⇒ SWATJester 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen. BlueSapphires 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's June 29, not July 29. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet if you try to make sense out of it, you will notice that you perfectly can. Perhaps a less-than-over-zealous user would have put it in a better way, so that nothing would have been left to criticize. I am not saying Abu and some others do a bad job with the images, it's the approach which is unhelpful. We need to be careful with our contributors, they are only human and not machines. Do the right-thing the right way. </sermon> — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the attack (I don't know how else to characterize it) on me by User:BlueSapphires strange. In regards to the User:JamesRenner issue, that came to my attention because someone else posted a notice at WP:BLPN, which I watchlist because I frequently deal with BLP issues. I made the WP:COIN report, nominated the article for deletion, and also nominated the poorly-sourced image for deletion. But I had nothing to do with the James Renner article AfD. BlueSapphires seems to running all over accusing me of bad faith wherever he can, I not sure what has occasioned this extreme reaction. But this probably isn't the place to discuss it. Videmus Omnia 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you need to think less about being a victim and more about the problems you've created. Also what it felt like for Mr. Renner, and how Alkivar, and Mike and Noncordis felt when you decided to give them all so much of your time and energy. You've also wasted my time - but I felt as if I couldn't leave Mr. Renner without any help - I'm currently working with someone on rewriting the article, and I'm writing Amy's parents asking for GFDL on what they already gave free use permission to use. Honestly, I wish you'd look at how you contributed to this - and that you'd try not to do it again. What I see from you above is a rationalization of what you did, and no apology at all - which on my talk page, you told me you did. I'm sorry = "I'm sorry" not "I tagged all their images because they were on my mind". What about Mr. Renner? He's a well known person and you put it all over the internet that he was self-promoting here, also conflict of interest, which means something real off-wiki, and can be totally misunderstood. You can hurt a lot of people in this way. And it doesn't help the project.BlueSapphires 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My statement "I unreservedly apologize" in the section immediately above isn't enough? Videmus Omnia 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't see that. It is hard to read mid-section entries. Apologies. BlueSapphires 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a major problem with this whole discussion. Why is the focus on talk page messages when the "victims" have apparently been persistently violating our image policies? I do a lot of work with images. There aren't many of us and there are thousands of images that either shouldn't be here at all or aren't properly tagged, sourced and rationale-ized. We can't keep up with the volume of image problems as it is. If we didn't use scripts, we'd fall even further behind. If we don't leave at least some kind of note for each image, we don't give the uploader an opportunity to fix the problem (which is after all the best case scenario). If we are asked to reformat a user's talk page to summarize all the warning templates, that takes us away from our chosen task of addressing image violations. Why should the volunteers helping to enforce our image policies be made to jump through more hoops? Shouldn't the uploaders of large amounts of problem images expect large amounts of warning templates? Would it help to make the warning templates themselves apologetic, or would that detract from their import? Is anybody still reading? -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

what to do?

Usually in resolving disputes, the question is to how to make a discussion come to a clear consensus. In this case, surrounding the Boerboel dog breed article, I am at a complete loss. Both User:Frikkers and User:Sabt have not made a single talk comment anywhere, and Frikkers has already been blocked once for violation of the 3RR. Now both of them have been warned continously, and I have even begged them to please make some reason, any reason, for their reversions known on the article's talk page. Zero response. Is this persistant refusal to commit to Misplaced Pages's process of consensus-building now mean that their edits are considered vandalism? I'm at my wits end here, and I'm also beginning to think Frikkers at least may not speak English (the article concerns what is largely only a South African dog breed). VanTucky 05:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that VanTucky has tried to discuss this with both users, both on their talk pages and on the article's talk page. Both have indeed been unresponsive. Changes seem to involve links to breeding clubs, and which picture should be in the infobox. – Quadell 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's basically correct for the changes. I also want to point out that User:Pharaoh Hound, who is pretty heavily involved in dog breed articles, has expressed concern over Frikkers behavior and edits on my talk page. VanTucky 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the links are in the histories? If both editors were indef blocked for edit warring, on the basis that any block would be lifted (temporarily at first) to give them the opportunity to discuss their preferred changes on the talkpage, would this help the article. Any block would be without prejudice to their future contributions should they agree to use the consensus system of editing. I would be available to apply the blocks on that basis, once final warnings were issued. Best get the agreement of other editors first, though! LessHeard vanU 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Connell66

Connell66 is out of control. Firstly, he keeps spreading WikiLove, to the point where he doesn't contribute much else. Secondly, he seems to lack the understanding of the concept of an online encyclopedia, thinking it's a blog. Why, ust look at his userboxes! And finally, he keeps changing the summary of The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time when it is perfectly fine. Get rid of this worthless user, for he leaves a truly disgusting taste in my mouth!!! MasterSuspicion 06:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC):

... HalfShadow 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that having a majority of your contributions as "Welcome" templates and edits to your userspace is probably not the world's greatest use of an editor's time, he does have hundreds of contributions, and I'm not convinced that "loving too much" is a reason to block an editor. --Haemo 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, referring to another user as 'worthless' is bordering on an attack. That's bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain how useful WikiLove smiles are, but edits like this one from User:The Master of Suspicion are clearly inappropriate.Proabivouac 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Followed up with even better. Er, what's going on, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. Refer to WP:ANI#I was attacked, I think. I need a question answered. --Kurykh 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

I've run into a strange issue with Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) on the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. He's insisting that the JVP and LTTE must be described as "the terrorist JVP" and "the terrorist LTTE", citing WP:NPOV, of all things, as his justification! I've pointed out at length on the talk page that his insertions violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter, to no avail; his responses have invariably been rude and extremely hostile. I'd appreciate it if others could weigh in here, as he seems adamant. The current discussion is at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Policy and sources. Jayjg 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is totally misrepresenting the content issue there. His stance on that article has been the most extraordinarily ridiculous thing that I've seen in some time. He is insisting that every single citation in the article should have the article's title in it s content. LTTE has been officially proscribed as terrorist in about half the globe. Every political analyst and even every author cited on that very article unanimously agree that LTTE is a terrorist group. It is hardly NPOV not to tell people where an opinion is coming from. You cant pass off LTTE's opinions about the SL govt., as if it was from an uninvolved, neutral, third party!! Jayjg's behaviour has been appalling and unbecoming of an admin. And this complaint by totally misrepresenting others' stances is in bad faith. Snowlfd4 is an established editor who's been here for a long time and this complaint by Jayjg is just an attempt to throw his weight around and browbeat him. Sarvagnya 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We may not use the adjective 'terrorist' unless it is inside a cited direct quotation. Otherwise, it would be as if WP itself is passing judgment. Crum375 07:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. That LTTE is a terrorist organisation is beyond question. I can give you a zillion citations for that. Infact, that is what snowolf had done before Jayjg vandalised it. Snowolf had given a citation which DIRECTLY stated that LTTE was a terrorist organisation. Infact, almost every single source about the subject and on that article says so. IN ANY CASE that is NOT the point of contention at all!! The question on that article is hardly about how to characterise the LTTE. Its about the characterisation of the Sri Lankan govt., by the LTTE and others. See that talk page of that article for details. Sarvagnya 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The only way you can use the word 'terrorist' in Misplaced Pages is inside a cited quotation. It may not appear outside a quotation, except perhaps in an article about terrorism. It doesn't matter who calls whom terrorist, and how many sources agree with it. Crum375 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As qualification, see Abu Nidal as to how WP can use the word 'terrorist' when making a statement that someone is 'widely regarded' as such by the mainstream press, with a number of reliable neutral mainstream sources making that case. IOW, we can say "X is widely regarded as a dangerous international terrorist." But we can't say, "X, the international terrorist, was captured by police yesterday." In the latter example it would be WP making the conclusion, not just saying he's widely regarded as such. Crum375 15:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hello. That LTTE is a terrorist organisation is beyond question. I can give you a zillion citations for that. Infact, that is what snowolf had done before Jayjg vandalised it." This is false accusation. 33 Countries has proscribed LTTE as terrorist. However, that's less than 33% of the world. We cannot just go around and say these types of sentence in wikipedia... Watchdogb 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagyna, please once again refrain from Personal attacking jaygj.

If organization XYZ is labeled as a terrorist organization, we attribute that opinion to the sources that hold these. But we do not use "the terrorist group XYZ" in our texts, and that is declaring on opinion (evenly if widely held) as a fact, in violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipiedia articles are not editorials or soapboxes in which opinions are wielded as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:T. Anthony admitted massive vandalism

If you go through the contributions of T. Anthony (talk · contribs) you will see that he or she has admitted many times to vandalizing Misplaced Pages with jokes and nonsense and silliness. I have been going through some of it and have placed db Speedy Deletion tags on several articles where both he was the sole writer and he has admitted putting nonsense into them. Example: Tinatin Mgvdliashvili. I have removed wholesale groups of edits he has made to articles where he has admitted vandalism. Example: Ferenc Cako. I would appreciate some intense scrutiny of all his edits, not just by Admins, but by any interested editor, and any other action the Admins deem appropriate. Hu 06:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Those requests for speedy delete were done in bad faith, and I'm going to request that they be removed. T. Anthony is a superb article creator (and though I don't approve of his "jokes," which I believe are POINT-y attempts to see if anyone notices vandalism in obscure articles; he ultimately removes the jokes after a few days), these are all legit, notable BIOs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

These requests were done in good faith. I limited them to articles where he was the only contributor and where he also additionally admitted vandalizing the article in question. Thus those particular articles are clearly suspect. Several of them are biographies of living people. Whatever his motivations for serial vandalism, it is a serious problem, and should be taken seriously, especially biographies of living people, which currently has a high profile within and without the Misplaced Pages community, resulting in large scale deletions. Hu 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And you (Fat Man) better get a bit more explicit about which ones. I db'd one myself, since it seemed clear that almost all his edits were pure vandalism. I said in the db summary that the subject was real, but not likely notable; certainly I did this in good faith, but I can't AGF about him, given his recent contribs. If there's evidence that he's creating some of these articles in good faith, let's have it. Dicklyon 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his vandalism, I just don't think speedy deleting his articles is the proper response. I believe we have to separate his questionable behavior from what are clearly legitimate, sourced contributions. The guy's created hundreds and hundreds of clearly notable (but obscure) bios over the years. Should we delete all of them?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am explicitly requesting careful scrutiny of his edits. I have not asked for wholesale deletion, so please do not put that up as a straw man argument, Mr. Fat Man. I was quite clear, twice that I was very selective on what I had nominated for speedy deletion, and my edit summaries on them are also clear. Further, I drew attention to the whole thing here in order to achieve the separation that you claim to want. When you reverted my edit to Ferenc Cako, you left in a bunch of unsourced stuff that we should be very skeptical about, such as purported advocacy of vegetarianism and Esperanto. Those two bits, as an example, are not unusual in and of themselves, but considering that the article is a biography of a living person and given how sensitive Misplaced Pages is about such biographies, it is better to err on the side of deleting all edits by T. Anthony whenever they contain questionable edits. Hu 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I put "hangon" tags on the bios that actually asseted notability and had reliable sources. Some of the others (that just had one link to a checkers website, or something) I left alone. I would request that you let T. Anthony remove all his vandalism before you block him; he appears contrite, and I think he was a good very editor in his day, much better than myself. That has to count for something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right about Ferenc Cako, I reverted to the wrong version, and I apologzied for the mistake. Sorry for the inconvenience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In going through candidates for speedy deletion, I just reviewed the Tinatin Mgvdliashvili article, which should be speedied. On the talk page the author admits it is fiction; the first source cited: Gutenberg's Georgian poetry is (not surprisingly) about the Georgian peoriod of English poetry and has nothing to do with the country of Georgia in the former USSR. Creating realistic articles intentionally to hoax seems way off the norms of acceptable behavior. Nor should this article be retained given the admission of a hoax. Carlossuarez46 07:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the articles are garbage. I placed "hangon" tags only on the ones that appeared legit.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I went through Hu's taggings, I think I've got them all done, most were deleted as pure hoaxes, a few were left at Hu's reversions which I think took out the junk, I untagged one, and re-tagged the Ferenc guy; he's just not notable even if he's real, but I'll let some other admin decide on that because it wasn't tagged when I came upon it and it wasn't a pure fabrication. If there's some I missed let me know. Carlossuarez46 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Carlos. Just curious: why exactly was Noble "Thin Man" Watts deleted? I thought he had an All Music Guide entry and an Orlando Sentinel obit. I can't verify this now, b/c the links have been deleted with the article. Was it because it had too much false info to be salvageable?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dicklyon and Carlossuarez46. With regard to Thin Man Watts, notable people will get proper articles sooner or later, Fat Man. The emphasis needs to be on "proper articles". Hu 08:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you in principle here, Hu (about the "eventualism" argument, not about whether the Thin Man article was full of nonsesnse). One of the reasons I had so much respect for T. Anthony as an editor (before the ill-advised latter stage of his editing career) is that he would create articles about all these great, notable but extremely obscure jazz musicians that nobody would ever take the time to write about. IMO, without him, it would be a very long time indeed before the likes of Watts were included in Misplaced Pages.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to this one is resolved! User:T. Anthony has left the project; I have blocked him in case he changes his mind. Thanks to User:Hu for uncovering the vandalism (not easy) and tagging and reverting it; thanks to TFMWNCB for salvaging what could be (and Noble Watts had such implausible stuff as being managed by world boxing champions, etc., to sort out what was real from what wasn't). Carlossuarez46 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. T. Anthony is an interesting guy; I have been friendly with him in the past, and it's interesting that you mention the prospect of him "changing his mind" and returning as an editor. I would conservatively estimate that this editor has claimed he is "leaving Misplaced Pages" no less than 25 discrete times, only to return each time. He would do well to read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. When (not if) he returns, I hope he behaves himself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was attacked, I think

He left the message following on my talk page:

You'll be blocked soon, you waste of skin! Seriously, all you did was welcome newbies and smile all the fucking time! I got sick of it! MasterSuspicion 06:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Connell66 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And then he left another:YOU MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE! THE WAY YOU ACT, YOU FAG! MasterSuspicion 07:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's trolling. Ignore it. Oh yeah, a report involving you is just a few threads above. --Kurykh 07:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats more than trolling; its personal attack. Send him a warning/some warnings, and if he keeps it up, maybe report to AIV -- Anonymous Dissident 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about User:Connell66? Who are you complaining about? Could you please link the attacks, looking at User_talk:Connell66 he seems to do more smiling than editing. The frustration of the abusing editor is probably understandable. --Hayden5650 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Connell66 is talking about this comment by User:The Master of Suspicion. shotwell 07:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for trolling at my doorstep. Comments welcome. --Kurykh 07:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at a bunch of Connell66's edits. In my honest opinion, it's a waste of an account. Not a single real edit at all. I'd say it's just another form of trolling. Ive also looked at some talk about him. He is smiling at people whom he doesn't know or edit with and I think that User:The Master of Suspicion's frustrations are understandable. --Hayden5650 07:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

However Kurykh I think you are right to block him after those edits!! --Hayden5650 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. i endorse this block Kurykh, wholeheartedly. -- Anonymous Dissident 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Now can someone explain to me why Connell66 is caught in The Master of Suspicion's autoblock? --Kurykh 07:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, a sockpuppet has bent over and given himself a jolly good rodgering I'd say --Hayden5650 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Being serious, probably shared network at a school --Hayden5650 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that User:The Master of Suspicion started trolling Conell66 almost immediately after account creation, I think it's the same person trying to attract attention. Note that Connell66 was caught in an autoblock on the same ip earlier..shotwell 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest a Checkuser. I notice they both have usernames which are split links, maybe Master of Suspicion was a throwaway account, that Connell66 thought he could get banned, giving himself a boost in credibility. What do others think? --Hayden5650 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead with it. --Kurykh 07:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this user has had this problem (same IP.)Proabivouac 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound paranoid, but don't trolls usually inundate their talk page with unblock requests? Or am I overgeneralizing? --Kurykh 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an obvious case. Take a look at the last accounts blocked from that ip: User:Below the bridge, User:Underneath the bridge. This person is just wasting our time. shotwell 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef block new disruptive socks.Proabivouac 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a WP:RCU at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Connell66 , it's the first time I've listed one, if it's wrong feel free to change it --Hayden5650 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We already know these will be confirmed, along with User:Below the bridge/User:Underneath the bridge.Proabivouac 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've confirmed these. --jpgordon 16:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

His last edit to his talk page sort of show Connell's true colors . Can someone just block him without having a host of editors wasting their time on him?--Atlan (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. --jpgordon 17:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of a valid block for personal attacks. Whoever says that blocks for personal attacks are never valid is just plain incorrect. Until(1 == 2) 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:BhaiSaab editing

Please see and , it is unfortunate that this banned editor is being allowed to influence the project. Arrow740 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV: MKPluto's image uploads

Moving this from WP:AIV to allow for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• MKPluto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At his user page, claimed that all uploaded photos were taken by himself. But they're copyrighted materials or pictures that have been going round the net. This is still going on after warnings. Suredeath 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I have great respect and appreciation for our photo contributors, but we must protect the rights of the original creators, whether that is indeed MKPluto or not. It catches my attention that most or all of these images seem to be of low resolution -- in particular, about the size you'd probably find on assorted websites and news items. In the case of Image:Prem.JPG in particular, we have two users both claiming to have taken the photo, MKPluto and FlamingSpear (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ok, I think even if he doesn't violated copyrighting materials, MKPluto could be sockpuppet of Flaming Spear. MKPluto appeared right when Flaming Spear disappeared. Both have very similar style of righting, actually it's almost identical. And both uploaded disputed images.

Suredeath 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"This photograph is public domain== I am a professional photographer. I took this photograph on a trip to the North. I believe in releasing as many of my photogr...' - FlamingSpear (talk · contribs)

"Created page with '==This photograph is public domain - I took it myself!== I took this photograph myself and released it to the public domain. It might have been used by others in v...' -MKPluto (talk · contribs)

• What can I do to clear my name? I did take the photographs I claimed to take. I don't think I've ever seen people who self-contribute photographs get challenged to produce concrete evidence for the body of their contributions, as I have been challenged. The reason most of my contributions are in low resolution is because for a given image quality, it's much easier to scan in low resolution than in high resolution. Also, a lot of the images I uploaded are older images, some of them taken well over a decade ago. Since I didn't see a lot of commercial value in some of those photos), I didn't take very good care of them. It wouldn't look nice to scan a degraded photograph at high resolution. MKPluto 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but there are several accounts including User:CenturyRain who uploaded the same disputed images --Manop - TH 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Flaming Spear and MKPluto are the same individual; see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/CenturyRain for two more sockpuppets.Proabivouac 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary, but reported at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/FlamingSpear.Proabivouac 07:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think all the images MKPluto and his puppets have uploaded have to be speedily deleted. I have seen a number of them going round and round on the web, most particularly on Pantip.com boards. A few are still not tagged yet, like this one, Image:ProtestPrem'sHouse.jpg. Suredeath 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

mass changes, England --UK

Davis 11 (talk · contribs) has just made a plethora of change, removing references to England, or making them refer to "England, United Kingdom", as celebrities' place of birth. Previous consensus has usually been that "England" is sufficient, Is that something an admin could roll back, please? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, it's not like Arnold is from 'Austria, Europe' or Jackie Chan is from 'China, The Orient.' --Hayden5650 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will third that. A place in England/Scotland/Wales/NI is generally referred to as being in England/Scotland/Wales/NI and adding UK is redundant. 'Birmingham, England, UK, Europe' ? -- roundhouse0 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, looking at edits as far back as early June, I wonder if that isn't becoming a single-use account. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion in this matter, other than to note that the usage actually seems to be under discussion. See Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (settlements) (the world-wide discussion) and Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#UK.2C_England.2C_Scotland... for this particular issue. Dina 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are a lot of changes, but some of them are useful, so it's not as simple as a mass rollback. I've reverted several, but more eyes are needed. Martinp23 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion worth mentioning on the stylistic question, but it would probably have been good form to attempt to communicate with this user if people are going to mass revert his good faith edits. CIreland 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the Cornwall wikiproject, which agreed to use "England, United Kingdom" to satisfy both nationalistic viewpoints, I understood it to be agreed that the individual member country names were the preferred point of reference. LessHeard vanU 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be hashed out elsewhere. I would suggest following the dispute resolution process, perhaps starting with a Request for Comment. I'll also note that there has been no attempt to actually discuss the issue with the editor. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 socks...

A sock of banned User:DavidYork71 has appeared showing all the usually tenancies of the user. Ie, User:Fubar2000 has essentially admitted he is a sock on his talk page. I'm just letting the admins know I will keep reverting his edits beyond 3rr if need be, per WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:IAR, and WP:BAN. Or, if other admins just want to block the sock, please do so. Please ask me for more info if need be, but it gets tiring reintroducing this loooooooong-standing sock puppet case. I've filed a request for check user, but i think that is a bit redundant when it is obvious like now. thanks in advance for any assistance --Merbabu 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page, and blocked the account after reading his talk page. Neil ╦ 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I haven't been wrong yet with picking this guy's socks (although I'm sure I've missed some). But it's hard to convince others sometimes. Yes, his talk page is essentially an admission. --Merbabu 11:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia

User: Videmus Omnia has targeted every image that I have ever uploaded and targeted them for deletion..the amount of images was staggering..and if I spent all day today trying to fix them I still couldn't get them done. I feel he has targeted me becuase I removed a no fair use tag from one of my images (which was editted to be fair use) becuase after that my talk page was suddenly flooded with deletion warnings for all of my pics all filed by this one user who has yet to tell me why. NeoCoronis 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have more than a day. You have a week, and if you can't manage in that time, you could ask nicely to be given more time, rather than reverting. If an image has no fair use rationale, and someone tags it as having no fair use rationale, don't remove the tag; start adding the rationale for as many as you can. ElinorD (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"...the amount of images was staggering..." - If you plan to upload an staggering amount of non-free images, make sure you have valid reason to do so, and write this reason as part of the rationale as you upload the image.

For those which you believe there's no (longer a) valid reason to use, just tag them with {{db-author}}, and some admin will take care of it. --Abu badali 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed elsewhere, on this page I believe. ⇒ SWATJester 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Videmus Omnia. NeoCoronis: take the time you need, feel free to ask Videmus, Abu, or myself for help with providing rationales. If any of these images gets deleted before you have the chance to add a rationale, explain the situation and it will be undeleted. ˉˉ╦╩ 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation by an administrator

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.

We're done here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN3

User:Hu12 reported by User:Sunray (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Straw-bale construction (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hu12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 2007-07-28T18:26:28
• 2nd revert: 2007-07-28T18:35:30
• 3rd revert: 2007-07-28T18:59:06
• 4th revert: 2007-07-28T19:38:11

• This is an attempt by me to organize a poll. I request that those responding keep their vote separate from the discussion (i.e., vote in one section and discuss in another). After the discussion begins to get going in the "Poll" section, I simply remove the discussion to a discussion section, above. He ignores my explanation and reverts. I continue to try to explain he continues to revert, with malice (e.g., ordering me: "DO NOT REMOVE other people's cmments!" (which I didn't) and to "CEASE refactoring other peoples commentss"). In the process, the poll is completely disrupted. Sunray 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm...just a FYI...Hu12's an sysop, so blocking him would be fruitless...because he could simply unblock himself. Nat Tang 09:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

→ I think this was done to make a WP:POINT and Very likley a personal attack

→ See also: Talk:Straw-bale_construction

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction

→ See also: Talk:Straw-bale_construction#External_link_proposal

→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#http:.2F.2Fspam.naturalhomes.org

Revisions to remove simple and obvious vandalism do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to WP:3RR. Under Discussion page vandalism Where "An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place". this was not at all the case with User:Sunray edits. User:Sunray was intentionaly moving discussions away from their intended place (see below for diffs), and in doing so is considered vandalism. Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies WP:EL and WP:RS), which is opposite of User:Sunray's position) this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --Hu12 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation by User:Sunray on Talk:Straw-bale construction (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• 1st revert: 23:08, 28 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:35, 29 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 July 2007
• 4th revert: 02:18, 29 July 2007

Being active in the discussion portion of the page, and being the one reverting the vandalism, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to make the block. Obviously this was prompted by the filing of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction. It is worth noting that User:Sunray has been blocked in the past for making personal attacks. Thank you--Hu12 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It appears as if both the involved parties have violated three-revert rule on the above-named page, and deserve to get blocked for it. But one of the involved party is an administrator, I invite community review. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to start by saying that Nat.tang's comment "Hu12's an sysop, so blocking him would be fruitless...because he could simply unblock himself" seems to not make sense, unblocking yourself is the fastest way not to be a sysop anymore. Take into consideration what one would normally consider in a 3RR violation and make a decision. I say treat this like any other 3RR. I don't remember reading anywhere that 3RR does not apply to admins. Until(1 == 2) 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that Hu terms the other party's edits as vandalism, when they might have been disruption, without even considering whether he made a mistake there. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty seeing how they are vandalism. They appear to be an attempt to refactor talkpage discussions. It may not be an appropriate refactoring of the talkpage, but I don't see how one can presume it wasn't done in good faith. No comments were being deleted or changed, they were just moved to other section (where it was believed they belonged). Looks like a 3RR violation by both parties to me. WjBscribe 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sysops are as bound by 3RR as anyone else (as are Arbitrators with ABCO for that matter), if the admin reviewing the situation would block were the user not an admin, they should block. WjBscribe 15:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the talk page for two days and referred the participants to WP:DR, asking Hu12 to refrain from using sysop powers to edit that talk page while protection is in place. This action is intended to cool down the dispute and direct it toward productive channels, and is taken without prejudice as to the merits of the WP:3RR claims. Please note: I don't believe that sysops are immune from blocking under the three revert rule; I was also Hu12's nominator at RFA. Durova 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. Sysop blocks make baby Jesus cry. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, 3RR applies to everyone including sysops. I was very aware of 3RR when reverting, however, understanding that commenting is widely accepted among editors as common practice such as in WP:RFA, WP:AFD, ect., the intentionaly moving of discussions away from their intended place appeared to be vandalism. This was raised on the talk page, but the unecessary "refactoring" continued. Please remember that revisions done in order to deal with simple and obvious vandalism, as explained above, does not violate the Three-revert rule. Being active in the discussion portion of the talkpage in question, I hardly felt it appropriate to 3RRblock a user I was engaged in with discussion, rather first seek assistance Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction. 3RR was raised in that discussion, and promply after Sunray response, he filed This 3RR report. I believe to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT and highly probable an indrect personal attack which the record shows, this individual has a history violating. That being said, and am pleased comply in any way deemed appropriate by my felow editors. --Hu12 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In general it's a good idea to open the situation for broader input before carrying things to the point where a 3RR argument could even be made. Suggest you initiate a WP:AN thread yourself at an earlier stage of future disagreements (if you think it's primarily about policy), or try article content WP:RFC or WP:3O (if content issues are a significant factor). Durova 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit series, it looks like HU12 reverted with an explanation and Sunray dug his heels in, making a good faith edit into a disruptive revert situation. Hu12 probably should've done what is usually said about these things, and found an uninvolved admin to back him up, but really, when the other editor's interested in being disruptive, how much backup do you need? Sunray's edit was made boldly, reverted for cause, and sunray just keeps trying to get his way. I agree with Hu12; Sunray's refactoring disrupted the discussion. ThuranX 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that HU12's initial revert was itself making a WP:POINT and that Sunray's initial move was not a revert within my reading of the definition. So, by my count HU12 has violated the three-revert rule and Sunray hasn't. --Peter cohen 19:10, 29 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.

User Taharqa making personal attacks

The user Taharqa made these attacks while he is blocked : "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up" and other racial slurs. I don't know how I'm supposed to respond, but I know it would inflame the situation so I didn't. He also edited an article twice during this block. Egyegy 17:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the same person and good advice to not respond. I won't block the IP though; Taharqa's block has since expired. —Crazytales  22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tworth

Tworth (contrib.) started to vandalize this page: Rorschach inkblot test. He also started a edit war...... He wants remove the original Rorschach's image and displaying another inkblot... Can someone monitor this user and block him for a while (if necessary)!? or protect the page, i dunno... Thank you. bye:)--DrugoNOT 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user will not leave talkpage

During a discussion with another user, a anonymous IP (84.198.166.35 (talk · contribs))showed up (claiming to be "lurking" for some time) with no previous edits. So far all edits are comments on my talkpage where he/she is on some attempt to harras me. I remove the comments, but (s)he keeps adding them. I myself think its the same user, given the history, as the one I was discussing with, but have no way to be sure. If possible I would like this user to be blocked from my talkpage, or at least be forced to stop. Thanks.Rex 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

24h. Since it is an IP address with no contributions outside this user's talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this edit was meant in anyway to harass Rex. Kingjeff 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive disruption

There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano ( his pictures where he states they are "made from his trip to Republic of Serbian Krajina in 2005" and are used in edits of other accounts are more than obvious). The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania, Benkovac and LAz17. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, LAz17 and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. I have already posted a similar post to this at User talk:DarkFalls thinking he is an admin. There is also an explanation for the nonsenical category this user is constantly creating despite it being deleted two times already. Can someone please help? --No.13 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are facing sock-puppets, you should take the issue to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser.

On the issue itself: You seem to be pushing yet another occupation theory; how your virgin country was occupied/raped by Slavs/Huns/Commies/whatever. All may not agree with your views. Some may in fact see your POV-pushing as hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can this happen. We have article such as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence which extensively speak about this. We also have articles such as Milan Babić and Milan Martić which speak about the leaders of this illegal political entity and confirm the fact they were indicted and convicted of joint criminal enterprise. This state is was neither recognized nor accepted by anyone, not even Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who were their main sponsors. I suggest you read up on this matter before you draw your conclusions and start throwing accusation. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to Petri Krohn, a known weaver of alternative histories, when he's merely saying weird things. He's much more dangerous when he's meddling: Digwuren 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to Petri Krohn and he suggested that I should post a complant here. I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to relevant websites (eg: Strmica). Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without giving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism. I suggest you search No.13 history. Another example Benkovac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If I deleted some images that was not done on purpose, I was merely reverting edits by a edit warrior. The link for Strmica is no a relevant website, it's a personal website and cannot be used in the way it is at the moment, it's not even in english. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your history again today and you went to the Dubrovnik page and deleted a image. Be careful !!!

Multpile IPs attacking a variety of pages

Multiple IP addresses are attacking GameTZ.com related pages, including the AFD, the logo image and the talk pages of various parties who have argued to keep. There's a related SSP page. Could an admin take a look at this? I'm having a hard time keeping pace with the vandalism. Thanks. -Chunky Rice 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like OwenX has the situation under control. -Chunky Rice 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth copy-vio

Image:DaltonNY.jpg appears to be a copy-vio from Google Earth (no doubt there's a better place to report this, but I couldn't find it). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous spammer on Sarbanes-Oxley Act

An anonymous spammer keeps reinserting links to a discussion forum and to an advertisement page on a commercial website in violation of WP:EL. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN problems as well. THF 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1.on

I have requested that Dmcdevit take a look and see if these accounts are indeed the same person. User:El arco iris, User:UnionPride and User:SuperVideoGameKid have all been adding the same perjoritive and defamitory text to the article with edit summeries like "(Just tidying things up a bit.)" "(Made grammar and spelling edits, as per request from Sir William Tuttleworth III.)" and "Reverted vandalism.)" The re-addition is exactly the same material by each of these "editors". Any ideas how to proceed further? I thank you all in advance. Hamster Sandwich 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked and it is exactly the same text (OR, unreferenced and BLP violating) being added under various pretext's. I will block the three named users for team-tagging reverting for 48hours each. Other admins are welcome to review/vary/unblock as desired. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism has more far-reaching consequences than just Misplaced Pages...

I know it's been a while since we discussed the penis vandal and his main page disruption, but today I discovered this interesting tidbit of how penis/shock image vandalism seems to have more far-reaching consequences than on here itself... see here for more info. As it were, Libyan Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded some penis images - which got deleted, thankfully.

We'd better watch out over the next few days for penis vandals... they seem to be back again. Looks like more new images need to be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list... --SunStar Net 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I never considered that the vandal could be the victim too, how sad. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! What the hell, never seen anything like that before. I don't think it would help to add to the bad image list; they can just change the filename for a trivial workaround. —Crazytales  22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This truly deserves a Signpost mention. – Quadell 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone delete the entire history/logs of File:Skynight.jpg, the logs contain the email address of (a probably) unsuspecting person. Someone could call it courtesy blanking, but I cannot or don't know how to do it. Just a request. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• We can't delete logs. Prodego 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been talk of allowing those with oversight privileges to delete log entries. Carlos, you might want to bring it up on oversight-l by following the instructions at WP:RFO. —Crazytales  00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They can't do it though, they do not have the capability. Currently the software does not allow it, short of involving a developer. Prodego 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that bureaucrats could, but oh well. Only admins can see the person's email address so the risk should be low. I was just trying to help. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in the upload edit summary, so anyone can see it, really. WODUP 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

An anonymous user vandalized my user page here: I warned this user on their discussion page User_talk:212.159.79.225. I request that this user be blocked.--Fahrenheit451 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blocking requests should be sent to WP:AIV, as they are typically handled faster there. However, blocks are generally not handed out for such sparse vandalism, only after multiple acts of vandalism after being warned he might be blocked. Further, you may be interested in WP:WARNING, a standardized list of warning templates to place on vandals' talk pages. Someguy1221 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

bureaucrat’s help needed

I am Polarlys, admin on de.wp and Commons. There is a serious problem which can’t be solved on a public talk page. I am not familiar with en.wikipedia.org and I didn’t find a bureaucrat who is active right now. Unfortunately I also have no IRC access. So please hand over this request to an active bureaucrat who would please contact me via the mail form as soon as possible. Thank you. --Polarlys 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this related to OsamaKBOT (talk · contribs)? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It’s about identity theft. --Polarlys 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okey. Never mind then.  ;) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Account identity theft or true identity theft? Prodego 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bureaucrat. Not sure exactly what I can do to help with identity theft... --Deskana (banana) 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mail for you. :-) --Polarlys 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess: Accounts with the same name, one of which can be renamed. Only a guess though, and forced renames are not permitted, so... m:SUL will fix this. Prodego 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s really serious, please don’t guess. --Polarlys 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What does one have to do with the other? Guessing is most fun when the subject matter is serious, anyway. Who cares about guessing about boring, uninteresting matters? Guess how many fingers I'm holding up right now ... Cyde Weys 23:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

42. :P Anyway I am guessing because Deskana asked what a bureaucrat could do, and whatever it is will be logged, so if anyone really wanted to know, they could find out. Prodego 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:WestparkBot

WestparkBot (talk · contribs) has issued a spam warning on a user's talk page – This supposed "bot" does not have a bot flag and has never been approved by the BAG. Request use of emergency shutdown until the bot operator can explain. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true. It left a warning on my talk page. Apparently the operator doesn't know that bots must be registered. Wikidudeman 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and shut down the bot pending clarification/explanation.--Kubigula (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we know this is a bot? This may be an abusive sockpuppet used to give users false warnings. Cheers, Lights 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case it should be blocked anyhow; the username is misleading. It wasn't running rampant, this is true; it only made two edits. But neither had a cause, and if there was a real user behind the console, he did not explain the edits or reply to talk page messages. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This does look extremely suspicious. The 2 edit sumamries it used in the warnings are not the same. Also, it appears to have "warned" 2 users in good standing, James086, an admin and Wikidudeman. It did not do any reverts in mainspace or specify articles in the warnings. Finally, the operator has no edits outside of his and his bot's userspace. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the bot's operator, Westpark92 (talk · contribs), just joined today. I smell a sock. Blueboy96 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MoritzB

I think this edit while appearing to be in good faith are done more to cause offense.diff

Muntuwandi 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the source is accurate, there is nothing wrong with the edit other than it's placement in that article, granting it undo weight. Notable viewpoints (if it can be asserted as such) can be discussed on Misplaced Pages even if offensive to some people. However, a single questionable edit does not belong on this noticeboard. See if you can hash it out with the editor, if he objects to the revert. Someguy1221 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User avoiding indef block

User:Thebiggestwwefan was blocked on 27th July, he has re-registered as User:Darius123 and is continuing to post almost exculsively on talk pages asking forum-like questions. And has now decided to begin posting on my talk page again making baseless threats. He admits he has been banned and re-registered. I am not sure what needs to be done, I always understood that evading a block was enough for another block. I have alerted the original admin who blocked him and he has said he will keep an eye on him. I would rather not have to get involved with this user again. Darrenhusted 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've stretched WP:AGF to the limit and given Darius123 a last warning to actually improve the encyclopedia. I probably should have blocked him straight away, but I thought I'd give him a chance. ELIMINATORJR 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He's past AGFing inmy opinion; I've blocked. —Crazytales  22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Marked as resolved. ELIMINATORJR 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help with this user. Darrenhusted 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'd also like to ask for admin review of my actions, since I"m a new admin. —Crazytales  22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a chance as he didn't seem to understand the difference between editing talk pages and articles, but it's fairly obvious that he wasn't here to improve the encyclopedia. He's requesting unblock now, btw, so we'll let an uninvolved admin review that. ELIMINATORJR 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin declined his unblock request --Stephen 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of KensingtonBlonde

I have been mulling over this ever since I saw the account show up at the English Misplaced Pages, and I am tired of sitting idly by. KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet being used to evade a block placed on EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was discovered through checkuser to be behind the various Ichträgtkeineschuhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassing sockpuppets that were also used to harass me via e-mail which led to the Block e-mail function added to block options.

I am not randomly accusing KensingtonBlonde. In one of the various cross-wiki harassments that led to me seeking a checkuser at meta, Lar had discovered meta:KensingtonBlonde (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:KensingtonBlonde was discovered and revealed to be created and editted from the same IP (not the one listed) at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#Ichhabevielesocken@meta as well as socks listed at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#FortHuntington/QuackyQuackDuck @ enwikiversity, and at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ichträgtkeineschuhe.

In private checkusers performed on KensingtonBlonde's account at the English Misplaced Pages it was discovered that he was solely editting through open proxies after both of his primary IPs that he had used to harass me were checkuser blocked.

As I said, I am not randomly targetting this user. I have had strong and damning evidence against this user being a sockpuppet, and I cannot sit idly by while he builds up good hand edits under this account as he did with EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) and then create several dozen harassing sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the CU requests. They do have some editing patterns in common -- interest in Mario Bros, Misplaced Pages-space contributions for both are centered on RfA participation and Wikiquette alerts, use of VandalProof. Their first two edits made sure to bluelink both their user and user talk pages (this is obviously the first edit of someone with experience). Compare, if you will, between KensingtonBlonde's current userpage and this oldid from EnglishEfternamn. There's enough in common between those two that I don't feel a particular need to look much deeper. This seems a probable match, I'm afraid. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first accusation I've heard of this. Wasn't there a CU that came up inconclusive? ⇒ SWATJester

One of the first checkusers on the first harassing accounts showed EnglishEfternamn. Subsequent checkusers not at en showed that KensingtonBlonde was registered on the same IP. There was also the same system showing up for the old accounts and this one in a recent checkuser I requested prior to my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see further evidence in the form of mutual quirks in writing style. Raymond Arritt 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Having had quite a bit to do with EE and his various manifestations I recognise the style too. I'd still like ideally to see some technical evidence that he is one and the same, but it certainly looks like it from here. --John 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Update, KensingtonBlonde has altered their unblock request, apparently admitting that they are EE and asking for another chance. The previous sockpuppetry issues with this user were rather intense (several dozen voracious attack and harassment accounts, several hundred spam emails to a few Wikipedians before the blocks were re-enabled with the new email block option), but as I'm closely involved, it seems appropriate to allow further comment before this gets reviewed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Pahlivimazandaranpars

Pahlivimazandaranpars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized the discussion page of Qashqai. Pahlivimazandaranpars has made some of the edits under the anonymous IP account of 69.255.27.157 . For instance, he removed all the contents of the discussion page and replaced it with his comment . He has also edit warred in the article, please see .

When his vandalism was reverted, he made two personal attacks. He called the editor who reverted Pahlivimazandaranpars' vandalism an "ignorant arse" . He also insinuated that that user's action were childish .

This user ought to be punished for his violation of WP:NPA. --Agha Nader 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

threats

This IP has threaten to blow up/bomb the White House per this diff. Is this consider a death threat/act of terrorism or is this IP just bluffing?--PrestonH 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just regular trolling. —Kurykh 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You could pass on the info to the FBI if you really wanted to, but my guess is it was a 13 year old acting like a 6 year old. Until(1 == 2) 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Schoolkids at play .--Chaser - T 04:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From WHOIS:

OrgName:    Nebo School District 
OrgID:      NSD
Address:    Nebo School District
Address:     350 S. Main
City:       Spanish Fork
StateProv:  UT
PostalCode: 84660
Country:    US

Navou 04:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

School kids at 22:07 local time on a Sunday night? WODUP 05:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like this is the municipal ISP for Spanish Fork, Utah and the school district is simply a convenient handle for registration. I don't think the school district would need a whole /16 for itself. Admittedly it could be fun to call mommy and daddy telling them what Junior is up to, but we can just let this one slide. Raymond Arritt 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't possibly be the only one that emails ISP abuse dpt.s when an IP user is acting stupid -L 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone needs a ban...

A threatening and harassing message has been posted on my talk page. Please fix this user.

Thanks. 24.146.23.181 06:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Shit article"? Careful what you wish for . . . -- But|seriously|folks  06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Was there a reason you thought your biting 6 week old user would go unnoticed? I mean, he needs work, but you know, you asked for this with that complete incivility. --Thespian 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef by some guy who's scared of clowns. Note that while the db tag was profane, WP:NPA advises editors to comment on the content, not the contributor. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. .
2. .

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