Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 29 August 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Bowling for Columbine Vandalism (Smd and ILike2BeAnonymous)

Smb and ILike2BeAnonymous have been vandalizing the Bowling for Columbine page, ouright deleting alleged unsourced claims rather than marking them with the , and continuing to deleting them even when I have added sources. Their position is absurd; according to them, not only was Salvador Allenge murdered, no one but the CIA disputes it.Heqwm 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

cf related issue here Rlevse 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that your allegation of vandalism is laughable. Good luck with that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm initially provided zero sources for his first edit. His second edit was a grammar correction . Again, no sources were forthcoming. I reverted the changes because, since Heqwm added the claim, I expected (rightly or wrongly) the same user to provide source material for it. And if not a source, at least have the courtesy to add your own citation tag. The same user proceeded to restore the text without a source. User:Aeusoes1 stepped in and reverted Heqwm, noting in the edit summery, "unsourced and probably false information". I proceeded to add sourced information to the page that was unrelated to the earlier squabble. But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary. Ugh. I was going to continue on like this through the edit history because I've never been reported before and felt the need to defend myself. But since Heqwm has been handed a short block, I will leave things there (and save you a couple of aspirin). If I've learnt one thing it's that I should provide an edit summary for all of my edits. Sometimes they seem so uncontroversial and obvious I skip a few. But it helps to avoid precisely this kind of trouble. smb 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And the bullshit fest continues. I am aware of no rule that every single edit must contain a source. Is that how you think WP should work? You say that your revert was due to the lack of sources, but your edit summary did not, as you now imply, make any no mention of that, or any other reason. This was a rather rude act, but only in first of many which showed you not to be acting in good faith. Aeusoes1 then cited the source issue, and added the needlessly confrontational and arrogant "probably false". "But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary". That's a rather dishonest claim. It was essentially the same claim as before. You were going to continue through the edit history? It just gets worse after that. After my aforementioned edit, ILike2BeAnonymous reverted, putting a personal attack and an unsourced claim of his own in the edit summary. He then performed another revert, calling part of my edit "BS". So I put my claims back in, this time with sources. You deleted them yet again, and yet again gave no reason. So I unreverted. You then reverted AGAIN. So I unreverted again. ILike2BeAnonymous then took over deletion duties. Also, I had claimed that an issue was disputed, and provided a cite showing that a Leftist organization disputed. He dishonestly changed it to say that the CIA disputed it. I corrected it to say that a wide variety of people, includeing a Leftist orgnaization, disputes it. While obscuring who was actually disputing it, he accompanied his edit with the Orwellian edit summary "Let's make it clear just WHO is disputing this here" Then you tagged back in and went reverting despite the fact that I had, by that point, added citations. Through all of this, both of you refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, even though I started a section there.Heqwm 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged my failure to provide an edit summary in the revert. But the edit history doesn't lie. Aeusoes1 did provide the reason (re unsourced commentary) yet you restored the same text regardless. This is not the page to be continuing your battle. The diff's are above. Case closed. smb 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Heqwm has been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged. The edits you were reverting were clearly in good faith and not vandalism. ugen64 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly say the edit were in good faith. I have clearly shown how they were not. Furthermore, reversion policy clearly states that reversion should have a good reason. Your claim that I have been " blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged" is... seriously lacking in veracity. My last edit was on 02:04, 27 August 2007. My response to smb was on 02:19, 27 August 2007. And I did not "acknowledge" the warning; I clearly disputed that 3RR applied. My reversions were combatting what I considered, in Good Faith, to be vandalism. AGF doesn't apply to admins? The four edits cited as "reverts" were: 1:01, 1:51, 1:58, and 2:04.

1:01 I had previously added a claim. Someone asked for a cite. I added the cite. That's not a revert, it's an edit.

1:51 I made a claim, it was deleted with no explanation, and I re-added a similar claim. Arguably a revert.

1:58 I made a claim written in the passive voice with a cite showing that the subject was Leftists. It was "corrected" to falsely state that the CIA was the subject. I fixed it to have Leftists as the subject. Again, an edit, not a revert.

2:04 I reverted a completely unjusitifed revert.Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was about to comment here that edits being reverted here: are not what I would call vandalism, per se. --Dreaded Walrus 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous made reverts at the following times: 23:54, 26 August 2007 01:53, 27 August 2007 02:00, 27 August 2007 03:48, 27 August 2007. Is he going to be blocked?Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:AN3. Make a "case" there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned, here's my take

1. Heqwm seems to be under the impression that if something lacks sourcing that it should get a cite request. According to WP:V, "any edit lacking a source may be removed." Now, granted, one can instead put a citation request, but in my case I deleted the statement that dictatorial powers and a coup d'état were part of the Iranian constitution because I doubted it very strongly (I didn't touch the Chilean coup statement). I said in the edit summary that this was "probably false" which is neither confrontational nor arrogant as I was expressing my doubt and implying why I didn't put a cite request instead. Sure enough, the statement about the constitution has been dropped.
2. Heqwm, "vandalism" is not editing that you disagree with; removing material that one believes is false, misleading, or otherwise improper is not vandalism, even if you disagree with their judgement. I want you to know this because accusing someone of vandalism is a serious breach of civility and you should not do it lightly. You should also not attempt to have administrative action taken against someone without knowing exactly what you're accusing them of. Remember: whatever they're guilty of here, you are as well.
3. Once Heqwm put this in the talk page, everybody, and I mean everybody should have stopped reverting back and forth. There is a tendency in Misplaced Pages discussions for editors to make comments justifying a disputed edit and then editing the article accordingly before others get a chance to respond. It gets cyclical when another editor responds in kind and it gets worse when editors use the edit summary box rather than the talk page to carry on the discussion. This is not healthy for Misplaced Pages, as it violates the spirit of the three revert rule (which is designed to get editors to discuss rather than revert), violates WP:AGF when it is motivated by the assumption that someone won't participate in the discussion if their edit stands as is in the article, and is exactly what has gone on here. If you guys want me to put the difs to prove it, say the word.
4. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the content of Heqwm's edits, and I don't necessarily think anyone should be punished (heck, I know I've done it from time to time) but don't for one second think that sort of inappropriate behavior is justified. It's not. Ƶ§œš¹ 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler, still

Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This guy just will not stop taking shots at me. Here he is implying that anyone who supported me in my RfA is a bigot and homophobe. Here he is baiting and taunting me, and accusing me of being a racist, because I do not choose to assist him in researching his pet POV project. These are the same types of constant attacks that FAAFA used to pull off, a user banned for a year by ARBCOM, and who Bmedley has already admitted to editing in proxy for. How long is the community going to continue to assume good faith regarding this probable sockpuppet, when even he does not extend the same good faith to the community, judging by my first diff? I'm not sticking around tonight to bicker over this. I'll check in tomorrow. - Crockspot 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is 100% false. "probable sockpuppet" is a NPA too. He or his friends already made one harrassing RFCU on me that came back empty. I am trying to help Crockspots really. (refactor taunt) My last post I said that I was through with this issue since Crockpots made it so clear that he lacked any interest in what I asked him about documenting racism. I dont even know why hes bringing it up now except I think he is very sore that I was the one who posted those links to what he wrote on that other site. This whole issue is dead now. Except now he wants to re-live it here. Why, I ask. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You two. First, let's not goad with references to quotes brought up at the RFA. Second, Crockspot, if you suspect him to be a sockpuppet, please take the case to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets and file a report there with plenty of evidence and a minimum of drama. Third, editing for banned users is explicitly prohibited. There's no diff for that, so that's all I'm saying for now.--Chaser - T 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not editing at all for FAAFA. I was blocked for 48 hours for that and I learned my lesson. He wanted me to add a long protest note after they re-set his 1 year block, and I told him no. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bystander who opposes racism but hasn't edited William Regnery II. I'm opposed to axe murders too but I haven't edited this either. Does this make me a racist with a hatchet? Really Bmedley Sutler, stop it. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Crockspot's edits or former RfA, its not helped by disingenuous "suggestions" such as the ones you made above. Repeatedly misspelling his user-name isn't especially adult either. How about leaving him alone and get on with contributing to the encyclopedia?

As an aside I agree with Chaser re the sockpuppet allegations. If there is evidence, take it to the proper forum. Otherwise, leave it alone. Euryalus 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I told him in my last post that I was through with this suggestion since he said he would not help anyway. This report from him was not needed and his accusation was an NPA. I will try not to mis-spell his name. Pot and Pots are the same meaning anyway. A Crockpot is an electric pot for making stew, yes? •smedleyΔbutler• 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crock-pot is for making stew, yes. "Crockspot" is the handle of a Misplaced Pages editor and nothing else.--Chaser - T 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for general comment)For now, just stay away from each other. Wiki is a huge place, there is no need, if you don't get along, to talk to each other, or edit the same articles, just don't do it. Mr. Sutler, I have some sympathey for some of your positions, but if you go out of your way to interact with crockspot, I will be at your WP:CSN, as quick as anyone (and vice-versa. . .take that how you will --in either case). Misplaced Pages is not a battleground (stop making it one!) and if you see it that way, you're in the wrong place (not speaking to anyone in particluar). Respectfully, R. Baley 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)(comment strike at 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) by R. Baley)

Bmedley has already been blocked by User:Thatcher131 for 24 hours for taunting and another 24 hours for acting as a proxy for FAAFA. He was warned that this would be his only warning . He continues to taunt by reposting the RfA quotes. This is the noticeboard that needs to take action against this, not SSP. The issue is taunting, not sockpuppetry and it continues even after a 24 hr block. --Tbeatty 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the above post is a harrassment. The 'only' warning was about making proxy posts for that FAAFA. I have seen lots of warnings for NPA and taunting. No one gets an 'only' warning for such things like quoting what someone actually wrote on another site. He wrote those things, not me! No offense but IMO Tbeatty is maybe on purposely mis-stating what happenned to get administrator action taken on me. IMO, he is part of an organized group and campaign that continuingly harrass Seven of Diamonds, Giovanni33, me, and a few others to try and ban leftists who resist them. If this harrassment continues I will be making an action on them. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact wording:

--Tbeatty

Tbeatty's comment is correctly pointing out that you are continuing some of the behavior that led to a block. That is not harrassment. Also, this thread is about your behavior, and has nothing to do with neither Giovanni nor SOD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look who shows up! Where are the others? The 'only' warning was about proxy editing for that FAAFA. Tbeatty, IMO, tries to make it sound like I got an 'only' warning for NPA or 'taunting'. I have seen some editors post NPA attacks dozens of times with only warnings, not even blocks. Now Tbeatty is pushing for an action? This is too funny. Why is it the same 4-6 editors show up where ever I post? Is this not Wikistalking? This harrassment must stop. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No one follows yur posts. You end up on AN/I. You end up on AN/I because you are trolling. The fact that a majority of your posts are defending yourself on AN/I is not evidence of other people stalking you. --Tbeatty 08:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You actually argued the opposite point regarding MONGO. Stating the numerous AN/I posts regarding him are proof of harassment and trolling. Two sets of rules? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats it! "Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I should not be attacked because I have not yet mastered English! I ask that Pablo gets a 24 hr block for NPA. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that Tbeatty gets a 24 hr block for his NPA saying I am trolling too. This harassment and Wikistalking from the same small group must stop! •smedleyΔbutler• 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Further, there is no consensus among admins that NPA violations ever warrant a block. I suggest you drop this and find an article to edit. You seem to be involved in a one-sided battle. KillerChihuahua 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isolated personal attacks are rarely blockable, but deliberate and repeated personal attacks, incitement, and treating Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground are indeed blockable and even bannable, if not by the community then by ArbCom. Bmedley has several agendas and he needs to be told that agenda-driven editing is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's goals and philosophy. Thatcher131 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have raised this issue previously on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and have provided other evidence linking this account with FAAFA's to Thatcher131 via email, along with past arbitration principles (including one from the arbcom that FAAFA was banned under) that show that there is more than enough evidence to treat this user as FAAFA. No serious action has yet been taken. I have even been told by admins in email that they are certain that they are the same editor, but that banned users should be given a chance to return and edit positively. Well this editor has maintained the same patterns of behavior that got FAAFA banned, fighting with the same users. From the day that Bmedley appeared, he has showed up in articles that I have long showed an interest in and attempted to disrupt by making suggestions that clearly do not meet our sourcing, npov, and OR policies and guidelines. He makes all too familiar suggestions that if other editors don't help him prove X, then they must be Xists. He says he has not mastered english, but sometimes in discussion, he slips into perfect english, like it was his mother tongue. I wonder what his claimed mother tongue is, and would like to see him converse in it in real time with someone else who speaks that language. I have only posted the latest diffs, because a significant percentage of his edits in discussion and talk contain cheap shots and attacks. If I have to take the time to document every single one, I will bring them before the arbitration committee, not here. - Crockspot 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If repeated personal attacks are bannable (sp?) ... well it seems someone should have been banned by now for their attacks on me. Things on AN/I seem to go in one direction only. Also what is classified as "fighting" with the same users should be looked at from the other side. If those users believe he is FAAFA, then perhaps they are fighting with him on purpose. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Which "someone" are you referring to? I have been showing an incredible amount of patience and restraint, and am not getting satisfactory action. - Crockspot 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you, just a general point since my name was brought up here, I am starting to become a celebrity of sorts and would prefer people just let me edit in peace without subjecting me to WikiLaw & Politics 101. I am pointing out the irony of the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in my case, I have been trying to avoid conflict with Bmedley, to the point where he has driven me away from editing articles I have long been interested in. If anyone cares to notice, I am keeping my contributions mostly to discussion. In the article linked above, I even provided him a link and some information to assist and guide him to doing accurate research on this topic, but that was not good enough for him, so I must be a racist. I've had about enough. - Crockspot 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in a similar situation in a further case of irony. I cannot edit articles related to one of my interests because I am afraid I will be compared to anyone else in my city editing it. I know the feeling, however it is probably for the best, and with all the articles on Misplaced Pages, I learned it is better to avoid the dramatists and just find something else to edit. Luckily I find peace in other articles that I am sure the "political" people on Misplaced Pages will have little interest in. Something that may help you, visit your local bookstore and pickup a book about a topic you enjoy. Hopefully it will have some useful information for you to add to an article. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So your suggestion to solve the problem of an abusive sockpuppet in direct violation of an arbitration ruling is to go read a nice book? Perhaps I'm the one who needs to leave Misplaced Pages. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion is that calling each other names will not solve the issue. Is there a solution here? You want him banned on account he is a sockpuppet, something you will not bring to the appropriate venue to check. He thinks he has disengaged from you, and you keep bringing up the issue to stir drama. My suggestion as other suggested is to avoid eachother. It is a big encyclopedia. My suggestion to you, if you are here to help the encyclopedia, is to help expand articles, instead of fighting over what should and should not be in them. There are tons of articles that can use expansion and citations, pick one and enjoy the Zen of editing in near peace. Avoiding the dramatic will make you a better editor in my humble opinion. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This colloquy is rather beside the point; Seven will have ample opportunity to address his concerns in the pending Arbitration case. As for Bmedley, I know he is in contact with FAAFA but I do not believe he is a sock or meat puppet (that is, I don't believe he has directly acted on a request by FAAFA since I blocked him for it). I do think he is driven by an agenda, and he needs to adjust his behavior. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Thanks Thatcher, I was of course replying to Bmedley's demand that Tbeatty be blocked for 24 hours, but I should probably have clarified my comments more. Certainly if Bmedley continues to disrupt the project then that would be a different situation. KillerChihuahua 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize which comment you were referring to. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was clear in my head, why wasn't it clear in yours? :P Seriously, thanks for making it clear to me how unclear I'd been. KillerChihuahua 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That blocks are preventative, not punitive is understood, but Bmedley's behavior issues are ongoing and show no shows of stopping. He's been blocked twice (and just missed a third), how long do we have to put up with unprovoked taunting like this? I don't see a consensus to block now, but I hope that we put him on a very short leash and make the next block longer. RxS 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another support for a block for BMedley. I opposed at Crockspot's RfA, but ruthlessly dogging the guy isn't acceptable behavior. His actions in the past are worth NOTING for an RfA, but NOT strong enough nor valid enough to pursue any sort of consequences on wikipedia for him, like banning him as some sort of agenda warrior. You can't go around harrassing him with that forever, BMedley, an the fact that you're not listening here, as Strangelove notes above, weighs more, to me at least, than Crockspot's old actions. I think that they once blocked his RfA is probably the end of their viability as leverage against him. We all saw it, and we acted upon it to our consciences. You need to leave him alone. (Yes, I realize it's bizarre that I'm defending Crockspot, but different situations are different.) ThuranX 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think those are FAAFAs pictures unless you know something I dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmedley Sutler (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Time to take action?

It seems clear from the above, if nothing else, that Bmedley is disruptive. In addition to any other issues, he has demanded that two editors be blocked for 24 hours each for perceived personal attacks - neither of which is blockable - which indicates he is making any dispute a personal battle. This wastes everyone's time. Is there support for more substantial action about this, above and beyond the patient explanations everyone has been giving him? mentorship? Some kind of parole? Community ban? KillerChihuahua 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest on-wiki mentorship or something for all those involved- Tbeatty, Mongo, Crock, Seven, and the rest. There has been at least four or five issues within this troupe in the past few weeks. Maybe it all started at Crock's RfA; in any case, that's when I noticed it. But the repetitious bad faith, personal attacks, and appearances on AN/I asking for each other's blocks is not helping the wiki at all. David Fuchs 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would actually love a mentor, however it may not be needed since I do not participate in drama filled political articles anymore. However if another admin would like to assist in guiding me, that would be more than welcome. I have questions abound. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but something needs to be done. The disruption, edit warring, incivility, etc... is getting to out of hand. Perhaps an admin mentor who will keep an eye on the user would be helpful.--Jersey Devil 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a ban from political articles for anyone who participates in an AN/I posting against the other? That would be interesting. If the behavior is bad, someone else is sure to notice it and report it themselves. Cleans up AN/I and maybe gives some users a much needed break from hot topics. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very bad precedent, as it would permit any troll to pull a legitimate editor off of an article by harassing them on AN/I. THF 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my feelings are clear, I don't know how long we have to put up with this type of behavior. It's probably too soon for a full ban, but a longer block is absolutely in order. Any one who looks at his talk page/archive can see all the warnings...he's an ongoing source of disruption. If there are other editors people have issues with that's fine, but please don't lump them all in here....they are separate issues. RxS 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not think it is all separate issues. It is the same drama from the same group, my self included up until I just gave up and walked away from the articles. I have actually recommended others such as Crockspot and Smedley do the same. There are plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages to edit, which is why I decided to more focus on narco-terror related articles. I was pushed out by the same people calling for Smedleys ban. The same people who are on AN/I everyday calling for the ban of what can only be classified as another upset "left leaning" editor. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also want to make something clear before some clever person wiki links it. I do not think there is a cabal, but how often do you see the same editors calling for a ban of someone they are in conflicts with. I am sure its a possibility that editors from all over possibly gravitate to them to ca use them stress, or its something else. Its up to Misplaced Pages to determine which it is. Believing there is a cabal attacking them, is just as "wacky" as believing they are a cabal. The answer lies obviously in the center somewhere. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved in your arbcom, I only edited a related article one time. Bmedley has been appearing in articles I have a history of contributing to. He went around this weekend and taunted other supposed RW cabalists to help him research his latest interest. This issue has nothing to do with you, it is about Bmedley. Though if he does get dragged into your arbitration, I will be there with bells on, and a list of diffs that will choke a donkey. - Crockspot 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at the series of warnings/blocks on his talk/archive page will see that a fairly broad range of editors have issued them. I don't think this concern is limited to a small group of editors. RxS 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support doing something, with the specific value of "something" being left to community consensus. Dealing with the drama that perpetually surrounds Bmedley has become a time sink, turning Misplaced Pages from an encyclopedia to a sociological experiment. I don't edit any of the same articles as Bmedley but anyone who has kept up with the proceedings to date can recognize that he's not an innocent party being unjustly persecuted, as he would have it. Raymond Arritt 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Smedley involved in the SevenofDiamonds arbcom case, if he isn't, he should be tossed in there and let arb com deal with him, he's also involved in the same topic. Jaranda 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not listed at this time, and he has not entered a statement on the case. I'm not so sure about "tossing", but as its all intertwined it does seem like an excellent idea to have it all out at once, rather than piecemeal. KillerChihuahua 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but my Arbcom is about a specific issue, attempting to lump my Arbcom arbitrarily into another issue seems foolish. Considering the attitudes here. I will present my counter-evidence to Arbcom and leave Misplaced Pages. The political bickering the exudes from this place once a editor receives a username is beyond comprehension. I should have just stood anonymous, editing without issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support a longer term block for disruption, maybe a month or so, with the clear indication to him that the next time he acts up he'll be gone indefinitely. Coddling him and mentorship will not work, since he clearly has it in his mind to be polemic, vitriolic, and disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is clear-cut enough. Supports/disagrees/comments? KillerChihuahua 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See ThuranX's comment immediately preceeding this subsection. - Crockspot 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather see arbcom deal with all this in one case, I do support the month block as well. Thanks Jaranda 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) With regard to mentorship etc., admins can only warn, threaten and then block. With regard to blocks being preventative, not punative: yes, but sometimes prevention takes the form of blocking people so that they learn we are serious about enforcing community norms of behavior. Regarding action toward Bmedley at this time, I would suggest opening a user conduct RFC. One of Bmedley's complaints is that he is attacked by the same small group of users. So I would post a notice of the RFC on the CSN asking people who have never been involved with Bmedley to review the case and offer input. If the combined weight of many experienced Wikipedians does not convince Bmedley to change his attitude and approach, we would have the basis for either strong community action or Arbitration. Regarding Jaranda's comment, ArbCom sees this as a case against Seven (see particularly JamesF's acceptance vote) and ArbCom frankly does very poorly with blanket cases whose scope keeps expanding. It would be better to open a separate case against Bmedley. However, they usually will not review a case without a prior RFC, and ArbCom would only be needed after the RFC if there was a serious disagreement among admins as to how to handle the situation (as there is with Seven). We don't need ArbCom to spend two months to endorse a long block, topic ban, or site ban for a user who persistently "doesn't get it" as long as there is consensus among us admins. Thatcher131 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to this block, and agree that Arbcom doesn't necessarily need to be involved at this point. RxS 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not totally a disagreement with a block (he certainly "doesn't get it"), but Bmedley certainly isn't the only one in this situation who is being polemic, vitriolic or disruptive, as SwatJester put it. David Fuchs was correct above. ELIMINATORJR 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are referring to me, which I don't think that you are, the other people are all involved in an arbcom, and will have their behavior investigated fully. This notice is a complaint by me against a single user. All these other distractions are just that, distractions. - Crockspot 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a month long block and do see it as a preventative block as per the comments made by Thatcher. I'm not sure a user conduct RFC would be appropriate as it would just make the process needlessly longer for something we all already know (that the user is causing a disturbance to normal wikipedia processes). But if you guys would like to go that direction I'd be fine with it as well.--Jersey Devil 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Roll it in with the SoD arbitration if the committee will have it. There are more editors beyond those named there that are part of the problem.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Smedley has been a warrior from day one. It would be ideal if he could take a step back and contribute in some less controversial or confrontational areas... that would go a long way toward demonstrating that he's here to improve the encyclopedia rather than fight with specific users over specific topics. Based on what I've seen so far, it would be really hard for me to disagree with a block for disruption at this point. However, if ArbCom will take the issue up that might be ideal, because the best solution may be a form of probation etc. rather than a block or ban. MastCell 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with mastcell here. I think if Smedley backed off from the controversial articles, we would see if he's here to improve the encyclopedia and its a "near occasion of wiki-sin" or he's just plain disruptive. David Fuchs 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Its not all my fault. How many times has Crockspot and the others been told to quit calling me a sockpuppet? And to take these accusations to an official hearing? And stop throwing wild charges about me? They already filed one RFCU that came back empty. There is a small group of 4-6 editors who fight anyone with a leftist POV. How many false RFCUs did they file on SevenOD? I would suggest a hearing on the actions of this whole group and the leftists they fought against. Go back 2 or 3 years. You will see to find an organized campaign of harrassments, complaints, call for bannings, and then bannings of those who don't share their exact POV. They have run wild over Misplaced Pages getting their way. And I mean no offense but a few administrators helped them and put politics before enforcing the rules fairly on both sides too. Look at the complaint boards. This groups names are there every day. They were fighting long before I got here. Any calls to action on me is just more of how they got their way for years now. I will avoid any arguing with them and when they attack me Ill just run to a complaint board too. See, one more time they get their way. Seven got run off certain articles and now I am too. Or facing a block. I will choose to avoid any conflict with them on any talk pages where we both edit. But I expect that they should have to follow the rules as much as I do. Thanks for the advice. To show that I have more than any agenda, I will go back to editing mor of the Big Sur articles which I wrorked on a lot before drawing in like a magnet to certain political articles where they are guarded like a grizzly bear mother guarding her young with 'White Wash' agendas. Please notice too, that when I first got here I suspected that CIA and DOD and USGOV were editing many articles. Guess what? Misplaced Pages should reflect a global POV. Not the POV of only the American right wing! I made these suspicions of the CIA and USGOV editing articles public and I was called crazy and paranoid and ordered by several administrators to stop and not to make any more of these accusations. Months later now the Wikiscanner poofs come out and show that I was right and this same group who called me crazy, and of whom I have so many problems was wrong! Whos laughing now? I will avoid this group where ever possible so that there needs to be no action on me as is their plan. Okay? Okay! •smedleyΔbutler• 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More distraction. Who is "they"? Go back two or three years? I've been on Misplaced Pages a year and a half. I am here as an individual editor, filing a complaint against an individual editor, namely you. Your behavior toward me is unacceptable, and my complaint has nothing to do with any "others", nor with Seven, who's arbitration I am neither involved with, nor want to be. BTW, I looked at the wikiscanner output, and I have not seen any articles that I am involved in on the edit lists of the USCHIMPBUSHGOV and CIASPOOK edits. Do you still think I'm a "spook" for the CIA or the secret Rove empire? - Crockspot 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) PS I have also never requested a checkuser on Bmedley. None is required, he has already admitted editing in proxy for FAAFA, and according to the arbitration ruling involving FAAFA, that is enough to assume and treat them as the same user. - Crockspot 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did Crockspot or anyone else call you a sockpuppet before you made edits clearly at the behest of FAAFA? You have to own your responsibility for that. Thatcher131 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Smedley was accused of being a sockpuppet of Giovanni, then of FAAFA before he made the Big Sur edit to include FAAFA's pictures, which are honestly nice pictures. The sockpuppet check is under Giovanni33's name. It also accuses me of being Smedley. Consider me officially gone, and thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I had anything to do with that. Because I voted in the past in a few AfDs similarly to some other editors, I am assumed to be the ringleader, or at least tied at the hip with these users. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't even have the same interests in most articles. I am primarily concerned with BLP articles, those "others" are more concerned with NPOV aspects of topical non-biographies. - Crockspot 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he and they did. I would have to check though. Look at Crockspots 'tone' above. "USCHIMPBUSHGOV" "Rove Empire" Its 'Mocking' and 'Taunting' IMO. I don't find it funny or helpful. And here on an official complaint baord? Of course he wants to not include the others in 'his' group and change the issue. I can go back a month and find a complaint where I ask to have this whole group looked at for harrassing me and others. If its going to be charges and counter charges asking for bannings and blocks and actions, lets address my months old complaint along with Crockspots call for only action of him vs me.To make peace I will be the one to 'walk away' as he advised others to do involved in a conflict, but seems to be his advice for others only. •smedleyΔbutler• 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Post some diffs, or stop making the accusations. I have stopped editing nearly ALL articles, because of you. My contributions are now limited to fighting blatant vandalism, and participating in discussion. - Crockspot 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now your problems are all my fault?! Go edit any article you want. I think maybe Beauchamp. I'll give you all the distance you want and avoid conflicting with you to show my 'good faith'. I do not have time for any 'diffs' until tonight, and would rather edit articles than fight on complaint boards anyway. •smedleyΔbutler• 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this adds anything, but add me to the list of folks whose assumptions of good faith in Bmedley have been crushed and who now support more decisive action. Most posts I've seen by Bmedley have little to do with the article in question and are either loosely related ideological harangues, far-fetched accusations of being personally attacked, or, most commonly, personal attacks (as delineated by WP:NPA). When his/her behavior is pointed out, he/she either ignores it or has a defense such as misunderstanding the English language ("playing stupid" as Pablo puts it) or saying that being gay means that rules against homophobic personal attacks don't apply to him/her. I do not know about the behavior of anyone else here, but I have seen Bmedley's behavior, and agree with the well-put conclusions of users like RxS and Raymond Arritt. Bmedley clearly has no respect for Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, nor for the purpose of the project. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and discussion board for venting against, attacking, or libeling your ideological opponents. Even setting aside attacks and other subjectively judged actions, Bmedley has explicitly stated that he hopes to use Misplaced Pages to "focus on outing gay conservatives." His/Her admitted motives for being here are just as damning as his/her daily violations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Calbaer 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think rolling 'all this' (whatever it is) into SevenOfDiamonds' arbitration would be useful. Thatcher's idea for an RfC is my first choice; very close second is an immediate long block. If no change in behavior shows Bmedley Sutler is here to advance the project, I would support an indefinite block. Tom Harrison 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I might as well chime in here. I have sympathy for Bmedley, although I agree that he has made mistakes and we want certain behaviors to change. I disagree with blocking. Also a Rfc will just produce more talking. I think we've had more than enough of that. What Bmedley could use is mentoring. Give him someone dedicated, that he trusts and likes, and let him have a mentor here. The mentor should have credibilty so that when others come around to bait him, the mentor can have such others users sanctioned and stop them in their tracks. We have to remember that when Bmeley a new editor, he started to get attacked by a group of right wing editors who did not always play nice. Bmedley's behavior now is a direct response, a reaction, to these past incidents with the same folks who have harassed SevenOfDiamonds. Not everyone can take that the same way, or knows how to best respond. Some people respond by fighting back, and becoming embattled, etc. So, Smedley is really as much a victim here as is Misplaced Pages, and no one is free of some degree of fault, either by direct misbehavior, or be lack of taking action. The Arbcom case will hopefully solve some of the problems that lead to these political "battle ground' problems, but until then, perhaps a very old fashioned technique that is used on elementary school playgrounds will work, in conjunction with a mentor being asigned, along the lines of avoidance: you to to this side of the playground, and you go to the other side. Both sides avoid each other. Each side do not report anyone from the other side. Don't talk to each other. If you are both editing on the same article, one of you has to move on to another article. No wikistalking, no interaction, disengage, de-esclate, forget and forgive. If the other side continues as well (my main problem here is that this is all one-sided---its not just Bmeldely, there are two sides here)--then the mentor can report this with sanctions going against the other party for not disengaging.Giovanni33 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Smedley's first edit outside of his user space was to make a beeline for one of the most contentious fights going on at Misplaced Pages at the time. I also notice that he does not seem to have any trouble with the English language in that comment. - Crockspot 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow the advice from several administrators that you stop the un-related accusations and charges that have nothing to do with your primary charge that I am 'attacking' you. Please make a formal complaint about these accustations if you think you 'have' something. Another empty RFCU could be good. I agreed to give you distance. Im sorry if your feelings were hurt. Its time to move on. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making comments like "another failed RFCU", when I have never filed an RFCU on you. Again, you are blaming me for the actions of others. - Crockspot 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Blocks are prentitive not punative. I 100% agree to leave Crockspot alone, so there is no need for any block. Not 5 minutes. You can set an action that the next time I 'attack' him I could receive a block. I actually have very few warnings. Look at my page. I bring up the differnce in treatment of a well-known RW editor Bellowed, and me. Take a look at his NPAs and mine. No offense but the cards are stacked around here. If you're a RW editor who thinks the USA and Bush does no wrong, you do have a much easier time here. This is fact. This should end. Back to the subject. I 100% agree to avoid 'attacking' Crockspot. I will edit different articles than him. There is no need for any block at all. I'll go back to my Big Sur articles too, where I made a lot of contributions that show that I have the good of the project in my heart, not some agenda. And for Calbear I explain that I have many 'agendas' not one. Making the Big Sur articles better is my most important agenda. Making sure that other articles are not "White Washed" is another. Thank you for your time. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself, but I will say that throwing around terms like "RW", "squashed" "White Washed" underscores my feeling that his behavioral issues will continue. He has promised to cool the rhetoric before but it continues even while a block is discussed. In my opinion an RFC would not be effective (most are not, this case isn't an exception) and would make this burn hotter. I still would suggest a longer block at this point in time. RxS 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Those arent attacks, and I will point to some adminstrators discussing hot issues like SlimVirgin who use much more rhetoric than that above. Some are more equal than others. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to those who charge that I never assumed good faith on Bmedley's part that I worked with him on his first article creation, Deetjen's Big Sur Inn. We even chatted a bit about Big Sur outside of the article and talk page. Some of the best sources in that article are one's that I found and included. This was just weeks before my RfA, and I don't remember having any conflicts with him between that time and the moment he torpedoed my RfA. I have no more good faith left for him. He used it all up. - Crockspot 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed Bmedley Sutler had a single agenda, just that he/she hoped to, using his/her words, "focus on outing gay conservatives." This agenda is further evidenced by the user's glee in reporting any homosexual activity regarding conservatives, no matter how irrelevant it is to the dialogue at question. (What does Larry Craig, whom I'd never heard of before today, have to do with whether this user should be banned or mentored? Nothing.) Likewise, RxS didn't say that Bmedley Sutler's language in the paragraph above denoted an "attack," but rather heated rhetoric. The fact that Bmedley Sutler is continually reminded, through words and actions, of the proper purposes, guidelines, and policies of Misplaced Pages, yet chooses to ignore them, makes me think that mentoring would be useless in and of itself. It might, however, be useful in having someone who is allied with his ideological positions being forced to choose between defending violations of policies or, more likely, confirm that Bmedley Sutler's actions are both incorrigible and unacceptable to users of any ideological stripe. Calbaer 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, now you are bringing up the issue you don't want discussed again! You made those comments on that other site. Someone pointed them to me. I felt that for the good of The Project (Wiki) that they should be discussed here in the election. I now know that that person maybe did not have the good of the project (Wiki) in his heart when he told me of them. That doesnt change the comments. I didnt have anything personal against you. Thank you for helping on the Deetjen's article. Guess what? If my mother had made those same comments it would still be my duty to report them. (Unrelated) Like the soldier who reported Abu Gharib. He did the right thing, and now has to hide and change his name and is under protection from all the death threats.•smedleyΔbutler• 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, what articles are you 'not editing' because of my actions? Just name them and I will leave to let you edit and only add my posts if theres a request for votes on something. This is how far I am willing to go to make accomadations for you. What articles? Beauchamp Im sure. Matt Drudge? Matt Sanchez? Pick 5. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know who Matt Sanchez is. - Crockspot 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? You commented (I think) about his claims on the Beauchamp article. He is well discussed there and posts there. Which articles have my actions prevented you from editing? Just name them and I will give you them. This is a solution, unless (no attack meant) what you want isnt really a solution but a banning or long block of another leftist editor for your group that you deny your part of. (no offense) •smedleyΔbutler• 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Calbear: You know Im a male. An out Gay male. A Gay activist Gay male. You know that 100% certainly. We discussed it at long. Calling me 'he/she' (transgender or transvestite) is a 100% unnacceptable insult on my sexuality and you know it, especially after you accusing me of calling you Gay when I never did such a thing! •smedleyΔbutler• 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You told me you were gay. I do not recall your telling me your gender. I have had female friends refer to themselves as "gay" (which is much easier to say than "LGBT"), so I did not want to presume that you were necessarily male. "He/she" is not a knock on your gender, but rather a reflection of my ignorance of it (and a reflection of my getting tired of writing "he or she" and/or "this user" over and over again). Now I know and will, if necessary, refer to you as "he" or "him." Calbaer 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, your sexual preferences are irrelevant. Please don't try to change the subject. No one has taken any pot shots at your sexual orientation. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Bredley for a week for disruption here and per community concensus, I also recommend that if he goes back to his trolling ways after the block, a community ban maybe in order. Thanks Jaranda 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Support for that. In light of BMedley's rules-lawyering 'blocks are preventative not punative and I won't do it again', and other such things, and a few strawmen/red herrings, instead of just getting down to brass tacks, I can't see anything but to do this. ThuranX 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also support. The foregoing discussion is a microcosm of the "Bmedley issue": he shifted the topic away from his actions and toward the Great Struggle between left and right wing politics. And as usual other editors fell for it like a ton of bricks. I thank User:Jaranda for cutting through the fog and getting back to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the block because of the following quote: "It guess hiding well known conservatives homosexuality is more your liking. I read that vandal patrol is the best way to worm into administratorship." This does not indicate acceptance of the consensus approach. Eiler7 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know about Bmedley's other activities, since I'd never taken much note of him until a few days ago, but he did have one of the better responses to the whole Michael Moore kerfluffle: He emailed Moore and asked him to take the links down, which was ultimately more helpful and constructive than a lot of people's actions (my own included). -Hit bull, win steak 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user will ever learn that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground for agendas. See this edit made during his block.--Jersey Devil 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, should that be oversighted, since the lyrics are a copyvio? -Hit bull, win steak 14:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing DYK nominations because of "squabble"

I would like to get the communities input on removing did you know nominations because you disagree with the DYK admins decisions about your articles. W.marsh (talk · contribs) block removed a large number of his contributions with an edit summary stating, "I know longer want this or any other article I created squabbled over here by bean counters." If you view the removed edits you see that Amarrg (talk · contribs) had commented on the length of his nominations in regards to how DYKS are selected. I left W.marsh a custom warning message after he began edit warring to keep removing his noms. I dont want to be beating a dead horse but feel that W.marsh is violating WP:POINT and has now broken the WP:3RR at Template talk:Did you know. I have made an effort to address this issue with the editor in question however my talk page comments were reverted or ignored. He has been notified of this thread. A second opinion on this would be much appreciated. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is trivial beyond belief... Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed. He has also posted annoying messages to my talk page to that effect, and of course moved on to step 3, the AN/I thread. This all could have been solved by simply asking himself whether he needed to go gung ho over a failed nomination, or just let another editor edit in peace. He chose the former. This is not an important issue. --W.marsh 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, I have never crossed your path on this project. The comment, " Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed" is completly out of line and a complelte lack of assuming good faith. 18 bytes short, I would offer to fix them. Removing them before the nom truly expires is counter productive to the point of DYK. DYK is not black and white. It is fluid, you make changes you fix things that are wrong with articles. You dont delete them in anger because of "bean counters" Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Except of all the people whining about the 18 bytes, no one has bothered to edit the article or explain what the extra 18 bytes might actually add, other than meeting a meaningless quota. If that had been the focus of the discussion, my reaction would have been totally different. --W.marsh 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That is right, not even you have offered to expand it. You will gladly WP:OWN your posts at TTDYK but dont feel, it is worth it to add 18 bytes to an article you nominated instead feel it would be better to just delete it. Do you see why I am frustrated now? It has nothing to do with "out to get you." I dont even know who you are. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • if you have a problem with the way DYK is run, or think it is stupid, try to reform it. I dont disagree with you that 18 bytes is stupid and I prob would have put it up anyways. I thought they were well written articles which is one of the reasons I did not want to see them removed. We need good DYK articles and you clearly can write them. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Where did I say I wanted the article deleted? You're just making things up now. --W.marsh 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• If someone doesn't want their stuff on DYK, it doesn't have to be there, no? Moreschi 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that just like saying if somebody does not want there stuff in the article, they can take it out too? GFDL? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In every forum on Misplaced Pages, one can withdraw one's own nominations if it's doomed and everyone agrees. It's just common sense, as I said in an edit summary. --W.marsh 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • GDFL is not relevant here in the slightest. You know that just as well as I do. Complete red herring. Moreschi 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that is exactly what this is about. I hate to see people, remove good content because they have a disagreement or are too proud to add 18 bytes to an article. I feel he does not WP:OWN his content being he released it under GFDL and does not have the "right" to remove it. I will go add the damn 18 bytes to the article because I like the articles. It has nothing to do with out to get somebody or making attacks. It has everything to do with how I believe this project shoudl work where people cant take back there stuff because they disagree. If these were truly doomed, I would not give a damn. The only critique was, 18 bytes short. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note to explain the first reversion was by me, purely because W.marsh had carelessly also deleted someone else's nomination of a second article that was nothing to do with him. Subsequent to-ings & froings have just involved his article, so are strictly not the same reversion. He does seem amazingly bad-tempered, I must say. Johnbod 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically a Kentucky editor who probably knew or cared little of this silly dispute has since added the precious 18 bytes and more to the article. --W.marsh 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to say, I woul dlike to thank Dale Arnett (talk · contribs) for beating me to expanding the article! Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Excuse me, but why on earth would a DYK nomination fail over something as ludicrous as being eighteen bytes too short? What's the point of that, other than meaningless red tape? >Radiant< 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I guess people may be confusing the word should with must in the guideline: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters of main body text in size, and preferably longer - no stubs." -- Flyguy649 _contribs 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because if you say something sensible, like "of reasonable length", too many people would be unable to function properly due to no criteria to do their thinking for them (even if it's utterly arbitrary and counter-productive, as all such criteria are). This is a general rule and in no way specific to DYK, or even Misplaced Pages. Neil ム 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• DYK rules guidelines used to get bent or broken all the time, and for good reason... the real goal of DYK, in my view, is to foster good and interesting article contributions by both new, and established editors, and their subsequent improvement. I'd point to my latest DYK article Christopher Columbus (whaleback) which was a pretty good article, but is now a lot better after having gotten exposure, lots of other editors came in and made improvements. That's the sort of thing DYK fosters. I am not sure that being 18 bytes short of a suggested guideline is a "doomed" nomination that needs removal immediately, nor am I sure that an editor should feel that preventing a nom is appropriate... DYK is a consensus driven process, or is supposed to be, and while it is rare that someone doesn't want "their" article featured on the front page, it's not entirely their decision. That said if people are nitpicking authors or their noms, that's not good. The guidelines exist to cut down on squabbling, not to foster it. For the most part they have been effective at improving the perceived reasonableness of the process. Ultimately, though, people who don't like the outcomes should get more involved in the process and do some updates themselves to see what it's like. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this particular article would have been ignored by the updaters. On the other hand, it is not that difficult to add 18 bytes of text to the page. Although there is no instruction creep, we need to stick to some sort of rules/guidelines. W.marsh should have been more patient. If he/she absolutely needed to remove the nomination, the best course was to comment it out, rather than summarily removing a bunch of comments and even an unrelated nomination. --Ghirla 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it would have been ignored either. Nor do I think it would have been hard to come up with what, 4 words? Some sort of guidelines are good, some patience is good too, some flexibility in applying guidelines is good too. Hopefully that is that? ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppetry to circumvent the 3RR rule

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

User:Ramdrake reported by User:MoritzB

• Three-revert rule violation on

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Previous versions reverted to: 20:17, 26 August 2007 and 12:57, 26 August 2007

Ramdrake has performed these six reverts either restoring deleted material or deleting added material. In his sixth edit he used a sockpuppet.

• 1st revert: 12:57 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:11, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:15, 26 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:50, 26 August 2007
• 5th revert: 20:17, 26 August 2007
• 6th revert (sockpuppet): 20:25, 26 August 2007

For confirmation of sockpuppetry used to circumvent WP:3RR see: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ramdrake

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The consequence of the edit war and sockpuppetry was that the page was locked and is now in the version endorsed by the puppetmaster Ramdrake.

When I gave a message of the 3RR violation to Ramdrake. he performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article and said so.

However, 2 minutes after this edit Ramdrake's sockpuppet IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to his version.

I became suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada and Ramdrake lives in Montreal. See:

The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar.

Then Ramdrake lies that he owns this IP address on his talk page.

However, as User:Deskana concluded it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

Ramdrake has a history of disruptive editing and making false reports of sock puppetry. He is guilty of using a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule. He is a dishonest editor who lied after the sock puppetry was exposed. A long ban is the only appropriate sanction in this case. MoritzB 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see this AN/I report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nat 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Ramdrake (talk) filed an SSP report against MoritzB (talk) 2 to 3 days before MoritzB (talk) fileed against Ramdrake (talk). So again, this reports is nothing more than a way for MoritzB (talk) to get his revenge agaist Ramdrake (talk). nat 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The check user showed that I am not connected to "Franz". Besides, how does Ramdrake's previous report excuse the fact that Ramdrake circumvented the 3RR with a sockpuppet?

There is very strong evidence that he did so. I assumed good faith but because the IP address so obviously belongs to Ramdrake it is hard to trust in his honesty. Doesn't the IP address reported belong to Ramdrake?

MoritzB 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MoritzB has already filed a RFCU and a suspected sockpuppet report on me, using almost exactly the same material (this is basically a copy-and-paste of the same info). His (weak) case was turned down. He then filed for 3RR violation, but since he was also one of the edit-warrin parties, the article was already protected when the 3RR was evaluated, so he was turned down again, on the grounds that blocking for 3RR is preventive and not punitive. Now, he brings the same matter a third time up after being turned down twice, in order to seek -- I don't know what. Can an admin please kindly remind this user that this constitutes forum-shopping and as such is frowned upon at Misplaced Pages? Also, and for the record, this user is also under investigation for sockpuppetry, on grounds that look much less tenuous than those of his case. .--Ramdrake 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep evading the issue. Do you own that IP or not?

The checkuser request not accepted on the grounds of the technicality that the privacy policy prohibits releasing IPs. The reviewer User:Deskana concluded that it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. You claimed that 3RR was not violated. However, it obviously was which was confirmed by the reviewer Heimstern Läufer. He directed to me to "post at WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry issue".

MoritzB 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Ramdrake may have more socks. Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times , identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: Many more examples can be provided...) Recently Jeeny retired . Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake . Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: . So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! . And of course they returned from the break together: . KarenAER 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER: if your evidence isn't sufficiently damning, did you also notice that Ramdrake's professed first name is Jean which is suspiciously like Jeeny?? That can hardly be a coincidence ;-) Mathsci 06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3 different edits in a single minute:

• Ramdrake at 23:57, 27 August 2007
• Jeeny at 23:57, 27 August 2007
• Jeeny at 23:58, 27 August 2007

2 talk pages edits in a single minute:

• Jeeny at 13:30, 27 August 2007
• Ramdrake at 13:30, 27 August 2007

Do you still believe that they are socks? -- FayssalF - 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah because those are small edits. If they posted long talk page edits, you may have been right. Do I need more evidence? How they revert to each others version in numerous articles? KarenAER 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick to the Jean/Jeeny line if I were you. Have you ever read the Miss Marple books? They might provide you with some useful hints on how to find non-circumstantial evidence. Never, never, never overlook the conservatory. -Mathsci 19:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! Yes, his name is Jean, so is mine. We also have the same letter in our last name G. ZOMG! We both live on the same continent. ZOMG! Difference. I'm a she, and I live in the US and my name is pronounced jeen, while his name is pronounced zhahn, I believe, because it is French. Yanno, like a lot of people in Quebec? ZOMG! :). It's spooky. I wouldn't be surprised if we were of similar age too. We think alike in some ways. ZOMG! Maybe we're long lost relatives. ZOMG! I think I'm back in high school with a bunch of bullies. - Jeeny  21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot one, I think we both have some American (Native) Indian (in my case, several great-great-grandparents) and some African (in my case, one great-great-great-grandfather) blood in us. Creeeeeepy! (ROTFLMHO).--Ramdrake 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG!! Are you my brother that I never knew I had, and always wanted??!!! Pfft. - Jeeny  21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER, your accusations of sockpuppetry are incredibly unconvincing. First it's Beh-nam and The Behnam because they have the same name and speak the same language, and now it's Jeeny and Ramdrake because they agree with each other. Please don't accuse Jeeny of being Ramdrake's sockpuppet again without very good evidence, it's bordering on harassment. With regards to the IP, obviously it's Ramdrake's. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't mean to stick my nose in where I'm not invited, but does the tone used by Jeeny and Ramdrake in the posts immediately above this seem a small bit inappropriate for AN/I? If it isn't, just strike my comment and ignore me. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Why have you struck your comment Spring? Ramdrake and Jeeny, please use appropriate words to express yourselves. -- FayssalF - 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, what inappropriate word(s) did I use? I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize.--Ramdrake 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say it loudly and it would be fine (i.e.ROTFLMHO). But when two people use excessive caps to just clutter threads than i am sorry Ramdrake i'd have the right to note it. Worse enough is that comments were struck by Jeeny using an odd edit summary. Is it this way that you guys handle discussions w/ other editors at talk pages? If yes than i am sorry to say that there is a problem indeed. -- FayssalF - 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for apologizing Randrake, much appreciated. -- FayssalF - 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, certainly. Again, I apologize for my lack of decorum in this situation, and I can assure you I don't usually interact this way on WP. Comment well taken. :)--Ramdrake 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This bears looking at and is indicative of Fahrenheit451's ongoing harassment and disruption of process. We are talking someone with a 2-1/2 year history here. F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists that attacked me when I first started editing here one year ago. In fact, I credit him with "showing me the ropes" as to how WP:PA baiting is done.

From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Idenics:

From WP:HARASS:

--Justanother 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

• Nevertheless, this edit appears to indicate that his standard on these matters is not

  I will, if necessary; but the reversions of sourced content are a policy violation. I'm not asking for a block, just a reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Legal threat

  Resolved

  . Corvus cornix 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Already blocked for 1 week by User:Alison. MastCell 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Phral's sockpuppets

  Resolved

  I think I've found another of User:Phral's incarnations: Phrallus the Great (talk · contribs · count). Neranei (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Provide evidence at WP:SSP. Miranda 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  How about the name? ⇒ SWATJester 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  As the user hasn't messed with anything, that's the only evidence. Should he be left alone until he disrupts something? Neranei (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Obvious sock, consistent with other entries at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Hayden5650. Blocked ˉˉ╦╩ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  SPA wikistalker

  Resolved

  SPA blocked. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/TomCat111 has been stalking me, creating bogus sock templates, and impersonating me on a disproved sock case. I suppose an indef is in order, esp. because this user has no constructive edits, only stalking/impersonation and cruft.Bakaman 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Done. —Crazytales (t.) 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you, might I add that was very quick.Bakaman 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Luck. I just happened to drop by ANI at that time. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  NOt sure that this counts as impersonation. I think he is just unaware of how to use templates. Impersonation there would make no sense: his point cannot credibly be expected to come from Bakasuprman, as he is accusing Bakasuprman of sockpuppetry, using Goldstein Orwell. Not that Goldstein Orwell is Bakasuprman's sockpuppet; it's Hkelkar, so the relationship is more subtle. Block's probably unjustified; The account isn't an SPA stalker,as he was trying to introduce information that Bakasuprman was reverting. May be someone else's sock, of course. Hornplease 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Puh-leez. Thats what impersonation is, pretending to be someone else. He was trying to make it look like I confessed to be goldstein orwell. Its quite obvious the only reason you voiced opposition to this ban is because the user is harassing me.Bakaman 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  That may appear ridiculous to me, but if I'm wrong, then someone will tell me so. He certainly isn't harassing you, in particular, merely trying to introduce a quote sourced to the BJP website to that party's article and related articles on its parent organisation. He needs to have WP policy on quotes explained, not a random blocking. I notice you haven't bothered to explain your reverts. In any case, this is someone else's problem now, namely someone who can review the block and determine the level of justification. Hornplease 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  (de-indent) I've unblocked agreeing with hornplease. —Crazytales (t.) 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Fresh eyes Please

  Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has for the last couple of days repeatedly made accusation that an Australian MP has been harassing him via the foundation. I checked with an uninvolved editor who has access to OTRS the user indicated that there isnt any emails there.

  There is an email distrubuted via a mailing list that was in response to another editors personal approach to the MP offices when they saw the comment the MP made about Misplaced Pages but this doesnt mention the editor or any edit he's made, I'm happy to forward this to any admins who request it

  I'd like for a fresh set of eyes to have a look at whats going on including the way he's wording editdiff summaries when he's requested to remove the information. Gnangarra 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think the userpage needs to be selectively deleted at least because the allegations are made repeatedly in edit summaries, but Gnang and I have been dealing with this user for the last couple of days and it would be good to get someone uninvolved to review. Thanks guys, Sarah 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  This really needs some input, the comments need to be looked at I agree with Sarah's suggestion. Gnangarra 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  OK, looking through the relevant edits I can find no fault with the way Sarah and Gnangarra have handled this. Its rather an awkward situation as we're dealing with a good contributor. Nonetheless, per WP:BLP we really cannot have these sorts of unsubstantiated accusations about idenitifiable people - even outside article space. I endorse Gnangarra's speedy deletion (per CSD G10) of the subpage that laid out the accusations in full. The problem is now the revisions of his userpage that contain the accusations - which are also replicated in the edit summaries. I agree that those too should go. I am therefore going to delete the revisions of his userspace dated 10:49, 28 August 2007 UTC through to 01:02, 29 August 2007 UTC (17 revisions). I will leave a note on his talkpage explaining my reasons for the deletion and expressing my hope that he will be willing to overlook this matter and return to contributing in the positive manner he has previously done. WjBscribe 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Dan Patrick to Dan Patrick (Sportscaster)‎ cut/paste move

  I haven't looked too much into this, but it appears that someone felt the need to make a cut/paste move in order to create a disambiguation page. I was hoping someone with a mop might take a look at this before too many edits occur to either page. --Onorem♠Dil 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Proves my point that administratorness is more about the mop than the cudgel. —Crazytales (t.) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  With the little discussion I saw between the two editors involved, I don't think you were far off from needing both. Thanks for the quick fix. --Onorem♠Dil 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Death Threat

  I stumbled on this diff from 67.70.202.19 LeadSongDog 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The IP is self-reverting, but I've blocked three days for trolling.--Chaser - T 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you. Was this the right place to bring the issue?LeadSongDog 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Sure. WP:AIV will give you a faster response to any clear and blatant issue like this, but either is fine. Good job.--Chaser - T 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  KarenAER blocked as sockpuppet of Lukas19

  I have blocked single-purpose editor KarenAER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the previous account, KarenAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as sockpuppets of banned user Lukas19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Thulean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Now before you say "but the checkuser said unrelated", please hear me out.

  First, note when KarenAE started editing: April 23, 2007. Lukas19's arbcom ban was enacted on the 4th of that month. From the first edit, it was apparent that this user was not new. KarenAE, later abandoned in favor of the account with "R", jumped right into discussion on Talk:White people, the favorite debating arena of Lukas19, and KarenAE's first mainspace edit was to restore deleted information. Nothing wrong with that on the face of the issue, but it displays an odd familiarity with the site to not only use indents and tildes, but the correct number, and to know how to restore information from the history. It wasn't even a revert, it was actually picking text out of a version of the page from days earlier. So we know he isn't a new editor.

  Next, let's look at the stylistic and grammatical similarities. See these ellipsis? And these ones? And these? They were a common feature in the edit summaries of Lukas19. I found these five diffs after about 30 seconds of looking, not even using the search function: . Next up, a rather interesting habit: where most people say "for example" or "e.g", we have Lukas19 using the interesting "for ex". And we have KarenAER doing it too. Finally, an interesting shared typo: meditation where he means "mediation." Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, right here. Same talk page even.

  Just compare the edit histories of both of these accounts. The incivility, the soapboxing, the winding things up in bureaucracy to slow them down, and, most of all, the obsessive focus on race. All in all, I don't see a way these could be two people. Picaroon (t) 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Also weird spelling of standard as standart, the t and d on the keyboard are not adjacent to each other. Both these users also have a habit of telling other editors to "learn to read" during talk page discussions. Alun 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you so much. I and other editors also noticed some of these things - it is good that you just went ahead and composed the comparison that had been brewing. Race-related articles are difficult to edit as it is - we don't need (or appreciate) rightly banned users returning to do the same disruption. Hopefully this will make working on those articles less stressful and more productive. Regards, The Behnam 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  See also here where I make a very similar case. All people who had had dealings with Lukas19 agreed at this time that this was Lukas19, but the admin decided that a checkuser was conclusive. I'd note that people do actually move house, go to college etc, so the fact that someone has changes their IP is not conclusive in my opinion. The similarities are so striking I'd have thought it was obvious, even making the same linguistic mistakes over and over again. The style and substance of arguments is also almost identical. Both Lukas19 and KarenAER told me I was "banned" from posting on "their" talk pages. I'm sure if one were to seriously check the edit histories of these four accounts even more evidence compelling evidence could be found. Alun 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think sockpuppet blocks like this on very sketchy circumstantial evidence are used to silence opponents. These particular editors seem to be thinning the opposition to help create a false "consensus" on certain articles for their extremist political agendas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Also on the surface of it Picaroon seems to be working on behalf of the afrocentric troll/vandal Muntuwandi. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't make accusations like that without some kind of evidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The evidence is just as good as against Karen. Picaroon seems to be from the same region as Muntuwandi, mentions this issue of race, and is attacking one of Muntuwandi's prime opponents. Actually I'd say that is better evidence than is available against Karen. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Which region? Africa? Picaroon (t) 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yep. I mean it's not even disputable that you've been working with Muntuwandi on this. Like these comments on his talk page and frank discussion of strategy. I always find it curious how some people do not even make an attempt to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  How is that a "frank discussion of strategy"? He just notified Muntuwandi that an indef'd troll had cleverly used impersonation to make Muntuwandi look bad. There is nothing wrong with that - Muntuwandi deserves to know. The Behnam 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Right now your wild claims of some sort of conspiracy with Muntuwandi aren't very convincing, but I'd also like to point out that they are not relevant. None of this changes the damning evidence against "KarenAER," who is similar to Lukas19 in every way except IP. The possibility of an IP move is much more reasonable than any claim that all of these similarities are mere coincidence. The Behnam 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  You have to consider how innocent of some things Muntuwandi is or appears to be. Picaroon is seen in that quote 1) working with muntuwandi to eliminate his enemies 2) trying to assist muntuwandi in understanding some aspects of feinting and subterfuge. He's basically serving as a guardian angel for a very questionable user. This hunt for sockpuppets seems to be directed particularly at opponents of Muntiwandi which makes all of its allegations suspect. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  These assertions are laughable. Behnam, DNFT.--Chaser - T 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Disruptive editing at Iron Chef

  Hey. First off, my apologies if I posted this in the wrong place; I wasn't quite sure where to put it.

  On to the issue. There's a user who keeps making the same edits over at Iron Chef. The user has done it once a day for a few days, though on Aug 27 he or she did it three times, but we failed to report it. The big issue, though, is that his IP keeps changing. The edits: on Aug 26 as 69.106.250.232, Aug 27 (first) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (second) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (third) as 69.106.255.164, and Aug 29 as 69.107.6.90. Is there anything that can be done, or do we just have to keep reverting and hope that the user gets bored? Is this issue worthy of a semi-protect, or is that a bit too much? — HelloAnnyong 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I would say just keep reverting, there isn't that much problematic activity and it looks like ordinary vandalism. If it gets worse, WP:RFPP will be the place to go. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Role account

  Apparently JKDN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a role account, which AFAIK, are prohibited on en.WP. Leuko 04:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Frankly, I think this is a pragmatic opportunity to not enforce that policy so we can keep all the PR concentrated in one account (it only edits a single article).--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've left a note on the user talk page about COI but I don't think we need to take it any further than this. ugen64 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I would always advise against enforcing policy for policy's sake. If the account proves disruptive, that's another story. Someguy1221 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  It's definitely a COI situation, but to disrupt the fan-cruft for sake of policy will almost certainly result in us getting a sockmaster who will never stop. As long as he doesn't start spreading this guy's PR to other articles, we're probably better off leaving it be. Much as I dislike saying that, I do recognize the ENTIRE contrib log of that account is the one page and its' talk, so the problem's already 'contained'. ThuranX 05:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I thought we block these on sight, though. See Role account. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'd always figured those who wrote that would have added "Block on sight" if that were the case. Someguy1221 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The Role Account page states 'likely to be blocked'. This suggests to me( and standard IANaAd disclaimer) that these can be examined on a case by case basis. that said, Unless this account starts to edit other pages, I see little rason to start a fight. ThuranX 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Mnuux

  Mnuux is a Blanker, blanking content from various articles related to Somaliland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 05:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  All edits have been blanking: Special:Contributions/Mnuux —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 05:48, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  Blocked by WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours. You'll probably get a faster response to vandalism reports at WP:AIV though. Cheers ~ Riana ⁂ 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yes - please do. If you have properly warned the user, and they do not desist, then file a report at AIV; things there usually get picked up quite quickly. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  AFD Notices on article talk pages

  user:Bulldog123 had the same concern, which he posted on my talk page. Is this appropriate? User:Badagnani has posted AFD notices on talk pages of other articles to solicit responses to the AFDs. Examples are TALK:Laos, TALK:Jamaica, TALK:Germany. While I think posting of the AFD notices on WikiProject pages is completely appropriate (and encouraged), I do not think such notices should be posted on talk pages of other articles Corpx 06:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Why not? The more response those AFDs get, the better, and these notices are not being directed towards specific people (which is discouraged). ugen64 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, talk pages are meant for discussion about the article they are attached to. Except for the post on Talk:Germany, the AFDs are at best tangentially related, or not at all. This is a relatively minor issue, methinks. Someguy1221 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The more the merrier, but I dont think AFD notice should be plastered just everywhere Corpx 07:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Sometimes an article has been split out from a main article after discussion on the main article's talkpage. If this split-out article is nominated for deletion by someone else, isn't it natural to inform those working with the main article? Not everyone remember to put new articles on the watchlist, or frequent AFD with any regularity. Soliciting opinion is bad if done with the intention of unfairly skewing the debate, it is good if done with the intention of getting the opinion of those who are closer to the subject matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I do not think that trying to garner additional opinions and reactions is harmful. Many of the AfDs I see have a handful of participants, and usually the same handful at that, so perhaps encouraging greater participation would result in more accurate closings? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Disruptive user

  User:M.V.E.i., who has a history of edit warring, POV pushing and incivility , blocks, and sockpuppetry to avoid said block , has been leaving a series of unhelpful, potentially attacking comments at AfD to make a WP:POINT. Normally I wouldn't bring it here, but the user's history gave me pause. Eliz81 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Having blocked M.V.E.i. before, a quick look over those diffs doesn't suggest any action needs to be taken at this time. The AFD comments are indeed useless, but the closing admin for each discussion will judge them on their value. Neil ム 09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Myself and several others have offered some AfDs tips to the user in question and he seems to be making some effort to expand on his reasoning: . Maybe suggesting adopt-a-user would be helpful here? That program has been great for me so far! :) Best and I hope that helps! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, there are many other edits I didn't provide as diffs... this is between 20 and 30 separate AfDs. I was under the impression that's disruptive. Eliz81 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with Neil's assessment. Useless may these comments be, but certainly not attacking.

  Furthermore, while it's true that M.V.E.i. has a checkered past, he has also shown considerable improvement -- which is more than can be said about some other trolls.

  Eliz81: my understanding is that M.V.E.i. has trouble understanding the concept of notability, and, having suffered from a significant number of his articles getting deleted on notability grounds, does not really know what to do about it. The obvious solution would be carefully explaining the significance *and meaning* of notability to him, so more of his future contributions could stand. Digwuren 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  First of all, for what i've done i already was blocked (I dont agree with those blocks, but nevertheless if you would check my history i became more "polite"). Second, i dont see anything wrong in what i've said. "Keep. Thats it", it means i have nothing special to say, it means "no comment" but i'm not shure my speling in this word is correct so i write "thats it". I like the article, or i see potential of it becoming bigger, so i vote to keep it. And i really belive that if a user has a problem with an article lacking references, instead of blindely nominating it for deletion he should not be lazy (because it's the easiest thing, nominate for deletion) but search for the references himself, and only then if he finds there are no references and it all might be a "hoax" or something like that, nominating for deletion. When i get to an article which lacks references but i really like, i go and find them myself (Google helps alot here). If the article is not something that i care about and lacks references and i dont feel like searching for some, i just keep my mouth shut and move on. I just know how hard it might be to write an article, and when i see a good article that someone worked hard on but didn't know how to insert references nominated for deletion, that makes me sad and i'm like, help him, explain him, nominating for deletion it's the easiest thing to do. Third, I think the same thing about nominating someone for blocking, i mean, talk to him ask him and only then decide. You say i'm "disturbful" or something like that, did you see my contribution page before you said that? Did you read the articles i've created? Theres a person behind the user-name it's not just a game to nominate for blocking. I didn't use dirty language i dont see where i said something that i should be blocked for. And you didn't even told me you nominated me for blocking, and that's definitely not responsible, i was told by another user. M.V.E.i. 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I never said you should be blocked, nor did I say you used dirty language. I was merely reporting here that I believed you were disrupting AfD. I do apologize for not informing you of this thread. I appreciate your efforts finding references to save articles, but your keep votes telling other people to find references are a little patronizing, as it assumes that no one else has made the effort. When I say 'unreferenced' or 'no references', I personally mean that I've already scoured Google for them. Why are you assuming that other people haven't done their homework and their delete votes or AfD nominations are lazy? But, I'm glad other editors are working with you on this. Eliz81 16:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Most dont do this, belive me. There was a case 3 of my articles were deleted at once as "not notable". Those were articles of 3 bands that every Russian knows, 3 of the most importent in Russian rock. Eventually a Russian honest administrator restored the 3 of them explaining they were notable, and made the Google check to prove that. The thing is i didn't know the importence of references and thats why i didnt give them at the time, after i learned these i added the references. I dont vote on every article, but when i see someone puted his soul into it, made something he could be proud of, and it's nominated, it's kind-off a gentle spot. M.V.E.i. 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just because you had one experience where somebody doesn't look for sources before proposing a deletion doesn't mean everybody who nominates an article for deletion does this. Whenever I am thinking of putting an article up for deletion, my first instinct to do a Google search to see if there are any reliable sources that have covered the subject. Most people who are experienced enough to go through the AfD process know to search for reliable sources before stating that as a reason to delete. Your attitude that anybody who says there isn't any sources for an AfD'd subject didn't look for them borders on assuming bad faith and isn't good wikiquette. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Possible WP:POINT violation in Talk:Jackie Chan#Son

  On the discussion page of Jackie Chan, there is a discussion on Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter (Click the link on the header). In spite of being presented with multiple reliable sources, such as Time Magazine and Sing Tao Daily, a user DaliusButkus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) insists that the daughter isn't his, and refused to acknowledge it unless a paternity test is given as proof. The discussion has become rather tedious since he does not seem to change his positions despite repeated explanations of the sources by several editors, and it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and thus a violation of WP:POINT. I hope some third opinion could come and ease the situation.--Alasdair 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  If the content can be sourced, then it is worth adding in the light of appropriate context. An (effective; when considered) ask for a paternity test is both something which is obviously not going to happen, and which is quite ridiculous given the situation. Thats my 2c. -- Anonymous Dissident 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Andrew Keen

  Resolved – Neil has semi-protected the page and blocked the socks. --Bongwarrior 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Could somebody protect this page and/or deal with the vandals listed on WP:AIV fairly urgently? Cheers --Pak21 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Done and done. And I mean done. Neil ム 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Recreation

  I wish to point out I've found several recreations or copies of BJAODN and ESP pages in userpages, and nuked these per the previous lengthy discussions on the topic, and CSD #G4. Somebody is bound to scream bloody murder over this, but I do believe that after the aforementioned debates, neither ESP nor BJAODN should be recreated unless the previous outcome is overturned at deletion review, which at present does not seem particularly likely. >Radiant< 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Good call, userspace is not for content which has been deleted and isn't, ever, going to be restored. Especially when both of these have been debated to death. Neil ム 09:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  And as expected, somebody started screaming bloody murder at deletion review here, alluding to a Evil Admin Conspiracy that ignores the alleged consensus of the good community to keep the Bad Jokes around indefinitely. >Radiant< 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Purple Hearts

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

  Resolved

  This might not be an incident, but I definetly think this is something worth thinking about. From the article Purple Heart:

  Any false verbal, written or physical claim to the Purple Heart Medal, by an individual to whom it has not been awarded, is a federal felony offence punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine.

  There would seem to be a few cases of this according to where the popular image is located: File links. I would dread to think... — Moe ε 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't get it... Why? The only person who might have made such a claim is the uploader of the image, and they could just say it was someone else's. Grandmasterka 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Example: "In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - especially for dealing with users who would have others tearing their hair out - I hereby award you this purple heart." from Theresa Knotts userpage (emphasis mine). The user then plasters the image of the purple heart that they "earned", thus reading the entry at the Purple Heart article, any "false verbal, written or physical claim" is punishable by law. — Moe ε 09:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, now I get it. Yeah, that's an interesting thought. I can't imagine someone getting prosecuted over a picture of it on their Misplaced Pages userpage, but it might be seen as sacriligious by some people nonetheless. Grandmasterka 10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  My thoughts would be to remove any possiblity of that happening, or am I just being over zealous here? :/ — Moe ε 10:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  

  Could an image of a cartoon heart that is purple (like this one, but purple) be substituted into the template / all the user pages the Purple Heart medal is being used where it ought not to be? This way the award stays, but no issue with the above law stuff. Neil ム 11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that the quoted passage has the words

  "...purple heart..."

  in all lower case; which would then simply be a description of a coloured shape. Also, as far as I am aware the awarding of a Purple Heart medal is the result of injury/wounds sustained in combat, and the reason cited for awarding the coloured shape is unrelated to either injury or combat. The image is the only concern. If that is replaced per Neil, then everything is tickerty-boo. (edit conflict) This seems to have been resolved by Moe, below. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just created this one on Commons, I'll start replacing them. — Moe ε 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Marvellous. I got the "tickerty-boo" pun LessHeard, even if nobody else did. Aorta do something about those puns. Neil ム 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  It made me smile! First they gotta extract me outta the non-extradition treaty country I'm in! Which they will. El_C 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  If Misplaced Pages's servers weren't in Florida, I'd be inclined to say this is a non-issue for those of us outside the US. Since they are, however, does anyone see a problem with altering the text to say "award you this ' purple heart"? Jakew 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think it's an issue, notwithstanding , even if the servers were in Texas, I think we'd be fine. El_C 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I mean, playfulness is probably allowed somewhere in that, as of late, ever-changing constitution of theirs (i.e. you will not be arrested for police impersonation due to a Cops and robbers game, for at least a few more years, that is!). El_C 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Your inclined to add it your userpage however you like since the media is in the Commons, but I would suspect users be leary of these kinds of things. Jail time and $10,000 fines are no slaps on the wrist. — Moe ε 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think there has been enough "presentations" of "Purple Hearts" in the movie and television mediums to set a precedent that as long as it is reasonably clear it isn't the actual decoration, or being so portrayed, then nobody is going to slap a writ on anyone here anytime soon. LessHeard vanU 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I agree and think Moe Epsilon was probably being overly cautious. However 'tis better to be overly than under cautious and chasnging the picture has no effect on the "award" so I'm fine with it and I don't see anyone else being bothered iether. OTOH changing the wording as per Jakew's suggestion is OTT. No one in thier right mind would think that anyone is actually claiming a military medal is being awarded here. Can we mark this matter as resolved? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yep. Neil ム 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, it patently clear that it's not referring to the purple heart medal, anymore than those women with the "purple heart" band-aids during the 2004 election were wearing "purple hearts". I mean, why are we relying on a random Misplaced Pages page here — here's the actual law:

  (b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.';

  (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting `or (b)' after `subsection (a)'.

  (d) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other Medals- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense described in subsection (a) or (b) is a distinguished-service cross awarded under section 3742 of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, an Air Force cross awarded under section 8742 of section 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law, in lieu of the punishment provided in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.

  It's abundantly clear that it only refers to a military award, not a joke award with the same name. --Haemo 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  This was posted to my talk page, possibly by somebody who thought I was an admin (should I be? didn't think I was ripe yet)

  External Links on M.U.L.E. page violates Software Copyrights

  This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. ]

  BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

  (1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

  (2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

  (3) Misplaced Pages is NOT a collection of links.

  (4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

  This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link.

  Hungrywolf 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  --Orange Mike 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Strange. The direct link was added in December 2005. It was removed a week ago. The link happens to appear within an article discussing the game, and Hungrywolf has already decided that it must be BLACKBEARD27K's site? Also...I think both might be over 3RR by now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Looks like the same two editors have been warring at the Field Commander page also. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think we should be overly concerned. Enforcing copyright law is not our job, it is the job of the copyright holder. There's nothing illegal about linking to a page that links to a page where you can download something illicit. I'm not saying we should go overboard and link to full versions on TouTube for all movies and BitTorrent links to full downloads for all software, but I don't see this issue being so important that it needs to be brought to WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Arto Tunçboyacıyan

  Last time I checked this image had a license this user has deleted many pictures without any mention or talk, to even the uploader --Vonones 13:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The image was uploaded with the tag {{Somewebsite}} by User:Armatura on the 27th January. This was changed the next day to {{PD-self}} by User:Artaxiad. There is no explanation on the page as to why he did that. I'll take a look. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Turns out he is a banned user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  OK I've checked through both ] and Artaxiads contributions and can find no evidence of them talking to each other at that time. In the light of this I see no reason to trust that this photo is really public domain and support the deletion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Crimes and misdemeanors: WP:BLP violation

  I apologize for this uncivil edit summary. I should have hit a different Twinkle button.

  But I note:

  From BLP:

  Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles'

  Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

  Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.

  An editor is edit-warring to repeatedly violate BLP, including this third revert] that overwrote a comment explicitly referring to the policy. He then makes a personal attack when I point the policy out to him and accuses me of bad faith. How come I get three warnings on my talk page from one single edit, and no one is saying boo to the guy who is deliberately violating Misplaced Pages policy?

  We now have a second editor reinserting the material, which comes from a blog quoting an unnamed source. Does never mean never, or does it mean something else? If it means something, else, please modify WP:BLP to avoid this sort of confusion. I removed Wonkette cites from Madeline Albright, too, so this isn't POV-pushing on my part. Per WP:COOL, I'm walking away from this, and leave to others without further discussion from me, but I'm disappointed in the double-standard. THF 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  The material is reliably sourced, and applies to a corporate action, not a living person. As I see it, it isn't a BLP violation. THF has refused to address the substance of the issue, and instead chose to post vandalism warnings. In addition, of course, only two of those reverts restored this material, and one of them was undoing a massive whitewash of the article by THF. Guettarda 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  There's a related thread at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Regnery Publishing. I'm going out; any uninvolved admin is welcome to review and undo my page protection as appropriate. Tom Harrison 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is an encyclopedia, not a news article. We have a higher standard than a news article because whereas a news article can retract a story, the viral nature of our content means that a mistake is potentially out there for a very long time. Consequently, even though a news article (or news blog, in this case) might be willing to report an anonymous claim/rumor, we most certainly do not. I endorse the protection and/or blocking of any user who persists in adding this claim. --B 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  User:Movieguy999

  On the Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Movieguy999, who is completely ignoring consensus made on the talk pages of these articles, has been repeatedly removing well-cited material. While I have tried to stop it, he has, once again, removed the well-cited material. He has said in his most recent comment on Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#My problems with this article that he had made attempts at resolving this situation. He has said that the discussion has been completely one-sided. He said that he had made my case, the article clearly has issues, and has said no one has made an attempt to resolve them. He has said that he has given exact details of what is wrong and said that The Filmaker has done nothing but point to other articles and his own fan opinion. I didn't want to break 3RR, for which I made two reverts on TPM, so I had to report this situation here. Greg Jones II 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  
  By the way, I have instantly reverted his edits on TPM (second rv) and ROTS (first rv) along with User:EEMeltonIV on AOTC (first rv). Greg Jones II 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I am responding to show my support for this. There are problems with these articles and I would be interested in having an impartial mediator come in on this. There are several users who safe-guard these articles, who have close ties to admin's (which can be substantiated by checking their talk pages).

  These users communicate through their talk pages with these admins, then they bait the user into breaking the 3rr rule so that they can have them banned. The user then goes away and the article squatters get their way. This can again all be substantiated by checking their talk pages.

  The biggest issue is their citing of sources simply to give their fan opinion credibility. It's easy to find a rotten review on the internet and then use that as a source for saying "Most people thought this or that..."

  The article has many weasel words. Directly from the WP:Weasel Words page, words such as "critics say..." and "some argue that...", are known in Misplaced Pages as Weasel words.

  Yet, here they are in these articles. I've tried to remove them and been met with extreme resistence. You can see from the discussion pages of this article that I have made many attempts to resolve the situation and I have gone into detail as to what problems are there, but had little discussion. Even the user who is reporting this has done nothing but revert my edits.

  
  Movieguy999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs) 15:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  
  

  I am not a liar. I have done many things other than revert your edits (I am not your servant, nor are you an administrator). Your keeping on removing the well-cited information is definitely not appreciated, so we need some help resolving this situation. Greg Jones II 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I apologize for my angry replies towards Movieguy999 if I got upset, but we need this situation resolved. Greg Jones II 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have now contacted The Filmaker and EEMelton IV about this situation. Greg Jones II 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have blocked Movieguy999 for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR on Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. --Hemlock Martinis 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I reviewed TPM. I examined the diff between the two versions, and found ONE change I argeed with Movieguy999 about. I reverted that singular piece, and put why on the talk page. As to the general behavior, he's not listening, but you aren't talking enough either. be clear about your defenses of the current writing, and why change is not needed. A well worded response to the issues means having a defense at the ready next time, and you can link to the archive and be done with it. Finally, I suggested a comparison of the current state of the article to it's FA Article status version, and examination of the differences and building new consensus from there if needed. ThuranX 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Accusation of anti-semitism and terrorism

  I opened an AfD on an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here; then User:EAEB voted "Strong Keep This AFD is obviously based on anti-semetic and anti-zionist POV." I demanded a retraction on the AfD and posted a {{uw-npa3}} on EAEB's talk page. His response: "Why should I? Are you going to suicide bomb my house?" and (partially) "Your own comments clearly demonstrate your anti-semetic motives". I request whatever administrator action is considered appropriate in such cases. Eleland 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't really think action is needed... your demand of a retraction was worded such that it only really served to escalate things, as does templating people in a situation like this. His reply was over the top though... everyone just needs to tone it down. --W.marsh 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  You couldn't have said that before I warned him to tone it down and focus on the content of a debate rather than a user, or risk being blocked? ;o) Resolute 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Have we really reached the point where an apparently good-faith AfD nom is enough to accuse an editor of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Personally, I'm becoming of the opinion that we should be quicker to hand out blocks all around, on any side, to editors who clearly view Misplaced Pages as a battlefield. Such blocks would be preventive in the truest sense of the word, and possibly lessen the load on ArbCom down the line. MastCell 18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  (refactored to colons not asterisks). I'm with Mastcell. a crackdown on the agenda warrior battlefield editors would do a lot. There are cases, however, where the 'battlefield' comparison doesn't work, so there are times where we still need to be conscientious of what is and isn't a good case for this crackdown, but I'd support a general move to 'intolerance of intolerance'. ThuranX 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  User Posting Spam

  Resolved – Spammer indef blocked, spam rolled back.

  User:Mayleaf appears to be an account set up with the sole purpose of posting spam links. A list of his contributions can be viewed here he has been warned on his Talkpage about this by another editor but he's still posting them. Kelpin 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Definitely a spam-only account. Indefinitely blocked, all spamming removed. Neil ム 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I hate spammers. That said, this individual was warned, and instead of reposting the spam he went to Talk, said he was helping out his friends at the site, noted the link, and was then blocked before we could find out if he was going to press it. Not saying it's wrong, just a "hmmmm." Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  How much grace do we give?

  We have a user who is making a mess of the articles. He has been making edits such as adding parameters twice to infoboxes, ignoring project standards, using unreliable sources, etc. We have tried several times to communicate with him but he does not understand English well enough to understand what we are saying. What do we do? I assume we can't block him... but it is getting bad. We can't check every single edit this guy makes due to time, although we practically have to... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Who? Diffs? Details? thanks. ThuranX 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  User:Freewayguy. We have edits like this where he drops a parameter needed. We have , a messed up infobox with parameters being used twice, extra parameters being used, a link to California State Highway 11 that is unrelated to the subject, etc. This user is unsure of what he is doing and making messes of articles that we have to clean up. It is getting to the point where we have to check every edit he makes. Problem is, that is a waste of our time when we have other tasks at WP:USRD needing to be done.. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Bot being disruptive, owner not responding to the criticism.

  Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#ImageRemovalBot problem - User:ImageRemovalBot is still having problems with galleries as raised weeks ago (see this edit for an example of the problems caused where it outright removed their second album "Madonna"), yet the owner doesn't want to do anything about it (as you can see by his responses to me on User talk:Carnildo and the original bot policy discussion), citing that fair use in band galleries is more important than the actual accuracy - something I strongly disagree with. May I propose that the bot be blocked until it the problem is fixed and can deal with these galleries more transparently by removing the images without breaking their content? There's no doubt it's disruptive. Thanks. -81.178.126.124 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Minesweeper (computer game) edit war

  Assuming it's my fault, this is the revert that marks the start of the edit war.

  I can't see any reason - other than WP:COI - why User:88.82.46.193 should be so insistent that the illustrations for this article must be screenshots from KMines, rather than the previously-used generic images (produced by another editor in order to resolve a dispute that led to an RfC).

  I've attempted to discuss the matter but I can't get any response beyond shifting the burden of proof onto the creator of the original images and an edit comment mentioning "undew wait".

  If the consensus is that we're both guilty of edit warring, go ahead and ban us both for a while. I'll take a short wikibreak if that's judged to be necessary. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Note that the edit war has spread to the images themselves: Sheffield Steel_stalkers 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Your oversimplify and extrapolate.Mister rodrigo camargo has lied."I can't see any reason - other than WP:COI" well apparently you lack imagination,what can i say.He said that he made them manually,there is evidence that this is not the case.I didn't shift the burden of prouf on him,i just asked why it was only up too me to prouve that they are screenshots,as your question implied.You actually didn't say anything on the questions that i asked.Also,puting only your side of the story,behind my back, here ,isn't very nice.--88.82.46.193 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  the IP editor is clearly shifting the burden of proof to others. I can't see any reason to put the IP's favored program up. I also wonder why the article reads like a how to manual. ThuranX 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Fourdee making racist postings

  Just a note that Fourdee is making blatantly racist posts on several articles and/or talk pages , and I believe this is getting out of hand. Can an admin please look into it? The links I put together I did in about 5 minutes of looking through hs contribution history, and they're not all equally grievous, but I think this is worth looking into. Thanks!--Ramdrake 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Just making a comment as an outside observer, the first one looks to be the worst (no excuse for the wording, tone, and message) while the rest are really strong opinion. Both of you seem to be locked into a edit war/wikistalking campaign. Spryde 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Fine, I can accept your opinion. I just wanted to make sure a third, uninvolved party was aware of these postings. I was careful not to suggest any action, due to my involvement.--Ramdrake 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  No problem. I am not trying to judge anyone but put a perspective on it. Spryde 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think Fourdee should be blocked for at least 24 hours and warned that any more rascist spew like the first comment would result in an indefinite block. His comments go beyond what the media says and gives his opinions about the superirority of white women over black women. This is never acceptable except in white piower circles, SqueakBox 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'd note that making an ass of oneself on talk pages should not be prohibited; it provides an excellent guide to one's opinions and credibility. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  This comment should be added as well. There is also another statement on archive 16 of Talk:Holocaust: « This article is overblown with propaganda full of questionable numbers for not-very-wrong killings of bad persons festering within the borders of germany and neighboring areas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) » Again, just a random sample of his utterances. --Mathsci 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Editors having an opinion is of course allowed, and I am commenting on the content of the articles or responding to openly expressed opinions offered by other people. There's nothing saying a person who is racist or a nazi-sympathizer cannot edit and with appropriate civility share his views on articles, any more than a person who is a marxist, or a terrorist, or a pedophile, or any sort of belief, cannot with due civility share his views on the biases contained in articles and the problems with sources or paradigms used. People on wikipedia, including many admins, express very extreme and potentially offensive political views all the time - in the course of editing and discussing edits.

  The first edit cited is a response to the opinion expressed by the previous poster that the media is being "manipulated" to give more coverage of missing white women. What I am saying is that the article and its editors are pushing a really offensive, vicious POV - the point is to discuss the article and genuinely not to air my views. This is by no means outside the tone I have often had directed at me and I view these incessant complaints as nothing more than a campaign to silence editors who have opposing points of view on the content of articles.

  Misplaced Pages does not have approved points of view for editors to work under and I don't see how my behavior is anything but the mirror image of that of many other editors. Censorship would severely hinder Misplaced Pages and also weaken some important legal defenses it has in terms of not controlling the content. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Category:
  • Misplaced Pages noticeboards