Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 29 September 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)

• 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?

Users repeatedly removing db-copyvio tag

Joseph Coyetty is a copyvio from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=933406. I have already explained this to User:Mattinbgn, but he insisted on removing the db tag and when I explained the copyvio to Mattingbn on his talk page, he stuck a hangon tag on the article, and now User:Jreferee has removed the db tag saying "request denied since copyvio text no longer in article".

Yes, it is.

Line by line comparison:

Article: Joseph Coyetty invented toilet paper in 1857.

Copied page: Joseph Coyetty invented toilet paper in 1857

Article: Later on Mr. Coyetty would sell his invention, to The British Perforated Paper Company, in 1880.

Copied page: He sold his invention to The British Perforated Paper Company in 1880

Article: The paper was not sold in roll form.

Copied page: but it didn't come in roll form,

Please explain how that is not a copyvio. Three lines copied word for word from another page, out of a six line article. Half of the page is a copyright violation.

Corvus cornix 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just stubbed it; should solve the problem as long as nobody reverts to the copyvios.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i would hardly call 3 lines a copyvio, and also, how else can you make those three statements? Its pretty much the only way of making the points. Also, if he really did invent toilet paper, which a google search ()suggests he did, thats seem like a pretty high level of notability, even if the article does require a total overhaul--Jac16888 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did originally tag the page as nonsense, but once it was shown to me that the claims were true, I did some lookups online to see what I could find on the guy, and that's when I found the copyvio. I agree now, it's notability and should not be deleted on notability grounds, but if half of an article is practically word for word copied from another source, then it's a copyvio. But I now support Isotope23's stubbification. Thanks for your time. Corvus cornix 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, or if the user persists on removing the tag, {{uw-speedy1}}—{{uw-speedy4}} and then WP:AIV. Melsaran (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This has all been the biggest storm in a teacup that I have ever seen. I removed an inappropriate {{db-copyvio}} tag. As I was not the author of the article I was quite entitled to do so. Given that the reviewing administrator agreed with my reasoning and that another editor was able to remove the supposed infringing material without having to delete the article, my actions were clearly correct and I can't see how that is an issue. For removing the tag, I was then accused of reverting to copyright infringing material, which is factually incorrect; I have not touched the body of the article at all. I then explained my reasoning here and for my trouble got this rude reply combined with an attempt to intimidate me. After my removal of the speedy tag was vindicated by the reviewing admin, I am then implicity accused of contributing copyright infringing material and given a patronising lesson on how WP:V works. To top all of this off, no-one involved in this entire discussion has had the decency to inform me that this was taking place so I could defend my actions. There is a distinct lack of good faith being shown here; while I am not after an apology, I would like to place on the record my response to the discussion above. -- Mattinbgn\ 23:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Melsaran, advising editors to template the regulars is not a good idea. -- Mattinbgn\ 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the history at the request of User:Mattinbgn. As per User:Jac16888 I too would not call three lines a copyvio. Facts are just that and when briefly expressed there are few variations in wording them. The speedytagging was inappropriate given there were references available and notability does not seem in question. Looking at the original version of the article and comparing it with the reference that User:Corvus cornix found at one can see quite clearly that plagiarism was not involved and I fail to see without copying of text how copyvio can apply to a few brief facts - facts are surely in the public domain. Those facts are contained also in another web page which is now one of the article's references. --Golden Wattle 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Mattinbgn specifically canvassed User:Golden Wattle to come here to express an opinion. Corvus cornix 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My "canvassing" (strange term to use since this isn't a vote or even a !vote) can be seen here. As is quite clear to anyone assuming good faith, I was asking Golden Wattle to assess my actions as an editor. Also, she clearly states above that she was asked to review this by me in her comment above and it doesn't need a smarmy little comment like Corvus Cornix's above to make this clear. There has been no grand conspiracy and any claim of "canvassing" is quite ludicrous. Golden Wattle is a highly experienced and respected editor and administrator and I wanted her advice on my actions to date in this trumped up little incident. Further, Corvus Cornix's actions are getting quite close to WP:HARRASS here and should cease immediately. I suggest that Corvus Cornix put this incident behind him, learn a lesson from this about how speedy tags should and shouldn't be used and assume good faith and remain civil in disputes in future. -- Mattinbgn\ 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Viran reappears as "Flight Of The neo" with his vengeance

Flight Of The neo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as the first new incarnation of the yesterday indefinitely blocked Viran.

See archive of previous incident and Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He redirected the article Theory of relativity to his newly created vengeance article

And another newly created nonsense page, created earlier as Flight Of The Phoenix

It looks like he had prepared for this from way before his block. Probably some kind of experiment.

DVdm 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Decision made easy by the edit summary "Because ems57fcva called me crank on Admin noticeboard and DVdm laughed at me on his talk page. I seek apology from both. Also see Absolute Velocity Of Light. This is Viran." -- llywrch 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny and sad. Should we add another his name to our favorite flower's list of bad words? ;) 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs)

I don't get your cryptic allusion to "our favorite flower's list of bad words", but I agree with you about the "kind of funny and sad" -- especially since he's posting messages to Jimbo on his talk page. I don't know why he thinks Jimbo would read that particular Misplaced Pages page; I can't get the man to reliably read my emails to him -- & I've met him. (Maybe that explains why. :) -- llywrch 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sairilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a new instance of Viran, also started on 23-sep.

• Edit summary referring to his "question to Jimbo Wales"
• Edit summaries of recent contributions.
• "I hope you understand reason behind my constructive vandalism" on RHaworth's talk page.

DVdm 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, as before, the edit summaries made it pretty easy... SQL 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And, it appears that he's back...

Sairiliyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SQL 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Per request. . .could somebody? (link) R. Baley 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Done/nevermind R. Baley 10:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin should probably check out Viran's user page history (link to their comment on my talk page) R. Baley 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theory_Of_Relativity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed_of_Gravity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DVdm 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<moved to the right>

If you people check properly, it didn't began with vandalism. It began with my insistence to include my explaination to second postulate of SR. Some instances which can be termed as vandalism were aimed to block my sockpuppft account.

This is message to DVdm. I am usenet sci.physics 'Abhi'. I really felt sorry when I learned about Stephen Speicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins, has Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked? See last entry. DVdm 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out...". DVdm 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that funny, there is nothing he could do that could cause admins nightmares, or even use more than 5 minutes of there time--Jac16888 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The newest four are now blocked. SQL 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also check #9 (the IP) and #10 on Viran's user page? R. Baley 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's related... Odd, the IP is owned by Opera software . Looking more closely at it. SQL 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hi, I am rather new here. I was watching all this viram stuff. I do appreciate administrators for blocking such vandals. Hopefully my contributions will not be vandalised by such vandals.

Thanks to administrators once again.

virash 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restored blanked section, added the notice the user left when blanking) SQL 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Virash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Preparing userpage like before - DVdm 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user's sockpuppet

Tweety21, who's been blocked for legal threats and disruptive editing (and a confirmed "bad" puppeteer (with IP blocks as well)) is back on editing disruptively as Gayunicorn. It's the same style with a different face (right down to not signing her talk page comments). Please, somebody do something about her. It's exhausting trying to keep up with her manic editing. Pr 2.0 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't matter much, as the user name is offensive for a username block. - Penwhale | 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the user is a sockpuppet, certainly keep the account blocked, but I don't see the username as a violation of policy. It doesn't say "RobisGay" or "GayLacy". Simply identifying a sexual orientation, if I remember correctly, is not a violation of policy. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Every instance of "gay" is not a violation of WP:U. Making pre-pubescent boys giggle incessantly is not a policy violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

...and it could mean "happy unicorn". I agree with EVula and AuburnPilot. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 03:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful about the legal threats - I didn't see anything that even hinted at that. Where were they? That said, this individual is a fool to be doing this from work. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There were, I believe, 3, including this one on my talk page. If you want, I can find the others. Precious Roy 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism

Seeing as we've had a spurt of vandals today blocked for doing the same thing with similarly scatological names, can we block them at the source?
- Poosnorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bumchewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bumchewedwelloff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Poosnortingsenility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

wait five minutes, there'll be another one... Dibo 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins can't see IP info. What you want is a checkuser, file it under request for IP checks. Seraphimblade 07:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably using a dynamic IP address, as the autoblock should've caught them... --D_arkF_alls 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dynamic IPs from a large Australian ISP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SchubertCommunications

This is pretty obviously a PR firm that is posting articles and images on behalf of clients (see their contributions). Today, they posted a spam article and several spamlinks about themselves. It seems to me like they should be blocked, but I wanted another opinion. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a UAA in due to the name and the apparent purpose. Rlevse blocked them indef. Spryde 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

from this non-admin's POV, looks like a clear WP:UAA violation anyway. — Timotab 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I nuke all the images? I've deleted some that were orphaned. —Crazytales talk/desk 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to nuke 'em. WAVY 10 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Grinding and Dispersing Nanoparticles? Seems to be a paper put out by Netzsch Fine Particle Technology, and not appropriate for WP. —Crazytales talk/desk 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. 'Papers' by companies are just ads, nothing more. — Edokter • Talk • 23:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses abusing {{helpme}}

I don't know if anyone's been checking Category:Wikipedians looking for help recently, but I have and I've noticed that IP addresses have been making some particularly offensive/obscene helpme requests.

This is just a warning to watch out for them... hopefully we won't see any more, but we need to look out for it and (if they persist) semi-protect the page to prevent it. --Solumeiras 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There has mostly been a spate of open proxies doing this, one example being 69.93.244.114. -- zzuuzz 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Then this proves a useful honeypot for finding and blocking open proxies ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Request block for personal attack

Okstateguy987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is new account that has edited only one article. This person has removed sourced informaiton. and also added unsourced information to the article.

They have received 4 warnings about this, two from me and two from another editor. They have not once replied to these warnings, nor have they ever used the article Talk page to discuss any of this content. More importantly, they have not changed their ways.

Today they posted on my talk page saying, "You're a complete tool. ...Oh, and how about you spell Reid's name correctly? If you're going to even pretend like you know what's going on, you can at least do that." I do admit to making the typo, but there is no excuse for calling me a "complete tool". I consider this a personal attack from an account that has made no constructive edits.

I request Okstateguy987 be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. Johntex\ 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I left two stern final warnings. Rlevse 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That should help greatly! Johntex\ 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request additional admin eyes on article and talk page

Hello. I'd like to ask some more admins to watchlist Simon Wessely and Talk:Simon Wessely. User:JzG has summed up the issue here: a number of people with real-life problems with Wessely's research are active on his article, and have used it to attack both his research and the man himself. In the past the WP:BLP issues had reached the point where the article was blanked and protected by Jimbo himself to deal with defamatory edits.

The current problem is the article talk page. A brief glance will indicate that it's being used as a forum for argumentation and debate well outside the talk page guidelines. I proposed to remove off-topic or inappropriate posts. One of the editors responded by denying there was a problem and questioning my right to do so (as well as soliciting support from other editors who share her POV).

I think at this point, more admin eyes are necessary. User:JzG and User:Jfdwolff have been watching the page, but Guy is on a (hopefully temporary) hiatus. Can I ask any uninvolved admin to watchlist the article and talk page, and perhaps chime in regarding the talk page guidelines? Thanks. MastCell 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having read through that article & talkpage, there's obviously some high-grade warring going on but I'm not 100% I understand the arguments; as I understand it, it boils down to: The subject says CFS is a real illness; other people say it's psychosomatic; no-one can agree whether he's A MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS for working out that this is a real disease, or AN EVIL STOOGE OF THE DRUG COMPANIES for inventing a phony disease, and both side have references to prove that their version of events is the only correct one. Am I interpreting this right? (I freely admit that prior to reading this, I'd never heard of him.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I had never heard of him either before his page was targeted for some pretty serious BLP violations. I think JzG's summary is reasonable: Wessely's research, while recognizing physical triggers for CFS, also emphasizes its psychological component. Some patient groups are angered by his work, as they regard CFS as a purely physical rather than partially psychological condition. There have been allegations of real-life harassment of Wessely by such groups (beyond their presence and effect on his Misplaced Pages article). I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but I'm not particularly interested in weighing in on the content disputes themselves... I'm more concerned with user conduct and abuse of the article talk page. MastCell 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of this person either, but certainly I've heard of CFS, and being in medicine, I'm fully aware of the two sides of that camp. However, I think that, as with all such issues, Misplaced Pages is not the place to determine the "truth" of such issues, but to simply state what Wessely's views are, and then without bias, explain what his detractors think, in a neutral tone with the full explanation that "this person/group does not agree, as they explain in this ref" all the while giving reliable sources properly cited, to contrast and compare the two sides. As with all WP:BLP issues, negative and/or defamatory statements must be backed up by reliable sources and presented in a neutral tone. It is sad to see issues like this, where Misplaced Pages basically becomes a battleground for two warring points of view, simply because of the nature of its open editing, and I think the protection on the page is genuinely warranted for now. As for the talk page, if people start to debate CHF real/not real, stick to reminders that the talk page is specifically for discussions of how to improve the article in question, and not a place to debate whether a condition is real or not, or to argue about whose view is right. Feel free to ignore my opinions, however, as I'm neither an admin, nor am I familiar with this article's history. I have, however, had experience with a very similar biographical article, so I can fully understand the frustrations. 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The annoying thing is, it's actually a pretty good article compared to the usual {{med-bio-stub}}. I'll keep an eye on it, but this as all the hallmarks of one that's never going to go away (I count 3 SPAs on the talkpage discussion today alone, which is usually a good sign of a discussion about to break down completely). — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you've put a link to "JzG's summary", but that link doesn't seem to refer to anything by JzG. Am I missing something? — Timotab 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it was supposed to be a link to a WP:AN section started by Guy on this topic. Maybe I screwed it up. It's still active on WP:AN at present - just search for "wessely". Sorry for the inconvenience. MastCell 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG==Guy? if so, that wasn't clear as he's not linked to his user page with his sig. — Timotab 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He was at one time User:Just zis Guy, you know?, and has shortened/changed it a bit over time. Leebo /C 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you are unfamiliar with the topic it may read as a good article, but in reality it is not. Simon Wessely is primarily known for his controversial views on a.o. CFS, and for his controversial treatments, and the article in no way reflects that. It doesn't even say what his views and treatments are. Please understand how painful it is for patients, who suffer continuously from the consequences of these views and treatments, to read an article in which this man is praised for having devoted his life to CFS. Regards, Guido den Broeder 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in return, please understand the central importance and non-negotiability of Misplaced Pages's central policies, such as verifiability, neutrality, and fair treatment of living article subjects. Please also understand that utilizing Misplaced Pages as a battleground upon which to wage an outside conflict will rapidly wear out the community's patience. If this person is really that controversial, then it should be a straightforward matter to provide high-quality sources attesting to this controversy; please focus on such sources rather than on debate, argumentation, personal opinion, etc on the article talk page. That's what this is about. MastCell 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Zingostar

Following an AfD, started by me, about Charley Kazim Uchea the conclusion was "delete and redirect". The create of this page, who has been hostile from the start, recreated the page on 27 September. I changed it back to a redirect, and made a TalkPage comment stating nothing has changed re notablity since the AfD. A talk page discussion lead to more insults from him . Then he tried to report me for vandalism, but this was quickly dismissed. Then I was reported on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. However, I am because since then he has reverted many of my recents for no proper reason. Please see these . Also note two incorrect page moves and , and more personal remarks (with an editor who I disagreed with, but we have since comprimised), , . I really am finding this harassment too much. If requested I will diff of the personal remarks made during the previous AfD. Thanks. --UpDown 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect and blocked this user for a week for harrassment. If he re-offends, bring it up again. --Haemo 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --UpDown 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Geraintrdavies - apparent COI, advice needed

I could use some advice on whether I have done the right thing in relation to the user Geraintrdavies (talk · contribs).

This is an SPA, which has been used primarily to edit the article Geraint Davies (Labour politician), whose full name is "Geraint Richard Davies", who was a British Member of Parliament from 1997 to 2005. The edits have involved adding a lot of material about Davies's career, most of it boosterish, almost none of it referenced; this user's only other contributions have been this series of edits to the article on Andrew Pelling, who defeated Davies in 2005 and has recently been arrested for assault on his pregnant wife (external links relating to that assault were added prominently to the article on Davies). The 50 edits to Geraint Davies (Labour politician) include this removal of a sourced note about the high level of Davies's expenses as an MP.

User:Geraintrdavies edits started three days before Mr Davies's selection for a new parliamentary seat, and continue until shortly before I blocked him this evening, after receiving no response to previous warnings and questions (see User talk:Geraintrdavies).

I blocked him for 24 hours, both for vandalism and for apparent COI. I am unsure whether I have blocked too soon (not enough warnings), or whether a longer block is in order.

So far as I can see, User:Geraintrdavies is either

• The politician himself, flagrantly breaching COI to puff his profile, or
• Someone else impersonating the politician to create that impression

In either case, it seems to me that an indefinite block is called for, but I also fear that this is potentially newsworthy, which is why I have come here for advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the account has primarily been used for ill purposes, an indef block is appropriate. That can be lifted if the user agrees to observe site standards and intends to start making productive edits. You can also bring cases like this to WP:COIN for further investigation. I recommend you do that now because these articles may still need to be cleaned up, and they should be watched for a while in case the editor returns with a sock puppet account. You can tag the articles with {{COI2}} (if notable) or {{COI}} (if not notable). Under WP:BLP you should immediately remove any negative, unsourced info. You may know this already, but the advice could be helpful for others. Thanks for your help. - Jehochman 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also placed a note at WP:COIN#Geraint Davies (Labour politician), linking to this discussion, and tagged the article with {{COI2}}. I will increase the block to indefinite pending a resolution, but my main concern now is that it may be appropriate to notify the press team about this, because I can see a potential news story here. I've never had to do that before, so can anyone tell me how to go about it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back in the article history it seems that there have been some other editors who have been adding highly inappropriate material (see, e.g, this addition) which is to his discredit. There may be more going on here than appears on the surface. Sam Blacketer 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that there are a series of sockpuppets of banned user DeathWatch2006 who have attacked the page. I'm wary of identifying him here, but his real life identity is discoverable through some of the external links placed on pages. Sam Blacketer 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block person making attack accounts

On Sept. 5, this account was blocked indefinitely as a blatant attack account . This account was created by someone at 130.127.230.167 (talk · contribs). The evidence is here, follow the string of comments on the talk page: , , , , . As you can see, in the final diff, this person admits to having created the attack account. The attack account was blocked and the creator should be blocked as well, I think. The Parsnip! 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the blocking, this happened 5 months ago and there have been no edits from that shared IP since August 8. If there is more vandalism or attacks it may be blocked. Until then, I don't see what blocking will accomplish. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User 122.163.***.*** Vandalism

A user at varying IP addresses in New Delhi, India, all beginning with 122.163, has repeatedly deleted any edits by user Cullinane. For the vandal's background and motivation, see User_talk:Cullinane. For specific examples, see user contributions of 122.163.102.246 and the Sept. 28, 2007, history of the article Logical_connective. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've range blocked for a week, I hope I did it right. :) Maxim_(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mrbill66

User:Mrbill66 Despite warnings and objections from over two other editors is engaging in continually deleting well-sourced information and the infobox from Lewis Libby without prior discussion and contrary to established consensus. Please assist in stemming this apparent WP:Edit warring. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected and Mrbill66 was given a warning. Note that your edits also broke or came close to breaking 3RR as well. I also removed the redirect on your talk page to our userpage, please let people use your talk page; it confused at least one user. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page was redirected upon the suggestion of a user (archive 16). I just don't have time to discuss issues about editing articles that belong on their talk pages on my user talk page (I updated it again after seeing your comment here). I had stopped into Misplaced Pages today for what I hoped was a very brief time and encountered the problem mentioned above. Rather than to violate WP:3RR, I posted about the problem here. I have to log out of Misplaced Pages again to do pressing work. Thanks for your assistance. --NYScholar 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

{reply my MrBill66]--> there actually have been no reverts on my part (I always paste my edits, rarely do I use "undo" though I would certainly be justified in doing so). I have asked for a compromise but instead get a 3RR complaint. Please persuade him to engage in dialog...thanks.. MrBill66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To MrBill: It does not matter if you use the undo link, a rollback script, or copy and paste; if you change the content of a page to something the same or extremely similar to a previous version, it still counts as a revert no matter how you do it and edit warring is disruptive no matter how you do it. There aren't any silly loopholes like using "Undo" to 3RR.

To NYScholar: If you are going to be editing Misplaced Pages, please have a place where people can contact you, your talk page works great for that.

To all involved in this conflict: You all need to engage in dialog. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AntiMapleStory

I think antimaple story should be wathced because of his username and recent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavegave30 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, I don't find any contribs from an AntiMapleStory (or various other iterations of the same name), but there's a decent chance that if it does exist, it's a sock of indefinitely blocked User:Maplestorykid99 and, potentially, so is Gavegave30. Into The Fray /C 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry to be so suspicous, but something's wrong here. The only user I can find with a name anywhere similar is Anti-Maplestory, and they haven't edited since June 2007 (unless there are recently-deleted pages I can't see). Gavegave30 just joined us today, with a grand total of 4 edits, one of which is here, two are to his user page (and one of those is to remove "Maplestory" as one of his interests), and one is a puzzling comment about sockpupptery at Talk:Runescape related to the indef blocked sockmaster User:Maplefan (who, coincidentally, was blocked yesterday). One of my detectors is going off, but I'm not sure which one. I suggest no one spend much time on this until Gavegave30 can at least explain his problem more clearly. --barneca (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a telling edit. Corvus cornix 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell if this is Maplefan. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BigDikDavid

Could somebody please revert and protect User talk:BigDikDavid? Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of... MastCell 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill White (neo-Nazi)

User:Poonanii inserted amongst others private information about this person: and . I think this revisions should be deleted (although I don't agree with White's agenda). --Oxymoron 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight. Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, request transmitted. --Oxymoron 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as a username violation. Thanks Russell Peters! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

David Stein (Toronto actor

David Stein (Toronto actor (note the missing paren) got created the other day by User:Steindavida. I tagged it for speedy deletion due to a lack of notability. This pleasant little edit makes it clear that it was, indeed, a COI edit. Since that time, several anons have seen fit to add a red link to various other articles, including Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver), and User:Golden Wattle has been running around disambiguating from David Stein to David Stein (Toronto actor). I will assume good faith on Golden Wattle's part, but the several IP addresses resolve to Toronto IPs, so it's likely to be Mr. Stein repeatedly trying to add himself to lots of articles to make himself look notable. Is there anything we can do short of locking down all of the Toronto Bell Canada addresses? Corvus cornix 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit this is a cut above the usual "you are a fag" personal attack, though. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. But if Misplaced Pages is so bad, why is he so desparate to get an entry? And having worked in a school, I know that schoolchildren around here are told they can happily use Misplaced Pages to find information on it, but to recognise the project for what it is, and to check the sources and references that are provided with the article, and cite those.  — Timotab 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The typographical exuberance lends additional credibility to his complaint. Raymond Arritt 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Steindavida for continued attacks on Mattinbgn. Adam Cuerden 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa's frequent 3rr violations

User:Taharqa was today reported by me for 3rr violations on the Race and ancient Egypt article. Report can be found here. Here are the 4 reverts:

• 1st revert: 11:23, 28 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 28 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:06, 28 September 2007
• 4th revert: 12:53, 28 September 2007

This is the warning given prior to violating the 3rr. 11:57, 28 September 2007

This user has a very long history of violating 3rr and has violated the rule a total of 8 times in the past 5 months. The user ignored my warning that he/she was violating policy prior to making the 4th revert. The user called my report "misguided", shifted the blame to me, and also called my warnings "irrelevant chatter".

The Race and ancient Egypt was protected (at my request) due to the disputes that were occurring there, and thus User:Taharqa was never blocked. I am of the opinion that this user will continue to violate 3rr in the future if violations of policy are not enforced. This user has not admitted making any mistakes and I think that in order to prevent further violations of the 3rr this user should be blocked for a duration commensurate to the users previous violations of the policy. The longest block was for 5 days. Wikidudeman 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

I hate to waste admin time on this, but User:WebHamster is a well-meaning editor of about 4 months with (according to himself) over 5000 edits, who seems to think basic rules don't apply to him and could use a little administrative help. In particular, he has been persistently inserting unsourced and poorly sourced information about living persons, repeatedly ignoring WP:BLP warnings. When presented with a verbatim quote of Jimbo's policy on this matter, his response was "Jimbo is out and out wrong... If you wish to revere Jimbo as a messiah then please do so, just don't do it to me.". Perhaps he still doesn't know who Jimbo is, but after being told about WP:BLP here and here and here and here and here, by now he should understand what's acceptable.

We have blatant disregard for the WP:3RR rule as he persistently re-inserts the unsourced content (original, first, second, third, fourth, fifth insertion), with his violation pointed out by another uninvolved editor here and here.

We have blatant disregard for WP:NPA, where he refers to me as a "sore loser", and reverts me when I remove it. We have ad-hominem attacks such as (in response to asking him to cite sources) "What planet are you on?". After removing this comment as well, he reverts it right back. In both cases, he insists it's not my place to remove these comments.

We have him littering my talk page with "vandalism" accusations that he reverts back in place when I remove, such as here, here, here, and here. When I asked him why he gave me multiple vandalism warnings in a row when I hadn't even edited Misplaced Pages between his warnings, he described his reasoning as "simple mathematics": I removed his unsourced content 3 times, so I deserved 3 "warnings", and that his warnings weren't intended for me, but to demonstrate to others that I was a "vandal". He continues to allege vandalism here, here, even insisting that the issue "is not a dead horse" despite being told otherwise.

He will be the first to tell you I am "wiki-stalking", and "wiki-lawyering" him. His rationale is that he successfully AfD'd an article I wrote, and therefore I'm out for "revenge". When in fact, what I noticed was that he posted references to the magazine New Scientist in 3 completely unrelated articles ( ), all in one sitting, all of which to me had the appearance of sensational spam (especially since one claimed to be a "cure" for diabetes). I challenged him in all three places and participated in a short reversion war with him, all of which would have been moot if he simply provided his sources rather than reposting the content unsourced. Notice that, strangely enough, my "stalking" is apparently occurring on my own talk page, not his. His allegations are repetitive - here, here, here, and if the pattern holds, soon right here on ANI. If asking him to cite his sources is wiki-stalking or wiki-lawyering, then I suppose he's right. According to him, I am lucky that he hasn't gone through my edit history and sent the rest to AfD, or rather, "wiki-lawyered into the bit-bucket" as he puts it.

I feel admin intervention (even if it is just to remind him of the rules) would be well placed, as with his edit count, he is clearly a productive editor that simply needs to understand the rules apply to him, and that perhaps indeed Jimbo is always right when it comes to Misplaced Pages. Reswobslc 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking over their Misplaced Pages space edits there do seem to be some very odd calls at AfD (, , as a random sampling from the last week alone); they also seem to vote "delete" on every article without exception. I agree there's something funny here, but equally they do seem to have created a fair amount of valid content. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be observed, even as it's largely inconsequential here, that, except to the extent that he acts in his official capacity as a member of the Foundation's Board of Trustees or in furtherance of some authority conferred thereby, Jimbo is a "normal" editor/admin/bureaucrat, and any special consideration that might be given to his opinion about what policy ought to be or his interpretation of what policy is is given by the community at its discretion, in view, one supposes, of his considerable history here. Adducing Jimbo's pronouncements on what our policy with respect to BLPs ought to be, then, except, for instance, to offer a bit of history as to the development of BLP, etc., isn't particularly useful, and although it seems that you've clearly and accurately explained community-divined policy and extant practice, such that WebHamster should not be editing in contravention of policy, it is fair to say that were an editor to object to another's conduct solely because that conduct is contrary to that which Jimbo has expressed he thinks policy ought to be, the latter might do well to reply as WebHamster did, although perhaps a bit more decorously. Joe 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden, yet again

I'm truly sorry to have to raise this matter again, but it just doesn't want to go away. Protection of the redirect was lifted after the last edit war, and it seems that User:Reginmund was waiting in the wings to revert again to his own prefered article. I've already reverted three times but shall do so no more, not just because of WP:3RR, but because it only seems to be exacerbating the situation. I've opened up a new discussion on the redirect talk page, and even given my support for a compromise, but frankly I'm not optimistic that any good will come of it, at least not without some more opinions from other users.

I really don't know what else to do, having never dealt with a situation like this before, so some advice on how to proceed would be welcome. But to be honest, I'm tempted to wash my hands of the affair, because I really have better things to do (as do all of you, I'm sure). Thanks. PC78 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We do, you should, and you're editing against consensus. Leave it as a redirect to the disambig. There are a sufficient number of probable intents when that is put into the search field that having it go directly to the disambig makes sense. That the Iron Maiden (capital M) version goes right to the proper name of a band also makes sense, as it's their name. However, continuing to edit war for four months (or more?) is absurd. Leave it alone, go edit something useful. Really. That's WP:LAME material, if it's not there already. ThuranX 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing against consensus, though. There is none, hence the continual edit war. I'd be more than happy to accept the dab page as a compromise, but the other user seems unwilling to entertain this idea. PC78 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read some of that edit history wrong. I saw you turning it to the band over and over, and the other guy turning it to the disambig.. I mised where he then bounces it to the torture device. Leave it at the disambig, and I'll weigh in on the talk there as well. ThuranX 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected for a month on the wrong version. Either y'all work this out (perhaps through an RFC) or it expires in a month because no one else cares. --Golbez 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit war is incredibly lame. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a quick look at Conservapedia

Hi all, there is a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and I stumbled across the article, saw all the leftover stuff, and reverted it back to before it was mangled. Didn't notice that he is off his block for 3RR and has already violated 3RR (4,5,6RR) within a few minutes (as has the IP who has been trying to deal with the edits in question). Since I've reverted, I'm now considering myself involved and am refraining from enforcing another 3RR block or protecting the page. Here is a diff of the edits being made so you can see the kind of POV I'm talking about. I would have posted to AN/3RR, but this is an ongoing thing and perhaps a stiffer response should be considered. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍

a new editor that has been introducing massive POV to Conservapedia. - I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or not... Raul654 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I'm talking about Conservapedia's article on en.wp, not Conservapedia itself. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, I went to indef him, but Flyguy649 had already given him a 48 hour block. Raul654 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Raul654 said. ;). 48 h block for a second 3RR violation. If people feel that is way to lenient, feel free to extend it. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 _contribs 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments he uses in edit summaries, is there any likelihood that this user will begin to conform to the NPOV policies? ThuranX 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: If a user is making edits such as the above, and leaving "last warnings" on IP editors' talk pages whose contributions annoy them (e.g., diff), what is the best way to deal with that? I want to make sure some recent-changes patroller doesn't make a knee-jerk decision to immediately send the IP to AIV if it should ever happen to make a real mistake down te road. Should I request speedy deletion of the IP's Talk page (and under what cirteria), should I simply rv the contents of the page, should I strike it through and leave and explanation, or what? --Dynaflow babble 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC) It looks like the warned IP made three genuinely silly edits to Conservapedia over a short stretch of time, and Wafulz has left a short explanation on the Talk page, though he left the two "final warnings." Would anyone object if I replaced the contents of the IP's Talk page with a {{uw-npov2}}, listing Conservapedia as the article in question? --Dynaflow babble 03:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't object, seems sensible to me. Thanks for the quick response, Fly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to a week for personal attacks on that anon if no one noticed yet. If he comes back and continues to POV push/revert war/attack after that I would recommend indef. I don't think that IP deserves any warnings. I would hardly call changing "by the radicalised and liberally biased mainstream media for perceived factual inaccuracies" to "for its numerous factual inaccuracies" an NPOV violation. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the IP deserves a warning -- just not two big, "immanent doom" ones -- for these two bits of silliness. --Dynaflow babble 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to come and amend my comments - I missed those ones. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I only looked at the 3RR. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to investigate Nashville School of Law and IP=69.245.45.165

Hello, I was directed to this page earlier tonight from the "Report Vandalism" page. Can someone look at the recent change history behind Nashville School of Law and confirm whether violations have occurred? I've had an anonymous user (who was previously warned back in June) make reverts, twice in 24 hours, to edits that in my mind were legitimate and in conformance with Misplaced Pages's viewpoint neutrality policy. My own edits are documented at significant length on the Discussion page for the same entry.

No reason was given for either of the reverts except for a terse message in the history that appeared to be a personal attack. Additionally, I will admit to being new to Misplaced Pages, so if I ran afoul of anything, please let me know, and I will make corrections accordingly. But at this time I feel my own actions were taken in good faith. Thanks, Witzlaw 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-Admin)Looking at the history, it appears that this is less of Vandalism, and more just a difference of opinion, of which i have no idea is the more accurate(although yours has more references, which is a good thing) which should be resolved through the talk page, bearing in mind that the 3-revert rule states that you cannot revert an edit more than 3 times or you will be blocked--Jac16888 04:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Does an Admin concur with Jac16888's finding? Also bear in mind the following: 1) I've already resorted to the Discussion page, but our anonymous editor refuses to go there. 2) I've reverted twice and our anonymous user has reverted twice. Right now, it's anonymous' turn, so apparently his reversion will be the first to violate the policy. Witzlaw 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the Ip's first edit was a rewrite, you are the one reverting them, counting it shows that he/she has reverted once, and you twice. However if they refuse to take it to the talk page, then hopefully another editor with knowledge of the us school system will be able to make a judgement--Jac16888 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree with the last assessment. Anonymous' initial action was not a rewrite, but a verbatim copy-and-paste from an earlier version of the article, the one that came just prior to my rewrite. Is that not effectively a revert (so that we each have two)? Mind you, this anonymous user has already had a history of abuse--in fact, (s)he even received a final warning on his talk page for prior vandalism on multiple entries. Under these circumstances, must I be compelled to negotiate with him? Regarding the other point you made, I don't know if there is a third-party neutral that can look at this--seems there were relatively few edits by anyone between last June and until now. Witzlaw 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't aware his edit was a revert to an earlier version, so yes you are both on 2 reverts. However, regardless of vandalism in the past, which was last seen in June, you must assume good faith, vandalism in a users past is no real reason for ignoring policy. Just be patient, clearly he/she is not editing right now, so just wait for a 3rd party to come along, which will happen soon(fingers crossed) as this board is watched by many editors and admins. I do apologise that i can't help with the content itself, i have no idea how the US school system works, the sections are mostly meaningless to me--Jac16888 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But could this be vandalism?

Jac16888, thanks so much for all of your timely responses. Could I point out one other thing that I just noticed? On the Nashville School of Law article, if you do a compare between the version timestamped 24 September 2007 (20:59) (that's my original rewrite) and the version timestamped 29 September 2007 (01:35) (apparently, IP's 2nd revert) (DIFF), IP deleted an entire section unrelated to my edits ("Accreditation and Bar Passage Data"). I didn't even write that section...at the moment, I don't know who did. Since that's an outright deletion of a significant slice of the article, wouldn't that count as vandalism, regardless of what might be said as to my own edits? Other points well taken. Thanks again, Witzlaw 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection

I've protected the article for one week. Suggest working things out on the talk page and taking issues to dispute resolution. Durova 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Review User: Metros Editing History of Constantly Shadowing User: Hoopsworldscout Edits

I still continue to receive what I believe is unmerited harassment due to possible personal and/or political reasons from user Metros. He does not respond to any email that I have sent to him, nor any discussion on any page that I have made.

See page TODD FULLER. I added text “He is a pilot with about 100 hours….” with valid external, unbiased source, and Metros adds an NPOV warning tag. I have add the following text to the discussion page, so I copy for you below b/c I am fearful Metros will delete or revert this text once again:

"Self Added But Only With Valid Outside Sources (from page Todd Fuller)"

Subject has added text but only with valid external sources. See JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY, both articles have NO sourcing for some or all of their text, and have also been self-edited, but no NPOV complaint is established there. Please see User Metros editing history, he has displayed evidence of personal attacks due to possible personal and/or political reasons by reverting multiple edits on multiple pages edited by user Hoopsworldscout. See: SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSPORTATION and CHARLOTTE as examples. Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. See SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANPORTATION page. User Metros immediately deleted that page when it was created, possibly due to political reasons. I re-established the page. Several users voted to remove the page, albeit, based on improper reasoning. Administrator JREFEREE ruled that it was a valid page, on the “articles for deletion” (established by Metros) talk page with plenty of proper sourcing, yet use Coredesat deleted the page once again. Misplaced Pages policy states that an article may not be deleted simply because you don’t like the “politics” about a group or its purpose.

He also, after deleting this article once, and after admin Jreferee ruled it was a valid article on the articles for deletion page (which User Metros) established after I reinstated article, proceeded to add editorial opinion pieces as sources attempted to cast the group Sensible Charlotte Area Transporation in a very negative fashion.

It is deeply unprofessional to edit and delete text on Misplaced Pages or harrass a user just because you do not like their politics.

I urge you to take necessary steps to curtail user Metros unwarranted and unfair behavior.

Regards,Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin response)1. re the Todd Fuller article, i believe that the auto-biography tag was justified, and not added purely because of the pilot thing, although Metros could have handled it better by discussing it with you rather than just giving you warnings.

2.Although Jreferee is an admin, he/she didn't "rule" that way, it was simply a comment they made regarding their opinion, Cordesat ruled it should be deleted, whether that was right or not i don't know

How can they be harrassing you if they aren't responding to you?

--Jac16888 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros is harrassing me because he follows behind virtually every article I add or edit, and undoes many valid additions. See above. For example, once again please review articles JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY. These article have multiple statements with absolutely no referencing, and they are self-edited by the person or staff for whom the article is about. Do you see Metros going behind and deleting unreferenced text on these articles?

Also, on Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation page. Note that user Metros said article should be deleted a second time, after Metros deleted it the first time. Then, after admin JReferee said it was appropriate to have this article, b/c Jreferee said an article's existence is not based on whether you like the article - user Metros then proceeds to add editorials (opinion) articles as references.

How the heck does Metros get away with this, are we reducing Misplaced Pages to a tabloid driven by power hungry users like Metros? 75.181.35.199 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the editorials the first time. Jreferee did, actually. He added them, then you removed them and replaced them with editorials of your own. I simply reverted your removal of the text. Metros 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User Metros, if what you are saying is true, then why did you initially delete the article, and speedy delete at that, then decide to go back and edit the article? My sources were from the NEWS sections, not editorial opinion columns. Hoopsworldscout 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John adding possibly libelous material to David Hicks article

User:Prester John insists on adding material to this WP:BLP on David Hicks which is not properly referenced, and possibly libelous. Here's the DIFF. User:Prester John is adding text which says the David Hicks is in the Taliban and al Quaeda, but we can't say things like that unless they're properly sourced. If a 3rd party claims he's in al Quaeda, then we have to say "3rd party says he is in al Queada", not "he is in al Quaeda".

The Talk Page discussion has been going on for some time about this, but User:Prester John is being disruptive by editing but not participating in the community discussion. I also wrote on the Misplaced Pages:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board (scroll to bottom of page) on why I think the material is libelous.

User:Prester John has a history of edit warring on this David Hicks article, has been previously blocked for being disruptive on the David Hicks article, and a history of going through the Wiki articles of Muslim people to make them look bad.--Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The material I think could be libelous is still there on the article. A revert to a previous edit will correct it. However, I'm concerned with 3RR rules to do it myself. Thanks, --Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again admins are subjected to this users gross misrepresentations. There is is virtually nothing in the above that statement that is correct or even true. Lester shoul be blocked for blatant lying, wasting time and failing to understand even the basic tenents of Misplaced Pages. 'All references in the comprehensive David Hicks article state he was a member of the Taliban and trained with al Qaeda. Why? he admits it himself, freely. He has written about his Taliban experiences to various members of his family, has described events in great detail to both the Australian government and the United States government. reputable news organisations such as Reuters and AP and the Australian ABC have many, many articles which describes his involvement. What is truly astonishing is that the only person in the entire world who denies he was a Taliban member is Lester2. I have descibed the situation to him, and his complete misunderstanding of WP:BLP on his his talk page yet he still seems determined to try and smear me in this forum. Prester John 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference that was provided next to the text did not satisfy what the text was claiming. The TV program treads very carefully around the words, and asks as a question "is he in al-Quaeda?". Then they play sound bites from some people who think he is. But that's not good enough for an encyclopedia to say "he is in al-Quaeda". There's a fine and subtle difference in wording, and the TV station is playing it safe, whereas we're not. If we had to use it, we would have been better attributing the claim to the person who made it.

And apart from whether the contents are libelous, it completely disrupts the process of collaberation and consensus to bipass an on-going discussion on the article's talk page. And it's also disruptive to edit-war, which is what was happening. This disruptive behaviour has been happening on the David Hicks article a lot lately--Lester2 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the dispute but have been watching it as it has a tendency to erupt, and has done so a few times before. As the man himself is not presently in a situation to defend himself for one year (it's explicitly prohibited by the conditions he signed to get out of Guantánamo) and everything is filtered, it may well be a WP:BLP violation to publish that something is true when we only know what is claimed. It is however valid to state that something has been claimed, and who by. It should be noted that User:Prester John and User:Brendan.lloyd were both blocked 2 weeks ago for edit warring on this very same article. Furthermore I fail to be convinced by diffs like this that a serious intention to resolve the dispute exists. Orderinchaos 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous WP:ANI report just days ago ANI Archive also for disruption and edit waring + a stern warning from Admin user:Eagle 101 on the talk page here --> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks warning against edit warriors who don't use the Talk Page first.--Lester2 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the original ref did not support the statement, but I just replaced it with a link to a USA Today article that directly states "He trained under al-Qaeda, met Osama bin Laden and served with Taliban forces fighting a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks". There's no longer a BLP issue here because we have a reliable source stating this. If other sources can be produced which contradict this claim, then I'd of course be open to rewording, attributing, or moving this statement. - Merzbow 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation about the subject wasn't supported by the initial reference provided. Merzbow recently added a reference does support the claim, Before deleting the initial poorly referenced accusation, I wrote my intentions to delete it on the Talk Page. I don't know why User:Prester John didn't join the community discussions back then. Straight to edit war as first choice instead of talk page, like some kind of sword fight with the opponent. This whole issue could have been resolved on the talk page if 'Prester John' had been willing to join in. I'm sorry to have bothered the Admins with it. --Lester2 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:68.163.65.119

Please note the following diffs: , , , and . There also appears to have been some edit-warring here as well.

The user has been warned on his/her talk page, but I am also suspicious that this IP may be an alternate of a registered user (see my last post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are specific parameters for running a checkuser. If you can make a case that this editor evaded the block I imposed, please do so at WP:RFCU. Durova 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova, thank you for the reply. I noticed (I took a short wikibreak the last day and a half) that of the three accounts (two registered, one anonymous) I am suspicious of, one is blocked and the other two last edited on the 27th of September. So, it may, on second consideration, be unnecessary; however, these accounst and IP have been disruptive in a variety of ways, so it probably would behoove someone, i.e. an admin, to keep an eye for anything. Best in any case (sleep time for me as it's 3:15 AM now!). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If problems recur I'll reblock as necessary. Thanks for keeping on top of this. Durova 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Irishguy refusing to discuss actions

Hi folks. Below is the text of a discussion I had with Irishguy regarding his deletion of some external links. This text is excerpted from here.

The discussion was ended when Irishguy deleted my most recent response

Part of the history of this is that early in the discussion I insulted Irishguy (called him a 'dick'). Unfortunately this caused him to get his "back up" to the point where he's not willing or able to discuss the matter rationally. My hope is that any admin reading this will either tell Irishguy he's being unreasonable, or alternatively will explain to me where my reading of WP policies is incorrect.

Excerpt from Irishguy's talkpage removed. Its still in the page history if anyone wants it. Spartaz 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, my last response above was immediately deleted by Irishguy, and that's where things stand. RedSpruce 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be upset if you called me a "dick" too. You could get blocked for a vio of WP:NPA and incivility. Irishguy is right, you can't post or link to sites that are copyvios or require a fee to use. You told you this and you kept pushing. Unless I'm missing something, I'd say just let it go. I've also let Irishguy know this thread exists, which you should have done.Rlevse 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hang on a sec. Linking even to potential copyvios is unacceptable, yes, but there' no rule against linking to subscription-only sites, just as JSTOR or Grove Music Online. I use Grove for reference non-stop. Moreschi 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes sites requiring subscription and registration are to be avoided, see WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. Rlevse 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect are you familiar with the contents of JSTOR and similar services? Without the right to link to them most of our science articles would be severely crippled. EconomicsGuy 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL applies to links that are not citations. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct pay site links can be used for refs, but not elsewhere. I that impinges the science articles, well, I didn't write WP:EL.Rlevse 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was stupid and reprehensible of me to insult Irishguy. This dispute probably would have been settled in a matter of minutes if I'd stayed cool. Thanks for notifying Irishguy of this thread. Since he is deleting everything I post to his talk page, apparently without reading it, there wasn't much hope of me doing that myself.

As I point out to Irishguy above, there is no evidence that the site in question includes copyright violations, and ample evidence that it does not. As I ask of Irishguy above, if there is a WP policy prohibiting external links that might contain copyright violations, please point me to it. It seems unlikely that there is such a policy, since it would exclude the entirety of the world wide web. RedSpruce 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment on WP:EL, only to say that I presume this conversation was moved here based on my recommendation here: , a malformed RfC on Irishguy that RedSpruce filed yesterday. It seems this discussion has taken place in several places , , . I thought here would be a last, good place for Redspruce to come for consensus on inclusion of his link(s) regarding WP:EL, not his campaign against Irishguy. Into The Fray /C 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for discussing this content dispute; please use the article's Talk page or EL's Talk page if the dispute appears to emanate from a discrepancy in the policy. --ElKevbo 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are you asking administrators to do? This looks like a content dispute to me. --ElKevbo 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the RFC. I echo ElKevbo, this dispute does not require admin attention at this time. Spartaz 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought some brief attention and a comment from an admin might be enough to bring this to a close. I also thought this might be a good place to complain about an admin refusing to discuss his actions. The WP:EL Talk page makes sense as a place to discuss EL policy. RedSpruce 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy isn't exercising admin authority here and should be treated like any other user. They are well within their rights to stop responding to repeated questions on the same subject. You are at risk of flogging a dead horse here. Admins do not have any authority to resolve content disputes. If you require further advice on external links raise it on the talk page of EL. This thread is now disrupting the admin board and should now cease. Spartaz 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About the prohibition to link to registration-only sites... I have started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:External links. --Iamunknown 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of todays Featured Article "Saffron... etc.", oversight required

I have indef blocked the vandal, but it remains in the history. Since it gives a persons name and telephone number it should be oversighted. I'm off over there, but if someone can get it done quicker I would be grateful. LessHeard vanU 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be grateful if someone else would - since I have given up on the bollocks that is the email oversight shambles; I wanted to report an incident, not investigate my fucking email setup... LessHeard vanU 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the relevant revisions and mailed a request for oversight. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the intemperate language, I was in something of a rush.LessHeard vanU 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SueBrewer

User User:SueBrewer has notices on her talk page and user page indicating she is a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely blocked. However, the user is still editing. This edit indicates that the user ought to be blocked? Stephenb (Talk) 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the template. SueBrewer isn't a proven sockpuppet at all. That's not to say this isn't an obvious troll account. Someone block please.--Atlan (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for incivility, WP:NPA vio, and disruption. I'm not convinced it's a vandal only account as claimed at WP:AIV. Rlevse 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but I do know it's an account with an agenda on this "homophobic Misplaced Pages".--Atlan (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, she isn't proven a sockpuppet - yet. Davnel03 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extending to one month based on this diff and other info: . Rlevse 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:66.19.34.140

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to bring this, but I seem to be engaged in a slow edit war with User:66.19.34.140 and a handful of other IP editors on Theta Nu Epsilon. A few different editors (including myself) have tried to ask the IP editor to cite specific facts, rather than just relying on an External links section, but all of out changes get reverted (see , , ). My request that the users follow WP:CITE have just gotten my accusations of being a sock puppet. (See and ). I'd bring this to WQA, but since I respond there regularly, I wanted to avoid a COI. Best, --Bfigura 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" . He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've informed Rex of this post. Anyway, you are right. The point of talk pages is to discuss, and anon's are not excluded from this. When you consider that IPs are actually less anonymous than accounts, the whole argument is frivolous. Someguy1221 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin), I have added a message to rex's talk page informing him that he is incorrect. I find it strange that such a long term editor is unaware of such a core-policy--Jac16888 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous IP wasn't entitled to discuss. They're not entitled to vote. Which is what this anonymous IP kept doing. Rex 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you completely remove my comments for the first two times? Also, again, this is not a vote. 84.145.195.64 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to !vote, too. Someguy1221 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to "!vote"? What the hell does that mean?Rex 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A perfect opportunity to employ the new shortcut WP:!VOTE. Joe 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a mere reference to the fact that admins are free to ignore vote counts when deciding the outcome of a discussion. It's the arguments that are important, not their origin. Everyone (short of banned users, of course) is free to engage in discussion. Everyone is free to cast their vote, and admins are free to ignore as many unsubstantiated votes as they want. Someguy1221 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someguy is, of course, correct, but even were Rex's pronouncements accurate, they would nevertheless tend gratuitously toward the uncivil and acollegial. Although I cannot imagine that this behavior, though less-than-ideal, should merit anything more than, for instance, Someguy's friendly corrective—there doesn't appear to have been any significant disruption, and it doesn't seem that a block would prevent any future disruption—I suppose it should be noted that the community have, in the past, looked with disfavor on Rex's occasional incivility and that, in view of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the community have, from time to time, undertaken to block Rex for that incivility. I don't expect that anyone should think a block to be in order here (even in view of what some might perceive as a pattern of disruptive incivility), and I surely don't suggest that any broader community discussion should follow, but I raise the issue only in order that those who have in the past suggested that the community consider further action (e.g., a ban, which I would of course oppose) might note anything else that might be relevant. Joe 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And still you keep taunting and insulting me, Rex "Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid.Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)" 84.145.195.64 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Rex. If he persists with removal of comments from talk pages, he will be blocked again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex, anons can vote. But the closing admins often discard their votes - the more reason not to get stressed over that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be why I'm confused right now. Nevertheless this whole - tiring- ordeal has inspired me to take some action against this.Rex 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

The two reversion of the IP's comments are also in violation of his 1R parole again. Is he limited to one revert per page per week or one revert per page per day? At least here are the other examples I could find of two reverts per page per day within the last seven days. Edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2. Sciurinæ 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to 1 revert per article per week. Which I monitor closely.Rex 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after having checked your 'more than 1 reverts', I advise you to take a closer look. Edits only qualify as reverts when they're (near) identical. Clearly, not the case. Since when is adding a dozen references a revert? Rex 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm..... you are cutting it pretty close. One can argue that you are breaching your 1RR parole with these edits, so I would advise you to thread carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

tread carefully. Gtrevize 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24h also means overstepping 1 revert per article per week. Also, there are clearly two reverts (in whole) in case one, while in case two and three you did not only revert but change other parts as well, meaning it is still a revert, or the whole revert parole would make little sense. Here's the link to the parole and another shortcoming becomes obvious: you were to explain your content reversions on the talk page. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus moves name of Picasso painting to make his point about Potsdamer Platz

Rex Germanus is so eager to delete anything German sounding from Misplaced Pages that he did not hesitate to move the Picasso painting Dora Maar au Chat to Dora Maar with cat to Dora Maar with Cat in order to prove his WP:POINT at Talk:Potsdamer Platz, his desired move to Potsdam Square. -- Matthead      O       21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a French title by a Spanish painter. What does it have to do with German? --Golbez 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy close?

User:After Midnight speedy-closed this MfD minutes after I opened it, apparently under the mistaken impression that I was requesting a change in policy. My argument is that the pages nominated for deletion are a violation of existing policy. Would someone mind taking a look to see if the speedy close was appropriate, and offer an opinion? I've already discussed with After Midnight and we couldn't reach an agreement. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this is here instead of DRV as I requested, but from the time stamps, it seems that this may have been destined as such. At any rate, for further details of my opinion, people should see the discussion at User talk:After Midnight#Speedy close of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. --After Midnight 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I too believe this discussion would be more appropriate at the talkpages of either RFPP, PPOL or PT. In full disclosure, I do have my own personal saltlist. MfD is usually appropriate when there is a reasonably clear dispute about policy - let's have the dispute first. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone disagree that someone who regularly works OTRS issues has a legitimate use for a private saltlist, under WP:IAR if nothing else. My argument in this case is that the specific pages listed for deletion are a pretty clear violation of the protection policy. (Well, Navou's just has one title on it, I put it there because it was in the list.) But WP:PROTECT is already pretty straightforward about the circumstances in which cascading protection is to be used, I don't think we need instruction creep about private salt pages if people comply with the existing policy. Individual pages that contain inappropriate protection can be deleted on a case-by-case basis. Videmus Omnia 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to keep the salt list so that I can clear it out regularly, I can't do that over at PT. I don't personally believe in indefinite salting, thats my reasoning for the page. When I get home, I may post something somewhere. Lets discuss this. Navou 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is MfD. I do not think it should have been pre-empted by a speedy close. I urge AfterMidnight to simply revert his close and open it again in the interest of avoiding overcomplication. DGG (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this. This was all a WP:POINT nomination of my handful of cascading protected pages which Videmus Omnia simply disagrees about because he wants me desysopped. There are only three article titles that I keep on User:Ryulong/PTL because not of ownership issues, as Videmus Omnia brought up in the MFD, but because they're ridiculous titles and rumors that I've heard throughout my reads of other websites. And the RFC (that he also brings up) was under cascading protection for reasons I've already told him. And it certainly did not stop any RFCs from happening. The primary reason it was in my list is because I forgot to remove it once the sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson were completely dealt with. I thank After Midnight for his speedy close, because this harassment by Videmus Omnia is just getting ridiculous now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Ryulong, that's a bad-faith accusation of harrassment. I specifically said in your RfC that you shouldn't be desysopped. And I haven't interacted with you at all since your RfC except for two conversations on your talk page, hardly harrassment. Please assume good faith, this is just a disagreement. Videmus Omnia 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly where is the policy that says admins can't maintain their own folders for cascading protection? This looks like trying to use an xFD debate to force through a policy change and that needs wider discussion within the community as a whole. The close pointed you in the direction of the correct places to discuss this. Spartaz 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I've said already, I am not asking for instruction creep on private saltpages. The policy is already crystal clear on when cascading protection is to be used. The nominated pages are in violation of that policy. Can we please have the discussion on whether this is correct at the MfD page instead of here at WP:ANI? Videmus Omnia 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I, there is nothing stated in the protection policy that mentions (let alone forbids) the use of any administrator keeping a page of protected titles as a subpage. Out of any of my cascading protection subpages, there are currently only 5 entries on User:Ryulong/PTL that are pages that have not existed, but that I am positive should not ever be made because they are complete and utter rumors or the creation of someone who just wants to use Misplaced Pages as a free webhost (User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach was created as an easy way to delete all of the BJAODN pages once the MFD was complete, and the cascading protection was just an idea afterwards to make sure that they weren't recreated at that location).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I think I've been pretty clear that I feel that I was within my admin discretion to close this and that if people diosagree with that, then we can discuss it at DRV. Unless someone is asserting that I acted in bad faith, I don't think that this is a topic for ANI. --After Midnight 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrouni's departure

His leaving reeks of fishyness with the weird request to show up in the next 1.5 years. He also says he is on an "epic quest and seems to be almost obsessed with becoming an sysop. According to User:Silver seren's talk page, he appears to be only concerned with "looking good" at RfA. Since Kkrouni is already assumed/associated with User:Cowboy Rocco who is known to have many sockpuppets, maybe this should be looked into further. T Rex | talk 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit odd, I went through the talk pages, and he said that he would return under another name, and apparently left clues via accented letters on Marlith's talk page. I went through the history, and it seems like he did this by accenting characters in the order "ymkr" and "my mom". Neranei (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of redundant articles

Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

Reasons:

1. Covered material already in Misplaced Pages under American cheese and Processed cheese;
2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

Here, here, here and here

Other information about Cody:

1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

POV-pushing by User:PHG

PHG (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-pushing and tendentious editing since early September, and all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed: (RfC he is ignoring) (mediation offer he has declined)

• He is trying to claim that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299/1300, and he has been inserting this information in multiple places around Misplaced Pages.
• He's also been trying to claim that there was a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols. We've been discussing this extensively at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, with multiple archives just within the last few weeks, but he's resisting all community input and continues to edit war.
• I tried an RFC, but he's ignoring that too, or he just creates another dozen threads on the talkpage with counter-accusations and personal attacks. I have repeatedly offered to take things to mediation, but PHG has declined.
• I've also tried posting for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and multiple WikiProjects, but it's such an obscure point of history, it's difficult to get many people commenting. Plus we're trying to "prove the negative," that no, the Mongols did not conquer Jerusalem.
• PHG also keeps muddying the waters by adding more and more information (much of it from medieval primary sources) to Franco-Mongol alliance, to the point where the article was over 150K in size, making it very difficult for anyone else to read it unless they wanted to devote hours to sorting through it. He even tried edit-warring to keep me from archiving the talkpage.
• He seems in clear violation of WP:OWN. When his material is changed, he often reverts the changes, but when other sections are added, no matter how well-sourced, he deletes them as "original research".
• He has also been resisting all attempts to allow the article to be split to a smaller size, and further confuses things by issuing multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him (calling them vain, incompetent, a liar, vandals, etc.), and he's so good at Wikilawyering, and he types so much text, it makes it even harder for other people to sort through.

From what I've been told, he has used these tactics at other articles too, using multiple primary sources, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and, perhaps scariest of all, creating articles that look like they're well-sourced, and then pushing them through to Featured status, but in actuality he's either sourcing them to unreliable sources (like primary sources, hobbyist websites, or marketing copy on the back cover of a book), or he's twisting what sources say. For example, he created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and nommed it for FA within two weeks of creation, even though it had gross errors of fact (like about this absurd "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" between the Mongols and the Knights Templar).

Things have now escalated to the point where he's creating other articles to push his biased POV. He created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, which I moved to a more palatable Mongol raids into Palestine. Then despite resistance at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Disputed, he today made another article, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, which I tried to redirect, but he just reverted me.

In my opinion, this has gone well into the realm of WP:POINT now, as he is creating multiple POV Forks. He's also pretty much "camped" on this subject, not working on anything else (just look at his contribs, for weeks). Now, I'll freely admit that I'm actively involved in editing this topic, so I really need some non-involved assistance here. What should the next step be? Thanks, Elonka 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards