Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 1 November 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?

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF -

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Misplaced Pages should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Misplaced Pages policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Misplaced Pages is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history", but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.

LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Misplaced Pages. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required. Spartaz 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it. Cydevil38 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Suggestion, not decision. Spartaz 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again. One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip. To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing. To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again. After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition. If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope. There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.

If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts. For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day. I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting. I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. —LactoseTI 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this. Spartaz 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Penn State Professors

It looks like we've got a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations. They've been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days. I don't think it's appropriate to delete them out of hand, but I'm wondering, should I list them in a single AfD or nominate them individually? Asterisk indicates already nominated(*) by me or others. Other editors have flagged some of these for notability. Here's the list:

• Christopher Hoadley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Society of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian K. Smith‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Conference of the Learning Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prasenjit Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John W. Bagby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steve B. Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guoray Cai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John M. Carroll (information scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dongwon Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carleen Maitland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Madhu Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frank Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary Beth Rosson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James Z. Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
• John Yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rklawton 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added additional links that may be useful. --Ali'i 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd list them individually and note possible COI and votestacking as it occurs (and reviewing the existing AFDs I think it will).--Isotope23 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree; professors at the same university could very easily have wildly varying merits towards notability. Unlike, say, several people whose only possible claim to such is being in the same band. Someguy1221 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the others, but Jack Carroll (John M. Carroll (information scientist)) is very well known and widely cited in the related fields of HCI and technical writing (would that he was paid more attention), an article for whom was on my to-do list. The user who contributed that (Bobdoyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) did a bunch of work in technical-writing related articles (not Carroll-centric, as far as I can see) and I don't think had anything to do with the other Penn profs. So, to the extent that there is or may be the pro-Penn-push you describe, I don't believe the Carroll article is related. So to answer your actual question - nominate individually. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On checking the contrib histories of many of the very recently submitted articles most (not Carroll or John Yen) were submitted by users who only worked on that one article. This looks like a classic class assignment scenario. Rklawton: do you have any actual evidence, bar your own supposition, that this isn't over-eager students but rather "a group of Penn State faculty who think an awful lot of themselves and their organizations" as you claim? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some. If you check Mitra's AfD page, you'll see one of his peers defending his article. He also created the Society article. However, you raise a good point. Some of the newly created accounts look more like student accounts. I didn't check to see if any of these were copy/paste jobs from the PSU website, but they might be. Rklawton 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The wild assertion that PSU professors have "been on a bit of a self-serving article creation spree these last few days" clearly lacks any sound evidence (beyond the single case) as McWalter accurately points out. Regarding the multiple entries: as a commenter noted on the James Z. Wang board "Articles should not be removed because they were created by interested parties, they should be deleted because they are non-notable, and I think this guy is notable enough". I wrote the initial draft of the John Bagby article and am merely an interested student in his work - the claim of a rampant self-serving wikipedia rush by PSU professors is a bit premature. treypsu 00:06, 30 October (UTC)

I have examined many of the articles, --not all--and the ones I have examined are clearly written to a formula. A paragraph about their prior degrees and schools, which is fine, a rather gushy paragraph about their work, which needs removal of adjectives, a list of the most important journal titles they have contributed to, which is not customary content here, references to some important papers and books, which would certainly be fine if it a/did not contain too many papers, b/ was not repeated several times in the article, a mention of some that are very highly cited, also fine, except they do not give a source for this (the usual one of course is web of Science) then a list of usually non-notable awards, and finally some external links miscalled references. The wording is very similar in detail for at least some of the articles. I assume it is a specific project. I assume this in particular because they are not PSU profs in general, but rather all or almost all from the school of information science --Some of them have made comments to me, and I have replied as you can see by my comments on my talk page. I decline to judge whether it is one person editing under multiple names, or a coordinated effort.

As mentioned above, some are unquestionably notable , and even the associate professors are some of them very probably notable, so I don't think immediate AFDs are in order. There is after all no rule against COI--though when it occurs to this extent it is certainly a nuisance straightening it out. I have the name of the public relations people at the College there, and I intend to speak to them tomorrow directly to explain why this approach was not a good idea. I have done this for several academic departments and schools within universities already, and gotten good results about 2/3 of the time. (I think I know how to get their attention effectively) My approach to this is based on Durova's, as taught to me by her splendid WP:BFAQ. Perhaps we should try doing a somewhat more specialized one, as this sort of situation recurrs every month or two. . I'll report back here after I speak to people at the college tomorrow. DGG (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very useful approach. Rklawton 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ is indeed fine (mentioned again so it's linked :) ... Say DGG, would you consider writing up your approach, and what you do that seems to work well? Possibly with some sample letters? We have boilerplate letters for other things (notably asking for permissions) which are helpful.. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Where these are coming from: Just found this page. The posts are all students in my class--I asked them to find notable people in information sciences and write them up, with links to relevant disciplines, theories, concepts, and key software (such as citeseer) and was planning to assign additional posts to work on key theories and concepts in information sciences. There is no marketing agenda here, and the students are selecting the topics of their bios. They were due Monday, and students are required to make comments on each others' postings and try to improve them. I'm open to whatever people think will improve the situation, but honestly I have to say I'm pretty floored by this discussion. The intent was to get students involved in building out what is a weak area in wikipedia, try to do substantive linking among the theories and disciplines that constitute ischools where they would have to learn something, and to get feedback from the world and not just me or one or two peers. Personally, I don't think all their pages are particularly good but they seem like honest first attempts and was looking forward to improving them. Instead, I get the impression that some people think COI means you can never write about institutions, people, or ideas you know well, or else you're presumed to have an agenda, that people assume the worst possible motives, and that recruiting people to contribute to wikipedia and debate each others' articles is likely to be labelled votestacking. I had all of them read the About, the Contributing to Misplaced Pages article, First steps article, New contributors help page article, and What wikipedia is not, plus three articles I thought would be useful models: Barry Wellman, Don Norman, and Bonnie Nardi (i.e., dozens of pages of material as prepwork.) I'm not a wikipedia longtimer or regular contributor, and so perhaps these were not the ideal pages to suggest, but if the goal is to recruit content creators, things have to be simpler (or at least more cordial). I'm late for class now, and may not be able to log in until tomorrow, but suggestions are welcomed. Worst case, I'll have them blank all the pages and we'll take our coursework elsewhere, but I thought this was going to be win-win. So much for 'be bold'. Cmhoadley 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone meant to accuse you or your students of anything; the sudden appearance of so many articles, all from Penn State and all about PSU-related topics, just seemed like a sudden attempt at self-promotion from members of the faculty. While I'm not an admin, nor do I even claim to be anywhere NEAR fully up to date on Wiki policies, I don't believe there's a major problem here. However, perhaps you should recommend that your students create Misplaced Pages accounts (if they don't already have them) and that each one should create and edit his article in his account's User: space instead of Misplaced Pages mainspace? From what I've seen, developing a prototype of a new article and getting it up to the basic Wiki standards is considered an appropriate use of User: space. (It also, if you give a similar assignment to another class in the future, probably result in far less chance of overreaction on the part of other Wiki users who see the sudden arrival of all the new pages.) Rdfox 76 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I went through and added EducationalAssignment tags to all the ones listed above that are (to my knowledge) created by my students. Several have been deleted already; I have lined up a wikipedia administrator to visit class and brief students on how to contribute most helpfully. The course assignment includes revision and suggestions from others. However, some students have already basically freaked out, and all of them don't know whether it's appropriate to post on talk pages, AfDs, make edits, or not. I won't see them until Monday and am likely to be offline until then. I have had to give everyone blanket permission to complete the assignment offline if they choose because some are really upset--not because their work was harshly criticized (they're in grad school, they're used to that), but because they feel like they aren't welcome or that there are millions of rules they are not aware of, even after reading tons of help pages and trying their best. There have apparently been some rather personal angry emails, of the 'we know who you really are' sort. I can't in good faith force my students into a harassing environment. Plans for the rest of the term included trying to get them making articles on concepts that link people and multiple disciplines, but I'm inclined to think wikipedia is NOT the place for courses. Cmhoadley 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more visibility is needed for Misplaced Pages:School and university projects. There also is a template for marking articles. (SEWilco 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate this suggestion immensely. The EducationalAssignment tag was based on a first skim of this page. The page DEFINITELY needs more visibility, in my opinion. Especially after having surfed around for hours looking for something like this. Perhaps a link off any of the ones I was able to find above. Cmhoadley 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If these are to be nominated, I strongly discourage a mass nomination; some of these guys may prove out to be notable despite the formulaic drafts now there. Mass nominations usually end with no consensus because those who comment do not often differentiate among the various articles at issue. Try them separately if you're inclined to go that route. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over user name

Looks like an editor wants to delete a user account that is using his real name per WP:VANISH, but others are objecting to it (see here). Thanks Taprobanus 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we keep it in the category, but remove the notice? Would that work? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is the rationale for removing the notice. That account was a confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinetely. So that notice, in all relevance, must stay there. WP:VANISH doesn't support removing indef block templates.

Please refer Right_to_vanish meta wiki page. It clearly states,

In particular, if a user abuses their Right to Vanish, then it may be declined on a future occasion. In some cases (typically when a person with a history of misconduct or blocks also has a legitimate request), a connection may remain back to the old name, for administrative use only.

I hope this clarifies. Moreover, unless the user discloses that is real name, no one would know that fact. User:Wiki Raja did not have to disclose this information. It was unnecessary, and using that as the route to remove his sockpuppet page is not acceptable. Thanks - KNM 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense now, cheers - on second thoughts, the policy is quite clear on the matter - all the same, I'd bring it here rather than reverting any more, just to make it legit and final. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to fix to; one can just delete the talk page, and the user page, then re-create the userpage with the template. His identity is protected, but everyone still knows which sockpuppet he used. --Haemo 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can some admin bring this into action? Already an IP has started again the reverting the user page. Thanks - KNM 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP was me. I was using IE instead of Firefox and did not see that it was not signed on. Though it automatically logs in. Watchdogb 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, looks like this dispute is fini. --Haemo 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this dispute is not finished. This is a breech on my privacy by having my name floating around Misplaced Pages for other editors to abuse! Wiki Raja 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:OVERSIGHT, thanks Taprobanus 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for the advice. Wiki Raja 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MOASPN

Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked MOASPN (talk · contribs) indef for abusive sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser. She beat me by a few seconds by blocking. The main issue is that he said that he was an altenive account of someone, and some of the IPs in the checkuser were shared. See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Throwawayarb for the confirmed socks. Thanks Jbeach 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who is Throwawayarb a puppet of? SchmuckyTheCat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, October 30, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no checkuser connection was found to any earlier accounts; ThrowawayArb was the earliest the CUs were able to trace back (likely due to checkuser data going stale after 30 days). While it seems very clear that Throwawayarb is a repeat offender, unfortunately we're not quite sure who at this point. :/ --krimpet⟲ 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What was the nature of the abuse? The user didn't hide that he was User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What they didn't mention, however, is that they trolled the Attack sites RfAR as CManW and Throwawayarb, not to mention any prior accounts they may have used before the checkuser data went stale. --krimpet⟲ 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the diffs you listed what MOASPN was blocked for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that these usernames were kind of intended to mimic / mock / annoy me, El_C previously blocked User:MusingsOfAPrivateNature and User:Semiprivatemusings on this basis. Privatemusings 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad usernames are a reason to block the usernames, not the user. Regarding the diffs that Krimpet lists, in one the user quotes a site that everyone insists is not an attack site, and in the other he admits to using a sock account in order to make what might be a controversial proposal. Are quoting a non-attack site or using a sock to make a proposal sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban without warning? If so I don't think those standards are properly reflected in the current policy pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, I suspect the fundamental reason was "user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia". This has precedent of course. Privatemusings 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good reason but I'm not sure that all editors know that using a sock puppet to make controversial proposals and link to non-attacks sites without making useful mainspace edits is considered sufficient cause for an indefinite block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Making edits to a heated arbitration case followed by a trollish comment about being a "throwaway account" on a "stolen wide-open hotspot that is miles from where I live. Block me forever!" is fairly clearly trolling behavior. And comments like this — where the sockpuppet actually addressed one of the participants in the dispute by their full name, and POINTedly linked to one of the alleged attack sites, all on the same RfAR — would never have been tolerated on a user's main account. It seems clear that the person behind these sockpuppets has been using them to troll discussions they were already involved in while avoiding flak on their good-hand main account. --krimpet⟲ 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized that Throwawayarb had linked to a site for the purpose of outing and harassing another editor. I agree that that's a proper reason for blocking. I also agree that it's questionable when an editor uses a sock account to deflect criticism away from his main account. Anyone who engages in such behaviors should be blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) There are ways and means of doing this. If someone is open with the arbs about who they are and why they don't want to drag their main account into a cesspit RFAR then I think that's perfectly fair. I don't think that's what happened here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am an editor happy to see Jimbo's new 'less crap allowed' policy being enforced more often... twice in one night, in fact. ThuranX 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sysop protection: Jess Margera

Can someone please correct this? I removed unsourced WP:BLP information from the Jess Margera article today. Someone reverted and reinserted the content. THAT SAME PERSON then proceeded to fully protect the article from changes. Content disputes aside, I'm pretty sure that's a problem. Burntsauce 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what the admin did. Yes the content needs referencing , but it is entirely mundane content.BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material " A quick look at the internet movie database confirmed that the content was likely accurate. I don't know why you removed it in the first place! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb has been proven not to be a reliable source Theresa. It is contributed by users, just like Misplaced Pages, and generally not vetted by a third party. I thought this was common knowledge. The material is very much contentious and remains to be WITHOUT A FUCKING RELIABLE SOURCE. Burntsauce 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like you're making it contentious by getting all hot and bothered by it. Is he not related to the people it says he's related to? Did he not announce something about a side project? This is not exactly an Armenian Genocide level of contentiousness - it's a band member. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) You do know that BLP policy was formed to prevent harm to living people! I am aware that the IMDB is not a reliable source. Hence the world "likely" but contentios does not mean something that you disagree with, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Theresa sums up my position. Nothing to see here. A quick look at this user's talk page shows a tendency to cause disruptions to make a point. — Ocatecir 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! what drama. I suppose the issue is resolved now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd time to quit, he's currently a party in an arbitration case. –– Lid 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud! I mean, seriously, WP:BLP clearly doesn't apply here, however this is still bad behavior on the part of the admin in question. We shouldn't we editing articles and them protecting them immediately afterward. This make good-faith editors who don't happen to be admins REALLY PISSED OFF, and rightly so. It's clearly against policy and for good reason. This is not what article protection is for. Someone should ask User:Ocatecir to unprotect; I would, but I'm at work and my break is over. ➪HiDrNick! 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone ought to remind User:Kscottbailey to not troll in situations like this. That's an experienced editor throwing acetone on the Mapp torch, that ought to be an autoblock for 24 to prevent him from agitating more. He knows better, and removed Theresa's apology note. ThuranX 22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DoneTheresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Kscottbailey for 24 hours for disruption and trolling. He had been blocked for harassment only 2 weeks ago. Crum375 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Reasons on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the parties involved, the irony on this one is so thick you couldn't cut it with a machete. SirFozzie 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the removals, I agree that the admin should not have protected the page. I suspect that Burntsauce is upset because he and his friend Alkivar is getting criticized over similar behavior at ArbCom. We should be consistent. You do not use admin tools to get your way in a content dispute. -Chunky Rice 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the irony part I was referring to above. Agreed that this is.. well.. not a bad use of the tools, but at least a pretty grey area. SirFozzie 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a content dispute. Burntsauce was trying to use BLP to remove most of an article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many interpertations, and although Burntsauce and I have had a run in about this, I will try to hunt down the last time this happened, where he was told that he was exactly right in his interpertation, especially as it pertained to BLP. In this, he may be acting in good faith. More later when I find it. SirFozzie 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the section I can find after a quick search. The policy, as interpreted by the folks who post at The Biography of Living People's Talk Page seemed to be quite clear.. that if it's an article about a living person, and a statement that is unsourced is removed, then before it's re-added, it needs to be sourced. I'm not sure 100% I agree with it (It is better then trying to get a definition of what's "contentious"), but there it is. Burntsauce is working on the policy as it's been explained to him. SirFozzie 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and given the history, I kind of agree. However, this is also the main argument being presented at ArbCom - It wasn't a content dispute, I was just enforcing policy regarding content. To me that's a pretty thin line to walk. -Chunky Rice 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, it's best that an administrator not edit a page then immediately protect it, or in fact take any administrative actions regarding a content dispute they're involved in - even if the content dispute is as simple as reverting what looks like a contentious deletion. That is indeed one of the claims involved in the Alkivar arbitration, in which Burntsauce is heavily involved. I was actually blocked on a 1RR for restoring similar content that Burntsauce had deleted by an administrator who took Burntsauce's side, hence my restoring the content and not Burntsauce's deletion was a behavior issue. If it's a content issue, it's a content issue on both sides, both the deletion and the restoring. If we turn it into a behavior issue (other than edit warring), we behavioralize every edit someone wants to make if they can point to a content policy on the subject. Anyway, to avoid these grey areas and claims of irony/hypocrisy it's best to: (1) Warn Burntsauce for contentious editing, (2) ask another uninvolved admin to look at it with a fresh pair of eyes, and/or (3) be patient and work it out on the talk page. Burntsauce indeed said he quit and is up for indefinite blocking in the Alkivar case here. For what it's worth, I think User:Kscottbailey is making a personal attack on Burntsauce more than trolling, but that's a technical distinction and either way it's inappropriate. Even so, blocking Kscottbailey without notice seems quite harsh, except that the admin who did so apparently has seen some history with this user's misbehavior so I trust his/her judgment. Wikidemo 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No Burntsauce, you've just been caught. I'm so glad I submitted evidence against u and Alkivar privately for this arbitration case. You've been doing this nonsense blanking citing WP:BLP since April and you befriended an administrator willing to do the bidding of a banned editor. Guess what, it didn't work this time, did it? 68.218.183.106 (Moe Epsilon) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth the issue is raised, and I just commented, on the Arbitration workshop page. Moe, what's with the anonymous account, retiring from Misplaced Pages and gratuitous use of "u"? Wikidemo 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you mind your own business WikiDemo. 68.218.183.106 (Moe Epsilon) 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that in a friendly and collegial way, Moe E, but if it's a sensitive topic, sorry.Wikidemo 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

True, it is. Apology not needed, thank you anyways. 68.218.183.106 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are or are not Moe Epsilon, civility is expected of all editors. Corvus cornix 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil Corvus. 68.218.183.106 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah you were. HalfShadow 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was uncivil. ThuranX 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, like you can do anything anyways. Bug off. 68.218.183.106 04:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written an essay which, as it happens, covers precisely this sort of behavior: WP:VPACT. If anyone would like to improve it, go ahead —Random832 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, anyone can removed unsourced information regardless of BLP issues. You should never restore unsourced information without first sourcing it once it has been challenged. It is that simple. 1 != 2 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It's just fine to restore unsourced information. The only time it shouldn't be restored is if there is a legitimate, bona fide challenge to the validity of the information. Information deleted as some kind of WP:POINT, deletion campaign, vandalism, or where sourcing is cited as a matter of wikigaming, should be restored summarily and without any further ado. Editors like Burntsauce cause no end of mischief and mayhem here, and we shouldn't enable their pranks by saying that policy is behind them. Wikidemo 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats

here and here SashaCall /_(Talk!) 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week. Feel free to review and adjust as you see fit. -- Flyguy649 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm just wondering how this person found my autograph book. SashaCall /_(Talk!) 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm suspecting through the 'sign!' note in your signature. I am absolutely not supporting any threat, but you *may* also wish to consider that autograph books have nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia, and are frequently nominated for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE.--Thespian 05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the two posts. And I think Thespian's probabaly right about how he found it. -- Flyguy649 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• My money is on it being 65.247.55.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (compare the WHOIS for 65. to the location 12. gave in the second deleted comment). SashaCall /_(Talk!) 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Completely different state (NJ for 12.xxx vs VA). -- Flyguy649 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Thespian re the signature subpage. The simple obvious reason is this "would've-beeen-avoided" incident. I had doubts to whether support or be neutral at Thespian RfA but i've just taken my decision now. -- FayssalF - 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, they've moved onto my talk page. And I was also a little right in assuming that the comments left yesterday (now deleted) by 12.174.138.235 was related to 65.247.55.12 (aka Bwjs) per this comment. This one may need to be oversighted. SashaCall /_(Talk!) 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread before - the report's been at AIV for some time, and it will definitely need oversight. Acroterion _(talk) 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood the point of autograph books on wikipedia. I'd remove it if I were you. Wikidudeman 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Misplaced Pages. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
  • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉ╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links. ELIMINATORJR 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. east.718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
  • I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded. RxS 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Misplaced Pages. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User attacks informal mediator volunteer

Mattisse insulted an informal mediator, Blueboar, by insinuating that Blueboar purposely sided with another user in a dispute for ulterior reasons and willingly neglected to warn another user for supposed personal attacks, and called Blueboar a hypocrite, incompetent, and "not very nice." The insults mentioned previously can be seen here: . More information can be found on the rest of the article's talk page, Mattisse's talk page , and Blueboar's talk page . - Cyborg Ninja 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look. There really is nothing to see here.Mattisse is complaining to Blueboar that he feels he has been treated unfairly. He stroppy, and rude, but i don't think any admin action is needed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add that it would be great if Mattisse assumes good faith w/ Blueboar. -- FayssalF - 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should remind Mattisse to WP:AGF then, and notify him that he is violating that policy. Other users have had administrative action taken against them for such conduct, and I am merely following precedents set by your peers. - Cyborg Ninja 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you've informed Mattisse of this incident (as a matter of courtesy) so he can follow up what admins think about his behavior. Anyway, i've just lef him a note. -- FayssalF - 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Mattisse do such himself. Also, Mattisse previously told me not to post on his talk page. I myself am a highly courteous individual. - Cyborg Ninja 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. -- FayssalF - 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this folks... I agree that this isn't really a situation that calls for Admin intervention.... at least not yet (I am a bit concerned about how fast the accusations are escallating - now to the point of accusing me of sock puppetry). Cyborg Ninja has put the article in question up for formal mediation, and I am more than willing to step out of the picture and let the mediation committee try to resolve things (especially since Mattisse thinks I am such a poor mediator). If things escallate further I'll let you know. Blueboar 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked both User:Cyborg Ninja and User:Mattisse for 24 hours. I have sanctioned Cyborg Ninja for continued harassment of Mattisse (per this), despite my previously issuing a warning, and Mattisse for the catalogue of disputes with other contributors and lack of AGF when offered assistance. I have also previously attempted to resolve both Ninja Cyborgs campaign of alerting others to Mattisse's "misdemeanours" (my quotes) and Mattisse's problems with interacting with contributors whose views differ. I am getting sick of seeing both names popping up on AN and ANI. I hope the blocks will allow both to review their recent histories, learn, and move on. Any admin is free to review my actions, and amend/cancel the sanctions as deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A note re: the diff in the last post: Mattisse has claimed in the past he (or she) is/was a grandmother. He/she is also now saying that he/she works on a oil rig. While Cyborg Ninja obviously was being ambiguous and sarcastic, it is, I think, a reasonably suspicious coincidence of claims from Mattisse.

I won't say much more, as I am currently involved in a mediation with Mattisse and so will not appear to be the most neutral of sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I keep wanting to walk away from this train wreck, only to find another reason to stay involved... He has just threatened some sort of retaliation against me for "getting him blocked" (see Mattisse's talk page). Blueboar 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On a tangential matter: Mattisse seems to have created "backup" duplicate articles to preserve his POV... see: Zaojing (traditional Chinese architecture) and Zaojing (Chinese). Not sure what to do about this. Obviously one of the two articles should probably be speady deleted as a duplicate of the other, but since they are both so similar to the Caisson (Asian architecture) (not to mention Mattisse's old Zaojing article... which was redirected) I am not sure if any of them should stay. Advice please, if not intervention. Blueboar 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse probably shouldn't be unblocked per the litany of abuses he promises if unblocked on his user talk page. 67.173.131.28 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon user 70.116.31.203

User:70.116.31.203 is on a tear through various webcomics entries attempting to speedily delete them, without rhyme or reason. It seems to me this is somebody on a vendetta against webcomics, as no attempt is made to work through proper channels. Could an administrator take a look at this and if they agree it's vandalism, block or warn them? --Martin Wisse 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly making a WP:POINT and if so it is vandalism. Telling you to "fudge off" when you raised the issue with them is clearly a bad sign. (Emperor 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

The edits are clearly being done in a WP:POINTy way, (and are still happening), but having said that, it looks like a number of these articles do met the given criteria for speedying, take Angels 2200 for example, pure cruft, with no sources.--Jac16888 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True, this use may have a point on some, but there are better ways to address these issues. --Martin Wisse 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what they're doing is totally the wrong way of going about it, and because of the continued reverts, the user seems to need blocking, i just meant that as articles go, few of these actually seem worth all this hassle--Jac16888 14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a single-issue account, trying to make a point. I'd suggest a block.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could some kind administrator block them please? They're now re-adding the speedy delete notices I've just removed and I don't want to get into a revert war. --Martin Wisse 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that an article at slashdot.org this morning raised the issue of deleting webcomics on wikipedia. That article may have given this anon the idea. See also here. I'd agree with a block, though I'm not an admin. Just wanted to bring this information forward, particularly if this account is not the only one who gets the notion to try something like this. ZZ ~ Evidence 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I think you're exactly right, I'd be willing to wager that this is just a continuation of that disucssion. I'd reiterate my recommendation for a block, and that we keep an eye on these articles.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular this post about a possible Delete Storm here to force a change in policy. (Emperor 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. I have started the rollback but he is rolling back as well. We can discuss but damnit points should be made on the talk page, not the frickin mainspace. Spryde 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just removed my AIV report. Spryde 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't he been blocked yet? Removing his own AIV report should definitely have been the final straw. JuJube 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it twice now. Spryde 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he isn't vandalising, that's why. Actually what exactly is he doing wrong? If they don't assert notability why don't we speedy them? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's he doing wrong? They're trying to game the speedy delete process to get rid of a whole series of articles, either because they dislike webcomics or to prove a point about the deletion process itself. They've shown no concern about being warned, no concern about getting in a revert war, are surprisingly knowledgable about wikipedia policies for a new user and have treated to use proxies (see talk page). I'd say this is a troll and I say block them. Because the last thing we want is for somebody innocently looking through the speedy delete list to actually start deleting articles based on this person's tagging, pissing off other editors in the process. It's only pure luck one of the first articles they tried to speedily delete was on my watchlist as it is. --Martin Wisse 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is now in 5RR on a few of them. At the very least it is disruptive editing. Spryde 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting him is disruptive too though. I've invited him here to argue his case. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that this is related to the above linked slashdot item. I've removed the CSD tag from A Miracle of Science as that's an article from February of 2006, and has never even been up for AFD. Slapping a CSD tag on that is just unacceptable. This editor needs to be given a time out to read up on proper procedure, in my opinion, just look at the contribs, and this is going on 50+ articles he's slapped CSD tags on, just because they are in the Category:Webcomics . Pretty evident this is a WP:POINT issue that won't go away without a time out. Ariel♥Gold 14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user for 3RR on Salamander Sam. See also: the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. The individual has now gone over WP:3RR revert warring over tags on a couple articles. I've no opinion about the merits of the speedy deletion requests, but a time out was about due here.--Isotope23 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also say that Spryde (talk · contribs) and Martin Wisse (talk · contribs) are very close to a block as well for revert warring. They avoided WP:3RR by working in tandem, but going around and removing CSD tags just because you don't agree with them on the grounds of "vandalism" is disruptive as well.--Isotope23 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. Per CSD, anyone can remove the CSD tag except the creator of the article. If it is removed, it should not be added back and should be prod'ed or AFD'ed. I am ususally not one for Wikilawyering but lately it seems I have had to because lots of things are no longer making sense. I try to abide by the spirit and letter of the policies to make this a better place. A person on a tagging spree flooding CSD with many spurious notifications to make a point because of a slashdot article is one of my definitions of a vandal. There have been little to no other edits on that account. There have been accounts blocked indefinitely for less. I know what vandalism is and what vandalism is not and this by many accounts as seen by this discussion is vandalism. Spryde 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, please don't be silly. Spryde and I did not "work in tandem", we both saw a vandal at work and attempted to contain their damage. Much of which would not have been done btw if this vandal had been blocked earlier. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Spryde and Wisse on this. The anon was (is) malicious. A procedural 3RR block would be appropriate if 3RR was broken, as those are supposed to happen completely regardless of which side was right, but other than that, good for them. --Kizor 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I went through the IP's last 50 contributions. There were about 40 webcomics there (some repeats, some other pages) - in 3 of the 40 cases I could in good faith say "decline speedy, this has an assertion of notability". The other 90% of the time, I couldn't see the assertion of notability. The one article other than a webcomic he'd tagged (for G1) I deleted under G10. I sense someone who violated Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, but was probably right in the point he was making. GRBerry 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all yet, but at first glance it does look like we'll need another delete round for the web comics. There are many notable webcomics, but there are a lot more of them that aren't notable at all, and these should go, no matter if they were WP:POINT nominations or not. I have expanded Le blog de Frantico because that one definitely is notable, but did not make any claims to it previsouly, but I doubt many of the others will be kept in the long run. Fram 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed all the speedy delete templates, because why reward vandals? Also because I disagree about the notability of webcomics, but that's a secondary reason. If we reward trolling, trolling will increase. --Martin Wisse 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think one could put forth a rather compelling argument that removing those templates was rather disruptive on your part Martin. Despite your characterization of the templating as "vandalism", most appeared to be on articles that meet the criteria.--Isotope23 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bull. It's about the process, not the content. This vandal was abusing the speedy delete procedure to hammer home a point, without regard to the quality of the articles. I've no desire to reward their behaviour by letting their work stand, even if in some cases they may have had a point. If an article needs to be removed, than the normal Misplaced Pages channels will suffice. --Martin Wisse 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is disrupting wikipedia to make a good point acceptable? If so, WP:POINT needs updating. If not, the disruption needs to stop. Sheffield Steel_stalk 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the articles for lacking any evidence of notability (and some where already tagged when I got there). Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the tagging, most were speedy candidate per CSD:A7 as making no claim of notability; and all but a couple would appear to be non-notable per WP:WEB. I'll revisit in a week or so and anything that doesn't establish notability I will PROD or AFD; even though many are probably eligible for a speedy deletion at this point I think retagging them would be counterproductive.--Isotope23 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're doing something useful rather than something disruptive, you're not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. If Hitler himself tags an article for speedy deletion, and it's a speediable article, we should delete it rather than remove the template just because he's Hitler. Friday (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike would be proud of the above comment. Seriously, there are two issues here 1) Whether some (or even most) of the tagged articles deserve to be deleted, and 2) whether the user in question is being disruptive. These are NOT mutually exclusive facts. The articles MAY deserve to be deleted (though some could be AFDed if their deletion is being seriously contested), and the user tagging them can be incivil, disruptive, and generally a WP:DICK. That such a user placed the tags does not necessarily invalidate the DB reason, NOR does being right about the DB's make them a civil editor. You can be right and still a WP:DICK. I have no idea if this user qualifies as such, I am only noting that there are two issues here, and it is important to keep them separate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

as some or many of them seem to be disputed here by people in good standing, then it would seem like AfD is the necessary step. The key word is indiscriminate: tagging all the articles on a given subject where some are clearly notable is not in good faith, any more than would b making articles on every conceivable one of a class of subjects where some are clearly not notable. (I have no opinion one way or another on articles on this particular subject).DGG (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD, a few at a time, is an appropriate choice for a next step (other choices exist, like PROD or a discussion at a relevant WikiProject). Not all at once - AFD nominating too many articles in a given topic area at the same time is also disruptive. "Too many" is an undefined grey area - if a group nomination works due to commonality of issue ("Band X and all albums/songs") that would be 1 AFD no matter how many articles are covered. If each needs to be considered separately, then more than five a day is in my opinion too many - for any topic area X. GRBerry 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI but the Webcomics Project had gone idle and the Comics Project has taken it under their wing to for the Webcomics work group, which would be the best venue for a broader discussion and I've dropped in notes over there on the issues here. Hopefully we can get the balance right on what to include and what needs to go - although we are never going to make everyone happy. (Emperor 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't forget the Wikinews article n:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Misplaced Pages guidelines (and incidentally, if you check out the Comments on the article, the same IP made a wonderfully helpful comment in the section "I'm not donating this year"). Confusing Manifestation 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians

This page is subject to frequent edit warring and it has been protected dozens of times in the past under various names. Protecting the page seems to have absolutely no affect on the edit warring as it always continues immediately after it's unprotected and protecting it halts all progress made by non-edit warring parties attempting to improve it. I propose that if the edit warring continues then the page be subject to a 1 revert per week rule, where if ANY editor administrator or not reverts content that isn't a self revert or isn't OBVIOUS vandalism be blocked. The blocks will increase in duration after each violation of the rule. I think that this will prevent edit warring but will also allow the page to improve and will force users to discuss changes prior to implementing them. Wikidudeman 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the above. However, it would not necessarily address the possibility of a group of individuals who already have a pronounced, common POV from reverting content anyway. What might wind up happening is that we have a gang on one side who revert regularly going against a gang on the other side who restore regularly, and no real progress made. Certainly, there seem to be the numbers for this to be a real possibility in this case. John Carter 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If that happens then we just notify them here and they are blocked for disruptive editing. Wikidudeman 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would probably require a body of proof such that it would be convincing to any outside admin. It would probably take at least a few weeks for that body of evidence to accumulate, and also, potentially, give anyone involved the chance to create multiple alternate IDs in advance to use until they all get blocked. Somehow, I think a few parties involved might already have created alternate IDs for these purposes. I wish this proposal would work, but I don't see that it's any more likely to. John Carter 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how about this: We disallow ANY editor from re-adding content that was previously reverted by another editor. For instance if you add content and I revert it, then no other editor is allowed to re-add the same content again for a week. Wikidudeman 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what would happen if I changed the phrasing of what was previously reverted, but added what was substantially the same content, although possibly in a different section or with altered language? Such alterations could even be legitimate and indicated by actual bad phrasing or structuring or whatever. Or finding what is apparently a reliable source for information that was previously removed for lack of sourcing? Of course, we might find out later that the new source isn't any more reliable, or might not even say what it is alleged to say. I regret to say that I think there might be at least one editor involved who is convinced of his/her position, and damn the facts that disagree. Dealing with such people, who are convinced of "the truth" of their position, is always difficult, because they think anything they do to ensure their opinion is reflected is justified. I've already been involved in one situation like that, so I can think that it might happen elsewhere as well. John Carter 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better than being able to make no edits at all. As limiting as it may seem, It's still better than not being able to edit the article at all. Wikidudeman 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True. But requests to add or change content to the article can be made even when the page is protected. I've done it myself. All that has to be done is to post such a request on the talk page. If there were others who would oppose such changes, they would probably indicate as much and I think admins looking the situation over would say that there was no reason to make such requested changes at that time. In effect, over time, only edits which are agreed to by most involved would be made. Over time, the really problematic editors would, hopefully, disappear, given their inability to make any changes, and leave only those who like you, and maybe me, are really interested in working on the article in an NPOV matter. Such semi-permanent protection is also not really something to be sought, but if it were to last long enough I think the troublemaker accounts would, eventually, disappear in time. John Carter 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for changes during full protection take far too long and are far too difficult. The problem users also won't just "disappear" as they have been there for months and sometimes years. Wikidudeman 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You say making changes under such circumstances are "far too hard", basically. Would you prefer the hardship of having to revert vandalism of the page on a regular basis? John Carter 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a problem with a 1 revert rule for the entire article. Wikidudeman 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Qatar

The nation of Qatar is requesting an unblock. Normally I avoid wheel-warring very well, but the blocking admin doesn't seem to be online, and, well, the last time, we got to be on the news and everything. Shall we unblock Qatar? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify, please. Are you saying that the IP address used is the shared IP address of a whole country? I suppose as a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Qatar, I would have to say something to the effect such an action would be absolutely required for freedom of speech, unfair silencing of a whole nation, blah blah blah. I just have some trouble believing the whole country shares the single IP address. John Carter 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, so that is basically the editing address for 50% of a whole country, that seems pretty unlikely. As for the unblock, i think that since the situation has been changed by the IP requesting an unblock, you wouldn't be reverting/wheel-warring, with the blocking admin, you would be performing a new action, not a revert.--Jac16888 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't unblock. They have the money for a second ip. Even a third one! El_C 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Netsnipe has reduced the block to 3 months and asked for an emailed un-block request--Jac16888 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the IP for the entire country via Qatar Telecom, for anyone who isn't aware. AFAIK blocks or unblocks have to go through the Foundation or Jimbo, as per Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses, unless the policy's changed. — iridescent 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody remember this fun bit of publicity? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same IP that we made the news for earlier this year. Maybe they did step it up to a few IPs... --Onorem♠Dil 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses lists 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as Qatar's only IP, but this one is 82.148.96.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I guess they have more than one after all. I'll leave a message at m:Communications committee/Notifications anyways. Picaroon (t) 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

People can still register while the block is in effect, right? So individuals can register, log in, and edit. What are blocked are anonymous editors, not anonymous readers. (SEWilco 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

I removed the block and contacted the blocking admin via email to explain why I did it. Since Qatar filters through 2 IPs, the collateral on that block is too extensive. My reading of policy is the same as Iridescent's and if for some reason I got this completely wrong, I assume someone will let me know and I personally would not see it as a WP:WHEEL situation if someone boldly overrules me on policy grounds.--Isotope23 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, I have no objection to the reversal of my block. While the IP address was close to the one listed on Misplaced Pages:Sensitive IP addresses & MediaWiki:Blockiptext, it wasn't an exact match. At the time I judged that considering the IP just came off a long term block (24 days) without incident, that it wasn't considered "sensitive". My bad. As my act of contrition, I've updated Misplaced Pages:Sensitive IP addresses & MediaWiki:Blockiptext to reflect the new IP for Qnet. Caknuck 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The mystery is solved — it seems Qatar now has more than one telecoms company. — iridescent 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SInce this appears to be a valid IP for a country, the IPs talk page should have a notice at the top about it. If I knew where the template was, I'd do it myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:82.148.97.69 has a notice than can probably be adapted, minus the reference to the press section. Caknuck 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shriniwaskashalikar

Shriniwaskashalikar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emailed me after I placed an indefinite block. I have reviewed the situation and feel that due to the extensive number of warnings which failed to alter the user's pattern of self-promotion and link spamming, that a block is necessary as prevention. The user does not seem to have made any appropriate contributions. If the user wishes to resume editing, I suggest mentorship. Is there any administrator who is willing to discuss unblocking this user? Please discuss before acting. Thanks. - Jehochman 15:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the primary (and sole) motivation for this editor's involvement here is to add promotional material; without any evidence of a desire to actually improve the encyclopedia, despite ample time and warnings, I don't see a reason to unblock. Mentorship is a scarce and largely unrenewable resource, and there are plenty of problem users with more potential than this one who ought to take priority. It looks like a good block, and I don't see a reason to consider unblocking. MastCell 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the user seems solely interested in promoting himself and his own theories, but isn't an indef. block a bit harsh? I'd think maybe a week block or something (just to put a shot across his bow and really get his attention), and if he continues with his behavior, then an indef. block. But, I'm not an admin, so take it for what it's worth.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user promises to stop spamming, I would agree to unblock. Why unblock them before they apologize? If somebody comes in my house and purposefully starts smashing my property, I will eject them. When they return a week later, I certainly won't give them a second chance. I've already sent the user an email explaining how to get unblocked. - Jehochman 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I say give them a 2nd chance (look at the template for more details) Opinions? Davnel03 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has replied to my email. If he minimally understands not to write about himself and not link to his own website, I will be happy to unblock him. This is quite simple. - Jehochman 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Hopefully he won't spam any more. - Jehochman 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with my account

I have had a message saying that I have vandalised The White Stripes and I have checked my contributions and it says I have edited. I have just changed my password and was wondering what should be done. Jhfireboy Talk 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have an email or IRC account linked to your wiki account, change the password for that too. Also, consider using a committed identity as a safeguard in case this happens again and somebody does serious damage. Cheers, east.718 at 16:52, 10/31/2007

Stupid question but did you definitely not make this edit? — iridescent 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that is even vandalism or a simple mistake? 70.247.252.101 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)The previous edit was made be me, as I forgot to sign in Digital 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for intervention against User:Azukimonaka

For more than two months User:Azukimonaka, a user I do not know, has launched false accusations against me, repetitive ad hominem attacks, accused me of inserting sentences inserted by other users and started edit war on no less than four articles: Comfort women, Manchukuo, Eugenics in Showa Japan and now Japanese expansionism. He showed overall such a disruptive behavior that User:ZayZayEM even asked for the intervention of administrators on Eugenics in Showa Japan on 21 October ]. He also has shown strong incapacity to write in intelligible english.

Azukimonaka accused me of falsifying sources on three different articles while I was just proposing a simple and clear reference (with page number) to well-known history book. On Comfort women ], on Manchukuo ] and on Eugenics in Showa Japan ]

Those accusations were so weird and misplaced that User:StuartLaJoie and User:ZayZayEM, users that I do not know, felt the need to took my defense ] ]

User:Azukimonaka is now starting a fourth edit war on Japanese expansionism. He first deleted all my edits while only asking for the removal the categories Xenophobia in Showa Japan and Eugenics in Showa Japan. After I agreed to remove them to prevent another war, he deleted by two times my edits, as if he had seen nothing. He also just made a disruptive edit on Eugenics in Showa Japan, after the article was unprotected by User:Maxim.

I ask the intervention of administrators to give serious warning to User:Azukimonaka and to prevent him from disturbing editing. --Flying tiger 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the 21 October complaint of User:ZayZayEM against User:Azukimonka ]--Flying tiger 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support a request for a Temporary Block against this user for repetitive disruptive and tendanacious editing. I will be supporting FlyingTiger in generating a Request For Comment about this users actions and the appropriate action for the community to follow.

Help in lfting autoblock

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know how to lift what looks like an autoblock which I apparently imposed, but can't trace.

The editor concerned is ratkins06 (talk · contribs), who has emailed me to explain that he is unable to edit, because he gets a message saying that his IP 193.30.217.220 was blocked by me, on the grounds that it is a sockpuppet of Pastorwayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I can find no evidence of a block by me or anyone against against that IP, but I presume that it is an autoblock imposed through one of the blocks I imposed on Pastorwayne's numerous suspected sockpuppets. Can anyone help me to find out how to ensure that the autoblock is lifted so that ratkins06 can resume editing?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy has made 1 edit, back in July. Now his account is auto-blocked and all of the sudden he mails you he can't edit anymore. Doesn't that strike you as a bit suspicious?--Atlan (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just one email. It took three emails from him for me to track what was happening: one in reply to me asking his username, and one including a screenshot once I replied that his username showed no sign of being blocked. And the edit he says he wants to do is to the same page he edited before.

It could indeed be that he is a determined vandal eager to gain access to wreak havoc, but I have no reason not to assume good faith. I can see no grounds for this editor being blocked, other than the misfortune of having an IP previously used by a suspected sockuppet.

So can someone please tell me how I can go about lifting the autoblock? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See instructions for the user to follow at {{autoblock}}. You won't be able to do anything unless they follow those instructions. GRBerry 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CopyVio problems on Radio Station articles

I have a bit of a problem...a user has added histories from media website VARTV.com as part of many articles. There could be more, I am not sure. Would someone please looks over his contribs and check them out to make sure. I am sure these are good-faith edits, but they are verbatim copies of histories on VARTV.com. Many thanks....NeutralHomer 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There were more copyvio edits made by the user reported above. I have done my best to remove the copyvios, but some remain as they are "buried" under other edits. If an admin could please take a look, I would appericate it. - NeutralHomer 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:199.216.98.82

Please stop this user's rampant vandalism! This user continually is blanking whole articles on wikipedia. Blatant vandalism on the black metal page and others. They have been blocked before. Navnløs 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week by User:Haemo. Hut 8.5 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Determined ULL vandal

This guy is obviously not going away. He's been banned again and again under many accounts, usually vandalizing ULL, Talk:ULL and Talk:Cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=168249995&oldid=167136828 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=167123707&oldid=152803867 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=152803739&oldid=146899396 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=146891969&oldid=146891381 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=145338706&oldid=144334192 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:ULL&diff=138023718&oldid=136317562

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ULL&diff=163028208&oldid=152802378 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ULL&diff=144334140&oldid=142209169

The list goes on and ON. Look for yourself.

Please, some more permanent action must be taken.--Viridis 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What type of action are you suggesting? You've said he's be banned again and again under many accounts. Obviously he has a dynamic IP, and short blocks are appropriate. I call troll, and I think the best thing to do is block him again for 48h and hopefully he will loose interest for awhile. 70.247.252.101 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)the following was added by me, as I forgot to sign in Digital 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam only IP

User has stopped inserting spam links, and is being watched. Digital 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is spamming again after a final warning. It's not current, so reporting on AIV is inappropriate. John 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added him to my watch list and will keep an eye on his edits. Any additional spamming will be reverted. I've also made him aware of the same. If he continues, I'll alert an admin to block if necessary. Digital 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles

This user has been disruptive for quite a while now. His attitude is poor, he is hypocritical at times and more. Some recent examples:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Part of this was moved from the actual AFD, after it got a bit long. It all started when his AFD keep comment was "it survived a previous AFD" (which he's used as a reason for several AFDs). I put a note to the closing admin, that consensus can change. The CCC policy has been mentioned to Le Grand, but he simply refuses to accept it.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture. He made a comment of "please see the I like it essay". He did this in at least one other AFD I believe. Listcruft is a reasonable reason to delete things, but Le Grand refuses to accept it. He is a hypocrite here, as many of his AFD keep comments lean towards I like it.
• User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles/Archive_6#AFD_Comments. People suggest ways he can improve, and he just seems to brush it off.

It needs to be noted: his AFD keep comments are the same repetitive things. His comments have ranged from "the article is well formatted" to "it has good images" and so on. He simply doesn't understand policies, and rarely thinks things violate policies. Also I believe he is using the Article Rescue Squadron as a way to vote stack. Most of the time when he comments in an AFD, minutes later (or before): he tags the article with a rescue tag. Something needs to be done about him. I will admit he has gotten better a little, but still fails to comprehend many policies and/or chooses to ignore them. RobJ1981 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct instead of this page. Please follow that process. GRBerry 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor bringing the complaint, and the editor about whom the complaint is made, are on opposite sites of and have tangled before on matters of deleting content one deems "trivia." It is best to discuss and edit these matters in good faith, not to make personal accusations against other editors based on their content editing and policy participation. If you see a real behavioral issue, here or RFC are appropriate. But please do not turn content and policy disagreements into conduct matters. Wikidemo 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel it's a behavior issue. He picks and chooses when he decides to agree with policies or not. He and I don't agree on what should be kept, but I would be somewhat fine with his anti-deletion attitude if he would have actual reasons that aren't just repetitive "I like it" style comments. I've tried to assume good faith with him, however it's nearly impossible as his attitude and behavior is very poor. One other point I want to bring up: his last comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination) is in a bit of bad faith. He brings up that I space out my time from editing, and commenting on him. This has no relevance, and I just think he is being paranoid. I don't just plan out when I'm going to edit something. Gaps between when I edit an article, and comment on him isn't a big deal. RobJ1981 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of misconduct have been raised by and against both sides. If someone repeatedly makes an argument you don't like, why not repeat the argument that makes sense to you? He can do the same. Are you going to take this to RFC?Wikidemo 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which I just noticed that you (RobJ1981), User:Eyrian, and User:Dannycali are now proposed for blocking in the Alkivar arbitration case. I've asked Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles to leave a courtesy notice for all three; if that doesn't happen soon somebody should tell them.Wikidemo 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

About: GARA Satellite Radio Inc. Founder & Company

Would somebody please delete and salt About: GARA Satellite Radio Inc. Founder & Company? It's been deleted four times already as an ad, and it's pretty egregiously spam. The User keeps recreating it. Corvus cornix 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted most recently by User:Number 57, added to WP:PT by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on. I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged. Neil ☎ 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior. As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here. I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template? Neil ☎ 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action". No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets. --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.156.114 (talk)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS

UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock-- WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others. I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Misplaced Pages using a pseudonym. This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.

I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly. --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this. But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy says:

• Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
• The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or cause disruption.
• If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
• Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.

While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas. The account has been used in valid policy and content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM. I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution. That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution. --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war. Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.

The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA. He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts. The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war. An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive. The PM account was being disruptive. Neil ☎ 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy. Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning? PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".

It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking. PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won". ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account. Way to go. Score one for the troll enablers. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy. When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening. If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless. Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call. For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.

Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom. But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with", you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible. If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive ] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email. That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem. What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration. The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation. I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo. I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.

There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.

Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected

The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"! Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that only works if half of Misplaced Pages users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take

So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Misplaced Pages policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine. If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock. Neil ☎ 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.

PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.

As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth

I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy-- why are you escalating? You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked, and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with-- PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article. And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway. Can't you just let it go now? --Alecmconroy

• Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment. I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms. To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun". I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling". You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Misplaced Pages user and administrator. It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment? If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block? --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?

There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Misplaced Pages not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.

1. According to the text of the email he's posted claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
2. If you have a legitimate concern that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Misplaced Pages, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen. If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest. If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist. Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.

Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom. If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM. What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information. Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is. And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used. Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?

Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account. Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour. Misplaced Pages is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Misplaced Pages, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy. Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Misplaced Pages to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Misplaced Pages. I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself. The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring ] to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.

("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)

Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

(uindent) Guy says: the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse

Quoting from above For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts? Cause THAT would be a major problem. As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole. Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people? If he is, then that would definitely be a problem. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet blitz

Hello, several times over the past couple of days, I have noticed User talk:The JPS (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) has been vandalized several times by a sockpuppeteer. It gets protected, but as soon as the protection expires, he pounces again. This has been going on for a long time now. He has a dynamic IP, so maybe a rangeblock would be in order? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rangeblocked it for 3 hours the other day. Need another? - Alison 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the range wasn't so huge, so he could be blocked for longer. Like, several months. Enough to get him bored so that he'd go away. Because he's been around far, far too long. Gscshoyru 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave it protected? He appears to only be using a random IP anyway; problem solved. HalfShadow 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Made an abuse report Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/JPS vandal, maybe this could do something. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of this going on for months -- any references to the "badger vandal" are him as well, and he has lots and lots of sleepers, some going back to April... so just some info to use when compiling this report. Gscshoyru 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is the same vandal as the one attacking The JPS on this board a day or two ago, it's very likely Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs)/Solvelove (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bishopicof

Bishopicof (talk · contribs) is an obvious COI editor for the International Circle of Faith, and from perusing his edits, it would seem nearly every edit he has made is to paste links for or otherwise mention his organization on various Christianity related articles. The group itself is up for AFD, but regardless, I wasn't at all sure what relevance his organization has to any of the articles he is editing, as this is a subject I have never dabbled in before. So, I'm just posting here to inform anyone who might be interested in checking out his edits. Someguy1221 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also a self-admitted role account . Someguy1221 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.81.233.243

Not sure this is really something warranting immediate action, but this IP seems to be being used solely for a single purpose of vandalizing fictional-character articles with a bizarre little mini-narrative about some "bandit who wants to defeat Surya." This has been going on at a slow rate for at least two months now; the user reduced the rate at which this stuff was being done following a 12-hour block for vandalism early in September, but looking at the contributions history, even since the rate reduction, they're still at it, with no constructive edits that I could see. Maybe this is something someone needs to keep an eye on? Rdfox 76 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've warned the user appropriately, so if it continues, just report to WP:AIV and the appropriate actions will be taken, though an edit review does suggest a primarily-vandalism account. Admin opinion on this? Arakunem 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IP User Abusive Comments

Please see contributes, opinion and verbal abuse. See my talk page for their most recent diatribe. Can they please be blocked at least for a "cooling off" period. CelticGreen 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also needs a suggestion to register. The editor seems to have a seriously problematic style of editing. He's beyond assertive into aggressive in his summaries and so on. There's a tone of 'challenge me on the speculations i'm adding, i dare you'. ThuranX 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their page about civility and creating an account. I think a block at this point would be WP:BITEy. Dppowell 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They have a ton of edits and have been around for a while (2 months). The majority of their edits are spoilers and attacking. I would think more is appropriate. "LISTEN UP" and accusations of not watching a show before editing is personal attacks, not a newbie learning. CelticGreen 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They'll know now that attention has been called to their behavior; they should get a chance to cool it before we start throwing blocks around. Dppowell 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith

I have problem with this user who disputes sources even after I have attempted to provide evidence of notability. I am trying to avoid getting into an edit war with the editor on the article Recent single origin hypothesis. I want to include a quote from this source, which I believe is a reliable source:

• Wade, Nicholas, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (2006) ISBN 1594200793

Wade is a science journalist for the New York Times which is a well respected newspaper. The book has been recognized and has received good reviews from scientists such as E. O. Wilson and Matt Ridley. The book won the 2007 Science in Society Journalism Awards award. The user is keeps deleting this relevant information Muntuwandi 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute involving interpretations of information in a published source. I might suggest posting a neutral (i.e., not "I'm right and someone's reverting me") call for additional editors to the noticeboard of a WikiProject like WP:WPEB. Some fresh eyes and new voices might help both of you reach a consensus. In the meantime, you're both sliding towards 3RR territory, so consider backing off for a while. The article isn't going anywhere. Dppowell 04:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is why I am requesting for external help, much as I would like to be modest, i also have to be honest about my opinion. I may try the WP:WPEB, however project boards have slow responses. Muntuwandi 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.x2)I would suggest soliciting a second opinion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthropology and calling an immediate ceasefire in the edit war, even if the article is on the wrong version. --Dynaflow babble 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is purposefully misusing sources that suggest the possibility of "some" cultural universals originating from a common human ancestry in order to claim emphatically that all cultural universals were fully developed in Africa prior to the geographic dispersal of homo sapiens. I welcome other opinions on this matter, but if history has anything to tell us when others also rebuke this editor he will simply ignore them as well in oder to present his twisted version of the facts.PelleSmith 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats

I was responding to a {{helpme}} and found this. The editor responded with another post that could read as a suicide threat, but seems more like trolling. Contribs suggest a vandal only account though. In either case, I figured I shouldn't be the one to issue further warnings (or blocks for the pseudo-threat). Not that I could do a block anyway though as IANAAdmin. --Bfigura 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I defer to a more senior admin on how or whether there needs to be a response to the talk page content, but I don't see any vandalism edits in the very brief contribs list. Dppowell 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound for a new policy : WP:Misplaced Pages is not your own personal counseller. Seriously though, perhaps it would be a good idea to actually just talk to the user about, erm something, rather than just giving them a generic message.--Jac16888 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake regarding the vandal only account. This diff seemed off to me, but I should probably AGF. (Which should also probably applies to my response, but I was worried about feeding a troll, so I went for a generic method). I'll leave a more detailed note now though. --Bfigura 04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that, he looks like a legit editor so far. I recommend that a message just be left on his talk page, something along the lines of, "sorry about your situation blah blah, leave it to the police, blah blah, gently point out that there isn't really anything we can do to help him etc etc"--Jac16888 04:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just did something along those lines. If someone else wants to drop a note, feel free though :) --Bfigura 04:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, hopefully that will get a positive response (or any response)--Jac16888 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i would just let it be. Does not really constitute vandalism, looks like a fairly decent contributor so far, would do as stated above. Tiptoety 04:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant this is, but Ivan Milat is apparently the name of an Australian Mass-Murderer.--Jac16888 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy Toledo. I sure didn't need to read that right before bed... Dppowell 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just thought i should point out this possible co-incidence, if it is one (User name is that of mass murderer, user wants to kill neighbour)--Jac16888 05:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It says he is in for life....i hope he hasn't broken out..... lol...Tiptoety 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this guy as a username violation (taking the name of a mass murderer) and protected his talk page. This seems like clear trolling to me, (with his last use of {{helpme}} to ask if there is a God) but I'm off to bed and anyone is free to reverse either of these actions if deemed necessary. - auburnpilot talk 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Allen1221

User Allen1221 has been repeatedly defacing articles despite reversions and warnings by other editors. He has continually ignored these warnings, and blanks his talk page when notified.

— Yama 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Report user to WP:AIV Tiptoety 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary is edit warring on two different articles: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy & Michael Mukasey. The first article was placed under protection do to the editor's edit warring, and Eleemosynary has now followed me to Michael Mukasey, and article that he has no previous edits on, and is reverting my edits just to mess with me. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His persecution complex notwithstanding, Steven Andrew Miller is misstating the facts. --Eleemosynary 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss edits on the articles talk page. Tiptoety 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that both editors have violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in the past, but not at present. Please check the recent history again. --Eleemosynary 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Steven Andrew Miller for 24 hours for a clear three revert rule breach at Michael Mukasey. Eleemosynary has three reverts on this article and should not revert it again. He also has two reverts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but this page is now protected. If he edits disruptively then he may be blocked, but not at the moment. Sam Blacketer 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something new? Eleemosynary has a bad habit of edit warring. I'd block even for the three reverts. One is not entitled to 3 reverts per day. The fact that he's edit warring on a wide scale, constitutes disruption.⇒SWATJester 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of admin User:Dbachmann

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

Looks like User:Dbachmann has been blocked by User:Penwhale while he was trying to enforce policy at Race of Ancient Egyptians. He isn't requesting immediate unblock but he is requesting that various actions be taken. Please see his talk page for details. Requests include: *consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today. *either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves. Would uninvolved admins please pursue this case. Thanks. --Folantin 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed paths with Dbachmann in the past, and unfortunately I get the impression that he seems to be willing to use his admin tools in disputes he's involved in. He did unambiguously break 3RR in a content dispute, and on top of this he used his admin rollback to do so. He also appears to be making sharp and unneccesary personal attacks towards Penwhale, the blocking admin. Unfortunately, this block was probably warranted. --krimpet⟲ 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Dbachmann was trying to ensure articles adhered to Misplaced Pages policy. Plus - correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought blocks were supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. --Folantin 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DBachmann is one of the strongest defenders of the encyclopaedia against nationalst trolls of all stripes. I think that needs to be said, repeatedly, and remembered. Relata refero 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Using admin rollback on trolling edits may not be 100% ideal, but admins do it all the time and I've never seen anybody cite it as a reason to block that admin before. As for the 3RR, it's a fair cop, though should a hardworking admin's very first 3RR error get as much as 24 hours, really? That also is a new sight to me. Anyway, keeping dab blocked for the full 24 hours would be punitive after his own parole suggestion, see his talkpage. Penwhale doesn't seem to be editing. I've called for him on his page and on irc (where he's lurking, but I think not personally present). Unless I hear from Penwhale in 5 minutes, I'm unblocking on the conditions dab himself suggests. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely, endorse unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, good unblock. The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmph! This place gets dafter by the moment. Giano 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear friends, I don't think a mere 5 minutes is a proper discussion. See this proposal by User:Daniel, "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking ...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee." Please restore the block until there is a consensus to unblock. This block wasn't a mistake, nor was it placed in bad faith. - Jehochman 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to place a request for my desysopping here to get any action on that from the ArbCom, Jehochman. Jimbo Wales, indeed, may desysop me without a request—we'll have to wait and see—but he doesn't after all intervene in the day-to-day running of the place very often. The ArbCom is your best bet. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Oh, noodles! not another case. At least you tried to contact him and waited for one or two comments, and this is hardly a sneaky vandal we're talking about. - Jehochman 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone calling Dbachmann a "problem user"? I don't think so. Rather, he's a very productive and helpful admin. While he may have violated 3RR (I haven't checked), he should be given an opportunity to correct his mistake. I don't think this block was made with Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind, and I support the decision to shorten it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec.) The preceding version of the proposal Jehochman linked to sums up what is actual long-standing good practice: administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Which is precisely what happened here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also support a decision to shorten the block, but I think we should wait, let's say, 60 minutes to get a consensus, not 5 minutes and just two additional opinions. This is a high traffic board. Wait an hour for deeper snow. - Jehochman 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It was a short 24-hour block for 3RR (and that might be disputed) of a good editor and productive admin, not a block of a problem user. There is a world of difference between that and an indefinite block and proposed community ban of a problematic COI editor (Sadi Carnot). The former can be resolved with a short discussion, and the latter should have had further discussion before an unblock took place. The point about the 3RR is that it can be removed once the editor has agreed to stay away from the page as Ryan said "The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page." The alternative viewpoint is that, as a strictly defined block (limited to 24 hours), 3RR blocks are best left in place if unblocking may cause drama (but then who can predict that?). The deeper snow comment is relevant, but how deep does snow have to be to overcome time considerations (appearing to unblock hastily)? Carcharoth 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not extremely happy with the unblock (which was first posted on my talk page a little under 2 hours ago -- and that was 5:00AM time that bishonen posted on my talk. I never thought that someone might assume that I wasn't hanging around to deal with the unblock issue. Unblocking after only a 12-minute wait period isn't something that I feel should have been done, but I'm not going to wheel war over this. - Penwhale | 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

←I support the unblock. Dbachmann is not a troll or vandal, he has agreed to avoid the article in question. I don't know if he has or hasn't violated 3RR. Yes he was incivil toward Penwhale but I doubt that it is a trend or ongoing problem. James086 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many established editors here who make solid contributions to the Wiki get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. I have not seen them unblocked after a 5 minute discussion. These sort of actions make users think that there is a two tier system here, with admins getting a free pass for their transgressions. It makes one think that, in spite of all the blather one reads on Rfas, adminship is, indeed, a big deal. Jeffpw 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Short discussion followed by strong actions seems to be a trend around here recently. Please, before anything drastic is done, allow decent conversation. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot reasonably expect an administrator to be online 24/7. I was informed of the actions when I woke up just a few minutes ago (which is 6:30 AM), so I feel slighted by that. - Penwhale | 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reason that things should not be done in such rapid succession. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. No suggestion of ill faith on anybody's part, no suggestion that Dbachmann wants to escalate this, Penwhale was offline and there was no pressing reason to retain the block as there is an adequate explanation for the behaviour identified. I suspect that someone was gaming the system here to try to make drama, but I've not really looked into it. Anyway, I propose we archive this thread, file it under "nobody's perfect" and move on, since there's clearly no need to escalate this any further. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been IMHO a troublesome admin in the past. However, he does do good work as well. Race of ancient egyptians is a shithole of an article, as evidenced by the recent edit wars that have brought it onto AN/I at least two, and possibly three times in the last 7 days. As much as I dislike his admin practices and editing behavior, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. P.S. we should also delete that article, start it anew from a blank stub, and require every single edit be sourced before it is included. ⇒SWATJester 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, forget it, I do not consent to this archive. This is absurd. An admin that barely made it in his RfA due to lack of mainspace experience decides to make-up new mainspace rules, such as blocking for rollback. Someone should have the courage to say something about that, and I'm glad Bishonen did. El_C 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to request self-block

• User talk:Srtab1 says: "{{db-userreq|rationale=I wish to quit using this account. Please block me indefinitely.}}." Anthony Appleyard 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The page has been speedied by User:Penwhale, but the user has not been and will not be blocked as it would serve no useful purpose if the user doesn't want to edit any more, and could catch people in autoblocks otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well the obvious solution to that one would be to not set theautoblock... Viridae 12:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

non-free images question

Is an image that has a "This image is copyrighted, but the author allows it for any use, commercial or otherwise, so long as it retains attribution", which also contains a "no derivative works" clause, allowable outside the mainspace (i.e. userpages)? I'm specifically referring to Image:Politkovskaya.jpg. The text of the template says "no terms which prohibit derivatives. The license rationale says "No derivatives on text only (images are fine)", but the site is down for me so I can't verify that. Seems to me that "no terms which prohibit derivatives" is pretty unambiguous....it doesn't matter whether its relating to text or images. However, if it's not relating to images, how can it apply to that image? Any thoughts? ⇒SWATJester 11:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a free license, it's good for use whereever you like. Now I can't load hro.org, but if it prohibits modifying of text explicitly then that would not seem to prevent modification of images, and the requirement of attribution we can live with.

So in summary it looks OK to use, but without seeing the original site to confirm the conditions I can't give you a firm answer. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads by Gohan2091 (talk · contribs)

I stumbled across this user and from what I can tell he's uploaded a fair few copyright violations under GFDL-self licenses. Some examples are Image:Monokini Models.jpg, Image:Magnet Man in Barbados.JPG and in my opinion, probably violations are Image:Purple Tankini.jpg, Image:Crop Top1.jpg and Image:Microskirt.jpg. Can another set of eyes look over his uploads? –– Lid 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD them all. As far as I can tell, none are free. See here for an example. Wikidudeman 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Mensans

The user B-ham (talk · contribs) keeps adding the name Scott Sonnon to List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cited reference they add makes no mention of Mensa membership ... in the Edit Summary they provide the URL of a blog entry that claims he's a member, but that's not the URL they keep putting in the article ... they have been warned about unsourced additions, but are ignoring the official policies. —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-ham looks like a single-purpose account, and the article was hopelessly POV. I have stubbed it and requested that he restrict himself to suggesting content supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · logs)'s vandalism and slurs

The report was accidently removed by a bot, so I post it here again. And he hasn't apologized to me yet and rather blames me doing childish behaviors, I abandon a hope from him. I only need a fair justice.

I file a report regarding Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors. He was once reported here due to his intentional slanders against User:Smoove K, the owner of Heart Corporation in order to avenge his friends on User:Smoove K. , , , Wiki is clearly not a place for him to work off his grudges, but he repeatedly does that when he conflicts with other parties. I want to report his disruptive behaviors on 3 matters.

• 1st : Reverting my talk page to mock of me. I assume his repeated scorns to be regarded vandalism.
• 2nd: His disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles
• 3rd: His personal and racial slurs. --Appletrees 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion

I have made numerous efforts to resolve this matter on appletrees' talk page, making offers of civility, etc - these offers get no response.

He has demanded that I apologise to him. I don't see the need, and neither do I see any point in me making an apology that will not be sincere. We argued, he complained, I made it clear that I wish for us to both edit in a more civil manner.

I dont wish to waste any more time on this matter Sennen goroshi 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your preach and strong admonition on my talk page cant' be referred as you efforts on civility. You're just excusing your past abusive behaviors on me and my talk page. Even more, you're chiding me how childish I am. That's impressive indeed. I need your apology even if it was not frankly from your heart. Because I know people can't be suddenly changed, I only ask you to show your one effort for the future.--Appletrees 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* This is not the complaints department, try dispute resolution. I've seen the two of you here before, bickering away unconstructively, and it needs to stop. east.718 at 17:40, 11/1/2007

Admin deletes own images in anger

Moriori (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems to have gotten into a dispute with Liftarn (talk · contribs). He is upset that the PD status of one of his image uploads had been questioned here. His response to Liftarn was "are you calling me a liar" and, although Liftarn apologised for any unintentional insult , Moriori has deleted a number of his image uploads including a personal attack against Liftarn in the summary and blanked his user and talk pages. Obviously this is totally unacceptable use of admin tools. I restored the images that are being used in the mainspace (they were on Commons so he could only orphan them, not delete them). The rest of his images are not used in articles but look like they could be pretty valuable. PD and GFDL releases are irrevocable so the deletions are invalid but I thought out of courtesy I would ask him to undelete them rather than undeleting all of them myself. I understand Moriori was upset, but his conduct really is indefensible. Notifying here for further input from uninvolved parties. WjBscribe 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin tools are not for making a point in a dispute, and certainly not for revoking your own contributions. I strongly urge this admin to reverse these actions. 1 != 2 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is more it seems that Liftarn had made a very reasonable request in a polite manner, calling him an arsehole in you administrative action summaries is incredibly inappropriate. Personal attacks are a nono, but using them as summaries in you admin actions makes this site look like it is ran by children. 1 != 2 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the images should be undeleted so people can judge if they really are public domain or not. Evidence should be provided on the image page (eg. a claim that the user took the pictures themselves), or via OTRS. When the uploader is active, it may be polite to ask them first before taking it to Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images. In this case, with no evidence that the images are public domain (which is different from GFDL), all the uploader has to do is say "oops, I got it wrong". I think this is different from a case where the original release is under the GFDL as a "self taken" picture (taken by the user). In cases of "self taken" pictures, the original user claimed copyright and released under the GFDL, and the only way that status can be changed is by saying that they were wrong, and they are not the copyright holder and not entitled to release the pictures under the GFDL. I hope this is covered at the latest incarnation of Misplaced Pages:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. Please note that the claim for these images was public domain, so that essay does not apply here. Carcharoth 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely childish. Since this admin appears to have left the project in a huff, I recommend undeleting his images so we can actually (1) use them if the license is valid and (2) verify the proper license if they're not. --Haemo 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those steps, and would go a little further and suggest ArbCom take a quick look with an eye toward de-sysopping Moriori. Using the tools in such a childish fashion is totally unacceptable, as is including egregious personal attacks against other users in the indelible deletion summaries. If he comes back with an explanation, apology, contrition, etc then re-sysopping could be considered, but for now I think his admin buttons should be withdrawn until he's calmed down at least. MastCell 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Mastcell. Unacceptable. Liftarn tagged one of Moriori's images for CSD due to unknown copyright status and then apologized for any inconvenience for it and Moriori deletes all of his images and calls Liftarn an "arsehole"? This is totally unaceptable from any editor let alone an administrator, however incidents like these dealing with administrators seem to be becoming more and more common. Wikidudeman 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Childish behavior with the admin tools should not be tolerated. This case is pretty clear. Friday (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And another agreement.... Moriori can always ask for them back if they wish, but I wouldn't be comfortable with them having the buttons unchecked after that display.--Isotope23 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't even a CSD, it was a questioning of the public domain status; the image was not put up for deletion and all Moriori needed to do was get the original rights holder to confirm they had released it to the public domain. Personally I would hope Moriori would do the honorable thing. Sam Blacketer 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to wait for him to fix his mess. We should undo the damage. I've begun restoring them; they were deleted without a valid reason. Friday (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an opened a request at WP:RfArb for ArbCom to look this over quickly and see if desysopping is warranted. Input welcome there. MastCell 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Gtrtretertg546456567

I blocked this account as a vandalism only account. The username is clearly random gibberish as is most of the 8 vandalism edits made in a 4-minute timespan. There were four warnings all of which came after the vandalism spree had ended.

I am a relatively new admin and I rarely block users. I'm curious how other admins would view this situation. On the one side, the vandalism has ended. On the other side, this is clearly a vandalism-only account.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it only did vandalism then it can be blocked at your discretion. 1 != 2 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is gibberish and the edits are vandalism. An indefinite block is totally appropriate. --Haemo 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. MastCell 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More User:Eleemosynary

I'm starting a new section because the last User:Eleemosynary section, addressing only his edit warring, is marked as "resolved." However, the edit warring is only part of the issue with his reverts — I'll assume it's "his" for the sake of this discussion — and the reverts at Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (and subsequent wikistalking to Michael Mukasey) are only a small part of a long pattern of Eleemosynary's violations and willful misinterpretations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. He has consistently reverted the edits of others as "vandalism," "trolling," etc., if he disagrees with them. On this talk page, a user archived the talk page, (innocently) failing to take care to keep recent (days-old) discussions. User:Steven Andrew Miller reverted this, and Eleemosynary entered into a revert war, calling the reversion "archive vandalism," which is wasn't. I would have preferred Miller had taken this to the talk page first, but it wasn't "vandalism" not to have done so.

This is far from an isolated incident. A look at the edit summaries of both the talk page and the corresponding article (as well as the content of both the talk page and its archives) reveal a long list of accusations and personal attacks on other editors by Eleemosynary. Eleemosynary regularly edits others' comments if he doesn't like them, ironically calling them "personal attacks" (even when they aren't), and citing policy for his regular edits of them (which actually violate WP:TALK#Others.27_comments and WP:NPA#Removal_of_text whether or not they are personal attacks).

In addition, he has a long history of homophobic personal attacks against Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine ) which have not been formally addressed. I've tried to give polite warnings (e.g., ) of this, but, as per his M.O., these are reverted as "nonsense, trolling, etc." (He has a right to revert like that on his talk page, but not a right to accuse everyone of pointing out his violations of being a troll.) I have not brought these up here because I'd prefer to deal with these without administrative assistance, but, after dozens upon dozens of unpunished violations by an unrepentant Eleemosynary, it's clear that polite reminders and peer pressure alone aren't going to get him to start adhering to policy, let alone to be civil. Calbaer 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort of outcome are you seeking? Perhaps you should consider seeking mediation. If that doesn't work, the next step would probably be to file a request at WP:RfC. Ronnotel 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing Misplaced Pages and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Misplaced Pages. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?

Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not. A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests. Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article. It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point. I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected. He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author. The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC ]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave ]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism ], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.

I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil. The ArbCom knows. I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do. So, would you be willing to change your editing style? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator ]group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.

As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA ]. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.

So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture ]. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam ]. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki ]. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Ali'i pointed out, Davkal may have not meant to vandalize OM's user page. But what he did insert was surely a personal attack against SA and I. I won't address the puppet accusations in any great detail because they are completely baseless. With regards to my first edit being on an RFC, well, who cares? I thought that RFC's were for community input. Just because I was a brand new editor I wasn't supposed to comment? And yes, I made a joke with Dave that I was a bit familiar with everything because I have always been tinkering with WP without a user name. I corrected a few misspellings here, a broken link here, revert a little vandalism, all very minor stuff. So I was familiar with how things worked when I finally registered my user name. Contrary to your belief, I do not follow SA around and "gang edit" articles. We just have similar interests. The articles that we have worked on together are dwarfed by the amount of articles that SA has worked on that I haven't or vice versa (a lot heavier on SA's side). You are making this claim from two articles, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and Electronic voice phenomena, and my comments on an IfD regarding an image used at the EVP article. And yes, I knew how to change the link in SA's evidence because I read it, clicked on the link, and saw that it did not link to the findings of fact regarding your disruptive editing style. So I fixed it because I knew that is where SA was going with the statement. My words to you on LOPAPC (which was actually my 2nd comment to you, the first mentioning how your proposed title change was not a good idea) must be read in the context of what Simeos mentioned above, in which he cautioned you twice about your behavior. Taken out of context they make me look like a rabble-rouser. Read in the correct context I am merely echoing another editors concerns.

I don't know enough about SA to know about the use of sock's in previous discussions but it is hardly relevant to your current behavior. If SA has had sock's in the past, I am sure punishment will come, especially since it is addressed in the current Arbcom between MartinPhi and SA. However, I would like to say that SA made an extremely bold series of edits in the EVP article that have improved the article significantly. It is not hijacking, but improving the article. I am not sure what you mean exactly by having editors tell you to doff your caps to SA but from everything I have seen so far with working with SA, is that 99% of the time SA is completely correct, especially in regard to policy. Baegis 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus on improving an article and frequently inserts POV. For instance this user vanishes for a month and then reappears to oppose a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears to support a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears at an arbitration. All relating to article content that this user frequently attempts to drive POV into. This user has been blocked an astonishing 10 times in the past year for edit warring etc. This is clearly a problematic user and has made little positive contributions to the project. Wikidudeman 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal is now engaged in revert warring at Electronic voice phenomenon. Are there no admins brave enough to tackle this user? ScienceApologist 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is right engaged in POV pushing on grand scale on the EVP article. He is blatantly ignoring the decisions of the arbcom and he is inserting his own pseudoscientific theories into the article without sources. I am reverting to the stable version of the article that was moving, albeit slowly, towards possible good article status.Davkal 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards